Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2006

Contents

Kept status

England expects that every man will do his duty

Messages left at User talk:Zoney, Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

England expects that every man will do his duty is no longer up to FA criteria, I reckon. It was in 2004, but no longer. --Knotted 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • We're relying on nominators to set the directions for the reviews, at least initially. Which FA criteria do you think are at issue? Tony 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Err, well, mainly because this FA is a heck of a lot shorter than the other ones! --Knotted 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • By right the nominator should set the direction of the review, so that steps are actionable. Having said that, inline citations are needed (1. c.), and the "References in Popular Culture" section needs a cleanup from its bullet style format which creates disjointed prose. All paragraphs in the section should be tied together to create an orderly, cohesive section which flows smoothly (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article seems small to me for FAC. I also want to point out a few more things:
  • There are no sources, bibliography, references! This is totally inacceptable for a FA.
  • No inline citations.
  • The section "References in popular culture" looks like a Trivia section or a long list, which are both inacceptable for FAs. The section should be turned into prose.
As it is now, the article does not deserve FA status.--Yannismarou 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


  • The paragraph under the heading ‘Usage in football’ is completely irrelevant IMO, and the article has already stated that the phrase had entered English popular consciousness. I totally disagree with the analysis of last part of that section which has more to do with the nation's psyche after losing a football match than anything to do with the article's subject!

Under referenced No citations Too short Raymond Palmer 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, there isn't a "no short" criteria for FAs. To make your objection actionable, you must say which pieces of information are missing to make it "Comprehensive" (1b).--BMF81 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When the article is already short and half of it is trivia and the rest is unsourced, then there is a problem with the length as well.--Yannismarou 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, there is a "too short" article in a way, and I think Raymond Palmer's objections are actionable. The GA process was created for articles under 15kb, and this doesn't even near 10kb. Worthy references on the subject can be named, and also inline citations can be added to the article. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • GA has no official status as the "only badge of honour for short articles". If a short article is comprehensive and otherwise meets the criteria it can be an FA (I'm not saying this particular article does or doesn't meet those criteria). --kingboyk 10:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 references for a featured article? I'm sorry, but that alone tells me that this article no longer meets featured article criteria. References seem fine now, though I'm not an expert in the matter --Zantastik talk 01:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've partially rewritten the article today but there are still a few references to track down for the popular culture section, and the lead needs some work. I'll come back to it tomorrow or Monday, but please point out anything else that needs fixing. Yomanganitalk 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've now finished working on this - it's thoroughly referenced with inline citations; the irrelevant details (such as the section on football) have been removed; the popular culture section has been rewritten; and some more details have been added to the rest of the article. I don't think it is going to get any longer, but then again, I don't think "too short" has ever been a valid objection: The GA process can't make up its collective mind what its purpose is, and even if it could, I don't think we should be quoting one of its criteria as if it is an explicit criterion for exclusion from FA status. Yomanganitalk 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment Neat, tidy – more importantly, well written and apposite. The irrelevancies are gone. Sufficiently detailed. Good work on an interesting subject. Raymond Palmer 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yomanganitalk has done some nice work and addressed my objections. Having said that, I don't feel the article is comprehensive enough which is one of the FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you give me a pointer to where you think it is lacking? Yomanganitalk 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We donot oppose or support here. The article is much better now. When I read it in detail in due time, I'll comment on its comprehensiveness.--Yannismarou 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's 15kb, and well written articles 15kb and under are usually considered GA material according to GA guidelines. It's best to overall find out what other material you can add to the article. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    It should be pointed out that the GA guidelines—whatever they happen to be this week—have absolutely nothing to do with whether an article meets the FA criteria. Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good thanks to work by Yomangani; suggest it can be closed without FARC. Sandy 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but too small, so it should go to FARC based on comprehensiveness. LuciferMorgan 16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'll go per Sandy. The article is small but seems comprehensive. If LuciferMorgan indicates what particular topic needs further development and expansion and why it is not comprehensive right now, I may reconsider my position. --Yannismarou 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also reconsider if LuciferMorgan (or anybody else) can point out where it is lacking. The topic area is extremely narrow and it's tempting to stray away from the subject, but I don't think there's anything to add other than padding or original research. Length and comprehensiveness are not synonyms. Yomanganitalk 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Status. Agree: comprehensiveness, not length, is the criteria. If Lucifer points out something that is missing and/or other work that needs doing we can move it down; otherwise, I'll close this in a day. Marskell 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary II of England

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/to do, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has one reference to the 1911 Encyclopedia, a website, and no inline citations. Also, it may be uncomprehensive, but that is a more minor point since I am not familiar with the topic. Judgesurreal777 07:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Criterion 1. c. which asks for inline citations, references and so on isn't met by this article. This needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look this weekend at my references to add appropriate cites and references. As for comprehenive, remember that she only "ruled" for five or so years and even that was as a figurehead. --mav 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Two weeks, still no inline cites, move to FARC. Sandy 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Per bove+just one reference except for Britannica. Very poor research.--Yannismarou 08:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As it seems to have been abandoned, I've started work on this, but gathering references for some of the claims is taking longer than I thought it would, and I'd prefer to do some more digging than cut them from the article. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I don't think it is lacking in any significant detail (there are a few minor points that I will fill out later from the new references). Yomanganitalk 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are doing a nice job. If you find quite swiftly the material you want, Ok. The article needs some more inline citations (some paragraphs have no inline citations) and definitely some more sources. Britannica and one more source do not constitute the adequate number of references. If you don't have the necessary time, you can work on the article with you own pace and renominate it for FA.--Yannismarou 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice work so far: I'm willing to wait. On a separate note, I am discouraged when reviewers vote to Remove for lack of inline citations when the FARC period is just beginning: it might be helpful to not accumulate Remove votes until we're certain no one is going to do the work - perhaps at least a week into the FARC. Sandy 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've finished citing sources and added what detail was missing (turns out she wasn't that exciting as queens go). I wasn't intending to relist the cited sources in the references section as Yannismarou seems to be suggesting (maybe I've misunderstood?), as this seems a bit redundant, but I can do it if it is some requirement or style pointer I've so far missed. I suppose I should point out that I've noticed the connected article, William III, is an FA and suffers the same problems as this one, so probably needs listing on FAR at some point. Yomanganitalk 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No more just the shark guy, huh ? :-) I've left notes for other reviewers to have a new look (Yannismarou is already aware, so didn't leave a note for him/her). There's a long list of these articles that need cites: you can find it on the WP:FAR talk page. <grin> I'll have a look at this article tomorrow, and cast my vote. Sandy 03:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just about keep. Good summary style and an engaging read. Refs seem solid now--well done.

One thing: can we clarify the difference between the Scottish and Anglo-Irish thrones? The second sentence in the intro has a singular subject despite two thrones being mentioned in the first. We don't need a lengthy explanation in the intro; just a brief clause and then an inline note explaining it. I don't want to give the impression that the thrones were conterminous during her reign (not so until 1707, AFAIK), so when the difference in dates is arrived at in the body, add one more sentence making this clear. Marskell 07:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully made that clear now - I've added a paragraph on the first Jacobite uprising too, to emphasise the point without sledgehammering it. Yomanganitalk 11:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I disagree with Sandy about the Remove votes. If somebody is working and does a good job, a Remove vote can change. And I'm always closely watching my votes! On the contrary, a quick Remove vote constitutes an incentive for somebody to work. After all, the vote period is the last one after a long period of review. If somebody has started working during this period, we see that, we respect and we don't cast remove votes. It is as easy as that. If nobody works and nobody votes, then this might be a counter-incentive for the improvement of the article. Now, as far as this article is concerned, I donot feel ready to remove my Remove vote:
  • "Nenner, Howard (1998). The Right to be King: the Succession to the Crown of England, 1603-1714" Is this a printed source? If yes, why don't you mention the page as you should? And why don't you place it in the references as well (all sources of the inline citations should be found in references).
  • "G. Burnet (1833). History of my own Time." No page mentioned. Not listed in references.
  • " Brewer, E. Cobham (1898). Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Henry Altemus." No page mentioned. Not listed in references.
  • In references, I still see only one printed source. I respect on-line sources, but I believe that for this particular personality printed sources are abundant. If you add pages in the printed sources in "Citations" and then include this sources in "References", I'll reconsider this objection of mine.
  • And, by the way, let's stay on the inline citations. Most of them are not scientific works nor inline articles, but biographies; one or two are from Britanica or Columbia, but most of them are short and unsigned texts. That is why, I regard more printed sources (suitably citated and referenced) as necessary.--Yannismarou 18:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair point about the page numbers, I'm always forgetting to write them down - I'll look at those again. Not sure about the duplication of the cited sources in the notes and references sections though. As I said earlier, this seems somewhat redundant, and I don't see anything in the manual of style about it, so unless you can point me to the appropriate page, I'm not going to do that (to be honest, I'm unlikely to do it even if you do point to the page...life's too short). Yomanganitalk 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Since there were only two sources listed in the references section and both were already listed in the Notes section, I just removed the old references section and renamed the Notes section to "References". That's ok, right?Maintain 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That's ok. Waiting for the page numbers. Yomangani must understand that when he keeps two sections ("Citations" and "References") what he regards as redundant is necessary. Now, it is better, although I prefer to see both "Citations" and "References", because this structure serves better the checking of the sources and is closer to the structure of most scholar researches and articles (you, usually, don't find a scholar article with inline citations, but without references). But, I guess this is a personal taste that I apply in the articles I write and not a rule of WIkipedia - not yet at least! I'll be ok with the page numbers.--Yannismarou 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Page numbers are now present (and the abortive attempt to refer to a quote from another source using the cite template somewhat corrected). "References" were kept for historical reasons - the two works there were the original references, so covered more than the corresponding inline citations, but since the citations now cover any material that these would have covered previously, I don't have an objection to the removal of the section. We'll agree to disagree over the references/inline citations - we can fight it out over at the Manual of Style sometime. Yomanganitalk 08:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Yomangani's additions satisfy my concerns on the two thrones. Good work.
Re "I regard more printed sources (suitably citated and referenced) as necessary", from Yanni: I regard them as preferable but not as necessary to uphold status. The criteria do not demand them, though individually reviewers may encourage their use. The nature of the Wiki-beast tends toward on-line sources, which, if reliable, should be acceptable. I would like to see this travel site and this site replaced, though. Marskell 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. I won't get rid of them, but I will provide other sources for the statements they currently cite. Yomanganitalk 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, although the additional citations are from the current EB - I'll probably come back and change those later (both are bound to be in McCauley's History of England which I don't have here) Yomanganitalk 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Issues addressed, article cited, nice work. Sandy 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maintain, my remark had to do with the previous status, when the references had almost no sources and the sources mentioned in "Notes" were without pages. Right now I know I cannot object, although I've proposed to raise the demands concerning sources of FAs. As it is now the status quo, I already know and you are absolutely right about the distinction between "necessary" and "preferable". I believe this must change, but for now I am obliged to vote keep. Yannismarou 19:19, 21 September 2006 UTC}}

Ziad Jarrah

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do. Sandy 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While this was considered quality work back when it was declared a featured article back in 2004, two years later, it no longer meets the standards. While there are probably more problems, the two most pressing issues involve images and citations. There are too many photographs of him — they're claimed as fair use and they lack rationales. I don't want to add rationales until we figure out which images to keep. As for the citation, there are zero inline citations. We should get to work on getting this article to current standards. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see the images saved and the FA status removed, than vice versa - given his personal prominence, but I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need to fix up inline citations. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily saying that the FA status should be removed, and that the images should go away. What I mean to say is that we should upgrade this article to current standards and see if we really need all these pictures (if we do, that's fine). —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the article has inline citations, they are just formatted as embedded external links. I agree that there are too many fair use images. Of these four images: Image:Young jarrah.jpg, Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg, Image:Jarrah-2000-Flying-Florida.jpg, Image:Ziad-Gym-ePass.jpg, only one is needed. The others don't add anything new to validate a fair use claim. Pagrashtak 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Refs converted, but there aren't many. Sandy 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC: still not well-referenced, not much activity towards improving the article. Sandy 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree: do the contributors still care about it?
Could do with a run-through to fix awkward expressions like: "He got pulled over ..." (space missing, too); "After looking in several countries,.." and many more. Consistently abbreviate "United States"? Tony 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I agree that it needs to be cited inline. I wrote most of the article, but it was a while ago, and I would need to go through my sources to determine what came from where. (90% of it came from the 9/11 report.) I don't know that all the images are necessary, strictly speaking, but I'm not sure they should be removed. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3) and citations (1c). Marskell 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Still lacking inline citations. Sandy 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Strike, now referenced. Sandy 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was asked to take a second look. I can take a closer look when I'm home next week, but the first cite I encounter is:
      • The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/2001
    • which is not adequate. Is there an article name, author, etc? It appears that more work on citations is needed, and several of the citations are only URLs. Sandy 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I just added that source today. Unfortunately, that's all I know, and I can't get to the WSJ achives online. I'll go to my library Monday. I went thru the microfiche at the library and corrected that reference. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The inline citations look better, although some of them need to be expanded (I can find time to do that later today). But, I concur with Tony (see below), and think the prose needs some polishing. Perhaps you can enlist a good copy editor? Sandy 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I volunteer. What parts do you think need help? By the way, Tony's comment (below) was made 2 weeks ago, before any of these changes took place. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Not sure what this footnote refers to: Longman, 2002, pp. 101-02 Sandy 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Good catch. That was a follow-up ref to an earlier full-ref that was deleted. I fixed it now. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You're doing great work. I'm not as good at analyzing prose problems as Tony and others, but here are some random samples I have a hard time with (there's more, these are samples):
                • (The four "to clauses" are hard to get through): In the spring of 1996, Jarrah moved to Germany with his cousin Salim to take a course in German at the University of Greifswald to receive a certificate needed for foreigners who do not speak German to study in Germany.
                • (The passive voice here is hard): Jarrah is claimed to have become an associate of the Hamburg cell, although he is not known to have ever lived with the others, and cannot be confirmed to have known them at this time.
                • (Passive voice and redundancies): In late 1999, Jarrah, Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Said Bahaji, and Ramzi Binalshibh decided to travel(ed) to Chechnya to fight against the Russians. They were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi (convinced them) at the last minute to change their plans, and instead traveled to Afghanistan to meet with Osama bin Laden and train for terrorist attacks.
              • There are issues like this throughout; the article would be in very fine shape now with a thorough copyedit. Sandy 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding these. They have been fixed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

* Remove Even after the FAR, there doesn't seem to be much progress on cleaning it up per current standards. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove.. Weak keep—it's improved. Not much has been done. Still problems in the writing. Tony 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Much more has now been done. Do you still find problems in the writing? If so, where?
  • Keep. There are now inline citations. Progress is being made. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove I tried to help this article. I converted the table to infobox biography to help it conform to the standard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, as required by WP:WIAFA part (2), and removed a fair use image, since there was a public domain alternative, as required by WP:WIAFA part (3). Both of these changes were reverted. I don't see how this article can remain featured while other editors are actively working against the featured guidelines. Pagrashtak 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Your changes were appreciated, and were not reverted. Check the history. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm replying on my talk page. Long story short, they we reverted and re-reverted. I'll give it another look in a second. Pagrashtak 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Quadell seems to be making progress on the article and another user re-removed (I know, it's not a word!) the image, so I'm striking my remove vote for now. Pagrashtak 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep — Progress is being made, however there are still potential problems. For one, Image:Ziad-Gym-ePass.jpg and Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg don't seem to be relevant to the article, and they're unfree. I suggest we get rid of them. Another thing is that the lead isn't very long. However, I'll try to do my best to improve the citations, and possibly the lead. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree about the images. I'll remove them, but we need to keep watch on them. Sherurcij uploaded some of these pictures, and seems to quickly remove any tags I put on the images to identify problems. I tagged the gym pass as having no source, and Sherurcij seems to think that adding the word "immediate" to the image solves that problem. Pagrashtak 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • 'CommentI'm unsure how Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg is not relevant, since it is a photograph of one of the chief pieces of evidence against Jarrah, him appearing with other hijackers months before the attack. It's non-free since it is amateur video, but it falls well within the grounds of Fair Use, as you may have noticed it was used by all media outlets. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Notes" section seems nothing more than a dumping ground for information editors can't be bothered to intertwine into the article - this needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have now addressed that problem. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Refs section is much improved. Keep up the good work all editors working to save this article's FA.
    • If not already clear, this should be kept open a bit even if already passed deadline. I've started a bit of ce'ing myself (there are two fact requests now) and I don't see why this can't keep status with a bit more work. Marskell 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Status I will close this as keep as soon as the objections (which seem to be satisifed) are striken. Joelito (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that, laborious as it might be, individual citations from the 9/11 report should be placed in the article; we should not have to rely on a blanket "unsourced statements are from X." At the same time, numerous other sources have been dug up and I think there are no serious copy issues. A weak keep I suppose, but a keep nonetheless. Marskell 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:Anville and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Sandy 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has a one-paragraph lead section that does not come close to summarizing the article, as required by WP:LEAD. It has only seven total references and absolutley no in-line citations at all. These are the main criticisms that anyone can discover from a superifical scan. The prose is shoddy. It doesn't even come close to satisfying criterion 2a. Example, the very first sentence:

The omniptence paradox is a philosophical paradox that arise when logic is applied to the exitence of... How is logic applied to exitence? And how that does logic's being applied to something generate a paradox? Paradoxes arise within language (formal or informal). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I altered that sentence and the lead paragraph, it may need more Bmorton3 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Example 2:

"Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence (Haeckel)."

Whole paragraph violates WP:WEASEL. Some this, some that, others..., i addtion... A reference to Haekel does not cover all of that philosphical terrain--[[User:Lacatosia s|Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias]] 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I improved this Bmorton3 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out the article is only 20kb, so could the nominator please check these things before making ludicrous estimations (3 times over the actual amount). Other than that, all what he/she has said I agree with. There's no inline citations, and I find the prose real awkward and hard to follow also. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Comment then: I actually think this is a well-written article. Most of the complaints, as far as I can tell, are because people disagree with the content, not because of problems with the article. I have no problem following it. Perhaps more care can be given to references, though the ones given are sufficient - a consistent method of using references might be an improvement: inline citations (footnotes) instead of references in the course of a sentence (like the example above). --Marinus 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah right. I could get my Italian grandmother who speaks no English to write a better article than this after lessons in English over the next three months. As to references, philosophy of mind, Hilary Putnam and Katyn Forest are examples of how FAs should be done. If this thing stays, I go!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you don't write "keep" or "remove" on a FAR. Please get an education and learn how to read instructions before commenting.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Francesco, your being on edge immediately puts everyone else on edge. Threatening to leave over the status of an article is not helpful and you don't need to be attackish with Marinus in disagreeing with him.

That said, it's good you brought this to everyone's attention. I have no idea why this article suffers so. Here is a dif round about the time of its promotion (the star was forgotten on the page for a while). It then worsened and shrank, was brought to FARC, and mass reverted by Carnildo here. Are these versions any more acceptable to you? Should we revert again and start from there? Marskell 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. It was cut to bits!! These things usually seem to blow-up into uncontrollable monsters. So how is all of this is supposed to be proof of the claim that the evolutionary process of Wikipedia actually improves articles over time?' All the FAs seem to turn to shit. I don't know what to tell you. The older versions are definetly better than the current one, IMO. It would seem to be much easier to bring in line wth current standards. Now that's just disappointing. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at those versions, one can see that the standrad were different fot citations and references at the time this was accorded FA status. Those problems would still need to be dealt with in any case. The weasel language is stiil there in at least one place, but that can be fuxed with cites. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Francesco, if you plan to work on it, would a revert to the older version give you a better starting place? It's looking to me like you are making very good progress on Free will. Perhaps others here can have a look in there, come to consensus about what else needs to be done there, and then you all can turn your attention to this article? (It is unfortunate that two philosophy articles were nominated at once: if more time is needed, please let us know, but you have made good progress on Free will.) Sandy 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I really don't know anything about this one. But, since it lies within philosophy, I can always look up references, check facts and so on. If others agree, I would suggest rving back to one of those pervious versions. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have overhauled this article a fair amount today. I could probably still use more references, and someone who understands wikifying better should probably convert all the references to one style or the other. Put cite needed tags where you think it still needs references and I'll try to find them or re-phrase. Bmorton3 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go in later today and help clean up and format the references. Sandy 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, can we do "merge-revert"? That is, someone pull up one of the older versions noted, along with the present one and swap the better material into the present, while retaining good, recent changes? I commented on the initial FAC and I remember it: this article was good (if not up to the exacting present standards) and that good article is still in the history, even if parts have been lost. Marskell 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I saved the ancient version's much better lead section, and salvaged much of the Wittgenstein stuff from it. I don't think there is anything else there than needs to be in the current version, but I suppose you might try to salvage some of the stuff on the medieval context of the debates (although it contains some factual problems, and lots of irrelevancies). If you see anything else in the old version worth integration, do it or point it out to me. Bmorton3 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL - I just fixed the referencing mechanism. Well, if they decide to revert, I can do it again. Sandy 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Good progress here too. It seems that FACS and FARS are the only way to get serious attention on philosophy articles. I'll look over the old boy myself this morning (my time). You guys work late night European time.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since we seem to have reached consensus, how can go about putting this process to rest. Notice that I actually go about canclling my complaints and objects almost immeditiately as they are addressed. Mr. Yom over on the Free Will FAR, for example, has not even bothered to look at the article in the last six years. His goal is to simply tear down and slam other people's work. He did not actually expect that anyone wpuld be able to rescue such a monsrosity. It's a fun game, isn't it? There's your problem. I can rip your work, you can rip mine. Anonymously too!! Anybody can play that ridiculous, childish game. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah hah!! So, you have to be in good standing with Raul, eh?? Here's the concluding comment from the previous FAR:
It's been reverted, and in fact improved somewhat since (not all the edits in the reverted period were detrimental). I don't think we need to wait the full two-week period, or whatever's left of it. Whom should I pester to have this entry's withdrawal expedited—Raul654? Anville 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
So let it be written, so let it be done.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Am I to conclude then Francesco that you think it's back in shape? Any other comments from people before closing? Marskell 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, one very important procedural one. How do you close, who has the power to do that and why?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The closing process here hasn't been formalized. Any party who stops by can suggest close and, for a unanimous keep like this one, close it. In this case, you should not close (because you nom'ed) and Bmorton should not (because he's done most of the work and he would be judging himself). Similarly, if it were to go to FARC anyone who notes "keep" or "remove" should not close. Beyond that, there is no formal rule. Of course, that isn't an invitation to have a anons come and along close things—in practice the people who have done closing have been quite involved in the FAR/FARC process. Joel and I have done most of them recently. Marskell 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre as usual. But I get the general idea.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, since your at it, could have you also take a look at the Free will FAR?? Thanks --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This now looks back in shape to me too. Bmorton3 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Before closing There is a section, Other versions of the paradox, with a verify tag. Is it needed? Do Lacatosias and Bmorton3 feel that this section needs verification? Joelito (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • BM3 put the tag up for that section. Now that you've sort of pressed me on it, I do think there are a few claims in there that need to be verified (absolutely no offense intended to Bmorton2 here, PLEASE!!). The problem is the only material I have on this is some stuff from other Encylopedias on the net. The main thing that Bmorton3 is concerned about is the section realted to Steven Hawking. Neither he nor I have a copy of "A Brief Histiry of Time". If anyone out there does, it should be easy for them to verify and source that.
      • OK we have now fixed both the Hawking's Stuff and the Averroes' stuff, with much thanks to Dbuckner and Lacatosias. I think there are no tags or things still to work on here that have been suggested, but if you find more, certainly mention them Bmorton3 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very listy: I think that some of the explicitly formatted lists could be turned into running prose to reduce the disjointed, choppy visual appearance and reading experience. A related problem is the stubbiness of the subsections under "philosophical response". Last two sentences in the lead are a problem. Perhaps this one needs an extension here, since it appears to be unsuitable for listing at FARC. Tony 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think Lacatosias fixed the listiness, there is only one left, and it was a list in the source material. As he joked, analytic philosophers kinda dig, disjointed choppy visual appearance and reading experience, so that claims don't run into each other, (check out the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus some time. But we can do the other style, if you prefere. I put the pop culture in the lead, because I thought the function of the lead was to mirror the article in minature, as WP Lead says "It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." The pop culture references are surely one of the main points of the article as they get a whole section, and probably part of notability, but hey if you think they're a problem they're gone.Bmorton3 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry about dropping my sig originally)
    • Bmorton3 is off for the weekend apparently. He's done the bulk of the work on sourcing this and so on. I'll do a bit of reading see what I can do in the meantime. The problem with this one, for me at least, is that I nominated it without knowing much about the topic. I feel a bit impotent about omnipotence (;.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The opening is awkwardly worded. I'm surprised Tony hasn't commented on the 'fat'. The word 'paradox' occurs too many times. The second sentence repeats much of the first. There is no clear statement in the introduction of what the paradox is (I have delved into Google and found some better ones – Peter Suber's is best). But worst of all, there is a confusion running through the whole article between the 'paradox of the stone', and 'omnipotence paradox'. The latter is really a family of paradoxes, which appear to follow from the assumption of an omnipotent being. The former is an instance of the latter. Also, there is no proper historical background of the stone paradox (Savage's article is not mentioned) nor of omnipotence paradoxes generally. Aquinas is correctly located but there is no reference for Averroes' role in the debate, despite his picture appearing. I think the article could be improved, but it does need a lot of work. I will help, but would like to see a consensus of the 'experts' before doing so. Dbuckner 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't vote to remove here. This is FAR (review and comment) not FARC (Removal candaidates). Just a procedural thing. The FAR can be extended, as I understand it, until reviewers (yourself inlcuded) decide that no progress is being made (or something like that). At this point, I have to admit that I think not much progress is being made. I'd like to hear what Bmorton, who has put some real work into this thing, has to say. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed. Dbuckner 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I suck at trimming fat, but someone else can try if they want. The opening is awkward, but I've tried a bunch of variations and been happy with none, maybe that's a stopper. I think the article focuses on the paradox of the stone but admits that there are other versions of the omniscience paradox. We are filling historical background in slowly as we find it, I certainly haven't found any published sources detailing the historical background yet, and the original FA version, had only a little and it was undocumented and flawed. The article would certainly be improved if we found such a thing, but I'm not sure it's out there. We do need to source the Ibn Rushd, claim, and it isn't in any of the stuff I've got laying around. It's probably in the Tahafut al-tahafut somewhere, and further I'll bet dimes to doughnuts Hawking gives a cite for it in Brief History, which seems to have heavily guided the early editors of this page. I actually think the intent stuff is pretty clear, but we definately at least need to nail down the Ibn Rushd cite before we close, I hadn't noticed that was missing. Bmorton3 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, he was referring ot the original openening. I have since cut out those two horrid sentences and replaced them with something close to Suber's formulation. Dbickner has expressed his approval of this at the botton of the talk page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the "Pop culture and humurous responses" still needs a overhaul before this is closed, more or less what Tony expressed in his comments. Until then, this FAR should stay open. LuciferMorgan 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll do my best on this aspect. I've converted all the other lists into prose and eliminated the stubbiness of one paragraph three-level indents that was there before. You guys can judge the "brilliancy" of it, as it were. But I cannot deal with the main problems: some missing references and other cintent issies that Dbuckner brings up. This is just not my area and the net has very little that is if use --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

New comment: It's not neutral with regard to theism and atheism. E.g., J.L. Mackie is presented as attempting to resolve the parodox. If I undertand the hisory of the "modern" debate on this, it was Mackie who revived the ommipotence paradox as an argument against the existence of god in "Evil and Omnipotence". Later, Geach, Plantinga and others responded to Mackie. I don't have the article, but I'll see what I can do on this score.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Just found it and scanned through it. He does, in fact, attempt to resolve the paradox. The main argument is a modern version of the problem of evil. Sorry about that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I went through and cleaned up a number of areas, starting with Geach's "four levels of omnipotence". I don't think the descriptions of levels 3 and 4 included anything notable that level 2 hadn't already covered. Level 2 ("Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs) and level 3 ("Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent) seem in no way differentiable from each other, and the language in which all of the levels' descriptions are phrased in was akward and problematic at best. Level 4 (whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true) is equally redundant, bordering on nonsensical. It seems to me that there are two options: absolute omnipotence, and non-absolute omnipotence. An absolutely omnipotent being can do anything at all, including that which defies logic; this is the basis for level 1. A non-absolutely omnipotent being can do anything which does not defy logic, and is not required to do things that defy logic in order to maintain its omnipotence; this is the basis for levels 2, 3, and 4. Thus, when reduced in essence to levels 1 and 2, since Geach's definitions cover nothing that wasn't already addressed more concisely in the "Philosophical responses" section, I removed them entirely and all references thereto. As a side note, the definition of "almighty" had nothing to do with the omnipotence paradox because it had nothing to do with omnipotence to begin with. "More powerful than any creature" is not a useful definition of omnipotence, since the relative power of other "creatures" is not the standard by which the power that qualifies as omnipotence is measured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOuj1ro (talk • contribs)
Level 3 doesn't include anything notable that level 2 doesnt? Look at Cowan's 1964 objection, or Geach in 1973 objection. There are lots of easy things that 2 requires but 3 doesn't. This is the heart of Mavrodes' argument. Cowan proves the difference between the two as a theorem, but here's an example. I am a homebrewer but not particularly strong. I have the ability to "create something which I cannot lift" by brewing a batch of beer so big I can't lift it. "X creates something which X cannot lift" is in general a logically possible state of affairs (after all I can do it). If Omnipotence requires definition #2, then God fails, because here is a logically possible state of affairs which I can do but God can't. But if omnipotence only requires #3, God's immune to this criticism. The difference between 3 and 4 has to do with the temporal mechanics dispute between Peter Damain, St. Jerome, and Aquinas and folks. It avoids the temporalist objection that God cannot change the past. You say a non-absolutely omnipotent being can do anything which does not "defy logic." Does it defy logic for "X to brew a batch of beer which X cannot lift"? Because then I can do it but God can't. Perhaps you argue that for "X to brew a batch of beer which X cannot lift" is a mixture of power and deficiency rather than a pure power, fair enough, but it is still a logically possible state of affairs, so it doesn't defy logic and you need to make further restrictions. "Almighty" does have something to do with the omnipotence paradox, Anselm argues that God is omnipotent despite the omnipotence paradox because omnipotent only means almighty, not something stronger. Geach argues that God isn't omnipotent, because of the omnipotence paradox, but that God is something else very close, namely "almighty." Mackie argued that it isn't enough for God to be "supreme" in the sense of McTaggert, but that something more was required, and Almighty was an attempt to spell out an attribute stronger than Supremecy but weaker than Omnipotence. I didn't even touch on omnificience. But probably this is a debate for the talk page rather than the FAR. Bmorton3 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your comments with four tildes. Geach's definitions may or may not be "nonsensical". That's not relevent. I think the two that you mentioned are, but then I'm an atheist who think's that omnipotence of any kind is nonsensical. This is a question of opinion and Original Research. However, where I do think you have a point is in the question: "Which of Geach's defintions is relevant to the pardadox?" It did seem almost as of they were thrown into the article simply becasue they had some relationship with the omnipotence. But which of them (allegedly) resolve the paradox and in what manner?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted these POV edits.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of SOuj1ro's concerns. Dbuckner voiced a few more concerns before he QUIT WP!! such as that we still don't know who first did the triangle version, or how much older than Mavrodes the stone version might be. Further, I have left some of the work of former editors from back in the original FA days, including some stuff on Ethan Allen, that Dbuckner thought, not unreasonably, now inhibited the flow of the article. This article is now vastly better than when it FA'd but yeah, Dbuckner is right there are still things we don't know about it, and would take even more hard work for me to find out and I'm tired of wasting my time in this puppy. Someone else can read the minor commentaries by Ibn Rushd for a while looking for evidence for the claim that he invented the triangle version of the paradox. I'm not ready to leave WP yet, but I am tired to trying to bring old philosophy FA's up to the new standards. Bmorton3 14:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: finding the original souirces of the "stone paradox". etc.. is NOT the new standards for FA candidates. This is a little bit like saying I have to find the first mention in the history of philosohy of something similar to the sense/reference distictnion in oder to refer to the sense/reference distinction in a Wikipedia article. Those are preposterously high stanrards that are the personal opinion of one man. And, expert though he may be, HE has not been able to find these sources and probably never will. I see no problem with the "Ethan Allen" thing either. The mention of a non-philosopher who has discussed these issues, makes the article more accessible to the lay reader. I strongly urge that this article be allowed to pass FAR. It is the best that can be done given the very limited scope of the subject. (just as an aside, the original FA was written by one of the current crop of "expert" rebeller's: Anville). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Status? No more cite tags, listiness improved, pop culture appears reduced. Others should have a look to evaluate comprehensiveness, prose, etc. Sandy 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This one has obviously vastly improved. However, I didn't get a definite "yes, close it" from the nominator and one of the other reviewers when I asked them, so I'm moving it to FARC to cover our bases. Marskell 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep citations are good for such a short article on a minor topic. The Ethan Allen paragraph in the third section may be a bit awkward, but it can be easily deleted and left in the pop cultute section if need be. No major problems that I can see.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep I feel that the FA criteria 1c is now in good shape. I argued against the current wording of (1a), and agreed to a craven compromise for the sake of consensus, only to have that too removed from the final draft. I beleive this article is now well written, but I also believe that there are vastly different interpretations of what well written means among reviewers of good-faith, and to what extent it includes or requires being well-edited, which I cannot attest to. Bmorton3 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep Article is stable, referenced, lists and pop culture reduced, prose in better shape, and no one has objected on any other grounds. (I should mention that I worked on expanding and fixing refs, and removing external jumps.) Sandy 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The big push in the review period has created a much better article. What's happened to this one over time is unfortunate, so I think it should be kept on a few watchlists after the review. Marskell 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Sandy 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is one of those articles that were good by the standards in 2004, but would not pass today without a major rewrite. In my opinion the problems are:
  1. The article doesn't have enough references, with only 6 poorly formated footnotes.
  2. The article is very much focused on the in-universe aspect, and should provide more information about how it was conceived as well as crtical reactions. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more information.
  3. The article fails to mention the individual comic books as well as the newspaper strib, the TV series and the movies.
  4. The article is listy. Please prosify the list or remove them entirely.
  5. The article has a trivia section disguised with the name "In popular culture". Most of this should be removed and the rest should be used in the article.
  6. Sections like "Stage adaptations", "Memorabilia", and "Merchandise" are underdeveloped. Generally we should not have paragraphs with fewer than three sentences.

I hoped that this gets fixed, but I don't think it will happen. --Maitch 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Remarks about pictures:
    • In general: most pictures could be made a bit smaller for aestehic reasons.
    • Lead picture: the current lead picture doesn't add anything (as Tintin is shown below) and seems to violate fair use as a consequence. I suggest to replace it with an album cover, which would give the reader an impression about how the comic book looked.
    • 6 pictures (all the pictures below the Thomson & Thompson picture, except the stamp perhaps) seem to violate the fair use criteria #3 and #8. They hardly add anything, they are not integrated in the text, they don't seem necessary or to contribute significantly - and as a consequence seem to be merely decorative. Even if they would have had a clear purpose, one picture would have been sufficient. Sijo Ripa 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I request a stay of execution to fix this up? I have some source material and could attempt a rewrite, but I've never had an article featured as yet so I'd appreciate a good run and a lot of advice. I'll attempt to make a start on the concerns above in the next day or two, if that's okay. Hiding Talk 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, going by the policy you have two weeks before it is even considered for removal. I think the removal process takes two weeks too, so that would give you plenty of time. If significant improvements are made during the review it would also be fair to extend the deadline. Good luck improving the article. --Maitch 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Status? The diff shows not much happening with references: is more time needed? diff Sandy 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The large edits you see in the diff were done by me. I tried to get the ball rolling, but there hasn't been any real activity. I have no intention on finishing the job, so I would rather see it being de-nominated. Hiding is apparently on a wikibreak, so he won't be doing any editing either. --Maitch 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness insufficient citations (1c) comprehensiveness (1b), structure and writing perspective (4). Marskell 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, are you referring to the copy in my user space? I need about another week to get it ready for the main space, is that going to be a problem? If so, I can move what I've got across and just hash it out in public, but it's hard to get a handle on such a major rewrite in that manner. Hiding Talk 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a good faith attempt to address all concerns which can be seen at User:Hiding/The Adventures of Tintin. Sadly it's a one man effort and I'm asking for a good faith adjournment of one week to fix this up. If I haven't managed it then fair play, but it's a bank holiday weekend here and I've got my wife's birthday so it's not going to be as quick as you seem to be moving. I appreciate Wikipedia has to maintain standards, but I can't see how a week would make much difference. I'd appreciate any comments on what I've got so far. Thanks. Hiding Talk 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm puzzled as to why this has been moved to FARC. The guidance states The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. I've asked for more time, I'm attempting to address all concerns, and it would be useful to continue the review. Are there issues with the work I'm undertaking in my user space? Nobody has commented on the edits I've been making, I believe it is common practice to work up a FA in user space, so I'm confused as to this sudden turn of events. Hiding Talk 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason why I have not commented on the edits made so far is that I don't like to disrupt an editing process. I think the reason the article was moved to FARC was because of the user space copy. People just look at the real article and see that no progress has been made. With that said I don't understand why you have to have a user space copy. People only do this when they are working on a high traffic article. This article only has about one edit a day on average, so I can't see the big trouble in editing there. --Maitch 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's just my preference. I've seen a number of FA writers do the same thing, and it just allows me to workshop better. If I'm working on the article in situ, I have to get the edits right, and the way I work that's not always possible. I can't always leave it in a viewable state for readers, and don't see any need to disrupt readers. I appreciate it's not a high traffic article, but every editor works in a different manner. I've got about 16 different sources I'm working from and I'm still not clear what the final shape of the article will be. If people can't accept that progress is being made I have trouble not seeing that as failing to take account of my efforts. Is the process here more important than any show of good faith in what I'm doing? Should working practises have any bearing on the final outcome? I'm puzzled that there's such a problem here, I'm simply asking for time, something I would think can easily be extended. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Hiding Talk 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, if there were such concerns with my user space edits, someone could have pointed it out to me, no? Hiding Talk 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the concerns my editing style has raised, and placing the article above my objections to such concerns, I have started on editing the article in situ. Would people compare these edits before voting and consider if they begin the process of addressing the concerns above. I would hope that the insufficient citations can be put to bed, I may have gone too far in the other direction but I've never found guidance as to what to cite and what not to and erred on caution there. I'd also hope that the structure and writing perspective is seen to be in hand, and that the comprehensiveness is taking shape. I would appreciate any comments to the contrary, and any help in getting the article across the line, but I would hope voting could now be adjourned per the guidance on this page, and we get on with getting the article where it should be. Hiding Talk 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, in case it's not clear, this is going to remain another two weeks in this section! It's two weeks + two weeks. No final decision will be made if things are on-going. So keep working away, no rush for this weekend. Marskell 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And to add, if in case it's not clear: this first move to FARC is largely procedural. After +2 weeks it goes down unless it's definitely decided its back to standard and can be closed. I noticed Sandy's status comment and the two comments from you guys, but moved it down to keep it on schedule. This wasn't a vote against your work in user space. Marskell 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, fair play. This page and process has changed a lot since the last time I was around these parts so I'm not au fait with the whole way it works. As you can see above, I'm also very good at arguing with myself. Hiding Talk 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Been busier than I would like, both on and off Wikipedia, but managed to expand the memorabilia section per concerns above, and also replaced some fair use images with freer images, as can be seen here. Will try and get more work done next week to the stage adaptations and include mention of the anthology comic and newspaper strips and the like. Also, am hoping to source a copy of Tintin : Herge and his creation from the library. Hiding Talk 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, the content and referecing of the article has improved. Full reference details, rather than just URLs should be provided.--Peta 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't fancy helping out there then, do you? Hiding Talk 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and took care of this issue. JimmyBlackwing 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to say, as the person who started the nomination, that I won't be available before next week and therefore would like to postpone judgement on the article. --Maitch 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We can wait. Marskell 09:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Status: What's up folks? How do you feel about this Maitch? Marskell 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On my part I've just scored Tintin: Hergé & His Creation by Harry Thompson, The Adventures of Tintin at Sea and Tintin: The Complete Companion both by Michael Farr from the library, so I would appreciate an extension to get them read and compiled. I think the article has improved greatly, whilst I accept there are still edits to be made. I would like to get the criticisms section better sourced, and I know Maitch would like to see the overview section split into two: a publishing history and a plot summary of the books, and I think there's still concern with some of the paragraphs. That said, I think this article is over the hump, as it were. It's not yet comprehensive, but it is well cited. I can't answer for the writing perspective, but I hope that's going okay. I'm tied up with admin stuff at the same time, but I'm hoping to get to work on the criticisms tonight and tomorrow and hit the summary and publishing history through the rest of the week, I see them as the easy bits, they don't need so much citing. The reliance on fair use images is unfortunately a given, it appears any image of a copyrighted character can breach copyright as a deriviative work. Hiding Talk 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has improved greatly and many kudos to you on that count, Hiding (also, User:JimmyBlackwing if s/he's watching). This is just the kind of engaged work we want from an FA review—look back a month and this was definitely below standard.
A few small notes, because I just made an edit: for criticisms, particularly when dealing with race or gender, we have absolutely no business qualifying anything as "absurd" (or "big" or "small" or anything else), even if we have a source. Let the facts speak for themselves. An absurd stereotype may be hateful and demeaning in the same breath. The "Criticisms" in general needs more sourcing. There are also a few grammatical issues, but broadly this meets 1c, IMO.
Anyhow, more or less ready to close. Before closing, I'd just like a last comment from the nominator. Marskell 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Remove: The overall tone is appropriate, but two of the lines early on that clearly present a positive or negative opinion: "Hergé managed to infuse the strip with his own impish sense of humour, and also to create supporting characters who... were filled with a comfortable charm"; "Hergé also had a great understanding of the mechanics of the comic strip, especially with pacing a story"; and also the De Gaulle quote at the end needs citation (or removal). Once these minor issues are addressed, I'll change to Keep. Andrew Levine 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the prose is in need of some work and polishing before closing: if the prose is improved, I'll vote Keep. Sandy 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Note on prose. I've started to look more closely, having ce'ed the intro. Run-on sentences is the first problem—if the subject of the sentence is artwork, don't introduce a clause on plotlines. There is also a bit of linguistic excess that tends toward fan-writing: "sophisticated satire" is more an encyclopedic than "dashes of sophisticated satire."
Two specific notes on the intro: I added a fact request for number of translations and I made the assumption that this was originally published in French. Hiding, please double-check.
It looks this is being re-engaged past deadline, but no worries I say, as long as it's being worked on. Marskell 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am back and I will now make a more thorough review. Generally, the article has improved, but I still don't think that it would pass if it was a FAC today. There are still a number of problems that does not fit the featured article criteria:

1a) There are problems with the prose as a couple of people have commented on.
1b) It is not comprehensive. There needs to be a complete publication history instead of the fragmented one in the overview section.
1c) There are entire sections that are unreferenced, such as "Stamps" and "Translation into English". Please find a reference for the Charles de Gaulle quote or loose it entirely.
1d) The article mentions criticism of the Tintin series, but fails to mention positive critical reactions. There is some mention of the success of the series in the lead, but this information is not found in the rest of the article.
3) The images Image:TintinCast.gif and Image:Tintinstamp.jpg needs fair use rationales.

With that said I think that the review should run as long as people are working on improving the article. --Maitch 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • People seem to have forgotten {{sofixit}}. The de Gaulle quote was so easy to cite, all you had to do was type it into google. The translation section is referenced, see the references section. Hiding Talk 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And no positive criticism? I'm at a loss as to what the legacy section is especially the quotes from Gravett, Horn and Serres. Hiding Talk 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have removed my 1D objection. I would like to say that I treat this review like a FAC, which seems to have tougher standards. I might have to losing up on those standards, but lets see. On another note, the reviewers of FA and the peer review process are not expected to do the work at all. I have actually made many edits to the article during the review process
  • Tentative keep (Note, having engaged this review, I won't be closing it). "Tentative" because I'm not completely finished my own copy-edit and because of some niggling concerns on 1c, but "keep" because I believe the larger issues from Maitch do not rise to removal:
    1a) As noted, prose is being addressed (by a few people, now).
    1b) This is quite comprehensive in terms of production, authorial intent and biography, coverage of major themes, and critical response. This has what I'd expect it to have. Full publication history is a good idea, but might actually over-burden the page. A sub-list with this and the list of adaptations might be appropriate.
    1c) I have placed a couple more fact tags myself. The info appears to be there, as they're generally quickly taken care of and there's a good variety amongst the already listed references.
    1d) No, critical praise is definitely mentioned. It's woven into the article throughout.
    3) Fair enough. Better rationale or other images would be good. Of the two, based on Wiki copy-tag wording, its actually the stamp that needs to go. Marskell 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Only two cite tags left, multiple editors actively working on improving the article, and several copy edits have improved the prose. Sandy 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please provide fair use rationales for images. Joelito (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Done. Yomanganitalk 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The unbelievable amount of work that Hiding and the other editors have put into this article has paid off. Thoroughly sourced, well-written and comprehensive. I've seen much worse make it through FAC. JimmyBlackwing 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do already notified. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Sandy 19:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was promoted in October 2003 during the "brilliant prose" days, and then nominated for FARC in July last year (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Bob Dylan) because of alleged comprehensiveness and POV issues. I can't comment on the former as I know little about Dylan, but I do think the article has major problems with regards to the latter. It contains a lot of weasel terms ("acclaimed as perhaps the best American concert film yet produced", "considered his finest album by many fans" etc.), and without inline citations they look rather POV. There are some citations in the sections for Dylan's later career, but several of the sentences without them ("Humor was a large part of Dylan's persona", etc.) looks like the author's own interpretations, which introduces original research issues. Several statements, such as "undeniably a fine interpreter of traditional songs", "A successful mix", "a highlight of the album", "accurately but prosaically titled" et al, are unquestionably POV. Extraordinary Machine 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted in the "Brilliant prose" days.[1] It has had somewhat of an unfortunate history for quite a while now. Jkelly 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the main problem with it is that it has only a few editors on it, and they butt heads over unimportant things (i can't deny I'm one of em.) They (we?) don't do much to improve its structure adn citing etc. SECProto 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that it is generous to call this article "stable" (criteria 2e), that it "article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". If the {{citation needed}}s stop being stripped out of the article, criteria 2c has a better chance of being met. Jkelly 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the big problem is that the article has been very short on hard facts and very long on opinions, with people edit warring to keep their own opinions in the article. I think the article would be much better if every opinion that wasn't validly cited to a published source was just deleted and the article rebuilt from that point. But if I was WP:BOLD enough to do that, the fighting would have been even worse. Even though I'd only be correcting under WP:V. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ex. Mach. has a continuing problem distinguishing Original Prose from Original Research. Most of JKelly's time goes to saving Wikimedia from phantom legal problems over Fair Use that have not and never will materialize. These two are now in control of the article because GWO doesn't touch it, I've sworn it off, and Monicasdude is gone (he had the potential to really help the article but squandered it by being dictatorial). The article had a very nice balance and tone back in the Brilliant Prose days, but it has taken many shots since then. It has always been rather weak in sourcing (mea culpa), and the breakout of the ref tag makes it look really bad compared to recent FAs. I'm sure it will improve in that department, but now that the article is in the hands of two guys who mainly function to strip away rather than build up, the future doesn't look bright. JDG 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's nice that you finally have a kind word for User:Monicasdude. I think that User:Roballyn's editing is proceeding to get some referencing done, which is a great response to this review. Jkelly 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
From the very start I complimented Mdude on his abilities. Thrice I offered the olive branch, thrice was I gruffly rejected. Mr. K, I just don't get your views. JDG 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can doubt MD's abilities, whether or not they argued with him (and many did). His Dylan ROIO site is quite superb. --kingboyk 16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The disruption in an otherwise fine article was done by one or two editors. They mis-used some guildelines. I meet this situation frequently. A method of handling an excessive use of the 'citation needed' tag is to point to the appropriate guideline and simply remove more than 2 or 3 such requests. Terryeo 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Where have you gotten this idea that it is not okay to ask for more than two or three citations? Jkelly 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is