Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2006

Contents

Kept status

John Dee

Review commentary

Messages left at Filiocht (away indefinitely), Bio, UK notice board, Astronomy, Geography, Math, and Writing systems. Sandy 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the primary author, User:PRiis, didn't get one. (See Filiocht's nomination). I just saw this review, and have left a note for PRiis today. Unfortunately he's away too. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
I do these extra notifications as a courtesy (the formal notification is the FAR template on the talk page); when compiling the original authors and WikiProjects on 423 articles, I couldn't read through the entire FAC commentary on each one. Thanks for the additional notification to PRiis; if more time is needed for ongoing work, it is always granted. Sandy 03:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted in 2004. I think it's basically well written and saveable, but it has issues. Starting with the minor points, it has no infobox and a questionable number of redlinks.

On a more serious level, it has no inline citations, and a listcrufty "Dee in fiction" section at the end. --kingboyk 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Several problems: besides no citations and extremely listy, in the lead, we find a very strange sentence, with improper capitalization: "Dr. Dee (Or, Mr. Dee, as he left university before achieving his doctorate) straddled the worlds of science and magic just as they were becoming distinguishable." I hope that's not typical of the rest of the prose. External links is strange. Sandy 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly is wrong in having no infobox?
  • Any objections to simply delete the Dee in fiction section?
Pjacobi 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The weird sentence is a good example of the way FAs will deteriorate once the main contributor leaves or stops watching. (PRiis left shortly before it got that way.) This is less a problem of vandalism, which is usually promptly reverted, and more of well-meant but ill-judged, er, well, infobyte addition. I expect many main authors (most FAs are essentially written by one person, according to Raul) can testify to an inherent tension between the impulse to remove incoherent additions, and the likelihood of getting told that they're in violation of WP:OWN. All of it an argument for stable versions. Bishonen | talk 04:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
  • I concur: there's nothing wrong with that sentence, and infoboxes mar articles in my view. Geogre 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • An infobox isn't mandatory for an FA as far as I know, but they're standard issue and present the biographical data in an easy to digest manner. That's not a key issue as I said in my introduction.
  • I personally wouldn't object to simply removing the fiction section; others might. --kingboyk 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mind them if they are well presented: Yomangani did a nice job of cleaning up the pop culture at Laika. Sandy 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the following unsatisfactory

He believed that mathematics (which he understood mystically) was central to the progress of human learning. ... It should be noted, though, that Dee's understanding of the role of mathematics is radically different from our contemporary view.

which begged the question: so what was his understanding?

I'm not sure about the wholescale deletion of in fiction that section demonstates his impact today. Quite a few well know authors have used him as a sort of iconic figure. --Salix alba (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the subject in depth, but I think it would be a pitty to delete a whole section. Of course, it is listy. Of course, it needs rewriting, but deleting ... I don't know ... A sub-article could be created and keep just the most important things of the current section here. This is just a proposition. But what about the inline citations? Even if the section is deleted, the problem with referencing remains.--Yannismarou 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I understood his view of mathematics from the sentence alone. Had I not, there were other sentences that explained it very well. While an FA is written for a general reader, it's also supposed to be a generally educated reader. From Pythagoras through Newton, and into some contemporary mathematicians, mathematics has been understood by some people to be real and not proportional. In other words, in the real mof ideal forms, mathematics is the supreme truth (cf. Plato in Timaeus). Dee saw mathematics in this way: math was a truth beyond the existential: it was essentialist. We don't generally think of it that way, these days, as most Platonic Idealism is rejected, but Dee did. Geogre 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation), and the "Dee in fiction" section needs a vast rewrite from its poor listy format into readable, fluent prose that's cohesive throughout. LuciferMorgan 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Six edits since nominated, no progress. Sandy 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have taken a flame-thrower to the fiction section (cruft-magnet that it is) and made a few minor changes. Better? Apart from failing to satisfy the current mania for inline citations, this looks fine to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Much better: unfortunately, still completely uncited. Sandy 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine for me. I don't see why contemporary FA criteria (including inline citations) should be applied retroactively. I would still prefer this article to many that are promoted this days. If I had to choose between 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) and John Dee, which article should be featured on Main Page, I would always point to the latter. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • FA does not equal automatic placement on the front page. Please stop knocking my work just because you don't like pop culture articles! --kingboyk 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations. Marskell 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 12:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Weak Remove. Per above+two stubby sections.--Yannismarou 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Inline citations are only needed for points that require citation. Let them be specified; this is no case for removal without that. Septentrionalis 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole article need citations Septentrionalis! What do you want me to do? Fill the article with dozens of citation needed or copy the whole article here?! Because I cannot chose a specific sentence needing citations! No sentence has citations here! When an article mentions historical events (e.g. biographical elements) don't we need citations?--Yannismarou 10:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    Only if some particular assertion is disputed. I don't see what is disputed here. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    See disputed (by the article itself!) assertions in my comment. See also a series of quotes weasel words and other assessments or curious wordings needing citations.--Yannismarou 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comment above. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I tagged the biography section in order to show what the article needs. "Reputation" needs also referencing. This was just an example of what the article needs. Let me give you another example:
  • Arthur was also an alchemist and hermetic author. John Aubrey gives the following description of Dee: "He was tall and slender. He wore a gown like an artist's gown, with hanging sleeves, and a slit.... A very fair, clear sanguine complexion... a long beard as white as milk. A very handsome man." This is a quote. Quotes should always be citated. Where is the citation?
    • Aubrey's Brief Lives on "John Dee", of course; go here and click on the relevant link to verify, unless you are willing to accept my having done so. Septentrionalis 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And of course it is not correct that only disputed assertions should be ciated. Every assessment, quote, reported historical event or referred printed source should be citated. And this article fails these criteria.
    • Source for this? Every assessment needs to be verifiable, which is not the same thing. Septentrionalis 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Casaubon, who believed in the reality of spirits, argued in his introduction that Dee was acting as the unwitting tool of evil spirits when he believed he was communicating with angels." Where did he argue that? Citation needed. General reference inadequate for a FA.
    • See earlier in the same paragraph "[sold Dee's] manuscripts to the scholar Méric Casaubon, who published them in 1659, together with a long introduction critical of their author, as A True & Faithful Relation of What passed for many Yeers between Dr. John Dee (A Mathematician of Great Fame in Q. Eliz. and King James their Reignes)...". Not every citation need be a footnote; insisting on "Casaubon, op. cit.: Introduction" would add nothing. . Septentrionalis 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And I see that just such a useless footnote has been added. This is a waste of Wikipedia's time, its only limited resource. Septentrionalis 03:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that a footnote wasn't needed in this case, but since the work was already used in a another footnote I didn't see any harm in adding it there as well (if you check the history I initially removed the citation needed tag). Yomanganitalk 11:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "There is doubt, however, that an organized Rosicrucian movement existed during Dee's lifetime, and no evidence that he ever belonged to any secret fraternity." Here we have somebody who "doubts" another assertion. But we donot know who's this person, because we have no citation. According to your own argument Ghirla, here we need a citation!
  • "As a result of this re-evaluation, Dee is now viewed as a serious scholar and appreciated as one of the most learned men of his day." Viewed by whom? Citation needed. We have no verifiable source to support the specific assertion (and verifiable sources are of course a fundamental FA criterion).
  • "The centrality of mathematics to Dee's vision makes him to that extent more modern than Francis Bacon, though some scholars believe Bacon purposely downplayed mathematics in the anti-occult atmosphere of the reign of James I." "Some scholar believe", while obviously others "do not believe the same thing". Therefore, we have another "disputed assertion". Don't we need a citation here? In any case, "some scholars" without a citation are weasel words and weasel words are inacceptable in FAs.
  • "Dee's most long-lasting practical achievement may be his promotion of mathematics outside the universities." Curious expression in every respect. It "may be" his most important achievement?! But it "may also not be"?!! Who say it "may be" and who says it "may not be"? Rewording and referencing needed here.--Yannismarou 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be a marginally better article if all of these were more specific; but there are three modern lives of Dee cited in full in the references. Adding the three of these to each sentence is a triviality. Would details on these, which no-one has yet denied, improve the article? Would they be worth the bits? Septentrionalis 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, with these improvements the article would be an article fulfilling FA criteria, something that it is not doing now. As it is now this article would never pass FAC (as it is FAC now). I insist on this point, because I think it is totally unfair for all these Wikipedians who are nowadays striving to upgrade their articles to FA status and also strive to properly citate them, including at least one inline citation for each paragraph and sometimes one inline citation for each sentence. If we kee totally uncitated article like this as FA, I'm afraid we show no respect to their efforts and we apply double standard in similirar cases (this particular article in FARC and all the others in FAC - e.g., Salvador Dali's FAC was blocked for some time, because the editor of the article could not citate one particular sentence - and during my Demosthenes' FAC a reviewer placed a citation needed in one particular sentence I had not citated, although I had about 150 citations in total). In this specific case, the mere and unspecified presence of references at the end of the article is not enough. The use of this sources is not specified. It will be specified when every assessment of this article will be verified with a verifiable inline citation. This is the rule FAC applies nowadays and I think this is the principle we should also apply. And instead of having this theoritical discussion, it would be much better if somebody could go through the article and add the necessary citations so as the article no to lose its FA status. This is the real solution to the present problem - not the questioning of an existing and obvious problem.--Yannismarou 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Bah! May work so sometimes, and sometimes it's at best silly. Before in-line citing it was a biography article based on three well accepted, large biographies of Dee. If someone had doubts about it, or want to kown, he can read one of those.
Now it looks like specific sentences come from specific sources, of rather mixed quality. Referencing an encyclopedia article by another encyclopedia article? With all due respect to the EB, this isn't good practice.
And as a highlight, referencing Around the same time the True and Faithful Relation was published, members of the Rosicrucian movement claimed Dee as one of their number. There is doubt, however, that an organized Rosicrucian movement existed during Dee's lifetime, and no evidence that he ever belonged to any secret fraternity. with a reference to the Hermetic Journal? Didn't know that there are peer-reviewed journals on alchemy nowadays. And that they count as valid references for English history? Also what exactly did the reference support? In my quick reading, it is just of the opposite opinion.
Pjacobi 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think if the books in "References" had been moved to "Further reading" then your claim would have some validity, but since they are still listed as references, I think they have to be looked as at general references for the whole article (which is precisely why I haven't moved them). Inline citations provide an important function in that they make us examine the statements in the article. Without them we can claim that the general references cover anything in the article, but since the article is dynamic this often turns out to be untrue (or at least unverifiable). For example, in this article it was claimed Dee married three times, a claim which all the available sources contradict. Incidently, the Ackroyd biography was added as a reference yesterday, so if that was one of the three it indicates one of the problems with general references being accepted as the sources of the article. If the article was static and peer reviewed then a list of general references would be fine, but since anybody can add any information at any time, demanding a minimum level of inline citation is the only way to maintain the standard. With regard to EB, I've argued against this in the past, but since we use a great deal of data from the 1911 EB and that is regarded as an acceptable source, I think it would be somewhat ridiculous to exclude the 2006 version on the grounds it is less acceptable. The Hermetic Journal reference is badly placed (it replaced the fact tag rather than being put at the end of the preceding sentence), but if you feel it is an unacceptable source I will remove that statement. Yomanganitalk 11:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Arguments over whether it should have inline citations aside, I was wondering if anybody has either Wooley's The Queen's Conjuror: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Adviser to Queen Elizabeth I, or French's John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus mentioned in the reference section? I think some of the remaining uncited claims are too specific to have come from anywhere else. Yomanganitalk 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't, but, once again, I have to praise your excellent work!--Yannismarou 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • After Yomangani's excellent referencing work I turned my vote into weak object. There are still two paragraphs in "Achievements" needing referencing and one more citation needed in "Biography". I'd also welcome a slight expansion of this two stubby section at the end of "Biography", but I don't think that this is a major problem. They are quite fine even with their present form.--Yannismarou 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some more information that can be used to fill out both of those sections, but it needs collating and checking from the different sources - I'll come back to those once I have finished filling in the references (I'm having trouble with the last one in "Biography"). Yomanganitalk 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The subsections 'Thought' and 'Dee in fiction' under 'Achievements' still need inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree for "Thought". For "Dee in fiction" I'm not absolutely sure that citations are needed (they would be, of course, welcomed). Recognizing the great improvements done in the article, I turn my vote into Weak keep, waiting for the minor remaining improvements.--Yannismarou 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't change my vote until my concerns are addressed, indeed the people at FAC wouldn't change their vote if they still had minor gripes. "Thought" is a major 'original research' concern unless inline cites are added. LuciferMorgan 11:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll look at those. Yomanganitalk 11:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another fine save by Yomangani. Sandy (Talk) 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico

Review commentary

MilHist and Marine 69-71 already notified. Message left at Puerto Rico Project. Sandy 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the main issues with this article:

-Does not have a single citation despite the fact that it is 61 kb long. Needs more citations.

-The lead is insufficient and too short for a featured article.

-Needs significant copyediting. The prose is less than brilliant to say the least.

-Comprehensiveness could be potentially be an issue. The article does not note any military events prior to the arrival of Europeans. That could be because there were no significant ones, but the article needs to address this issue somehow (that is, Puerto Rico's military history in all the millennia prior to the coming of the Spanish).

I have a left message on the talk page and will also contact the individual who nominated the article for Featured status.UberCryxic 02:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There are 26 {{inote}}s in the article. Footnotes are not the only citation method.
Furthermore, the indigenous people of Puerto Rico (Taíno at the time) had no written language, thus their military events are not part of recorded history. It is known that they were at war with the neighbouring Caribs but details are scant. The recorded military history of Puerto Rico begins with the arrival of Europeans in 1493. Joelito (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain what those inotes are? I've never heard of them before and don't know how to look for them. And if I don't know how to look for them, it is likely others will find themselves in the same situation, which is a big problem, even if this article was cited to the ends of the Earth. Right now I can't identify any sort of citations in this article. Either way, even that is still not enough. There are quotes that go uncited.
Regardless of the fact that recorded military history in Puerto Rico started with the arrival of Europeans, there have probably been some historical studies done on Puerto Rico about life before the Europeans. These must have described war somehow. If so, they should be included in the article, regardless of the level of detail they contain.UberCryxic 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have converted the inotes to cite.php.
I will try to dig up any info on war events before 1493 but it will be difficult. The only good Taino reference I have is Rouse which is primarily an archeological book. It goes into some small details of warfare such as the use of bow and arrow, the election of temporary warchiefs, and the use of red paint. I will have to read the book in detail again because I was not looking for military info when I read it the first time.Joelito (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a "bad faith" nomination. Before the Spaniards arrived there was "no written history" of Puerto Rico. I would like to quote the words of a user on that subject:

"History my friends, is not a past event as many of you out there think; history is the interpretation of that event. That is, an event happens and nobody knows about it, that then is not history; it becomes history when somebody writes about it or speaks about it. It is a big misunderstanding to think of history as an event in the past. History is an academic discipline that one gets to study with its sets of rules and methods for doing it; methodology is called. Now, there is no previous [military history] before Columbus times by the simple reason that nobody has ever written about it, or has documented it in any other mean whatsoever. Of course there had to be some fighting between clans or tribes; somebody knows about them? The answer is no, there is no history to it."

There 26 "inote references" plus 11 references and 6 "External links". The article passed its peer review and was vote a "Featured Article". It has already been identified as one of the "best articles" produced by the Wikipedia community. Military history of Puerto Rico already appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2005. On July 3, 2006 it was selected for the featured article queue of the War Portal and on August 2, 2006 was selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.

The article is constently updated and now someone wants it unfeatured?

I consider this nomination not only an insult to myself but, to all those who spent countless hours working on it making it one of the Pedias best. This is one of the reasons why I longer strife to have another featured article in the pedia and why at times I feel like quiting. The only thing that keeps me going here is that I owe myself to my people.

Tony the Marine 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, don't you know that in Wikipedia we should assume good faith? Does UberCryxic have any special reason to insult you personally? Does he know you personally? Do you know anything about him? Have you learnt his history in Wikipedia? Do you know, for instance, that he has nominated 4 FAs and that he is one of the best contributors in articles about the military history? You should have learnt these things before assaulting him.

UberCryxic just wants high standards for the FAs. And I want exactly the same thing. You should thank UberCryxic for his detailed review, not assault him. By the way, the challenges for a FA a year ago are not exactly the same with the challenges now. And I also believe that this article, though good, has some serious deficiencies. This is my review:

  • Very short lead. Tony, the lead should summarize the whole article. Is this a good summary? Do you honestly believe that? Check WP:LEAD and rewrite the lead accordingly.
  • In section "The English" one paragraph has no inline citations. The argument that "Before the Spaniards arrived there was "no written history" of Puerto Rico" is not convincing. There are always secondary sources. Weren't you based on such sources? Otherwise, who told you about these stories? You should mention your sources, even secondaries.
  • The last two parphs of the same section have also no inline citation. Mention your sources.
  • The two firsth parphs in "South America" have no citation. And these events are during the Spanish period. So you should also have primary sources. Primary or secondary sources, I don't care. Just mention them.
  • In "Puerto Rico" 3 parphs have no inline citations. Inacceptable for a FA article. Again mention your sources.
  • The whole section "Cuba" has no inline citations. Again, what are your sources, my friend?
  • "Spanish-American War" begs for inline citations! As a matter of fact, the whole article begs for inline citations!
  • In "Puerto Rican National Guard" I see no inline citations. And now we are in the 20th century! Again no written sources? I don't think so!
  • In "World War I" we have 6 parphs and just one inline citation. Again inacceptable for a FA.
  • In "World War II" I see some very short paragraphs; one of them is an one-sentence paragrpah. Merge them or expand them. Such paragraphs are not recommended for FAs.
  • In "World War II" again the first paragraphs have no inline citations.
  • "Revolt against the United States" has no inline citations. Why?
  • "The Korean War" has no inline citations. Why?
  • "Mass court-martial" is a mess. Insufficient iline citations and bad prose (tooooo many one-sentence paragraphs and incoherent writing).
  • "Cuban Missile Crisis" also has no sources and seems to me a bit stubby. It could be a bit expanded.
  • "Vietnam War" has no inline citations. Why? Again, what are your sources?
  • "Vietnam War" is also too listy. Personally, I donot line the prose.
  • "Somalian Civil War" is stubby. Expand it or merge it.
  • "Afghanistan and Iraq" has no inline citations. Now I'm surprised! So recent events and you mention no sources! Why?
  • "Military installations in Puerto Rico" is for me too listy and should be turned into prose.
  • For many of your inline citations (they are not many!), which are printed sources, you don't mention pages. Just an example: "El Grito de Lares: Puerto Rico's Revolt for independence, 1868 by Olga J. De Wagenheim (1990) Pub. Waterfront Pr. ISBN 0943862515". Where are the pages? You should go through all your references and find the pages. Otherwise, such references are inacceptable under current FA standards. This is a huge problem.
  • "External links" are not mentioned in the right way. You should also mention date of retrieve, and author (if there is one mentioned).

My conclusion is that this article is good, but at this specific moment it does not fulfil at least three of the FA criteria:

  • The lead does not summarize the whole article.
  • Sufficient inline citations.
  • Brillian prose (because of the many one-sentences sentences and one or two stubby or listy sections).

Therefore, this article definitely needs work. As it is now, it is far away from FA status. I'm sorry!--Yannismarou 08:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This message is directed towards Uber:Cryxic and User:Yannismarou, You know what? After having slept on the thought I feel that you're both right. I guess times have changed and somethings need improvement. I guess I was caught up with my passion for writing when I stated the above. Together with Joel, I will work to update the article to meet current standards. One question though, how about if it was called "Modern Military history of Puerto Rico"? thereby covering the era of the Spaniards onward? Tony the Marine 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Tony, you have my sincere apologies if this offended you in any way. I was trying to be as diplomatic, and at the same time effective, as I possibly could. I hope we can focus on what can be done to improve this article. It was not a bad faith nomination: when I first looked at it and delved a bit deeper, I did not feel that it embodied the FA criteria. Yannis did a great job at analyzing and highlighting some of the more specific problems.
About the title: perhaps you can name it that, but I just wanted to know if there are scholarly works that somehow describe warfare in Puerto Rico before the arrival of Europeans. These studies don't have to be that detailed; it's just that it would be more appropriate if the article had some word on the issue, however brief (heck, just a few sentences would do, as long as it's addressed).UberCryxic 21:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony and Joelito, after you have some of the basic work done, I'll help with copyedit: I'm not a great copyeditor, but the other Tony is really busy right now, and at least I can give it a start if no one else is available. Sandy 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to give the article a thorough copyedit after the main issues (citations, comprehensiveness, stubby subsections) have been resolved.UberCryxic 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an article that can definitely be saved. I'm not a good copy-editor and this is the only reason I am not proposing to help with copyediting! But I'll keep a close eye to the article and I'll help as much as I can. I'm sure that thanks to Tony's determination this article will keep its FA status. By the way, I don't know if Robth has the time to help with copyeting. He is one of the best around here in copyediting.--Yannismarou 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


I would like to, first of all, thank all those who so far have pitched in to bring this article up to current FA standards. I have adde the inline refs. and worked on some of the contents. Sandy and Cryxic do your thing, you have my blessings. Tony the Marine 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have given the article a copyedit. Others are welcome to go over it again and correct something I might have missed. Let me just say that there has been massive improvement of this article. On a second reading, however, I am somewhat worried that this article follows very personalized guidelines. That is, much of the military history of Puerto Rico as this article describes it seems to be just about a few individuals who did this and that for the first time. The following is one example of what I mean:

On November 2, 2003, Specialist Frances M. Vega became the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone. A ground-to-air missile fired by insurgents in Fallujah hit the Chinook transport helicopter which Vega was in. She was one of 16 soldiers who lost their lives in the crash that followed. On March 1, 2005 Specialist Lizbeth Robles became the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the island to die in Iraq when her Humvee was involved in an accident.

Yeah that's sad, but Wikipedia doesn't care. This is an encyclopedia, not an obituary. I don't see how subordinating this article to a few personal tragedies and triumphs makes it encyclopedic. Where individual actions or titles are notable, of course, they should be mentioned (as in a major commander doing this or that), but in this case above, the incident is clearly not notable to overall Puerto Rican military history. There is little discussion about trends and progression among Puerto Rican military institutions (regiments, divisions, National Guard, and so on). The article certainly alludes to some of these complex features, but not strongly enough, at least in my opinion. I think it's fine if these personal stories are kept, but I want to see some more analysis on larger historical trends and questions surrounding Puerto Rican military history.

Additionally, I feel that while it's great that we are getting so many citations, it is slightly regrettable that many are from internet sites. A few more scholarly and published works would definitely help make this article more professional.UberCryxic 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem mentioned by UberCryxic can be solved by spinning content about individual soldiers into a separate daughter article, summarized back to the main article using Summary style, with one or two paragraphs. I suspect that doing this will also eliminate many of the less scholarly sources from the main article. I know it's hard to part with content that might interest some readers, but it will improve the encyclopedic tone, and the content could be saved in a separate article. Sandy 02:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the daughter articles. I have been pondering this myself. Furthermore I am in the process of gathering more scholarly sources to replace the websites. Also I am continuing to trim away the fat from some sections. Joelito (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


  • It should be noted that all of the main concerns have been properly addressed. The citations even though they may not seem scholarly, are none the less from verifiable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. Puerto Rico's Military history becomes intertwined with American Military history after the Korean War, therefore there was a need to mention some individual contributions and personal achivements of some Puerto Ricans which American history books have neglected to acknowledge. Improvements will always be more than welcomed Tony the Marine 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree Tony but this still needs work.
  • References must be properly formatted (I have begun this task).
  • We must try to replace the web site refs. For example, do we need a web site ref for Sir Francis Drake's life?
  • Content should be moved to daughter articles and the content summarized in this article.
  • More copyediting is needed. Joelito (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Joelito: let me know if I can help. Sandy 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Update? Approaching the two-week review period, how is it going? Sandy 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My time has been limited this week. I will try to work on it today. Joelito (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have finished the ref formatting. I have hidden some of the refs as broken and commented on some as unuseful. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), LEAD (2), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b).

Comment: Looks like some work has been done here. Moving it down to keep it on pace. Marskell 09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments. First, I'm most unhappy about the use of the linked term "War against Terrorism", which appears in the first sentence. The article in question has a template posted at the top stating that the balance is disputed. I agree with that sentiment. Let me know if you need me to explain this view further. In addition, that article begins by stating that it's a term used in the United States (thus, it's centric in national/cultural terms). Second, although the article is now fairly well written, there are still a glitches, such as:

    • "46 cannons were sent to the island ... to rebuild the city". (I've stripped it to its bare bones; this is an embedded meaning here.)
    • "the latter 18th century"—were there two of them? ("late 18th century"?); "try his luck as pirate" might be OK, but seems a little informal to me—does this come from reference 7?
    • "In 1811, Miguel Enríquez participated in the expeditionary force, under the command of Juan Roselló, which fought and defeated the British in the island of Vieques."—Doesn't the first comma make it harder to read?
    • "and dispatched Captain Balduino Enrico (Boudewijn Hendricksz) with the task of capturing Puerto Rico."—Just "Hendrickz) to capture"?

Needs sifting and weeding. Tony 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Changed War against Terrorism to "in the military campaigns at Afghanistan and Iraq." Please verify the grammar. I have some problems between at, of, in. Joelito (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like it now!--Yannismarou 18:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tony the Marine 05:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Much improved.UberCryxic 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's still a "War on Terrorism" down the bottom of the text. Tony 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I rephrased, pointing out that the "U.S." and its "allies" refer to it as War on Terrorism. I hope that takes care of it. Tony the Marine 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, fine job. Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Acts

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Morwen, UK notice board, Politics, and British Govt. Sandy 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very short, very few references, only one of those an inline citation, inline links are rife, and it just generally seems not up to FA standards. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All of that, mixed referenced style, external jumps, and should the title be Act or Acts? Sandy 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up refs and added ref tags. There are very few inline citations. Sandy 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • it could do with work on referencing: but "Very short"? i think its about the right length. Morwen - Talk 06:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (i) There seem to be more references now (just turning the inline links to refs, I think). It would be nice to add Halsbury's Laws and Erskine May, I suppose. (ii) "Very short" is hardly an actionable complaint, as long as no major facts or details have been left out to create a lack of comprehensiveness. Indeed, WP:WIAFA requires featured articles are meant to be "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". What do you think is missing? (iii) A couple of the sections are rather short and could be merged. In what other ways does it "just generally seems not up to FA standards"? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Both the "Uses of the Act" and "Validity of the 1949 Act" sections have lists of information that need further explanation, and should not be in list form. Beyond that, the Enacting formula section is odd and either doesn't deserve it's own section or isn't nearly well-explained enough, and there's basically no information on said "Recent developments". Staxringold talkcontribs 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up what few references where there, but the article is still not adequately cited. If there are questions, I could add some cite tags, but don't want to pepper the article. Sandy 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both for your further comments. We will have to see what we can do to deal with your concerns.
Why is the list format unacceptable? It would be less clear to have a paragraph listing the items in continuous prose, rather than a list, and most of the items in the lists are explained briefly. Perhaps the explanations could be expanded a little, but I'm not sure how helpful it would be to have a longer and more detailed exegesis on the Welsh Church Act 1914, Home Rule Act 1914 or the other acts mentioned - the short summaries in the lists look reasonably adequate to me.
It may help to pepper the article with cite templates selectively, so we know what you think needs a specific reference. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see how the cite templates could be helpful, I'll go through when I've got a bit more time (heading to the gym pretty soon). As for list formats, I just tend to see lists as one of two things. Either loosely associated information not worthy of further explanation of importance (the violation of this "rule" of course being things like DVD release dates) or it's a list of information that deserves more explanation but isn't getting it because it's relegated to a list. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I really dislike adding cite tags when the entire article needs inline citations. Will do if needed, though. Sandy 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the same way as Sandy - 1. c. needs addressing throughout the article. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Besides one inline citation added by Yomangani, there has been no movement on this article. Are any editors planning to work on it; if so, should we add specific ref tags? Sandy 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reminder - sorry, I have been distracted by other things. Some "unreferenced" tags have been added to some sections, but more specific tags would help. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I started from the bottom (hoping others will start from the top):
        • (Weasle words and one sentence section): In March 2006 it was reported that the Government is considering removing the ability of the Lords to delay legislation that arises as a result of manifesto commitments, and reducing their ability to delay other legislation to a period of 60 days.[7]
        • Next section up, Enacting formula, is another (basically) one-sentence section, poorly constructed with no citation.
        • (Validity of the 1949 Act):
          • (Weasle words): "doubts have been raised by legal academics" - no citations for any of these concerns or who these academics are.
          • The prose is frustrating: Tony should look at it, as he would be better able to explain what problem is making the prose so tortured.
          • Another citation needed: Following legal principles established when the United Kingdom granted legislative powers to assemblies in its colonies in the late 1700s
          • One-sentence paragraphs: The first legal challenge to the 1949 Act is believed to have been made during the first prosecution for war crimes under the War Crimes Act 1991, R. v. Serafinowicz, but this challenge was rejected, and no record of the legal arguments remains.[3]
          • No citations whatsoever: Support for this conclusion can be drawn from the parliamentary debates on the 1911 Act, in which an entrenchment clause was considered but rejected, the Government clearly displaying the intention to be able to make such amendments if necessary.citation needed However, the 2005 decision was made on other grounds, so the question of whether the Courts could refer to the 1949 Act's Parliamentary debates was not decided.citation needed The 1949 Act was also held to be primary legislation, but of an unusual sort, since the Courts can rule on whether the provisions of the 1911 Act were complied with.citation needed This analysis also applies to the other Acts passed under the Parliament Acts. It was also held that the 1911 Act clearly permits the Parliament Act procedure to be used for "any Public Bill", and this was sufficient to dispose of the argument that the 1911 Act could not be used to amend itself.citation needed Effectively, the Court took the view that the 1911 Act was a 'remodelling' of the constitution.citation needed
      • This is intended as a sample only of the work needed: the prose is difficult. Tony should have a look. Sandy 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The title should be Parliament Acts, since the article covers both acts and "Parliament Act" doesn't really get a mention outside the context of the dated acts- can somebody move it? Yomanganitalk 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved the article, will now correct this page, correct on FA page, and in our citations list. Sandy 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are sufficiency and formatting of references (1c). Marskell 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can somebody have a look through and see what still needs doing - I've added citations, and expanded and reworded some sections. In this case, I think the use of lists benefits the article rather than detracting from it, as otherwise it may seem dense and difficult due to the need to accurately represent the legal aspects which, in turn, restricts the vocabulary that can be used. Yomanganitalk 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a jurist (though not in Britain!) I can say that it is fine! Comprehensive, covers the history, the jurisprudence and the problems. My only concern is the lack of more academic citations, in order to have a more in depth analysis of the theoritical approaches. The only academician I saw mentioned was the one in note 15.--Yannismarou 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I've been busy on other articles and forgot to look back at this one - apart from the article mentioned above, I haven't been able to find any online primary sources for the claims that the 1949 Act was invalid, but since the rulings, proposed amendments and the article cited all refer to them, I considered them reliable secondary sources (anyway, I heard that retrospectively adding inline citations to previous FAs isn't necessary any more...boom, boom). Yomanganitalk 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There are certainly academic sources, but not likely to be online for free. Let me see what I can do in the library. (I cannot promise to do it immediately, though.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Hood-Phillips' Constitutional and Administrative Law is likely to have something if you need a starting point. Yomanganitalk 11:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, provided all of the referencing issues are addressed. Tony 15:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, referencing looks good now. Sandy (Talk) 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Sandy 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Additional message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Sandy 21:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice article on the species, but there are a few issues with its content, most issues are to do with 1.

  1. The text is disjointed, and not very well written (many paragraphs exist of just two sentences). (1a)
  2. There are also some POV issues about the status of the hobbit, the article is set up (structure) and argues for the hypothesis that is is a new species, while the counter argument is not given much weight. (1b,c and d)
  3. Lots is paraphrased from the Nature articles, but the sources are not well identified. It is also presented as fact, rather than as a hypothesis. (1c and d)
  4. Significance section is weasley, as is the reaction section. (1a) They might be better merged into a section specifically about the discovery and publication of the original articles.

--Peta 06:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Under-sourced definitely. The Ebu Gogo paras are begging for cites (did the discoverers themselves really support the idea?). Last four sections need significant reorganization, as the species debate is brought up repeatedly in a disjointed way. I don't think the counter-argument is ignored, but clauses like "If in fact it is a new species,..." need to be introduced throughout, even if it is tedious. That said, this is probably in better shape than other 2 yr old FAs. Hopefully, it still has some watchers. Marskell 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The counter argument is not ignored- it's just presented in such a way that the pro species POV is overt.--Peta 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Needs inline citations, especially the "Reaction" section. LuciferMorgan 18:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Definitely under-referenced. Some sections are full of one-sentence paragraphs. This needs work as well.--Yannismarou 09:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Regarding the "pro-specices POV", one thing that has to be considered here is whether the "pro-species POV" is the majority view in the scientific community (i.e., following NPOV:Undue weight). It's not POV if it's the majority view. The difficutly here is that there are, as of yet, very few peer-reviewed publications on this find. Therefore, simply counting references won't work to establish the majority view. A second proxy for number of publications might be to look at the amount of data and research that has gone into the few publications that are out there. In that respect, the original discoverers would be expected to have had time to collect the most data and do the most comprehensive research, and their opinion would have to be accordingly given more weight than that of others who have had less time to examine the samples. The main problem with the criticism section is that it introduces the counterarguments before properly introducing the objections. This seems to be a problem with logical flow, but I am not sure it rises to the level of POV. My own research area is neuroscience, not anthropology, but I have an interest in brain evolution, and I found some of the arguments made by the Falk et al. 2004 study concerning brain structure (reference number 14 in the article) to be quite persuasive. Perhaps dealing with POV here is more a matter of clearing up flow and explaining the data beter, not eliminating a "pro-species" POV. Edhubbard 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is significantly under-sourced by current standards. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on above by Samsara. Again, as I noted above, there aren't that many peer reviewed articles. A quick pubmed search for Homo floresiensis turns up exactly 11 citations. However, eight of those are in Nature or Science, the two most prestigious scientific journals around. So, if you simply evaluate the quality of the article by the number of citations, it's going to fail the number of citations test, but if we evaluate the article on the basis of the prestige and importance of those citations, we may reach a slightly different conclusion. The current version of the article only includes four of these peer-reviewed sources, and doesn't always cite them where it might be appropriate, so the referencing can be improved, but the total number of citations probably won't increase dramatially. Edhubbard 21:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about the number of references. I know that literature reasonably well. I'm talking about the fact that there are some long paragraphs in the article that do not indicate the providence of the material. References can be used more than once, and each statement made should indicate which reference supports it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The POV is a real issue when the article presents the species issue as fact, uses the dismissive section title "A new species?" claims that this is a "controversial issue" and then really gives no space to the argument as to why it isn't a species; in this case I don't think it is up to us to choose the new species argument over the alternative since nothing has actually been confirmed. The article is sill also pretty disorganised and the lead is out of date.--Peta 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have managed to obtain copies of both Nature articles used in the article. Providing citations should not be a problem :-) Joelito (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have now downloaded all of the pdfs of everything I could find in the pubmed data base (Nature and Science, but also some specialist journals). Joelito, if you would like copies of any of them, please feel free to contact me off wikipedia at edhubbard AT gmail DOT com. I will incorporate the Falk et al. article, and the debate that it spawned, into the article this weekend. Along the way, I hope to improve some of the other references, and along the way, perhaps I can clarify what is proposed by the original discoverers and what the counterarguments are... since much of the debate in the Homo floresiensis debate revolves around brain endocasts and the suggestion of microencephaly, I'm not going too far outside my realm of expertise here. The Ebu Gogo stuff, on the other hand, doesn't appear in the scientific publications I've looked at so far, and is getting a bit further outside my comfort zone. How much longer do we have on FAR to get this back into shape? Edhubbard 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the offer but I have access to the majority of peer reviewed and scientific journals. I have downloaded the majority of H. floresiensis related articles but I am currently working on a FAC I recently submitted.
      • The review process usually lasts 2 weeks and the removal process lasts two weeks. Both deadlines can be extended if people are working in the article. Joelito (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Best of luck with your FAC! I am pretty confident we can get this back up to snuff before the end of FARC, at worst. Edhubbard 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a), POV (1d), and sufficiency and deployment of sources (1c). Marskell 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Moving this down to keep it on pace. Edh, let us know when you feel it's been properly improved. Marskell 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for the heads up. I've gone back through the history since the article was promoted on Dec. 24, 2004. It seems that since that time, as each new discovery or analysis has been made, there was a small flurry of activity adding the paper to the article. However, there has been no attempt to really step back and look at the overview of the article, and how to structure it. I am starting to see the outlines of a bigger revision than just adding the references and eliminating POV. Another problem is that many of the additions seem to be made on the basis of secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, rather than on a reading of the original scientific papers themselves. I still think that saving it from FARC is reasonable in the next week and a half, but I'll be sure to keep you posted. Edhubbard 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Several concerns:
  • "Those who suggest that LB1 is a pygmoid H. sapiens with microcephaly obviously find such speculations unnessecary.[5][6]". Is this appropiate for the lead? I find the tone unencyclopedic but I have no idea what to do with the sentence other than to rewrite it altogether.
  • Reply: In their 2006 PNAS article, Jacob et al say "Most importantly, premature elaboration of speculative evolutionary scenarios diverted attention from detailed study of the morphological characteristics of the specimens themselves." (p. 13421). There is a probably a better way to phrase it, but this is the sentiment I was trying to capture; that essentially, speculations on evolution are premature until the species status is resolved. Feel free to rewrite as you have time (see more below).
  • The recent survival section is mostly unreferenced but it shouldn't be too hard to source it.
  • The last paragraph in the recent survival section troubles me. Are we speculating/ editioralizing here?
  • Significance has many stubby paragraphs.
  • Since there are two controversies, access and classification, should we merge into a single controversy section with subsections for each controversy?
  • Reply: I am hoping that the scientific controversy section will be large enough to justify it's own first level heading at some point, but since I can't work on it for a week or so, I leave it to you to decide, and then I'll pick it up after my conference. Edhubbard 06:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are still some redundancies. I will try to correct them though. Joelito (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, in addition to Joels comments (which I agree with) there are some other things:
  • The lead is too long; the third paragraph is not necessary at all
  • The shortness of access controversy makes it stand out like a sore thumb; some combination of reaction, access controversy and species classification controversy might be worthwhile since they all cover related information. Mabye called "challanges" or "controversy"?
  • The article still assumes that this is a new species; could use the liberal addition of "reserchers propose", "if the hypothesis is true" etc. Stuff like the long quote from the Nature editor (not really a specialist in the field) just add to the pro species/great discovery hyperbole.
  • In general the significance section is just really weasely
  • Ex links could use pruning
--Peta 05:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've now read the 20 so peer-reviewed articles that are out there (some are little more than one page peer reviewed debates), and based on the state of the current literature, I think the case for a new species is much weaker than I thought it was when I first started working on the page. The main thing the article needs is for things like the "Species controversy" to be integrated into the relevant data sections. My idea was to integrate the debate by presenting the scientific deta that has been published, both for and against the species view, and then let the reader see where the weight of the evidence lies. My goal was to have a much longer, and more comprehensive section, but I've been buried under work. I am leaving for a conference (The Society for Neuroscience meeting in Atlanta) this morning and just have been too busy to really complete the project I set myself here. In the final version in my head, I think the scientific controversy will be big enough that it might still deserve a separate section. I'd like to see the article saved, but I'll be gone for a week (until Oct. 18) and I can't justify keeping this article in limbo until then. Sorry to leave the article in not the best shape, but hopefully, a little better than it was. I still have my plans for improving it, which I will do even if the FARC closes before I can get back to it. Honestly, though I'm surprised and disappointed that more people that work on the related projects that Sandy contacted didn't come out to help save their FA. Edhubbard 06:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the TOC. I think some of those later sections can be merged/shuffled. Given that Ed is still up for working but not immediately, and that it still has issues as identified by Peta, I'm a remove. No worries Ed, BTW; you've done what you could and definitely improved the sourcing. I'd like to see this come back to FAC if it loses status as I think it a vital topic; you can work toward that. Marskell 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done a fairly severe edit, removing most of the problematic text and reorganising other parts. If someone can source all the things that still have cite needed tags then the article is probably OK as an FA and will hopefully be further enhanced by Ed at a later date.--Peta 05:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Concern over TOC has been addressed with this edit. Not a keep yet, however, as Recent Survival needs sourcing. Marskell 10:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the article is properly cited and FA quality. Only one paragraph lacks citations. I do not have access to the papers that support the paragraph. I have read websites that support the text but I prefer to add the peer reviewed references since they are more reliable. I believe everything is fully cited now. Joelito (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article looks much better with Joel's changes. I am still interested in adding more scientific details, but as it stands it seems to now meet FA standards. Edhubbard 12:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Promoted during "Brilliant prose" phase, no original author. Messages left at Medicine FAR, Clinical Medicine, and Medicine. Sandy 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made an effort to resolve the organisational problems I found with this article. However, I am still concerned that it has only 13 inline references from 11 sources. Of its eight general references, three have abstracts available, so they could be easily matched with the statements they support. It may also be possible to obtain further sources from sub-articles such as Tuberculosis treatment. Others, such as Tuberculosis diagnosis, are similarly poorly referenced. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you could use more images from here. NCurse work 14:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is seriously undercited, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT or WP:MEDMOS, doesn't use the highest quality sources specific to the subject area, doesn't cite PMIDs, has an External link farm, the lead is overly technical and not a compelling summary, the article mixes citation styles and uses weasle words. Adding images might make it pretty, but won't address the major problems :-) I've been working my way through the medical articles, and hadn't realized this one was so bad: all of the older ones should be checked. Sandy 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A new user, User:Gak, is an infectious diseases specialist. He may be able to assist here. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm leaving a note (hate to hit a new person with a massive cleanup job :-) Sandy 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ha ha ha you think I haven't already been staring at tuberculosis for the last 3 months and shaking my head in dispair? I rewrote the TB treatment article with a view to gradually tackling the various bits one by one in manageable chunks. My current project is re-writing the latent tuberculosis article so it is less US-centric and actually applicable to people elsewhere. I've got together some decent references on my desk and I'm planning to do that over the next few days. The current UK NICE guidelines on TB are MASSIVE and dwarf even the CDC guidelines. Currently trying to recover from a weekend on call, so please forgive me if I'm a bit tardy. Also trying to organise a job move from Birmingham to Bangkok. --Gak 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The WP:LAYOUT/WP:MEDMOS concerns should be relatively more easy to fix than the issues with sources. An action plan could look like this:
  1. Make structure conform to guidelines
  2. Mark up unsourced statements and references not within WP:RS
  3. Find missing or more reliable references as appropriate.
Sounds like it will take more than a week, with people being busy. Is it worth demoting the article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You have the entire month of October, and more time is usually granted when progress is being made. The process is at least two full weeks in review, followed by at least two weeks in FARC. Any chance of making Tuberculosis the MCOTW? Sandy 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a start at adding more references. However, I only know the <ref>stuff by stuff in thing</ref> format so I hope this isn't too disruptive. TimVickers 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks good, Tim. The only thing you might do differently is italicize the journal name instead of the article name: it looks like that will maintain consistency with the cite template that was in use there. But don't worry about that: a layperson (like me :-) can go in and fix refs anytime - more important is for the docs to get the writing done. Sandy 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a stab at reorganizing the sections to more closely conform to WP:MEDMOS, cleaned out the External link farm, fixed some headings to conform with WP:MOS, cleaned up the opening list, cleaned up some references, and did some copy editing. The article is still mostly unreferenced, though, and some of the text is awful. It also seems to focus a lot on the UK. It still needs a lot of work. Sandy 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article now has a cleaner structure, better conforming to WP:MEDMOS, and TimVickers has added some inline cites, but the article is still vastly undercited and not yet comprehensive. Some important sections (Diagnosis and Treatment) are very brief, relying on daughter articles via Summary style, but those daughter articles aren't fully cited and are very technical. A non-technical, referenced, comprehensive, encyclopedic overview/summary of diagnosis and treatment would help. Similar for prognosis, in terms of answering basic layperson questions about the prognosis for latent and active TB patients. Some of the prose needs polishing, relying heavily on parenthetical inserts, which should be converted to prose. In terms of a global view, work is needed to reflect more geographic regions than the UK. Sandy 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • More: some of the data needs to be verified and updated. For example, WHO says 1.7 million deaths annually, while CDC says 2 million. There are some specific incidence numbers from a media report which I can't match to any TB database numbers: relying on media reports in scientific articles should be avoided per reliable source guidelines. It would be better to cite that data from a health organization, and I'm wondering why so much specific data is given for London and not for other areas of the world? If it's because London provides an example of what is happening in European urban areas, that needs to be better explained and explored. Sandy 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added more refs and a few figures. A lot of copy-editing is still needed. Sandy, you're doing a brilliant job. TimVickers 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just doing the menial stuff: your images and refs are great. I was going to see how far you could get before having another look at the prose. Sandy 05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is now fully referenced. TimVickers 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're done for a while, I'll run through it next: don't want to get in your way. Sandy 19:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some general notes as I'm sorting through the article:
    • History can probably be better referenced (was probably originally referenced) from the books now listed in Further reading.
    • Treatment, prognosis and diagnosis still need basic, referenced, summary rewrites/overviews.
    • The article is poorly wiki-linked, but that work should be deferred until rewrite is finished.
    • I'm adding cite tags as I go through it: I still don't understand the preponderance of UK-specific information, and the lack of information relevant to sectors of the world where TS is very big problem.
    • A physician needs to make sure "other names" and "symptoms" sections jive.
    • I've added inline comments, questions: do a text search on <!

Sandy 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I feel the "Other names" section will need inline citations. Also the introduction to the "Prevention" section will need citations (as I'm curious as to where the three priority strategies came from). Good luck to editors - one could be adding inline citations until Doomsday (good work by the way)! LuciferMorgan 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • eeek, I feel like other names fall into the realm of general information. Maybe we can get an opinion from a Wikiphysician. TimVickers has been working his tail off on the article. Tim, where do you think it stands? I wish we could get a fresh set of eyes to look at it, to see what else needs to be done, but I haven't been able to entice anyone else over from WikiProject Medicine. Sandy 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd give it six or seven out of ten. Now all it needs is some rewriting for clarity and structure. TimVickers 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still stick to my comment. The sections I requested citations for must have been unearthed somewhere, so should be able to be cited. LuciferMorgan 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. I've added citations for the beginning of the Prevention section and am going to be removing the strange focus on the UK. I also added refs for the Other Names section. TimVickers 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • FARC? TimVickers has made great progress, and I'd rate the article higher on FA standards than his seven out of ten: I give it an 8. But further review is needed, there's still some work to be done, shall we keep it moving to FARC, and encourage other physicians to review? The referencing is complete, quality of references are good, Tim and I have both worked at copy editing, but my remaining concerns are that we get a better overview of prognosis, diagnosis and treatment, another set of eyes on copyedit, and the blessings of several WikiPhysicians on content. If we can get someone to do this small bit of remaining work, we could possibly avoid FARC. Sandy 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything else you need me to do Sandy? TimVickers 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you've done a stellar job so far, and don't see that there's much else you can do. I'm not sure what's going on with the recent anon edits, though—keeping the article on your watchlist might be helpful? Since I'm a layperson, I'm having a hard time sorting out vandalism from legitimate edits. Sandy 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep an eye on things. Just drop me a note if you need anything else done. TimVickers 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - All inline citations citing web sources need the date they were last accessed. If they then become dead links, they can be retrieved more easily using the Wayback Machine on www.archive.org. Minor work needs to be done to the article (a few more cites here and there maybe), but insufficient enough for me to vote it for FARC. I think this article should avoid FARC. LuciferMorgan 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieval dates or PMID added. Need ISBN for Britannical 1911. TimVickers 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've pestered the Medical Projects and Wikiphysicians, and no one has objected, so considering that the article is now organized, referenced, cruft cleaned up, and copy-edited, I think we can avoid FARC. I am surprised at the level of vandalism this article gets, though, and hope several people will keep it on their watch lists. TimVickers is to be commended for a job well done and a lot of hard work! I'll leave a message asking SamSara if he's satisfied. Sandy 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at the level where if I came across it, I wouldn't nominate it for FAR. On the other hand, I did come across one piece of weak prose in the lead, which I fixed, but I wonder whether there is more. I don't have time to read through all of it again just now. So if everybody else is happy, we can leave it at this. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I took that word out once, too :-) I'm not necessarily happy, but I'm not necessarily willing to FARC it. More opinions needed. Sandy 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I've stated I feel this one's a keep without FARC. If anybody does have actionable actions though, I urge admins to hold before FARCing so someone can address them. LuciferMorgan 17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations. Marskell 09:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that concern has now been addressed, the article now has 65 independent citations, the large majority to peer-reviewed journals. TimVickers 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree citations are fine. Unless another WikiPhysician appears and says the article isn't comprehensive for any reason, I'll be a Keep on this one. Sandy 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Link (The Legend of Zelda series)

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Phils, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series. Sandy 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This article need some improvement. In light of the recent Featuring of high quality FA fictional characters, it has the following issues;

Way too many and somewhat repetitious fair use images which also lack rationales and sources.
No information on character creation and portrayal from outside of the universe.
Not sure if this is a criteria, but there appears to be a ton of information about Links relationships and other in-game information that may be unnecessary.
Finally, there are few in-line citations and in the old format style.

I will try to help with this, but I hope this article gets saved. Judgesurreal777 00:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My minor issues:

  • Many of these images are collages, and as such very difficult to source (since we need to source every single image that was composited).
  • Many other images are unnecessary. Why do we need an image of the ending of Zelda II when prose suffices? Why do we have so many images of essentially similar Links (the pre-N64 links, with the same outfit, hair, and essential appearance)?
  • Why is there a synopsis of every single Legend of Zelda game? We have an article on the series and on each game already.
  • More SSB cruft in Nintendo articles. There's a wholly unnecessary full page on Link in the Super Smash Bros. series, including detailed gameplay abilities.
  • Ditto for Soul Calibur II.
  • An extremely lengthy cameo section; this could be prosified or even summarized (no need to list EVERY cameo).

My major issue:

  • 99% in-universe content, 1% out-of-universe content. It's all "Link does foo in game Bar" and no "The creators did X for Y reason."

While I don't want to see this demoted, I'm not entirely sure it's even GA status right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear, the minor issues are relatively easy to fix and shouldn't be a big deal, but the major one I feel is FARC-worthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is way too much information in this article that should be left to Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. Pagrashtak 14:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree a large number of images should be cut. Also, the summaries of Link's adventures in each game should be drastically reduced to some standard size and focus on the peculiarity of the incarnation in each game, not provide a synopsis of the story. The cameos section should be pretty easy to "prosify". Phils 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
While they're not exactly at standard size, I had a go at taking out 'storycruft' in the adventure summaries. --Sparky Lurkdragon 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are one or two promising hits at Google Books and Google Scholar for anyone willing to slog through the results. And there's always this site. — BrianSmithson 11:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 90% of the problems are gone, including all the minor ones. As to the major problems, I am going to start hunting for references and going to massively start trimming the article. If anyone wants to help, please consult current featured fictional characters such as Jabba the Hutt or Padme Amidala. Judgesurreal777 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst reading this article i was surprised to see the gold star - this simply isn't FA-worthy in its current state. The Video Games section is way too long, waffly, and full of crap. The Characteristics section is fairly pants as well. It needs cleaning up as in language, formatting, as well as more sources and more relevant information (and less non-relevant information). I'll try to help out where i can. -- jeffthejiff 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please help! People have undone all the work I am doing on Link (Legend of Zelda) and I don't want to break to 3 revert rule, so someone please stop them from reverting everything I did. Judgesurreal777 03:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, situation under control, thank you to those who helped out :) But as you can see, I have a lot of copyediting to do, anyone wanting to help would be greatly appreciated. Judgesurreal777 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of ALL our FAs, this is the LAST one I want to see go. I will do whatever needs to be done. Leave a note on my talk page if you are having trouble with something. The more specific, the better. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding references to the story section. I could appreciate some help. I say three to five per game, depending on the importance of it. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are