Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2007

Contents

Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 21:34, 26 November 2007.

GameFAQs

Recently was the Featured Article on Wikipedia. Was a fairly controversial nominee. My main concerns with the article are that it just doesn't seem like a good featured article. There is no evidence about why LUE is notable and the article devotes a large chunk to talking about contests. The size is appropriate, but the real information is very small. The fact that GameFAQs pulled an April Fools joke by pretending to change its name to GameFAX is not really the most important fact ever cited. The article talks alot about ads being moved. It also contains unsourced facts in the message board section. I don't think GameFAQs is one of the best articles on Wikipedia (I would doubt it is one of the best 2000), so it shouldn't be listed as a featured article. Life, Liberty, Property 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! The massive amount of references seems to be an attempt to blind with science - yet a fraction of them actually pass WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Quite frankly I was amazed that this even got FA'd, and especially so that it got on the main page. An amazing 60 out of 85 references are from GameFAQs itself. While there's no question GFAQs is notable, certain sections have little or no importance to the overall subject - the message boards section seems to be a WP:COATRACK as there is nothing remarkable about it yet it contains nearly half the page's content. This is a B class article at best. -Wooty Woot? [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the article uses quite a few primary sources to document the history and whatnot, so oftentimes the importance of any given piece of information is decided by editorial judgment, obviously. What facts are uncited? Feel free to add in some {{fact}} tags and I'll add the appropriate footnotes - as far as I know, everything in the article is from the sources given, but obviously not every line has an inline citation. --- RockMFR 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with some of the content, like the section on "Life, the Universe, and Everything"—is this really necessary as a standalone section? Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I specifically questioned the notability of including the line about LUElinks and spinoffs sites in general, but WP:CON at the time pointed towards including the line in there. It's good to see some more objections to the line. hbdragon88 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for someone to bring up something actually related to the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, but so far I've not seen much besides a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a healthy dose of primary source paranoia. The points I've seen so far:

  • "Was a fairly controversial nominee": The only controversy I see is one person who refused to accept that (paraphrasing) "Oh noes! Another video game article!" isn't a valid reason for opposing.
  • "Notability" of various sections: Wikipedia:Notability states "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." As to whether LUE and spinoffs should be given the weight they are currently given, that can be fixed and merits discussion.
  • "the article devotes a large chunk to talking about contests": One medium-sized and two small paragraphs are too much? The table makes it appear larger than it is, which could be trimmed if it is excessive.
  • "The article talks alot about ads being moved.": I see two mentions of ads in the whole article, only one of which is about them being moved. Since when does "one" equal "alot"?
  • Too many primary sources: This seems to be primary source paranoia. If there are primary sources being used for original synthesis or contentious statements, identify them. But if they are being used to support uncontentious facts, there is nothing wrong with them. I don't think GameFAQs has a whole lot of controversy to discuss in the article, so primary sources might be appropriate for a good chunk of the material.
  • "a little over 70% of the citations suck": Ditto.
  • Nearly half of the article is about the message boards: About 30% by my count excluding references, both by screenfulls and by visible characters. Hyperbole is not helpful.

Are there any points I've missed? Anomie 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

    • I wish you wouldn't nitpick by pointing to the definition of WP:N. Yes, it is true that sections inside articles are not absolutely required to have secondary srouces. Yet in my opinion it is commonplace to require as such. Take The Best Page in the Universe, for instance, another website. People have been trying to insert the so-called "Orbitz incident" 2-3 times, and each time I reverted it based on the fact that if we included a non-notable incident like Orbtiz, then that would open the door to basically include a huge long plot summary of each article he has ever written. No. Keep it to those incidents that have garnered outside attention. hbdragon88 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      And I wish people would say what they mean instead of trying to bend WP:N all out of shape. It's a perfectly valid argument that this "Orbitz incident" (whatever it is) might be completely irrelevant to an encyclopedic treatment of "The Best Page in the Universe" (whatever that it). But Wikipedia:Notability doesn't have anything to do with it; WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:TRIVIA might be a good start instead. Anomie 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And now, take GameFAQs. Where does it end? Okay, so we have LUElinks. No reliable source tells us how big 10,000 members is in relation to other spinoffs (and on the anecdotal side, it's extremely huge relatively). So where does it end there? I'd like to include every spinoff I ever went to, and I can point to the primary source that confirms that it exists. There was LUE2 and other great big spinoffs that are related to LUE. What about certain fads? LUEshi too seven AFDs to delete, but the WP:RS say they are as notable as LUElinks is. I can prove those exist, too. Is it notable? The answer, in my opinion, is a resoudning no. We have to draw the line somehwere. Therefore, that's why I discussed "notability" of LUElinks in that context, which does in fact deviate from the overused and beaten-to-the-ground WP:N. hbdragon88 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      I never said that LUE (whatever it is) or spinoffs (which I don't care about) shouldn't be trimmed or even removed. But it's not a Wikipedia:Notability issue, it's WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, and WP:TRIVIA. The problem with trying to differentiate between Wikipedia:Notability and wikt:notability is that people tend to jump back and forth between the two very different meanings as it suits their position (I'm not saying anyone here has done so, but it's even easier to do than to accidentally use a primary source for WP:OR). It's better to just avoid the word "notability" completely unless Wikipedia:Notability is being discussed and avoid that whole problem of conflicting definitions. Anomie 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict w/ above) I'm sorry, next time I'll point out that my assertion that "70% of the citations suck" is based on policy. Coming in and making accusations that there's a cabal of users that absolutely hate GameFAQs is "hyperbole" itself. Primary sources are used to prop up extremely trivial content like how GameFAQs' message boards use plaintext, that the board's number is a reference to Douglas Adams, that the administrator got hate mail, that some users of this sub-board of a message board made their own message board, and that the advertisements got moved. The FAC being violated in this case are 1c (reliable sourcing) and 4 (going into unnecessary detail/not focusing on main topic). -Wooty Woot? [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Did I ever mention a "cabal" or claim anyone "absolutely hate[s] GameFAQs"? I just stated that this discussion so far is less about the featured article criteria and more about nitpicking the article and wikilawyering to support the nitpicking. If you feel there is "extremely trivial content" in the article, discuss that content. Is there any real belief that the primary-sourced postings references are not authentic, that they contain false, biased, or misleading information, or that original research is happening? If not, then bringing up WP:V smacks of WikiLawyering and the discussion should instead focus on the merits of the content instead of the details of which source is used.
    At least someone finally mentions some criteria! I don't agree with you that there is a problem with 1c, especially based solely on your broad assertion that "primary sources suck", for reasons detailed above. 4 is a valid concern, but it needs rational discussion about the actual content and not argument over unrelated issues. Anomie 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Has anybody bothered to read the footnote at the bottom of the article, that says "This article uses posts to message boards as references. These posts are from the site's staff and thus can be contextualized as official announcements and regarded in the same light as announcements on a corporate website"? If they weren't forum posts, would anybody care...I'm guessing not. Oh yeah, and I think the article should uphold FA status, if you hadn't already guessed. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Life, Liberty, Property, please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|GameFAQs}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in this sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The CVG was notified, and Rock (#1 editor, archtect of the FA) and me (#3, essentailly #2 most edited) already know about it. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SELFPUB: the article is not based primarily on such sources. If 70% of the sources are all self-published, that's a problem. And if primary source != self-published source, then I apologize. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    I for one accept your apology. Even with a self-published source, the use needs to be considered. For example, reference 56 is certainly self-published, but is there any better possible source for a statement on the site's rules? IMO, WP:SELFPUB generally applies to use of a self-published source in a secondary rather than primary manner. Anomie⚔ 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait...I thought a self-published source has to be primary. The guideline says that you can't use a SPS to make claims about third parties, so the primary source has to only make claims about itself. And I think 70% is way too much overuse of SPS. In fact, if this was any other article, I'm sure that the nuances and details about spinoffs, LUE, etc. would have been probably removed by now since they do not feature third-party coverage. There was a major war on Han shot first over that issue (including parodies that were only sourced to the parody itself, and now there is a huge comment that says don't add them unless someone else has covered it). hbdragon88 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel that WP:SELFPUB is being misapplied by a lot of people when looking at this article. The point of the policy seems to be that you shouldn't accept someone's claims about themself without proof. So, for example, pages on GameFAQs itself shouldn't be used to support claims like "GameFAQs is popular" or "LUE is important", since they could just be stating that without it being true. However, facts like "GameFAQs terms of service says X" or "Y is a administrator", with links to the terms of service or a page listing the administrators are different. Those aren't opinions or claims that are likely to be false, but facts that are reasonably shown to be true by the site itself. To compare with articles about people, the first set of examples would be like believing the person's word that he is important, while the second set would be like physically bringing that person to every reader's home and showing them that he does indeed have gray hair and a missing finger. I think WP:SELFPUB was worded with articles about people or companies in mind, and since you can't physically bring the person or company to each reader, it doesn't make a distinction between such cases. However, for articles about web sites, each reader can actually view the website themself. I think in this case using links to the website itself for the second type of claim I described are good, since it is really like physically showing the readers what you are talking about. I think we should only try to fix any cases where such links are used to support the first type of claims I described, such as about the popularity of the site. Calathan (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:52, 22 November 2007.

Privilege of Peerage

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage

Another Emsworth classic, this article has no in-line citations, and is in great need of review. Judgesurreal777 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • An excellent article, plainly derived from the listed references; also accurate as far as my knowledge of the subject extends. Please read WP:WHEN, which is cited by our criteria, and say which statements both lack references, and need them. WP:V requires references for statements challenged or likely to be challenged; that would be a good start. Using {{cn}} would probably be preferable to trying to list them here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Standard criteria for Featured Articles is in-line citation of references, and to retain its status, that is what this article needs. Judgesurreal777 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The purpose of this page, if it has any, is to improve articles; the purpose of this discussion is to fix, if possible, the flaws in the article. Your comments contribute to neither purpose; rather, they tend to produce unnecessary citations, which would decrease readability. Please do not act like a bot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Judgesurreal. This article needs so many citations that it would be a wasted effort to list them all, and would be too distracting to add {{fact}} to them all in the article. Some of the more obvious needs: quotes from books, the algorithm for determining rank, and statements like "In practice, however, the Act is obsolete". This article is filled with facts that are not common knowledge where I come from: "Hereditary supporters are normally limited to hereditary peers, certain members of the Royal Family, chiefs of Scottish Clans, Scottish feudal barons whose baronies predate 1587." or "The coronation robes and coronets used at Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953 cost about £1,250". Pagrashtak 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The judgment that the act is obsolete is supported by the extract from the rules of the House of Lords in the References, which . The quotes from Burke's and Debrett's are to be found in the books cited; I just replaced a {{fact}} tag with a reference to one of them, although, in fact, the place cited was perfectly clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The wording of WP:WHEN is, and I quote, Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Are you familiar with the Peerage? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It also says that challenges should not be frivolous. Did Pagrashtak think to look at Cox, N. (1999). "The Coronation and Parliamentary Robes of the British Peerage." Arma. (Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 289–293), in the References? He would have found his £1250 there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • There was no indication of which reference supported that statement. Do you expect the reader to search through every reference for any given fact he wishes to verify? Placing a citation at the end of that sentence would improve the article. You asked below for examples of what needs citations; I have provided you with some here. I don't know why you're being so hostile with me. Pagrashtak 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I have not been hostile to you, yet. I do, however, think our readers literate enough that, when checking for the source for a claim on the coronation robes, they will look at the only reference with "Robes" in its title; I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • That statement was about "robes and coronets". Perhaps I would have looked in the only reference with "coronets" in the title instead of robes. How am I supposed to know which of the two is appropriate? The entire purpose of citations is to spare our readers this sort of guesswork. Not hostile "yet", eh? Bravo. Pagrashtak 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lord Emsworth is gone. The article is both accurate and lists its sources; the standards of WP:V are clear, and they do not require a footnote at every semicolon. This can go two ways:

  • We can identify, specifically, which claims actually need citation. This would be a service to Wikipedia, and if the nominator is unwilling, for whatever reason, to actually look at the listed references, almost all online, I am willing to do so.
  • An effort can be made to pointlessly delist this competent and accurate article without improving it. I will consider what means of dispute resolution are appropriate to such disruptive following of the letter of the rules to the detriment of their spirit; I will also consider whether this page is in fact of any service to Wikipedia whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Another thought is, don't complain to us for following wikipedia featured article guidelines and either; complain to someone who can change them to your liking, or fix the article. Judgesurreal777 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't complain if you were following them as {{guideline}}s should be followed, with common sense. This is a much better article, as it stands, than most of the articles we promote; it can, if we cooperate, be improved further. But it should not be blindly delisted; so how about some {{cn}} tags? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Once there are some citations, then I will if you wish, currently I would have to CN just about the whole article. Judgesurreal777 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Not if you were to {{cn}} what needs citation; we may assume sufficient initiative on the part of the reader to actually look at the section called References; but try a few examples. Please also eschew the uncivil attitude of the sidewalk superintendent: you do the work, and I'll sit here and watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is pointless, I didn't make the rules. The article doesn't meet the criteria, and must be improved or removed. Judgesurreal777 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You have missunderstood the purpose of review, which is to improve articles; if you are not going to do so, this was indeed pointless, as was the nomination. Please do not make these disruptive nominations again. The little gold star isn't worth anyone's time; considering which statements may actually need more citation for the reader to verify them would have been both interesting and useful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I did that just above and was met with rudeness. You complain that we are not identifying what needs citations, yet you treat me with disdain when I do. I would suggest that it is you and not Judgesurreal who is being disruptive. Pagrashtak 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
One statement is well-known to anyone familiar with the subject, as our criteria require (I've added a footnote to the most likely actual source for the details), and I found the other in ten seconds by doing the obvious thing. Less frivolous examples, not phrased as WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT, will deserve more respect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Septentrionalis is essentially trolling here, as far as I can tell. This FA is in legitimate need of review. I would definitely not fact tag bomb, but someone might start with the direct quotes. And then I'd suggest giving DrKiernan a ring. We've saved Emsworth's before. Marskell 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack, and false. I am merely trying to exercise common sense; we do not need a footnote for things readily and obviously obtainable through the existing references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Eleven of them thus far, and I am very happy they have been saved. I nominate them to be fixed if possible, so that they show wikipedias highest current standards. Judgesurreal777 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Judge, focus on the article, ignore disruption. All of Emsworth's older articles need attention, many have been restored to status; keep up the good work. The editors who have been restoring his articles understand what needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No one has touched the article, or challenged a sentence here, since I added footnotes last week. It would be good to improve it by adding notes where the reader will genuinely have difficulties; if none can be found, so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What about these currency conversions?: "In 1771, the publisher was fined £100—over £10,000 in modern terms" and "in 1953 cost about £1,250,[12] which in present-day terms would exceed £22,000."

The average UK house price in 1953 was £1,800. It is £180,000 today.1 So, by that standard £1,250 can either be figured as two-thirds of the average house price (£120,000) or 1000 times more than it was then (£1,250,000). The problem with these inflation-based calculations is that they do not relate to contemporary earnings, buying power, "baskets of goods" or job roles. It is better, in my view, to describe the amounts in terms of what people earnt or what you could buy at the time. In other words, say that £100 in 1771 was equivalent to such-as-such's annual earnings or was the same value as such-and-such.

For 1771, a labourer in Southern England earned about £20 a year, teachers about £16, a skilled specialist craftsman (such as a printer) about £50, lawyers about £240. I reckon a literate man who worked as a senior clerk might make £100 a year.2

For 1953, I reckon an average worker earned about £350 a year.3 So, we could claim that £1,250 was "more than three-times the average annual wage of a factory worker".

Now, the problem becomes: does making these statements constitute "original research" by synthesis; or can we get away with it? DrKiernan 13:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to use a price index (to some extent it doesn't matter which, since, even for 1771, they're not going to vary that much) than house prices, which have gotten much more expensive relatively since the introduction of modern conveniences. We should specify price index; the value of silver is frequently used because it's easy, but it's even less representative than houses. As long as we say what we're doing, it should come under the exception for straightforward calculations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What follows is from Global Financial Data United Kingdom Retail Price Index 1271-2007, which is derived from E. H. Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins, "Seven Centuries of the Price of Consumables, compared with Builders' Wage-rates," Economica (November 1956): 296-314 and the UK Retail Price Index.
  • 12/31/1770: 2.9402
  • 12/31/1771: 3.1914
  • 05/31/1953: 10.3563
  • 09/30/2007:208.3

This would, I think, justify, with a footnote citing these figures: "In 1771, the publisher was fined £100—over £6,000 in modern terms" or even "more like £10,000" and "in 1953 cost about £1,250,[12] which in present-day terms would exceed £25,000." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Added them in. Thanks. DrKiernan 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur - more citations are still needed. What happened to the dozen or so web-link references listed at the end of the article? They looked productive. Also, the article could definitely use a much larger number of images. Nowhere near current FA standards, salvageable perhaps. The Land 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have converted the web-link references to inline citations. DrKiernan 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it looks like this review was a big success, the article is now very well cited and should retain its status! Congratulations guys, you did a great job. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work, so far. Trial by peers section remains unsourced. We might also expand the lead. Any suitable pics? Marskell 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

I've left this up a while but there hasn't been comment in a few days; moving here to get last comments. DrK provided some additional refs yesterday but the lead still needs expansion and it would be nice to have another pic or two. Marskell 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it and agree that it needs more work. DrKiernan 08:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
At present, I'm disillusioned with this article, and not keen to invest much effort. It fails on grounds of comprehensiveness: some privileges are not covered at all, even quite major ones such as the ability to commit crimes of house-breaking, highway robbery, horse-stealing, and robbing of churches without punishment (granted in the reign of Henry VIII), which was only explicitly repealed in 1841, after an earlier act in 1827 was deemed ambiguous. My main concern is that, even if effort is put into an expansion, it will merely become a rather contrived and loosely-connected assembly of obsolete and trivial snippets. DrKiernan 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead by merging it with the first section, and added two images. DrKiernan 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Sep's "An excellent article, plainly derived from the listed references; also accurate as far as my knowledge of the subject extends." and Judge's "the article is now very well cited and should retain its status" comments are both fair. I would not complain if this article retained its status on the basis of their justifiable support for it.
The privilege is, and always has been, obscure and ill-defined; this, rather than the article itself, makes me cautious in giving my own support. While the article does not cover some aspects of peerage that some would consider a privilege (a seat in the House of Lords, for example), it would be difficult to include these because they do not formally comprise the privilege (not all peers, and for most of history no peeresses, sat in the House), and hence these topics may be justifiably, perhaps rightly, excluded from the article. DrKiernan 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Based on DrKiernans statement, I think it can be fairly said that the article is comprehensive, in that it includes all verifiable information on the topic and does not include very minor and/or unreferenceable material. Judgesurreal777 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a comment that the article excludes the (former) right to sit in the Lords, because not all peers possess it? I would have added, but I don't quite see how to phrase it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added "The right to sit in the House is held separate to the privilege, and is only held by some peers (see History of Lords Reform)." to the lead. DrKiernan (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 13:16, 20 November 2007.

Ernest Emerson

Review commentary

Notified SandyGeorgia, Mike Searson, Alkivar, Fang Aili, Bradford44, Albatross2147, Orangemike.
Notified Dreadstar, Martial arts, MilHist and B&E.

This article caused controversy when it was featured on the main page a few days ago. Since then, there's been discussion on the talk page and an abortive AfD. It is my opinion that this article falls short of our featured article criteria; it is neither neutral nor factually accurate and should be de-featured.

  • Unreliable sources. Some of the claims are sourced from sources which are unambiguously unreliable. The section dealing with his martial arts career uses Emerson's self-written testimonial for his martial arts club for a source. Note it includes a dubious anecdote about Emerson's fighting instruction saving a firefighter's life, though thankfully this is not reproduced in the article. Emerson's fighting credentials as 'Hand-to-hand Combat Instructor for H&K Defense Group' and 'Director of the Combat Research and Development Group' are sourced from a blurb from a police equipment expo. There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than advertising. The testimony of one of Emerson's employees urging the government of Nevada to allow the sale of Emerson knives is also used to back up Emerson's teaching credentials. The only source for the claims that Emerson knives are used in upcoming films John Rambo and Alien Vs Predator 2 is Emerson's newsletter. Some of the other 'sightings' of Emerson knives in films are unsourced.
  • As a sample, I checked your first two sentences: what you call a "dubious anecdote" is not included in the article, so it's not relevant to this review. The "self-written testimonial" you refer to is only used as the sole source on two statements:
  • After graduating with degrees in physical education and world history, Emerson moved to Southern California for the sole purpose of continuing his martial arts training at the Filipino Kali Academy.
  • According to Emerson, he could barely afford the US$12.50 monthly dues, and performed maintenance and janitorial duties in exchange for instruction.
  • Are you asking for an additional citation on his degree in world history, or that he performed janitorial duties in exchange for instruction? I didn't go through the rest of your comments, as the first two revealed the same sorts of vague complaints raised on the talk page. What "several editors have stated" or what Google coughs up or criticism that some imagine must exist aren't actionable complaints; if you know of reliably sourced criticism that needs to be included, please point it out. Articles are not de-featured based on IDON'TLIKEIT, so please keep comments focused on ways to improve the article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking for additional sources, I'm asking for reliable sources. You appear to think that what Emerson says about Emerson on the testimonial page of a martial arts website is reliable, though you pointedly do not state this explicitly. Despite your effort to muddy the waters, my claims are not vague, they are clear statements of the form 'X is unreliable'. Having already subjected this article to stringent review, you should be in a position to make counter-arguments explaining why police equipment expo blurbs and lobbying from Emerson's employees are reliable sources.--Nydas(Talk) 08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Questionable sources. Several editors have stated that the knife magazines which constitute the overwhelming bulk of the sourcing are advertorial in nature, though the article's defenders deny this. Some of the articles are available online, many on Emerson's site. I invite editors to read them and make up their own mind: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Lampman remarked that the article has not one word of criticism, and this is true. But it is only following the sources, which are considerably more gushing in their seemingly endless praise of Emerson. American Handgunner states that "So popular are his knives among elite and clandestine forces worldwide, they are often traded on the black-market as barter for goods and favors." One wonders what editorial oversight and fact-checking process these articles have gone through, if any.
  • Inadequately sourced grand claims. Emerson supplying the US Navy SEALs is sourced from a published book, Weapons of the Navy SEALs, although article inexplicably uses this only twice, preferring to rely on the magazines instead. The claims about supplying other special forces and police are nowhere near as compelling. For example, all we have is say-so in the magazines that Emerson knives are used by the SAS. This is a strong claim, and needs more convincing sourcing; a book about the SAS would ideal. On his website, Emerson says that "Emerson Knives has long had a relationship with certain elements of the British SAS, albeit a secret one. Well, a secret it shall remain, until someday when books can be written and perhaps we shall all sit around, tip a pint a two and have a chance to tell our tall tales." Lucky it's not so secret that he can't talk about it. One wonders what these 'certain elements' are. In any case, in the absence of any stronger evidence that the SAS use these knives, we should not assume that they do.
  • We are told that Emerson has supplied knives to NASA (they 'approached' him) for use on the Space Shuttle and the ISS. The article claims that his knife replaced the Randall Model 17 Astronaut Knife, although a Google search reveals that the Randall was only ever used on the early Mercury missions, so this is incorrect. The sources for the NASA claims include a personal website and Emerson's site, where we are told that NASA never endorses any products, so conveniently they will never confirm the use of this knife. There is no evidence whatsoever that this knife has ever been used in space, despite what the intro says. Note that the picture of the 'NASA knife' just shows a knife next to a commercially available NASA patch, without any logo.
  • Comment I took out the bit on the Randall Model 17. That model was the last knife that was as an issue item by NASA, so it's inclusion was probably extraneous on my part or a previous editor. As for the logos on the knife, you are right, it's not on the knife in the picture. I have seen that logo on the knives themselves at Emerson's factory. I can't recall if you can see the logo when you see the knife being used to cut cables in the IMAX tour of the ISS. --Mike Searson 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We are told that Emerson's wife, Mary, is one of the world's foremost female practitioners of Jujitsu. There is no solid evidence for this.
It's sourced in some of the older material, however I did not realize it was reading as present tense...I changed it to reflect the time they met. --Mike Searson 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Emerson's fighting style, Emerson Combat Systems, is described mostly from Emerson's own words or from blurbs in knife magazines. There is no real information about the uptake or acceptance of this fighting style, we are only told that 'hundreds' of 'law enforcement agencies, members of the US military and civilians' have been trained in this fighting style. Were the police and soldiers were trained as part of their jobs, or simply in a personal capacity (as civilians)? The guarded wording and lack of confirming sources suggests the latter.

In closing, I would ask editors to consider whether this article would be featured if it was about a minor politician, using criticism-free sources and repeating grand claims without a hint of doubt.--Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


The material covered in this article reminds me greatly of our original article on Ashida Kim, sourced solely by the subject's own work. Well I too can publish a newsletter that states I have a diamond encrusted, platinum belt in Zero-Gravity Ninjitsu... doesnt make it factually based. Secondary sources are required for our articles, PARTICULARLY those which maintain featured status.
I still don't understand how an article could make featured status with its references being 90% primary sources and advertisements from catalogs. What ever happened to Featured Article Criteria 1 (c) or 1 (d)? What happened to FA's being required to comply with our Reliable Source policy which states "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." ? AND "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." ?
Was WP:NPOV also entirely overlooked in this FAC process? There is not 1 negative statement or criticism to be found anywhere in the article. WP:BLP does not say under no circumstances must a living person not be criticized, but it does say criticism must be verifiable and reliably sourced.
</rant>  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment there is a link of a video of Russian astronauts using the Emerson-made NASA knife on the Space Station, an additional reference is a press release within the article, I suppose you could also ask former SEAL and astronaut William Shepherd, here's a picture of Emerson and Shepherd together at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas with the press release on the NASA knife: [5] The use of various knives used by the SEALs is also well-documented in Richard Marcinko's books, Dennis Chalker's books and I would think sworn testimony in a hearing would be a reliable secondary source as it's given under oath and it also coroborates who uses his knives. The "Martial Arts Club" you refer to is the school owned by Richard Bustillo, one of Bruce Lee's original students and is used to corroborate that Emerson was a student there. What you cite as "unreliable" are being used as secondary sources...and in some cases much more than merely secondary, such as when 12 different articles make the same claims. --Mike Searson 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are aware 90% of Marcinko's books and 50% of Chalker's books are works of FICTION right?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Using video of a cosmonaut and comparing it with a photograph of a knife is WP:OR. However if you can find a flight manifest for that russian space flight, I'm sure you can prove one way or another whether an Emerson knife was used in it. HOWEVER that still does not prove his knives are NASA endorsed as Cosmonauts don't work for NASA. As for a photograph of Emerson and Shepherd together, that proves nothing. I've got a photo of myself and Ron Jeremy. That doesn't prove I'm a porn star, all it proves is that I know the guy. If I was marketing a knife as a NASA knife, I too would pay for an astronaut to show up and flog my product to the masses. You are aware he was paid to be present right?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment the Emerson NASA knife is not for sale to the public, it can only be purchased by NASA, don't get the marketing quip....I guess they hijacked the Space Station and paid actors to do that too. I have no knowledge of Shep being paid to show up at Emerson's booth, if you have proof of this, please bring it forward...thank you.--Mike Searson 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. OK, I should have checked the external links. The video does almost certainly show an Emerson knife being used on the ISS.--Nydas(Talk) 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment much ado about nothing, reference Baby Gender Mentor, Spoo, and have a look at Bill Gates for a company bio. No evidence that the sources are unreliable has been presented, and no concrete examples of puffery have been given. Still. Please understand the difference between referenced statements and puffery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've described four unreliable sources; Emerson's own testimonial, the police expo blurb, his employee's statement and his newsletter. Why do you think these are reliable?--Nydas(Talk) 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Notifications, I've tried to correct and complete the notifications, but there was some extensive canvassing yesterday[6] which is hard to keep up with. See contribs at Albatross2147 (talk · contribs), those declaring Keep at AfD weren't notified, and many of those notified yesterday have never had anything to do with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe this is the list that was canvassed yesterday for the AfD,[7] but I may have missed some:
  • Addps4cat
  • C d h
  • Chump Manbear
  • Cloveious
  • Excalibur
  • Janneman
  • John joskins
  • Lampman
  • Nydas
  • Rocksanddirt
  • Starkrm
  • Tempshill
  • Too Old

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • the last statement does not ring true i was not notified about the poll and i voted to remove and was not canvassed to do it, so if there was a percentage of people who thought it should be kept they could have put there name forward like i did to have it removed to say they didn't know it was there is just a fible excuse! 9 to 3 in favour of it going shows the true feeling towards this puff piece John joskins 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

the above voted for it to be deleted! just to make it clear John joskins 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i too feel this article needs cleaned up or sorted out it reads to much like a sales brochure at the moment, and any tme any one comments or tries to do something about it eg, AfD there are about two people who keep overriding it all the time surly this is not in keeping with wikipedia. John joskins 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You've given no examples of "sales brochure" content. Please focus on specific issues that can be addressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, this is a sycophantic puff piece and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that it was a front page feature article. Feature article status should be removed. I'll add that notability of each piece of content should be scrutinized; there was formerly a detailed section on guitars with Emerson's name on them. These guitars are not notable; Googling "ernest emerson" guitar yielded a grand total of 49 Google hits. I removed the section by means of this edit but it is crazy that this content made it past the FAC process. Tempshill 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Former content isn't relevant to this review, and you've given no examples to support "puff piece". Please focus on specific issues that can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Remove are not declared during a Featured Article Review; please see the instructions at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I started to tabulate and cross reference the references and footnotes on the page and gave up for laughing. Many are to novels, others which look respectable are to fanzine web sites. There seems to be a complete of proper secondary sources. The telling points, I feel, are his baseball career (which could, so I understand, be normally easily referenced given the total comprehensiveness of stats available for baseball) and equally the status of Mrs E's expertise in a form of martial arts which seems to go unremarked elsewhere. Another point is where did this fellow attend high school - we should be told. Such a stellar student and athlete would surely be listed among the notable alumni Albatross2147 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, some citations are to novels; they are citing that the knives are mentioned in the novels, which is a correct citation since that is part of their popularity. Vague criticisms won't help improve the article, which is the purpose of FAR. Do you have a specific example of a statement cited to what you consider a Fanzine and why it isn't reliable? Please give specific examples of improvements needed; if reliable sources don't say where he went to high school, that can't be included. We can't make things up on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the degrees were cited in the Combs article in Knives illustrated. Mary's jujitsu expertise was cited in the Tieves article and at least one by Pat Covert or Cameron Hopkins...I'll have to go dig them up to be 100% sure. The only thing I can think is that the references got jostled around in the numerous copy-edits over the past year. Marcinko's books are often cited as a contributor to Emerson's popularity among collectors outside the military. I don't know of any links to "fansites". I understand reading a knife magazine may be beneath an intellectual or outright frightening to some, however that does not make them less factual, especially when discussing a knifemaker or knives.--Mike Searson 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm stumped about why Albatross considers naming his high school important for a 52-yo man. Curious, I explored the other FA bios in the same category with Emerson, and none of them mention high school (Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Glynn Lunney and Joseph Francis Shea, although two of them played baseball as well). I'm equally stumped by this idea that industry magazines are "fanzines"; if that's the case, we'll need to defeature most of the video game FAs because they're usually based on gaming magazines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do the knife magazines ever give bad reviews?--Nydas(Talk) 07:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I've been told, if something is really bad or does not live up to how it has been promoted, they simply won't cover it. However, there have been bad reviews given as well to a number of companies and models over the years. They're not going to give a glowing review to someone who doesn't rate it for the simple fact that credibility will suffer. If you really think this is all BS, don't you think the knife-buying public would have discovered it by now? These articles go back almost 20 years. If it's all a sham, why would they continue to write about a company or a man that spends no money on advertising with them? Why are there crowds of hundreds of people at a time trying to buy these knives through a lottery system that are then resold for double to triple their price on the aftermarket?--Mike Searson 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's all BS, but I think the articles are exaggerating the biographical aspects. About the technical aspects of the knives, there's much less of problem. Making Emerson sound cool is unlikely to cause any problems with their readership, indeed, the cloak-and-dagger mystique they build up is likely to be popular. This has been toned down for the article, but it's still there. For example, "In 1999, NASA approached Emerson with a special request" (cue theme music) is an overly dramatic way of saying they bought some knives from him. It makes it sound like Emerson was the only one who could provide them with knives.--Nydas(Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK....I see where you're coming from. So if that were changed toIn 1999 Emerson accepted a contract from NASA to build knives for use on the Space Shuttle and ISS..." or Emerson has been making knives for NASA since 1999 that would be more acceptable? I don't see it as "overly dramatic" but can follow your reasoning.--Mike Searson 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's much better.--Nydas(Talk) 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
More then just knives If this article was well rounded, shouldn't there be something on his Baseball career? He was drafted by St. Louis, when was that? what round? Where did he play minor league ball? What were his stats? He must have been at least note worthy as a Ball player to get drafted, Isn't that worthy of a section at least? My problem with this article is it seems to focused on one thing, while this other notable aspect seems undeveloped. --Cloveious 08:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Cloveious, that's a good point. I just have to ask if playing minor-leauge ball for a year or two really that notable outside a sentence or two? I'm not a sportswriter or even a fan outside of competitive shooting, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that sort of thing. It was mentioned in the biographical articles and in this one in the very beginning (For the record...I did not create this article...I just tried to source it and fix it).--Mike Searson 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for a comparison, George S. Patton, the famous American World War II general, was an Olympic pentathlete (1912 Olympics). It gets two sentences in his article, and (as an Olympian) Patton was certainly more notable in his sport than Emmerson was in his. But in both cases, they became famous for other things. His baseball stats are unnecessary trivia. Raul654 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This article obviously suffers severe problems under our Neutral point of view policy, but if it could be balanced in some way (what are testimonials doing in an encyclopedia article?) it might one day be regarded as a reasonable Wikipedia article, and thence might come to be regarded as one of the best of all such articles. We're really not shown doing our best in this article. It's basically an extended advertisement for a knife seller. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On a personal note Emerson is well known throughout the military and law enforcement for making quality tactical knives. Many of those sources I personally read and know to be fully acceptable sources, not catalogs. I don't think it's FA quality, but it's certainly fine enough to stay on Wikipedia. Also for those of you comparing him to Ashida Kim, Emerson Combat systems is a legitimate combatives system, though not one of the best quality or best known. That's really fucking pathetic to compare him to the Bullshido master. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not comparing the fighting system with Ashida Kim... i'm comparing the poor quality of the sourcing with Ashida Kim's article. That's something completely different.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the sources you are talking about...and look at what they are backing up:

"Emerson has written over 30 articles on hand-to-hand combat, knife fighting, history, and knifemaking for publications including Blade Magazine,[73] American Cop Magazine,[74] Martial Arts Experts,[75] Journal of Modern Combatives,[69] Inside Kung-Fu,[71] Black Belt Magazine,[76] Police Magazine,[77] and American Handgunner Magazine.[78]."

The reason those sources "from Emerson" were put in there were to source the fact that he is a published writer. Some editor asked for that way back in the beginning. There's a few others by Emerson about his Combatives system. I'm sure if one were writing about Aikido when it was 10-15 years old, the bulk of source material would be Ushebia or Jeet Kune Do...the bulk would be Bruce Lee's writings. To say these form 90% of the source material is simply not true. I think if I wanted to learn something about a martial arts system, I'd read what the guy who developed it had to say and his thought process behind it...but that's just me.--Mike Searson 01:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We've got three paragraphs, an infobox, a picture and other mentions for a fighting technique that does not seem to have been discussed by anyone except the creator. That raises serious neutrality concerns. Who says that ECS is 'unique'? Does ECS actually work? What do other martial artists think of dubiously capitalised concepts like 'Integrated Fighting Skills' or 'Weapon Transition Skills'? --Nydas(Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any experience in ECS, so I can't say how unique it is or whether it works, but "dubiously capitalized concepts" are pretty much par for the course in modernly developed military-oriented combat systems. Take a look at this link to an Army field manual for an example. The description in this article implies to me that, at least philosophically speaking, it is similar to other modern military combat systems such as Combatives, Krav Maga, Sambo, and the Marine Corps LINE combat system. Given that this article doesn't actually say whether or not ECS is any good, or if it works, but just states its philosophical and technical goals, it seems reasonably neutral to me. As far as the word "unique": technically speaking, I'm sure it is (no two teachers teach alike, even if ECS was copied wholesale from another system, the way Emerson teaches it would still be unique); probably the word could be deleted, I think it's a trivial difference. Bradford44 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Emerson Combat Systems being capitalised is dubious, but the capitalisation of generic words describing a fairly generic concept is. No-one but Emerson uses them in this way. You are right that the section doesn't say whether ECS is good or bad, but it does use Emerson's own words (rather than a third party) to buttress the importance of these concepts.--Nydas(Talk) 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't look at the Army manual I linked? It contains sections on topics such as "2-13. Execution at Combat Speed", "3-6. Finishing Moves", "3-8. Defense Against Headlocks", and "7-1. Angles of Attack", to choose a few at random - these are examples of capitalization of generic concepts that I was referring to as commonplace within military combat systems. As far as the use of Emerson's own words, wouldn't the best source of information about which concepts are most important in ECS be the guy who invented ECS? Maybe I'm missing something; could you point to a specific sentence or assertion that you find problematic because Emerson himself is the source of the assertion? Bradford44 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
They are only capitalized in the headings, as indeed they should be by any style manual, but in the actual manual they are not. --Janneman 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
They are direct quotes per the footnotes and in the original writing they were capitalized.--Mike Searson 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If a bank started offering what it called Integrated Refinancing Solutions, which were really just loans, would we use the term? Using dubious proper nouns lends an advert-like tone to the article.--Nydas(Talk) 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Point 1-- W.marsh said it best on the talk page, "A proper encyclopedic biography puts a person in a historical context, compares him to his peers, explains his legacy..." There is very little of that here. (W.marsh also noted the possible lack of sources for this kind of information, which could be part of the problem.) This article is really more about Emerson's knives than the man himself. It his almost entirely devoted to the development of his knifemaking career. While this is the bulk of his notability, the article should be much more well-rounded. The extensive knife sections could possible be broken into its own article, so the knife detail doesn't drag on and on. Point 2-- The Emerson Combat Systems section needs cleanup--parts are written like an ad, specifically, "This system is unencumbered by the ritual or "sport" aspects of martial arts"; "He has accumulated close to 40 years of experience in a variety of styles and philosophies of combat.[9] As a result he has developed a combatives system known as Emerson Combat Systems" (italics mine). Also, key information is missing--when did he start developing this system? When was it first taught to others? Has the martial arts community responded in any way? Point 3--the bit about guitars doesn't belong in the intro; there is only one other sentence about this in the article. Generally, a lot of the advertising language has been cleaned up, which is a big improvement overall. I won't comment on the issue of reliable sources, since I haven't looked into that. --Fang Aili talk 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • De-feature - the large number of questionable sources and the fact that the thing reads like a hagiographic advertisement for the guy's company should have kept this article from featured status, let alone the front page. 1of3 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a neighbor who is highly respected as a carpenter. Despite charging substantially more than the going rate he is offered more work than he can take. He is also a superb cook and a superior gardener. Should I write an article about him? I can cite people who have repeatedly had him do carpentry for them, designing as he went. I can cite those who have eaten his food.
I know other people who are similarly creative in their fields. Perhaps they also deserve articles? Or is it only the fact that his craft is that of a maker of snazzy weaponry that makes EE worthy of an article? Too Old 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If his work has been featured in one or more films, sought after by various government agencies or private companies, and written about in multiple published articles, ... yes. Bradford44 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
the more you look at this article, the more outrageous it is that is continues to exist at all. Why should making expensive knives in rather small numbers be any more important or interesting than making soup or toilet rolls? There is no evidence of any really new invention or radical design, these are just expensive "toys for the boys" . I'm even thinking of writing a new page on my local village butcher, Paul, who has won numerous UK and Scottish awards for his pies and sausages, purely in protest and to show what could happen if this kind of material is allowed into the 'pedia. Time is running out on this article. Excalibur 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you did not even read the article, you just know it's about someone who makes knives and you don't like it. The Wave was a radical new design and is patented. Emerson popularized the chisel ground zero-bevel blade on folding knives and along with Allen Elishewitz, Bob Terzuola, and Chris Reeve ushered in what is known as the tactical folding knife. The production aspect of the business makes tens of thousands of knives a year and according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Emerson makes over $10 million a year between the knives and the training. Again, the knives are not expensive from Emerson...production models are from $69-$250 or so and his customs are only $550. They get expensive when collectors resell them on the secondary market. What do you mean by time is running out? Are you threataning to vandalize it again?--Mike Searson 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
See featured article, Baby Gender Mentor. Has your butcher Paul (to quote Bradford44) "been featured in one or more films, sought after by various government agencies or private companies, and written about in multiple published articles"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
'Sought after' is advertising lingo. We know he's supplied knives to the US Navy SEALs and NASA, the rest are not so strongly sourced. Given the vast numbers of books churned out about the SAS (often by ex-members), it should not be difficult to find a solid source stating they have used Emerson knives.--Nydas(Talk) 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Bradford44 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? Can you show me any wikipedia article about a contemporary person of, at best, middling importance that includes information like "he was born (...) in a 400-square-foot log cabin built by his grandfather"? How is such unnecessary detail (some might say hagiographic twaddle) encyclopaedic? Who needs to know that he travelled to his Judo classes "twice a week"? Or what qualities he is credited with in diverse novels? The article is written with a lack of distance, in a non-encyclopaedic style, and, in my opinion, without a sense of proportion regarding the importance of the information it conveys. athinaios 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is sourcing and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Some of the problems have been addressed, but others remain. That the SAS and the GSG 9 use the knives (and consider them a status symbol) is a grand claim, and needs a stronger reference than the knife magazines. Some unreliable sources (the employee testimony and Emerson's martial arts school testimony) are still used. The ECS section is severely lacking in independant commentary, and the infobox only adds to the confustion. How are boxing, Jeet Kune Do and Brazilian Jujitsu the 'parents' of ECS? There's nothing else about boxing or Brazilian Jujitsu anywhere else in the article. As noted above, the background section is filled with trite details like '400 square foot log cabin'. We are told that he was 'raised in a family of farmers, craftsmen and teachers'. We are not told what his parent's jobs were (or even their names).--Nydas(Talk) 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The first part of the article talks about Emerson's background in the arts you claim are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Three independent sources cite this (Combs, Tieves, and Norman). The Testimonial you are waving your arms about is from the actual school run by the teacher who taught JKD to Emerson. It's not Mr Emerson's website...it's Mr Bustillo's. The testimonial further mentions that Emerson performed janitorial duties in exchange for tuition and how learning the balisong knife intrigued him and sparked his interest in making knives. By your rationale, should all biographical articles be purged of any statements made by the subject? I guess a testimonial from the man on the webpage of the school run by the instructor he trained in is not up to your standards? Edited to add for the non-martial types: Gracie Jujitsu is Brazillian Jujitsu --Mike Searson 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying about the Jujitsu. Statements made by the subject which cast them in a positive light (the janitor thing indicates a hard-working, humble background) should be taken with a pinch of salt.--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's actually showing how crude the first knife he made was. I, too was practicing the same art in the same time period and I can remember laying out $75 for a balisong...which was alot of money 20-30 years ago. I personally had saved up a month to buy one...so the thought of someone with access to metal and tools making their own knife isn't that farfetched.--Mike Searson 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are aware of a reliable source that discusses his parent's jobs or names, please bring that forward. Wiki reports what reliable sources say; we can't make it up. Please give a concrete example of sources you claim as unreliable; others have stated (in the discussion above) that the sources are reliable, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the sources is Emerson writing about Emerson on the testimonials page of a martial arts club website, the other is Emerson's employee lobbying the government of Nevada to legalise the sale of Emerson knives. Neither of these are reliable due to the conflict of interest and lack of editorial oversight. If you can clearly state why these sources are reliable, please do so. No-one else apart from you has defended them.--Nydas(Talk) 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I addressed the school and why I used that reference above, if you care to read it. Are you calling Mr Guzy a liar and alleging that he lied under oath while giving sworn testimony?--Mike Searson 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Was he 'under oath'? It's a meeting, not a court case. He doesn't have to lie for it to be an unreliable source.--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I assumed because it was before the legislature that it was sworn testimony (Nevada has a brief legislature compared to California's; that and Mr Guzy is also a Police Officer), I did not realize it was just a "meeting". My apologies on that. The actual origin of Guzy's testimony in the article was to point out how the Company was doing things "legally" as a previous editor (who was also terrified of weapons) was very concerned about legality, etc. since Mr Guzy was corroborating what those of us from the Military and Law Enforcement know about the knives...I thought the quotes were appropriate as they are backing up what the magazine articles are saying. I believe Guzy's testimony to be reliable.--Mike Searson 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Notable butchers and bakers

OK, I give up, trivia like this stays put. So I have risen to the challenge, and created a page for my local butcher. see: Paul Conway, Butcher Maybe this proves that almost anything can be notable if one is prepared to make the effort to write about it. But at least I've kept it to a few hundred words ;-).Excalibur 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Point? That said the article is referenced and has three separate points of notability, having frequently come accross far worse I can't realy see a problem with it, probably more notable then the average fictional cartoon monster... --Nate1481( t/c) 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, no convincing arguments about notability or reliability of sources have been raised, small adjustments that were needed have been attended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Mike Searson (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 02:00, 19 November 2007.

Seattle, Washington

Review commentary

Notified Lukobe, Jmabel, Bobblehead, and Wsiegmund as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Seattle, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington.

This article was promoted in early 2005 and I believe it has degraded over time. It is insufficiently referenced which includes the placement of verification and citation needed tags in some instances. There are external links in the body of the article and added citations have not been properly formatted. LaraLove 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing to disagree with in as far as the external links in the body of the article, lack of formatting on some of the recently added citations go, and the citation needed tags and I'm starting to go through and clean those up. As far as insufficiently referenced, it does have 76 inline citations and 6 books in the Bibliography. How much more referencing would you like to see? Or conversely, what are the specific areas that you feel are under-referenced?--Bobblehead (rants) 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Truly. Because in such a textually dense, link-dense, and heavily referenced article, we need some more specific criticisms if we are to address them. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments, undercited, and citations needed are fairly obvious, I added a few as samples. Large photo gallery. External link farm. See also farm, items which should be worked into the text. Incorrectly and incompletely formatted citations. Haven't examined the text yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help out if someone could put together a task list. --Lukobe 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Question on the image gallery. WP:MoS#Images seems to encourage the use of galleries for articles with a large number of pictures and there is no prohibition on galleries in WP:FACR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. There isn't necessarily the need for additional references, just the need for additional inline citation. Whether or not the following information is in the current references, I don't know. But these are some of the areas I'm speaking of:
  • "Its murder rate peaked in 1994 with 69 homicides. In 2004, Seattle's murder rate hit a 40-year low with 24 homicides. Seattle's crime rate has seen an increase in 2006, as have the crime rates in Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington." - Statistical information should be cited.
  • Several sentences under "Economic history".
  • "The rivers, forests, lakes, and fields were once rich enough to support one of the world's few sedentary hunter-gatherer societies."
  • "The Smith Tower was the tallest building on the West Coast from its completion in 1914 until the Space Needle overtook it in 1962."
  • "Seattle Center shares a combination of roles within the city, ranging from a public fair grounds to a civic center, though recent economic losses have called its viability and future into question."
  • "early city leaders Arthur Denny and Carson Boren insisted on orienting their plats relative to the shoreline..."
  • Seattle is often thought of as the home of grunge rock..." - I know that's common knowledge here, but is it common knowledge world-wide?
  • The "Culture" section is without citation after the first paragraph.
  • The "Tourism" section has one citation.
  • The "Sports" and "Outdoor activities" sections lack citation entirely.
  • The "Media" section has one citation.
  • Speaking of Boeing, "it remains the largest private employers in the Seattle metropolitan area."
  • "It is estimated that King County has 8,000 homeless on any given night."
  • "Up to 14 percent of Seattle's homeless are children and young adults."
  • The "Government and politics" section has one citation.
  • The "Official nickname, flower, slogan, and song" section has one citation.
  • The second paragraph under "Education" needs further citation.
  • The fourth paragraph under "Education" also needs further citation for the claims of various rankings.
  • "In 1974, a 60 Minutes story on the success of the then four-year-old Medic One paramedic system called Seattle 'the best place in the world to have a heart attack'."
  • "...the monorail's two trains collided on a curve near Westlake Center where a design flaw made it impossible to pass safely."
  • "Southwest Airlines recently requested permission to move its services from Sea-Tac to Boeing Field but did not receive permission."
  • Other possible issues:
  • Is "In December 2006, the Hanukkah Eve Wind Storm brought very heavy rain and disrupted power to much of the city" really worth mentioning?
  • The See also under "Topography" doesn't seem appropriately placed.
  • "Thunderstorms in the Cascades sometimes produce frequent lightning, which makes for a brilliant light show for those in town." - The "for those in town" seems unencyclopedic to me.
  • The layout of the "Cityscape" section seems very odd to me.
  • "Seattle's cool mild climate helps a huge proportion of its population engage in outdoor recreation." - A "huge portion"?
  • The See also under "Seattle mayors of note" doesn't seem appropriately placed.
  • "There are also a handful of excellent smaller schools" reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps remove the "excellent" or provide sources to back it up.
  • Make sure the "See also" links are not already included in the body. LaraLove 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed list! Looks like the FA requirements for references have changed since the last time I looked at 'em. Also, I have company in town through the weekend, so unless the rest of the article's editors address your concerns (and the others that I'm noticing) cleaned up, I won't be able to do that much until the early part of next week. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering to do the bulk of this, but if there is anything someone tries to cite for and can't, let me know: I'm usually pretty good at tracking stuff down. - Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been making some comments on the article's talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone would place explicit {{cn}} notices in the article for whatever is considered to need citation, that would greatly increase the chance of these being addressed. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this? It's not looking good; at first glance, the overlinking stands out. Common words known to most English speaking people (like coffee and earthquake) are linked, and we find trolleybuses linked twice within a few sentences. See WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, common words need not be linked and only the first occurrence of relevant terms needs to be linked. See also is out of control and needs to be worked into the article. There are still uncited statements. The Gallery is kind of obnoxious for a featured article, but I'm not sure that can be a valid oppose. I'd like to see a stronger citation on most educated city in the US (exceptional claims require exceptional sources); it also needs an as of date and better qualifiers according to what is said in MSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but slowly. Thanks for the status check. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and their formatting (1c, 2c) and MoS issues. Marskell 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please be more specific on the concerns about citation formatting? I'm unaware of any currently with problems. Or maybe this has already been dealt with. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The references aren't correctly formatted; some have template errors, some are missing information, others have odd layouts. Ref 3, for example, doesn't have a page number. One of the later refs is missing a closing parenthesis. What's up with the (1) (2) etc? I've not seen that before. Lara❤Love 20:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The (1) and (2) is a cheater way of only using one reference tag to display multiple sources and make the sources stick out a little more than just using a carriage return would allow. If you'd prefer we can use separate reference tags or get rid of the (1) and (2). I am working on cleaning up the formating of the sources, but we're up to 170ish reference tags now, so it's a bit of a long haul. Another one of the editors will have to work on the books that are missing their pages. I don't own any of these books, so I can't thumb through to get the information, alas. Although, shouldn't be too difficult to replace them as a reference. --