Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ian Thorpe/archive1

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

The article was kept 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Ian Thorpe[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Original nominator aware. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian sports. Marskell 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the FAR page recommends a waiting period of 3 months before putting an FA up for review, I feel this page has two points that need to be addressed:

  1. There are no images of Thorpe's face. This is an article about a highly notable person, yet I have no idea what he looks like. This is acceptable for a subject that cannot possibly be photographed, such as God, but not for a legitimate biography. The only picture is one so specific that it cannot be used for any purpose other than to demonstrate Thorpe's overbalancing.
  2. The article is extremely long. The article failed a GA because it was too long, and that issue still hasn't been addressed. The article contains so much extraneous information that no one would ever need, such as Thorpe's mass as a baby.
Well it is sourced, and encyclopedic; but it does make the article too long. I think such facts should be taken out. -- Rmrfstar 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other minor issues still exist, such as the lack of explanation regarding overbalancing, and that the lead has far too many citations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Having an image is not a requisite of an FA. Joelito (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is criterion 3 of WP:FACR, and this is a biographical article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a picture, although not of his face? I don't think this matters. We don't have free pics of Julius Caesar. Only drawings. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the structure (or lack thereof) and the resulting TOC. I really don't mind the lack of a free picture: he's photographed at at least one website in the "external links". -- Rmrfstar 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the pre MArch 25 structure before it was on the main page. It may be better that way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did, and I think it's a bit better because it doesn't impose the redundant category of "biography" over his whole career history. But both versions could use some organization that breaks up the excess material into more managable chunks with nested topics where appropriate... -- Rmrfstar 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still believe that this is featured article quality. However, I do agree that there are some minor structural issues that could be addressed and solved. Does this need a FARC? No, in my opinion. Does this need some tweaking and discussion on the talk page? Yes. Daniel Bryant 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite frankly, I have never seen a featured article in such awful shape. The lack of photographs only serves to highlight the excessive length. The article is filled with detail that is not only beyond what an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to a biography) should be, it is also so heavily footnoted that I defy any reader to be able to sit down and actually read the entire thing at one sitting. I can't.
This article suffers from "featurism," a term I use to describe the process where writers go overboard to meet every single possible objection from those who comment on FACs. Such excessive sycophancy means qualities such as brevity, conciseness and overall good reading are sacrificed. In an insular process such as FAC, you get the same people making the same demands to the extent that any stylistic conceit is destroyed.
I'm appalled by the kitchen-sink nature of the footnotes (172! for a guy who hasn't hit 25 yet!). Where is the editorial discretion and parsimony if you have to footnote every web article you can find and add this to the article? This looks like an organized Google search with prose.
As to the lack of photos, with the high visibility Ian Thorpe has, wasn't there some way the authors could have requested donations from the multitude of fans out there who might have been at an event and taken a photo or two? Trust me, I have done this with a some of featured articles I authored and most folks you ask are delighted that you can use their photos to enhance the article. Alas, the insular nature of FAC and its demand for "no original research" wrongly militates against such requests even being considered. What a horrible, myopic view!
I want to be extremely clear about one thing: I do not fault the authors for these failings. They are writing the way they are being told to in order to get the Star. This is entirely a problem of process.
Due to these quality problems, this entry should certainly not be labeled "Featured Article." By the same token, the article should become the poster child for everything wrong with the Featured Article process. 67.149.103.119 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is the biography, and yet it's featured. This, in a biographical article, would be the same as a featured book article consisting only of a detailed synopsis of the book. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the massive blob of prose is not particularly well written. Take this sentence as an example: Thorpe promptly donated his A$25,000 bonus for being the first person to break a world record in the pool to charity. I had to read that three times to understand what it meant, and it doesn't even specify to which charity the donation was made. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a newcomer to WP:FAR. I have just started weighing in at WP:FAC recently. Mostly, I contest citations on sports articles. I think in general we could do better in this area for sports claims, especially over the last 10 or 15 years where things are easily found on the internet. WRT Thorpe, I have several unsourced claims that I would contest. These are for claims up to 1998 in the article:
    "the youngest ever Pan Pacific medalist"
    "Thorpe went into the 400 m final ranked fourth in the world,"
    "Thorpe's improvement continued when he defeated world champion Klim in the 200 m freestyle in 1 min 47.24 s,"
    "He then claimed the 400 m freestyle title from Hackett and clocked 50.36 s in the 100 m freestyle."
    "Thorpe's first event was the 200 m freestyle, where he led throughout to record a time of 1 min 46.70 s, just one hundredth outside Giorgio Lamberti's world record."
    "Thorpe's run ended when a personal best of 50.21 s in the 100 m freestyle was only sufficient for fourth place, but he returned to victory with the 4 × 100 m freestyle relay team."
    "Thorpe left school at the end of year after completing Year 10."
    "His decision caused consternation amongst those who believed that concentrating on swimming alone would be detrimental, with Stephen Holland stating "If this kid just does swimming and nothing else, he won't last beyond the Sydney Olympics"."
    "Holland himself had broken world records since the age of 15 and was expected to win the 1500 m freestyle at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, but retired from the sport in despair after concentrating only on swimming and failing to win."
    "Thorpe disagreed, pointing to his informal search for knowledge using books and the internet, stating that "Swimming is a small part of my life"."
    "He eventually sat for his School Certificate on a flight to a FINA World Cup meet in 1999, meticulously supervised by former school teacher and Australian head coach Don Talbot." TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the book. It's all in the same chapter. I do not need to cite the same thing 100 times. It is all covered by the book ref noted at the end of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the contrasting views above. One person says the article is footnoted to death; another has listed ten statements that he would like to see cited. This, in an article containing an astounding 200 inline citations. This is a fine example of "inline citations don't solve all our problems". So, either we begin to cite every sentence, or we reconstrue the problem. –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that internet era biographies should be quite heavily cited. It sounds astoundingly ridiculous, but articles like Thorpe could approach 1000 citation before citing all easily verified claims. The point is not whether the editor included a lot of citations, made a lot of edits, or worked hard. None of those points is contested. The point here is the 2nd and 3rd sentences at WP:V, which read
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the contrasting views above. One person says the article is footnoted to death; another has listed ten statements that he would like to see cited. This, in an article containing an astounding 200 inline citations. This is a fine example of "inline citations don't solve all our problems". So, either we begin to cite every sentence, or we reconstrue the problem. –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, a well-written encyclopedia entry should provide links to only the most relevant of information, including - but especially - quotations. The minutae people can take at face value and, if the article is seen as put together well, they will. Please don't forget as well that the article contains links to other articles within Wikipedia. People wanting more information about Olympic rules can look at the number of these other articles and find additional authority there. Or Google it. Also, there are often multiple footnotes(up to four) on who won what race. Who needs more than one, especially since they all say the same thing? One thing you always want to remember is this: the people on FAC who you are trying to go through the article to identify where more and more links should be placed are not the people you are trying to attract (and recall that most of those that vote support or oppose have, bizarrely, never even written a Featured Article). Your audience is the people who do go through to learn a little more about the athlete, check to see if their recollection about a particular outcome is correct, or in general find out what the athlete has been doing lately. 67.149.103.119 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd add after looking at the above request for ten more citations. IMHO, the person making this request for ten more citations wouldn't know what to do with them if he had them. As far as I can tell, he's simply trying to show his value to the discussion by picking out stuff 1) he found and we didn't and 2) the readers won't care about. (If they did care, why didn't anyone insert a cite when it was on the main page for 24 hours and hundreds of thousands were digging through it?) We're writing articles here. A good article where the author took the time to write well will be researched well and relied upon by others. You don't have to link to a weather report because your article says it was sunny. 67.149.103.119 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is reffed. I have seen things pas FAC recently where some things are not baked up by the refs in the same paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add 2 things. I am not asking for 10 new citations. It is likely that many sentences are all backed up by a single reference later in a paragraph. It is not cited clearly however. Dearest 67.149.103.119, I am not showing off or something. I know what to do with citations. Look at my user page and you will see a lot of good well cited work. My main point with the citations is seen by my edits to Barry Bonds. I have been citing his 2007 season the way an internet generation accomplishment should be cited. I just feel that athletic accomplishment that are easily referenced over the internet should be cited like I am doing with Bond's 2007 season. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment Well Tony's citation requirements have been disputed in many FAC's and elsewhere recently. Work is going nicely, it still needs to be cut a little further I would cut some of the descriptions of the events in between the Olympics. On a different topic what's with all the sections in this FAR? It's getting a little confusing. I was almost ready to start a new section just to post a comment. Quadzilla99 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have been convinced that I should tone down my request for expanded citation by Blnguyen. I am doing so for several reason:
  1. I am not an expert on swimming and thus can not compare the ease of citing it with the ease of citing the major sports with internet resources for accomplishments over the last ten years.
  2. Thorpe is an Australian athlete and again I am not familiar with the ease of citing such athletes via the web.
  3. This is my first FAR participation, and I am aware I might be better using different standards at FAR than I use at FAC although theoretically WP:WIAFA should apply to both.
  4. The article seems to be highly print sourced. In particular the sequences of sentences that I note above seem to be commonly sourced.
  5. This FAR seems to have more important concerns.
  6. Its be nice to Quadzilla99 day. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The dread print sources here are Hunter, Greg (2004). Ian Thorpe: The Biography. Sydney: MacMillan, 404. ISBN 1-4050-3632-X. Andrews, Malcolm (June 2000). Australia at the Olympics. ABC Books. ISBN 0-7333-0884-8. Talbot, Don; Ian Heads, Kevin Berry (2003). Talbot: Nothing But the Best. Lothian. ISBN 0-7344-0512-X.
  • Two biographies, and a history of the 2000 Olympics, all by respectable commercial publishers. This is, in general, better sourcing than the web, even the Sydney Morning Herald, can be expected to provide. Inter-Library Loan is recommended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to make more specific citation requests later or at FARC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently Ian Thorpe started a charity called Foundation for Youth. Even a thorough reader probably would not learn this from the article. It is mentioned only twice: Once in Personal life, in which the name of the charity is misspelled, and once in the external links. Shouldn't this have a good chunk of prose devoted to it? Shouldn't this have its own section? This is a perfect example of how the article is just a disorganized play-by-play recap of his career without any pertinent information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because if we described the charity in minute detail, it could be construed as fancruft. Although the thing bears his name, he doesn't run it on a day to day basis, so it is mostly patron work and naming rights. It certainly is less prominent than the number of times he has criticised WADA officials. So I don't think we should add more PR type fluffery about the statistics etc of this thing in great detail. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt people will think a charity section is fancruft. I learned more about the charity from the above paragraph than I did from the article. The article tends to flow like this: Major swim meet! Thorpe breaks records! Thorpe swims great, but doesn't break a record! Sneak in little factoids about his life outside of swimming. And then on to the next paragraph for the same thing. I find it repetitive and poorly structured. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we must adhere to the undue weight clause in NPOV. If you do a google search for the Fountain for Yourh, almost all the hits are to his own website and that of associated charity alliances, so in the eyes of independent third parties, the other stuff like his business interests are more notable among independent observers. As I pointed out before, he is mostly a figurehead, unlike the other stuff, where he is treated as a pop-star and mobbed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the criticisms above, I move to Delist this article. -- Rmrfstar 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is FAR we don't vote yet, that occurs in FARC. Quadzilla99 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The size does need trimming, 55 kb of prose is too much for any athlete. I'm fine with everything else, citations are fine with me, layout is fine, I'll try to see if I can find some pics for the article I'm pretty solid at that. Maybe I can help out in that in regard. Quadzilla99 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checking[edit]
  • From Retirement: He was known for his trademark six-beat kick to power away to victory in the closing stages of races, attributed to his unusually large size 17 feet.[22] Source 22 does not mention his six-beat kick, nor does it attribute his endgame power to his size 17 feet.
    • Comment interfere Fixed this as well. The new article mentions the six beat kick, and says that the finishing burst is due to a six beat kick, which it attributes to his physical gifts - earlier it refers to his "flippers", so there is no doubt that the writer means his large feet. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics: An attempted appeal, asserting that a noise had caused him to make his mistake, was dismissed, ending his chance to defend the 400 m Olympic title. This prompted widespread debate, with former swimmer Shane Gould asserting that the selection policy should be relaxed to maximise Australia's chances by selecting Thorpe, whilst Talbot, head coach Leigh Nugent and Kieren Perkins defended the selection policy. Public debate was also widespread, with Prime Minister of Australia John Howard describing the situation as a "tragedy".[114][115] Source 114 is an article from 2002 dicussing Thorpe's sexuality. Source 115 is relevant. Neither source mentions Prime Minister Howard or coach Leigh Nugent.
    • Comment interfere The book reference covers things in more detail than the webrefs. As below, the book ref at the end of para explains things. Do you want me to put it multiple times throughout the paragraph? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Personal life: Known for his long-standing interest in fashion, he serves as an ambassador for Armani,[12] Source 12 is a summary of his career, with no mention of fashion or of Armani.
    • Comment interfere sorry I mixed up the weblink, I put it as "dyk" but it wasn't linked to the dyk article. It is now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From '2002 Commonwealth...: Australia subsequently won the relay, with Thorpe overtaking Jason Lezak in the last 50 m as he had done at the previous Pan Pacific Championships in 1999.[94] Source 94 is about that event, but does not mention Lezak, the last 50 meters, or the 1999 event.
    • Comment interfere The book reference covers things in more detail than the webrefs. The section in the book which I only mentioned at the end of the paragraph covers everything more thoroughly than the Swiminfo. User:Taxman raised some concerns about relying on one ref, so I added webrefs for the individual reports. The chunk from Hunter at the end of the para mops up what is not covered by the rest of the webrefs. Do you want me to to add accompanying Hunter refs multiple times to accompany all the swiminfo refs so that it is replicated 5/6 times per paragraph to fully verify each sentence? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics: Having achieved what had eluded him four years earlier, Thorpe showed more emotion, immediately tearing off his cap, punching the air and screaming.[127] Source 127 does not mention Thorpe's emotional state after the event, though it does have a picture of him with his arm extended.
  • Reference 52 is broken.
  • Reference 6 is incomplete.
    • Comment interfere It was accidentally deleted after the original FAC. But it has been dealt with and is redundant.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of National Debut is not referenced.
    • Comment interfere That's because at some point after the FAC, someone cut the paras in half, likely when many people edited it while it was on the main page. I have simply duplicated it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of 2001 World Aquatics... is referenced only with reference 79, which simply does not adequately cover the entire paragraph.
        • Comment interfere I don't believe there is a paragraph with only one refrence. If you mean the bit about adding the 800m to his repertoire, it's not in the webref, but if people want, I can repaste the Hunter chapter five times within the paragraph instead of leaving it to the end. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First 10 sentences of 2003 World Aquatics... contains only one citation, reference 100, which does not even mention Thorpe. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
    • Comment interfere Per above, the Hunter book covers all of this. Should I repaste it a few times?Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "2004 Summer Olympics" cite has the right title, and presumably publication info, but the link is wrong. This link confirms the article, although published elsewhere. [1] Source 115 appears to be supporting the idea that public debate was widespread.
The "Personal life" cite is titled "Did you know", and sure enough, there's a little sidebar called "Did you know" containing the referenced fact. [2]
I'm not defending the article—Just Sayin'. –Outriggr § 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the sources should be cited properly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source" and talks about people's opinions etc. I have done this. WP:CITE does not say that I have to put in the same source multiple times in the same paragraph, but I can do so if you really need this. I don't read anything there to mandate anything about how many times I have to place the source in each time. Everything is sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From User_talk:Blnguyen
I tend to agree, that WP:CITE does allow for one citation at the final sentence to cover an entire paragraph and the reader who wants to challenge such a citation really needs to read the reference provided before they can argue the toss.Garrie 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prose issues[edit]
  • From Early Life: he once topped the season's batting averages in the latter stages of his career ahead of former Australian captain. does not make sense.
    • Comment interfere - Someone broke this sentence in the feeding frenzy when it was on the main page, fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From National Debut: Thorpe continued his good form at the National Age Championships a fortnight later fortnight is not a standard unit.
  • From 1998 World Aquatics...: after his sister Christina's brother-in-law to be became gravely ill with the disease. does this person not have a name?
  • From 1998 Commonwealth Games: Thorpe accelerated past Klim in the last 50 m to post a time that was more than a second faster than his effort in Perth. was Thorpe actually accelerating, or was he just going faster than Klim?
  • From 1998 Commonwealth Games: just 0.55 s slower than Kieren Perkins' 1994 mark (regarded by some as the greatest swim in history). blatant weaselry. who thinks Perkins' swim was the greatest ever?
    • Comment interfere - Removed not necessary, since some computer ruled that Thorpe's new record was statistically the best. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1999 Pan Pacific...: where Thorpe broke Lamberti's nine-year-old world record in the 200 m freestyle, the oldest world record. was it the oldest (unbroken) world record, or the oldest (unbroken) swimming world record?
    • Comment interfere - Of course it is swimming. Is anybody going to think it was freestyle wrestling? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they're not going to be that stupid, but they might assume it was the longest standing world record, encompassing all activities. When I read it, I thought There was no world record of any type that was longer-standing than this one. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2000 Olympic Buildup: Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, no successful test for hGh was found. Clarify the meaning: (A)Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, there was no reliable test for hGh. (B)Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, Thorpe did not test positive for hGh.
  • From 2001 World Aquatics...: Thorpe arrived in Fukuoka under immense pressure, having been chosen by broadcaster TV Asahi as the marketing drawcard of the event with his face visible throughout the country. What?
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics...: In late March 2004 at the Australian Championships in Sydney, Thorpe lined up in the heats of the 400 m freestyle, but overbalanced whilst on the blocks and fell into the water, resulting in his disqualification. What is overbalancing? Is it rare, or fairly common? Is it an amateur mistake, or do professionals do it too? There is no article about it, and the source - reference 8 - does not elaborate on it, either.--Cryptic C62 · Talk
    • Comment interfere - Overbalancing refers to bending over too far and falling over? It's a common term not a technical one. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never heard the term, and that still doesn't answer the questions. If I'm curious about overbalancing, then surely others will be. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures[edit]

I believe that the article is valid as far as picture goes, because as the FA criteria asks, it has a picture relevant to the subject. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, hence the information is the most important thing. If you really want a picture, there is a link to some popups here, with pictures of him launching his fashion label and drink label, in case that can be passed off as a "historical event". Of course someone could say, well, that's what he would look like when he is wearing his underwear, but I personally came here to get info, not pictures. WP isn't a picture book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree. The major concern I saw was the size and the work that has been done to address that thus far has been commendable. This should even be able to avoid FARC. Quadzilla99 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but I personally came here to get info, not pictures". Well, if we're going to make this about what people want, here's a list of people who want more pictures:

  • Parthi commented "It needs more pictures to break up the monotony" in the FAC.
  • Mercenary2k commented "Need a better picture of Ian Thorpe as his face is covered with water" on the FAC. The image was replaced, and that image has since been removed.
  • Chickenfeed9 commented that the article "looks very bland without (images)" on the talk page.
  • Modest Genius sardonically commented "the only picture left in the article itself is of him falling over" on the talk page.
  • Cryptic C62 repeatedly commented that the article "is extremely long and boring without pictures" on the FAR.

Let's be honest. You (blnguyen) are attempting to defend the article's lack of pictures because you can't find a way to slip copyrighted images past the Free Use police. You wish the article had more pictures. Also, if you came here to "get info, not pictures" then why does Wikipedia have Featured Images? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I managed to convince a flickr user to share a pic it could be cropped and used in the infobox. It's already been approved over at Commons, I just have to crop it and install it. Here's the pic, not great but will have to do. Quadzilla99 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update[edit]
  • Length - Is now 88k (was 105k), about a 17% pruning
  • Sectioning - I have cut the chronology into three main phases, teh early international career, the peak phase, and the not so good phase after he changed coaches and put a small overview of the phases at the start.
  • Citations - I believe it was fine as beforehand, and the few broken links have been fixed. Everything in a given paragragh is cited, if not full in the web-refs, then in the more detailed book ref at the bottom of each paragraph
  • Image - Noted above. If anybody is desperate, then try passing off the fashion launh as a "historical event" Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose - Errors fixed accordingly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity's sake, prose has been cut from 55 kb to 43 kb. Although it's 86kb total only 43 kb is prose. I'd think a little more could still be cut though personally. Quadzilla99 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's safely in the prose limit now. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess we'll have to see what others say, I'd be neutral if FARC were now (which I know it's not), but I'd be leaning toward keeping. If we could cut a little more and get a pic we could avoid FARC altogether. Of course let's see what others say. Quadzilla99 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did this article *really* come to FAR because of 55KB prose and one image, or were there other issues? (B movie had 86KB prose.) There's a lot of confusion, arm waving and teen gnashing going on above (can any of us read without font changes, check marks, and sections which are taking over FAC and FAR these days?); Quadz, can you summarize the perceived issues ? I just checked the prose size, and it's fine. Don't know why there's no image. References are fine. Someone should resolve the image situation, and then tell us (without creating ten more sections) why this is at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you why. The article is on FAR because it's extremely long, estremely boring, not particularly well-written, and provides nothing more than a moment-by-moment replay of Thorpe's career with just occasional snippets into other aspects of his life. Just about the entire article could be schlorbed into a table of events and times, as that's just about all the article provides. I ask you if you have ever seen a featured article with the following structure:
    • Major Swim Meet #1: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Major Swim Meet #2: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Major Swim Meet #n: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Foundation for Youth: Oh wait, this section doesn't exist. In fact, searching for 'foundation' with Ctrl+F yields two hits for Fred Hollows Foundation and one for Wikimedia Foundation.

Obviously, the answer is no. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the review reads to me as if you're bugged because there's few Fair Use pictures. If there are none, there are none; we don't judge articles based only on whether there are entertaining pictures (that would be a children's book). The last time I came across you and Rmrfstar working together, it was to upload *seriously* copyrighted pictures with incorrect Fair Use tags, so I'm wondering if you're not overly steamed about the images issue. I'm interested in hearing from seasoned reviewers (like Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Quadz) about the article issues, so I don't have to read through all that arm waving above. Tony1 had objections when the article passed FAC; he should look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left Tony a note; he's on light duty til May 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bringing up legitimate prose issues as it seems they are being fixed rather well, but most of the rest of this reads like griping, and not usefully. I mean come on, no picture of his face? If there's no quality free image, there's not free image, so what. That's just not a legitimate reason to bring a FAR and certainly not a reason to rush one. Generally the article is in decent shape. - Taxman Talk 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I worked with a flickr user and got him to share a passable pic, it's in there. It's not great but it should be acceptable, so that's no longer an issue. Except for maybe some prose issues I don't see much left personally. Quadzilla99 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3), length (4), citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only remaining concern is slight length issues but these aren't enough for removal to me. Quadzilla99 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per:
    • Unencyclopedic tone, such as "ball skills" and "topsy-turvy"
    • Awkward prose, such as "He was again named as Australian Swimmer of the Year, jointly with Hackett."
    • No mention of Foundation for Youth --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Foundation for Youth doesn't exist. Skjdf304 03:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops. I guess it's called Fountain for Youth. It is mentioned once in the prose and in the external links, which I feel is insufficient for a charity named after the man.
  • Keep Length issues can sometimes be problematic, but I don't think they're too much of a problem here. Cryptic C62's concerns are acknowledged, but aside from some minor tone and prose issues (which can be quickly fixed), I don't think it is necessary to delist this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been watching this review for a few weeks now but not had anything much to say that wasn't already being said. I just re-read the article from top to bottom after having also done so when it went to the main-page a few months back. I feel that the concerns have now been adequately dealt with and whatever is left is trivial and overstated. This article should not be delisted. —Moondyne 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nishkid - there's scope for improvement(as with any article) but this is easily FA material. Sarvagnya 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is major surgery where an aspirin would have sufficed. -- Y not? 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it's FA standard now that there has been a lot of work done to it. Cryptic had a point to start with that this needed work, but it no longer requires anything to maintain FA anymore, and he should stop with the constant griping and acknowledge it as such. Per Taxman on May 4, as well. Daniel Bryant 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nishkid. This is good FA material.Dineshkannambadi 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nishkid and Moondyne summarised it perfectly. GizzaChat © 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ian_Thorpe/archive1&oldid=1138477162"