Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2006

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for April 2006. For the list of previous archives, click here. For archives under the new Featured article review process see here.

Kept status

Windows XP

Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Windows XP/archive1.

Article is still a Featured article.

This article is clearly very incomplete. Among the biggest issues discussed in developer circles is the new TCP/IP connection limit per application. This is mentioned no-where in the article. I want to know (1) what the limit is, (2) why the limit is there and why Windows 2000 doesn't have it, (3) what a user can do about it, including whether Windows Vista will have the limit, and (4) what its impact was, i.e. the main problems it caused in existing and future applications. — I'm sure there are other, perhaps even greater controversies that I don't know about; as long as these are missing from the article, it must not be featured. — Timwi 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears the article was nominated for removal before - Windows XP removal candidate discussion. Looking at the thread, I find a vast majority of remove votes, and yet the article was kept, supposedly for lack of consensus. That's odd and needs to be re-examined. — Timwi 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• A "vast majority"? I make it 7 for "remove" and 7 for "keep". -- ALoan (Talk) 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree that the article is "very incomplete" - the only omission you mention is "the new TCP/IP connection limit per application", and that seems neither very crucial to the article nor very difficult to add if you wanted. "I'm sure there are other, perhaps even greater controversies that I don't know about" - this is hardly a reason to criticize an article. "It appears the article was nominated for removal before" - and the decision was to keep the article, and the article has been improved since then. Your nomination to remove the FA status of this article seems somewhat groundless. - Brian Kendig 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've resolved the only actionable part of the original complaint by adding this text to the article: In an effort to slow down the rate at which malicious programs can spread to uninfected computers, Service Pack 2 lowered the limit on outgoing TCP/IP connection attempts from 65,535 to 10. [1] There can be no more than this many incomplete outgoing connections being attempted at any one time; additional connection attempts will be queued. This limit can adversely affect legitimate software such as peer-to-peer applications. The "tcpip.sys" system file can be edited to raise the limit to its former value. [2] - Brian Kendig 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator should have given this article sufficient time to address the issues. From what I see, it was put up for FARC before the issue was raised on the talk page. The nominator also put out-dated link to the FARC. I will give my review once sufficent time has elapsed and the article has had sufficient time to correct itself as I find it premature to discuss it now. I would suggest the editors to address the concerns raised by the nominator ASAP. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination—No notice was given on the talk page. This nomination should be removed so that the prescribed process can be pursued. Tony 11:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination. The article definitely needs some touch-up work (Wikipedia:Peer review could be a way to go here), but nominating an article for FA removal on the basis that it's missing an esoteric piece of information is in contravention of Wikipedia:What is a featured article?'s fifth attribute: "... tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Warrens 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I dislike Microsoft, & I only use Winders because my job requires it (I'm contracting at that well-known CPU manufacturer), but I find it hard to see just how this article could be improved upon -- unless Microsoft is willing to allow its developers to discuss operating system theory. Yes, the "TCP/IP connection limit" issue should be mentioned, but I honestly can't think of any other issues unique to this OS that has been omitted. (Although I have long suspected that it's called "XP" because extreme programming, aka XP, was a hot new fad at the time this version of Windows was begin developed -- & only later did someone outside of marketing actually to a hard look at what "XP" meant.) -- llywrch 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article is very good - I'd like to see the TCP/IP stack stuff as well but (It is in there now... awesome!) basically every general point about XP is covered very well in this article and subarticles. More importantly it is free of the POV and other issues that often plague these types of articles. It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am taking down this nomination as invalid: beyond the issue which has already been addressed, the nomination is not actionable (it is based on "perhaps even greater controversies that I don't know about") and the nominator did not allow a chance for the issues to be discussed on the article's Talk page before nominating this article. - Brian Kendig 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Quantum computer

Article is still a Featured article.

A request for references was made back in April 2005, under this version. Since then there has been little to no improvement in that field. Just like in April 2005, there are a plethora of books and links in the further information section, but those are not references. A topic as foreign to most people as this one should be much better referenced. This article was promoted to FA under now outdated January 2004 standards. joturner 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not able to analyze this in its specifics, but looking at it generally I don't think we should rush to de-feature. There is indeed a plethora of books and links in the ref section, so I have some confidence the page is factually accurate and comprehensive. The intro is a good length and the body is OK, if a little over-technical. Not brilliant but "well written" enough. Perhaps go hunting for individual editors, via its history or that of related pages. I think this keepable if you find one or two people. Marskell 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that in the article's current state it is only readable by specialists in physics and information theory. This is not helped by the article's bias toward NMR quantum computing, which has features which make it more complex than other implementations. I would move to de-feature this article until it is cleaned up. That said, I will work to add some references to this article in coming weeks. Bjohnson00 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Miami, Florida

Article is still a Featured article.

I am a experinced editor who just created a account and I would like for History of Miami, Florida to be removed as a featured article. It needs a copyediting and has a couple of cite needed in the article on information I can't find in the web. This is a FA on it's worse. Thanks --JuicyloveMiami 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• January 2006 FAC
• No request for citations or copyedit
• Comment: Juicy, if you're going to criticise the prose of the article, please fix your own before you press the 'save page' button. Tony 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I completely disagree. Plus, if you cannot find the citations, please point them out on the talk page and I'm sure someone will correct them. Oh, and you can be free to copyedit as well. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep not a important reason for removal --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY SPEEDY KEEP Since when have a few missing citations and copyediting been reasons to removed an article from FA? For example, Columbine High School massacre has had 12 citations added to it since it received FA status and it has been copyedited various times, including having information added in over the last seven months its been up. If you have a problem with citations or can't find them yourself, mention what they are on the article talk page and someone will work on adding them or will reword the paragraph/sentences. As for copyediting, that can be done easily without having to have the article removed. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above PDXblazers 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep perhaps it should go if no one intends to work on it. For now, I agree it should be kept. Point out the need to cite extra references to relevant editors and it should be shiny again pretty soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments about, especially the shiny one.--Alabamaboy 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I did some more copyediting. AndyZ _t 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove—2a. Have a look at the opening; if this remains a FA, it's an embarrassment to WP:

The area in which the city of Miami, Florida would later be founded by Europeans was previously inhabited for more than a thousand years by the Tequesta Indians. Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and his men first visited and claimed the area around Miami, Florida for Spain in 1566. A Spanish mission was begun one year later. Fort Dallas was built in the mid-1800's and subsequently the area became a site of fighting during the Second Seminole War.

• • 'previously' and 'later' in the same expression?
  • 'begun' should be 'established'.
  • 1800's—ouch, no apostrophe.
  • Remove 'the area'. And shouldn't 'became' be just 'was'?

Tony 15:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the apostrophe is fine. This is not a sure thing. Some grammars (the one I teach from, for instance) and some professional style sheets (New York Times, for instance) insist on the apostrophe, and some (AP, for instance) don't. It's not a FARCing matter, really, although the other concerns are valid. (Well, actually, "begun" to "established" isn't a big one. It's more that the opening sentence is tortorous, with misplaced modifiers and referents far too far from their modifiers.) Geogre 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that these specific comments mentioned above have been fixed; as this article could use some more copyediting, I will be working on the article more to fix up the issues. Thanks; AndyZ _t 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

When should you put an apostrophe in in dates and when shouldn't you then? Skinnyweed 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The apostrophe should never be there. If the New York Times really puts apostrophes in their years, they ought to be censured. Unless you're talking about something like 1990's best movie or 600's most famous character it should never be there. The apostrophe indicates possession and contractions; never plurality. I commend Wikipedia for sticking to that. In this article that can easily be rectified and therefore no FARC was necessary here. joturner 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles that need correction of one typo fall under {{sofixit}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we know about the NY Times; their house style on this point is regarded with amusement by most writers. Aside from the one or two US authorities who still suggest using the apostrophe (and the many that say not to), what possible advantage does it have? Reserving apostrophes for the possessive has the advantages of simplicity, consistency and logic. Tony 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are "most writers?" Can you cite? There is a distinct advantage to the apostrophe. When is something IGFBPS and IGFBP-es? When is it SoS-7s vs. SoS-7S? The apostrophe indicates the contraction of a letter. The proper plural of a number or acronym would be -es. Because the /e/ is elided in the plural marker, an apostrophe indicates the elision. Additionally, the apostrophe indicates the end of the letters in an acronymn and the numbers. So, Tony, that is the advantage. Using them only for genitives is a monstrous simple mindedness that no one has yet proposed, as they're still used for contractions as well. Geogre 21:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is very good and thre is no reason to removal. Carioca 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This issues mentioned could very easily be rectified. joturner 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tobyk777 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 03:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not a stong case for removing it. Cvene64 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep consense is to keep Zginder 18:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Minor issues don't require FARC procedure. {{sofixit}} is most apt. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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 nomination was procedurally closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

---

India

Notified: WP:India

I am nominating this featured article for review because multiple edits on the talk page raised various concerns regarding the FA of this article. This article was made FA almost 8 years ago, back in 2011. There are multiple issues with the article:

• The data on the economics section is out of date.
• Edit warring.
• Poor images, with captions that are not related to the section.
• History data has not been updated with the latest information.
• Use of FA status as a basis to resist and undermine efforts to improve and update the content.
• FA became a personal project of one/few Wikipedians on the article.
• Majority of the editors on the current India talk page agree, FA should be removed.
• Dispute regarding realism versus airbrushing in images.
• Economics data is completely wrong.
• The FA is old, needs review. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

user:Highpeaks35 is a new, and somewhat tendentious, editor. He doesn't know what an FAR involves. Moreover, the information he has given above is false. India became an FA in 2004, has remained one since, having gone through a drastic revision during a successful FAR in 2011. There wasn't much wrong with the article (in terms of meeting the featured article criteria) until he himself began to randomly, and and prolifically, add text and images a few weeks ago. When his effort was stopped, and the article restored to its original form, in which it sits locked now, he struck upon this FAR idea, although it was being discussed on the talk page as an option if editors such as he could not be stopped. He thinks an FAR will allow him to restore his edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no dog in this race, and just wanted to mention that the article is currently was under full edit protection due to edit warring. Also, just wanted to highlight the FAR requirement about criteria and remedies, to wit: Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. A statement such as "the economic data is completely wrong" is too vague to be useful, nor is a remedy proposed; other bullets suffer from the same symptoms. As this FAR was created within the hour, I assume the nominator is still gathering information to fulfill this requirement, and will be updating the request accordingly in due course. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment @ OP:- Can you list out all the changes that you &/ KingZebu wish to see in the article (including but not limited to replacement of pictures); preferably at some subpage; with the reason(s) behind each change? Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 09:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am very sceptical of using low-scale edit-warring as a weapon to de-GA/FA a subject; given the potential for gaming the system and esp. given that you are not much innocent.
• Furthermore, I don't see the claimed majority of editors; who supposedly agree about de-FAing.
• Also, it's quite common to rigorously vet one's edits prior to incorporation in a FA, esp. in sensitive articles. ∯WBG^converse 09:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I am not an editor who falls in this invisible majority . This seems to be two editors crusade against consensus. Regards. — fr ⁺ 10:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• A number of the OP's comments are difficult to understand (What does "FA became a personal project of one/few Wikipedians on the article" mean?) and others are unsupported by evidence (I do not see where a majority on the talk page has supported the removal of FA status). Furthermore, opposition to FA status needs to be based on evidence-based evaluations of the article relative to the FA criteria. At the moment, I don't see an argument to remove FA status. There are a couple of areas which could use work, sure; any article gets out of date. The "Ancient India" section should acknowledge, for instance, that the Madrassian culture was not that of anatomically modern human beings; the biodiversity sections should rely on scholarly sources rather than government ones; there's a minor tendency towards recentism in the politics section, where Kovind is the only president mentioned, and in the military section, where recent budgets get undue mention; state reorganizations since 1956 probably deserve mention; the socio-economic challenges section could use some expansion, as could the culture section (although I am not an expert on literature on Indian culture, and I am not listing that point as one that needs to be addressed to retain FA status). But these are issues that could be addressed in a few days by a determined editor who knew what they were about. A persistent failure to fix these would be the only reason to revoke FA status here. Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamone93: The Madrasian bit was added recently without any discussion. I have removed it. I rewrote the history, geography, and biodiversity (all except the last paragraph with has the government sources) sections in 2011. I will certainly take another look at those sections. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, F&F. I was hoping you would volunteer to do that, but I didn't feel like dumping it on you. Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit unsure why these comments are happening in an archive page but, hey, here goes: aside from being a grossly malformed opening statement by Highpeaks35, this looks like little more than an attempt to game the system because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Some of the claims of Highpeaks35 above seem disingenuous, to say the least; for example, the edit warring was effectively initiated by Highpeaks35 and King Zebu, who seem not to understand how to deal with FAs, and I can't see much to substantiate the claim of a majority.

It seems plain wrong to respond to being reverted by instigating a review of the entire article. Vanamonde has it about right: people should be reviewing in the light of possible updating of certain elements but the core of the thing, and the majority of it, remains valid, well written, well sourced, neutral and comprehensive. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural close requested – In my opinion, and echoing Sitush and others above, this FAR is both fatally flawed in form, as well as of suspect motivation. I would like to request that the featured article removal coordinators, Nikkimaria and others, close this discussion without prejudice, so that a properly formatted FAR may be reopened if desired by anyone, without a waiting period following the closure of this one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Coordinator note As other editors have noted, FAR is not intended for dispute resolution, but to address deficiencies with regards to the FA criteria; most of the comments made thus far fall into the former rather than the latter camp. Thus I'm going to proceed with the request for a procedural close. I'd invite interested editors to pursue dispute resolution as necessary to address points of disagreement. Once that is done, if issues are felt to persist, a more collaborative and WIAFA-focused FAR may be created. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

People's Republic of China

Article is still a featured article.

This article was featured a long time ago and over time it has lost out on the quality that contemporary FAs have. I had put up a notice on the talk page of the article last month but nobody seems interested in fixing my comments.

Not only are your comments vague and generalized, they are also biased (see the India, Australia argument in the PRC talk page). You have chosen to ignore other users' comments and acted unilaterally here. You have also made zero contribution to the PRC article yourself and only care to see the article be removed from feature status. Naus 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If my comments are not fixed, I would certainly be gratified to have a mediocre article delisted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? You are NOT the sole arbitrator of this discussion. Is that clear? It is YOUR OPINION that the article is "mediocre." Many of your comments are invalid and purely subjective (such as "overwhelming ToC" or "prose not 'brilliant'"). Nishishei 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to shout to threaten me. I am not or have never claimed to be the sole arbitrator. Please note the person who decides to close this discussion is more likely to take into account constructive oppose votes by editors who are familiar with featured standards over plain jingoistic "keeps". I'm certainly not the one losing sleep here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are not all valid nor objective, and highly subject to discussion. We are not obligated to fulfill every single point of your comments as you seem to imply. If my comments sound threatening, I apologize, but the atmosphere of threats and condescension was initiated by you (as can be verified by other users like Sumple) and you have clearly demonstrated an absolute disregard for the opposing opinions of others. The Keep votes' comments have been very constructive and many of the Keep voters have been contributing and editing the article as we speak here. If anyone is "jingoistic," uncontributive and adamant, it is you. Nishishei 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have matched my comments as per WP:WIAFA, so are very much valid. You fail to provide a reason otherwise. I don't ned to repeat it once again. WRT: threats and condescension was initiated by you.. I'm sorry to shatter the above statement, but the first instance of hostility on this page was: Nichalp is biased as evidenced in his or her continued argument and if I recall correctly, you attacked my background You are from India and obviously biased on the PRC talk page. Those who voted to keep the article obviously do care to maintain its status, so no surprises here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is hostile about "Nichalp is biased as evidenced in his or her continued argument"? You *did* persistently present the argument concerned, and that persistence *is* evidence of your bias. As to the first instance of hostility, that was you attacking other users in a condescending tone, e.g. Since you are unfamiliar to the standards [sic], That's sheer ignorance , etc. --Sumple (Talk) 02:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

(From WP:WIAFA)

• Does not meet criteria 1.: (best work): Compare with Australia, India etc.
• 2a -- Prose is not "brilliant" -- though brilliant might be a subjective: eg: The PRC is home to over 1.3 billion people, which makes it the most populous country in the world.; jumpstarting China's development and purifying its culture;
• 2c -- Few inline references present to verify claims, just 2 references listed in the ==References= section. Text sprinkled with weasel terms and POV statements: (More nuanced arguments claim that...; Many in China appear to appreciate the role )
• Does not meet 3): ie conform to the Wikipedia:WikiProject countries
• 3c) -- It has an overwhelming ToC
• 4) -- It has an excess images -- see =geography=
• 5 -- The article has simply too much detail and calls for a summary and heavy copyedit and NPOV check.
• The =external links= section is grossly abused and turned into a link farm.
  • From what I see it only has three links? Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

    That was User:Markalexander100's doing [3] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• The're back hidden under the guise of =References=.

  • See the Talk page before you criticise edits or contents. --Sumple (Talk) 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• UPDATE: Images have unknown sources or dubious copyright tags. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There goes the subjective value judgments again. --Sumple (Talk) 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

    That's sheer ignorance of wikipedia policies of image copyrights: Image:56 ethnic groups.jpg (Source is absent); Image:NPCphoto.jpg (Fair use without justification); Image:Zhongnanhai.jpg -- source not known; Image:Armyspecial1lg.jpg -- PD-China. Please give substancial proof that Chinese government images are PD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked at commons: and none of the editors there have heard or read that Chinese government images are in PD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed all of the images that didn't have proper image copyright tags. AndyZ _t 23:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. The lack of inline references worries me greatly, as do all the weasel words in the article. Since the problems with the article were raised on the talk page and no one took the initiative to fix the article, then remove the FA status.--Alabamaboy 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Now that the citation issue has been fixed.--Alabamaboy 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This Nichalp user has ignored the comments and discussion in the PRC talk page and requested to remove featured article status of this article unilaterally. Naus 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no discussion. The only reply was a personal attack and a defensive comment. I had given sufficient time for those who watched the page to elaborate as to what was wrong, or start making some changes to the page. Alas! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added inline citations, and am going through them and citing them. AndyZ _t 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nichalp is biased as evidenced in his or her continued argument that the PRC page is somehow worse than the India page. The India page is not obviously better, and in many respects worse than the China page. Specifically, reasons number 3(c), 4, and 5 are blatantly untrue, or heavily subjective. The external links section is comprehensive, and is actually a good feature of this article. --Sumple (Talk) 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  Since you are unfamiliar to the standards that merit a Featured Article tag, I request you to please go through Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Please also do check out China vis-à-vis other featured countries such as Belgium, Pakistan, Bhutan and Nepal. Please note, I have NOT compared China to just the India article above. I've stated what all points the article lacks I also request you not make personal attacks and blatently accuse people of having biases without evidence. Instead of being confrontational and defensive, I request you to take care of the article and ensure that it does not lose its featured status. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A featured article exemplifies the best of Wikipedia. There may be shortcomings still with this article, but most of your reasons are not valid reasons. Overwhelming ToC? Whose judgement is it except yours that it is overwhelming? What do you suggest should happen to the ToC, then? Excess images? What's wrong with the geography section? It is not a fault of the article that China has a wide range of landscapes. Too much detail? Please be specific and tell us which section would you propose needs to be shortened, and how it should be shortened. Airy-fairy value judgments does not an argument make. And stop being so patronising towards others. --Sumple (Talk) 07:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I request you to see the ToCs other countries that are featured, since you refuse to check them out despite me pointing you to those links. Remove excess images as it causes the all of them to bunch up squeezing the text. The article as a whole needs to to summarised. I've given you the link above. Remove specific names, instances, dates unless it is absolutely crucial to the article. See the =History= section in the India article. Please remember, it's the community that decides to defeature the article, not me. I reiterate, the faster you start cooperating and stop making personal attacks, the easier it will be for you to save the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the point(s) I am making. And stop making empty threats. I don't know why you feel justified in making these threatening and patronising statements, but: 1. What makes you think there the India article is the golden standard of feature articles, and that the India ToC is necessarily so much better than the PRC one? 2. Unlike you, I am actually making useful edits on that page. 3. Don't presume too much, it's not good for you. --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You aren't making fruitful points, and by accusing me of making patronising comments is amusing. A few of the "remove" votes have come from experienced editors who know what a featured article is about. Unfortunately the constant harping of China vs India just displays a very myopic thinking. Don't presume... -- Is that a threat? I'm deeply honoured that you have my sincere concerns at heart. :-D =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are we dragging India into this? It is also on FARC, and shouldn't be the subject of debate here. AndyZ _t 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep User Nichalp has his own personal agenda in requesting for removal of the PRC article. All of his criticism of the PRC page has been thus far vague, general and biased. See his critique of prose being not "brilliant." User Nichalp has made zero contribution on the PRC article and has no interest to make the prose in the article more "brilliant" himself. China has incredibly diverse landscapes and the 3 small images capture the Chinese perspective of its terrain very well. The India article on the other hand has images that entirely cover the right side of the entire India article at 250px wide each. While the PRC article might have more images than the India article, they are smaller, more balanced and better targetted to the content of the article, and also the Chinese article itself is longer than the Indian article. Naus 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  What personal agenda do I have? Please list it. Why is it vague and biased? Please elaborate. I don't necessarily need to contribute to the article since I'm not the expert. The images in the geography section can be transferred to the Geography of China article. If the article is long, it needs to written in summary style to prune the size down. I had put up a warning on the article talk page, but nobody bothered to respond in a fruitive manner. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I actually found it depressing to read this farago which varies wildly between the pedestrian recital of facts, and highly judgmental and patronising commentaries on China and its culture. For so long as it remains so Western-centric, it should not be held out as the "best" that Wiki can do. David91 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument. What is perceived as Western-centric to a Chinese nationalist, might be moderate and balanced to the average Chinese citizen. Many of the other Asian featured articles are equally "Western-centric." The encyclopedia is foremost a Western concept, and Wikipedia holds to encyclopedic standards. Naus 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You misread the comment. David was saying that the article is written from a Western-perspective and needs to be written in the neutral point of view. The goal of Wikipedia is NOT to have western centric articles, and an encyclopedia can hardly be called a "western invention". You seem to be vey new to wikipedia. Please spend more time learning about the processes before making such sweeping statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is actually quite NPOV (see Wikipedian 172's comments below). It is already incredibly nuanced (hence the longer article length) because it strives to be NPOV. If you have specific areas that you believe is POV, please cite them right here, so we may further discuss them specifically. Otherwise you are simply making empty and non-actionable remarks, like several of your other comments. Please STOP being so condescending toward other Wikipedians, it reflects poorly of you and your argument. Naus has been around for quite awhile and has made significant contributions to many Chinese-related articles, the same cannot be said of you. Nishishei 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A country article should touch on the main points of the country, and not go into detail. The details should go into subarticles such as Geography of China, Economy of China, History of China etc. The best way is write a summary of the text. I've pointed you out to Wikipedia:Summary style. Please read through it. POV is not the only issue I have, I'm waiting for the article length to be cut, references added and image copyrights resolved first. My comments are perfectly actionable, I don't see how you find it so unactionable. Before you accuse me of being condescending, please review your past history which includes a personal attack and a steady refusal to initially accept that the article is in dire need of attention. Lastly, yes, you are right. I have not made any significant contributions to Chinese-related articles. Like most other wikipedians I don't necessarily need to as the goal of wikipedia is to focus our attention to topics closest to our fields of expertise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak RemoveKeep 60 kb, 2 references (which do not have citation information, perhaps consider {{Cite web}}), and only 1 inline citation. There certainly are not enough references to cover the entire article. There are a few occurrences of weasel words: and is still considered a communist state by many,, and is not generally considered to be a true superpower, - by whom? Please supply citations for quotes. There are many instances of WP:POV in this article- giving citations for these also would be helpful. More minor issues, please see WP:MOS for information on captalization in headings. WP:CONTEXT suggests that years and decades without full dates should not be wikilinked.

Finally, the point of FARC is to determine articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles [that] should no longer be featured. It does not matter if the nominator has not made a single edit to this article - as long as the objections are based from WP:FARC and are actionable, there is full reason to nominate the article for FA removal. Usually, there is only one editor who nominates an article for FARC, since the first sentence in the instructions on this page is If you feel an article... Though reason 3 and 4 Nichalp gives are debatable, they are actionable, as well as is reason 5. In addition, I note that many of the above arguments for keep are simply arguments against India, which is certainly not the subject of debate here. Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I converted the external links in the article to inline citations, and will help to cite them later. AndyZ _t 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some fixing to the article, and my main objection has been taken care of. AndyZ _t 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per Nichalp. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The PRC article and related articles are some of the most updated articles on Wikipedia. WIth extensive information on the subject, arguable more so than many other country articles including India, this article deserves its featured status. Many issues brought up are trivial and can be easily fixed. The people who vote for its featured removal never seem to help out in its corrections or keep a tag on the article itself. The speedy induction of this great article on removal list without any effort by its lister greatly troubles me.--Ryz05 03:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

update: I recently made a few edits to address some of the issues brought up in this thread. Please review the article and change your votes accordingly.--Ryz05 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's size needs to be cut first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not obliged to make the necessary changes to the article. I had put up a warning on the talk page which lasted for more than a week; enough time to fix the issues, which was never done. I have listed all what is wrong with the article, if you can fix it, the article can maintain its featured status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the size issue. Each article related to each section of the PRC article has a lot to talk about, so it is no surprise that the summary of it is respectively long.--Ryz05 19:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If size was directly related to comprehensiveness, then the article on World War II would touch in excess of 3 MB. Newspapers and magazines summarise all the time, I don't see why moving excess content to dedicated articles is such a problem. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryz05, the size is absolutely appropriate. Compare with the Hong Kong article, which is also a featured article. Nichalp has no argument here. His entire premise is that the PRC article is not in the same style as the India article (to which he contributed greatly in, and thus the PRC article is not akin to his personal tastes). Nishishei 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If size was directly related to comprehensiveness, then the article on World War II would touch in excess of 3 MB. Newspapers and magazines summarise all the time, I don't see why moving excess content to dedicated articles is such a problem. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see your concern about the PRC article, but I don't understand your argument by comparing it to the WW II article, which is considerably longer. A better comparison in terms of size is Hong Kong, as stated by Nishishei. I don't want to accuse you of trolling, but please consider in editing the article yourself and refrain from ceaseless arguments.--Ryz05 05:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a city-state, China is a nation-state, both quite differently authored. I had opposed the HK FAC nom on its length. However an article written in summary style need not necessarily be below 30kb. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Any suggestions for continued improvements of the PRC article can be made in the PRC talk page, not here. This is not the forum to make these suggestions. The PRC article is frequently updated and as consequence may sometimes require work here and there to balance things out. But it does not need to be considered for removal of featured article status any more so than the India or Australia article. Like other posters have said, Nichalp has made no contributions to the PRC article himself, his motivation and intentions here are dubious at best. If he finds problems with the "brilliancy" (sic) of the prose, he should fix them himself. Nishishei 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never used the world "Brilliancy" (sic) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence that Nichalp pointed out as "prose not brilliant": The PRC is home to over 1.3 billion people, which makes it the most populous country in the world. is grammatically correct and just fine, his criticism is purely subjective. But it has now been changed to: With a population of over 1.3 billion people, the PRC is currently the most populous country in the world. Again, this is not the forum to make improvement suggestions. Valid, clear and concrete suggestions should be made in the PRC Talk page. Nishishei 21:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is not the correct forum. Once the comments are fixed, please post it here and keep us informed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

However, this is certainly an appropriate forum in which to exemplify bad prose. If anyone would like examples from the article, I'll happily provide them here. In addition, there should be no expectation that reviewers here are obliged to pitch in and help to repair an article themselves. Tony 15:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like the specifics. The article is too long to simply use subjective blanket phrases like "prose is not 'brilliant'" Nishishei 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep My impression, after just having finished reading the article for the first time since it was on FAC, is that it has improved considerably since then, especially the intro. I'm seeing comments by a couple of users suggesting that portions of the article are too subjective, feature "weasel words," or "highly judgmental and patronizing commentaries on China." I noticed those problems when the article was originally featured, and I was thus reluctant to vote in favor of featuring. I'm not seeing those problems prominently appear in the article now. I'm particularly pleased that the article is sensitive to the difficulties of categorizing China's governing and economic structures, given their sheer complexity, in a neutral and straightforward manner. 172 | Talk 12:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Nichalp, who has set out specific objections that, IMV, are reasonable. I'm sorry to see that if the main contributors have taken action to improve the article since its nomination here, that action has been inadequate. In its current state, the article certainly does not show WP at its best.

The prose throughout is a significant problem. It would be best to find someone else to go through it in detail to meet Criterion 2a. I can offer some help, but my time is limited at the moment. Tony 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove (confirming original view) I have made more detailed comments on the Talk page to indicate the nature of the problems. David91 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have already voted above. Please don't try to manipulate the count by voting twice. Either remove the first "Remove" vote in your above comments, or remove your second "Remove" vote here. 69.213.138.57 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have votes on Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to read the main part of this article (Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, under Voting) before making nonsensical comments. 69.213.138.57 16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to read WP:NOT before making nonsensical comments. The guy who designed FARC probably should do that too. Johnleemk | Talk 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments --- A few users claim that my statements are too subjective. From WP:WIAFA, "A featured article exemplifies our best work". Now, if I can find so many chinks in the article, it certainly is not our best work! The word "best" is a superlative and thus the article should strive to achieve the goals of WIAFA. Secondly, as far as the ToC goes, see the comments posted here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India by mav and Jiang. Jiang is a long-time contributer to Chinese-related articles, so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks on the same lines. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove Virtually no references --Bob 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Now that the reference problem has been mostly solved. It could do with more though... --Bob 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there are plenty of references- perhaps you meant inline citations? AndyZ _t 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are now 58 footnotes, and I plan on adding more. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Article is okay from my perspective, but really fails the referencing criteria. The references section reads like a list of external links. What is being cited? The main page of the BBC's Chinese section? Cite specific webpages, don't cite a whole website. It defeats the purpose of fact-checking and obfuscates the precise source of information. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Specific webpages are cited. There are quite a lot of inline references in the article. Naus 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Those are not inline references; they are inline external links. They are inadmissible as references because important citation-related information is not included with them; see WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES. Johnleemk | Talk 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Doing right now. AndyZ _t 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Good job. However, large portions of the article remain without footnotes. For instance, the history section has almost none, and its main articles either don't have footnotes or don't have any references at all. At the very least, the quotes from Mao and Deng should have a citation. Some weasel statements without citations remain, e.g. "The PRC is regarded as a communist state by many political scientists, but attempts to characterize the nature of China's political structure into a single, simple category are typically seen as lacking sufficient depth to be satisfactory." More than half the politics section (inclusive of its subsections) have no footnotes, and the main article does not have any references; if it did, the need for footnotes might be obviated, but otherwise... There are also no citations concerning the Chinese space programme, and the rankings for universities need a citation. Much of the rest of the article has no citations either, but these are the most worrying problems at the moment. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed that the demographics section with very detailed statistics has no citations either.
          • Demographics sections of country articles are usually lifted from the CIA factbook. Henry^Flower 17:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Then the CIA factbook should be specifically cited. Johnleemk | Talk 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course, I was just trying to help you do that. Henry^Flower 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
                • I believe I have fixed all of the issues that were brought up. AndyZ _t 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- still some way to go, but a lot better than before. The Dkospedia cite is questionable, by the way -- could we have a better source for such an important assertion? Surely we have something better to cite than a wiki. :p Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I had some difficulty in citing that sentence. I think this (there is a quote in there by political scientist Jean Oi) would be a much better citation now (my original Google Search didn't turn up any links that discussed whether or not the PRC is communist). AndyZ _t 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove those references are not really references and are just links to websites - you'll need specific pages that you used - generally general references are only allowed on books and such. Shame on those for ranking on Nichalp for not fixing the article for them - we don't have infinite time to work on these thing, y'know :). Anyway, this could easily be fixed before the FARC is over - and I mean at Asperger's syndrome at that FARC there were far worse problems at the time - but time is running out. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment It'll be sad to see the PRC article removed from featured status, as it is so comprehensive and so many people spent so much time on it. Anyways, the referencing might be an issue, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to remove it as the good qualities outweigh the bad ones, such as the subject being so extensively covered.--Ryz05 20:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

like to add If this article does get removed, I am sure it'll get reenlisted as a featured article some short time in the future as it is a popular subject with a lot of editors. Any problems with it are presently minor.--Ryz05 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look again, there are now plenty of inline cites which are no longer just general references. Thanks, AndyZ _t 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks better and I'll withdraw my opposition, but the references section still needs to be either purged or cleaned up.... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see anything that demands a serious change. Image use is ok IMO. The list of largest cities should probably go. More citations should also be added, but this article is an overview containing many summaries: citations are not as neccesary. FA removal would probably be quickly followed by another FA nomination after these few things were dealt with. Why bother with such a process?--Bkwillwm 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Images with dubious copyright statements could land wikipedia in a legal mess as it runs contrary to the ideals of a "free" encyclopedia. Hence their removal. Free images can be searched at commons: and www.flickr.com. It's definately a major criteria to consider as repeated uploads of dubious images can get a user blocked. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Conditional Keep: Their are some glaring lack of references that needs to be addressed. Examples: i) Lot of Mao related comments that begin or has something akin to "According to many experts." They all need a reference ii) Aksai Chin related lines state that India has effectively given up claim on it - This is false as far as I know and clearly requires a citation or rephrasing. iii) Claims made towards increasing personal freedom needs a reference. On a more personal note, it is very sad that so many of you chose to attack Nichalp because he is an Indian user. He raised the issue in the talk page and gave it a lot of time before doing FARC. Instead of having a civil discussion about the issues raised by him many of you attacked him and dismissed his concerns as biased. I see the same notion in here. I hope in the future people can look beyond nationalities. --Blacksun 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Refuting comment-- There was no personal attack against Nichalp. The criticism of him was his haste in adding the PRC article to FARC without adequate time and consultation on the PRC Talk page. Nichalp gave "a lot of time"? What are you talking about? He wrote one sentence and then ignored the subsequent comments and a week later, added the PRC article on FARC, even though updates to the article were made to improve it in between this period. No attempt of civility was made by him. The India issue came to play because he himself used it as a superior example of Wikipedia's finest, which naturally produced responses criticizing him for being subjective and biased, as many of the very critical examples he gave of the PRC article were also found in the India article. The India article is now on FARC also, isn't it? Naus 08:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to bother to argue with you. All the evidence is in the talk page including date of his first post and the very first response to his post being an attack based on his citizenship. Goodbye. --Blacksun 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is here also, and I don't see the "so many of you" making "personal attacks" as you accuse of so matter of factly. I just checked, the date of his post was indeed as Naus said one week before he listed the article on FARC, in that time countless edits were made to improve the article. Your lack of coherent argument against Naus is damning enough. And "Goodbye"? How utterly immature. JakeLM 23:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from, Goodbye is considered polite. But ANYWAYS. I really dont care what you see or dont see. I have made my point and you are entitled to your opinion. We will have to just agree to disagree. And once again, goodbye. -Blacksun 14:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

"I disagree. You are from India and obviously biased." (comment from Nishishei 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)) Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from, one person is not "so many of you." From what I see, one person made a single remark based on nationality, and a bunch of people including Nichalp and Blacksun became overly sensitive, labelling everyone else of the same "nationalism." You guys are just as bad in making assumptions and generating hyperbole IMO. JakeLM 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The point was to refute the claim that there was no personal attack against Nichalp; to me, it is a personal attack to assert a non-Chinese citizen cannot have a neutral opinion on the article People's Republic of China. Naus supported Nishishei's stand that Nichalp is biased because of this. ("No one has made personal attacks toward you, please review what constitutes a personal attack. It is your opinion that the India article is better than the PRC article. You have provided no concrete points, but arguable generalizations, and hence you were told by Nishishei that your comments are biased and without basis.") I don't know what Blacksun might mean by claiming "so many of you", but it's clear that this wasn't an isolated incident. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep Most of the issues raised have been addressed now. There is no need for removal. Any additional suggestions should be made in the talk page. JakeLM 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. The images are out of control (it looks like something from Myspace), but it's not a big enough problem to delist over. Henry^Flower 13:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How specifically are the images "out of control"? Too much? Not at all, see Australia, also FA. Which images are problematic? Please be specific. It looks nothing like Myspace, IMO. JakeLM 23:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many, poorly chosen, poorly laid-out. Too many cooks each wanting their own pretty picture in, regardless of the overall shape of the article. Henry^Flower 11:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me some detail on which pictures look poorly chosen? Also, how are there too many as each picture ties with the respective section it's in and plays an important role on shedding light on the perspective subjects? Finally, we don't want pictures to be in it just because it's our own pretty pictures; each picture is carefully chosen to be as discriptive as possible, like the famous ancient Chinese saying "A picture is worth more than a thousand words."--Ryz05 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak remove This article is an important topic, but there are too many sections that read as if they have been editted by a committe. Let me address a few:

• The very first paragraph is confusing. Wouldn't a definition closer to the aims of NPOV be to state that the PRC is the current government of most of China ("most" depending on how you want to define the situation with the rump Nationalist government on Taiwan & related territories).

• Saying that the PRC in control of the mainland means it's in control of "most" of China. There's no need to say that "it controls most of China". The current saying sounds more professional.--Ryz05 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the introduction, there is immediate mention of the Communist Party of China, but without an explanation of their relationship to the PRC government; it is assumed that the reader knows this is the ruling class of China.

• The introduction says that the CPC leads China "under a one-party system," so it is the ruling class of China. Read the paragraph more carefully.--Ryz05 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The article claims that more recent governments (from the context, apparently since Chairman Mao died) have lifted millions of Chinese "out of poverty" twice. IMHO, one mention of this claim is enough; if you state a claim like this even twice, some readers will suspect there is no truth to the claim.

• That is once said in the intro, which provides a good background for what happened in the country. The second time it's said is in the economics section, which is very important to include it. There's no reason why such a thing is hard to believe even though it is repeated twice in the article, albeit different sections.--Ryz05 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The section about the geography of the PRC does not address the question how the current borders of this nation fit with the borders of previous governments of China.

• There's no need to address how it fit under previous governments, as the article is solely on the PRC.--Ryz05 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I feel that the sections "Demographics" & "Language" could be removed without harm to the article, & the links to the appropriate "X of China" put under "See also". -- llywrch 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's no reason why they should be removed. Language in China with its many dialects is an important piece of the article. And every country article has a section on Demographics.--Ryz05 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So frankly, I think your objections are baseless, without a full understanding of the subject itself.--Ryz05 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think what you have written could be also called baseless, & lacked an assumption of good faith . I can't help but read contempt for my objections in your response -- especially when I qualified my objection as a weak one. If your intent was truly to cast scorn upon my comments -- which I had offered in good faith -- I would happy to be more resolute in my objections to this article as it stands; there was nothing in what I proposed above that could not be fixed by some minor rewriting.

However, I offered this feedback in hope of improving this article; despite what you may think, I have no intent of submitting it to WP:AfD. So I will respond to a few of your points:

1. It took me a couple of minutes to puzzle through that first paragraph in the article; introductory paragraphs should be simple to read, & provide the most important information. By your calling this paragraph "professionally" written, I must confess I suspect your judgement in other regards, & I hope I misunderstand you about this. My comment about "Taiwan" was minor, although you appear disturbed by my mention of it. Fine; let's focus on the rest of my suggestion: instead of the belabored identification of the PRC with China, why not say it is the current government of China, pure & simple? If the reader is unclear where China is, then the link China will help him find it.
2. You wrote: "There's no reason why such a thing is hard to believe even though it is repeated twice in the article, albeit different sections." -- Obviously, you missed my point here, & are unaware of the saying "the lady protesteth too much". If you are not familiar with that saying, it means that whenever someone repeats a claim too many times, the act creates the suspicion that the speaker is lying. Now I am not saying that the statement is a lie -- personally, despite the lack of any cites or other comfirmation for this point, I believe it is true -- but that this assertion comes across as a possible untruth. I don't think that is your intent -- so if you care how this material comes across & care to prevent edit wars with parties far less friendly than I am, you should rework this part of the article.
3. You wrote: "There's no need to address how it fit under previous governments, as the article is solely on the PRC" -- I assume that there must be a difference between its territories & that of the previous governments of China. If there is no difference, then all of this material properly belongs in China. The same is true about your response concerning "Demographics" & "Language". The PRC is only one historical period of the nation known as "China"; general information should be kept in general articles.

I am sorry if my words are coming across as being combative; to repeat myself, I felt insulted by what you wrote. You need to accept constructive criticism over this article; if you don't, then the next review of this article will likely be performed in an undeniably hostile environment. -- llywrch 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for sounding scornful. However, I am still unsure what things you want to change concerning the article, but I will readdress some of my responses and make light on a few things that you brought to my attention.

1. I never said anything is "professionally" written. What I did say is that the PRC in control of the mainland (which is most of China) sounds better (more concise) than saying that "it controls most of China", which is true. And I'm not offended by you mentioning Taiwan, though I was a little perplexed over why you said the phrase "in control of most of China" better than simply "in control of the mainland", since mainland consists of most of china. Finally, the PRC is not a government but the name of the country. After the Chinese Civil War, China was divided into two, with the Nationalist Party in Republic of china (Taiwan) and the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) on the mainland. Later, Mao declared the founding of the "PRC" to establish a country. However, this area is confusing as many people frequently refer to the controlling party (CPC) as PRC (a country), since the two are entertwined and the CPC governs all aspects of the country (commonly refered to as China, since it covers most of the mainland). So for your suggestion of mergin PRC article with China is not exactly necessary as the Republic of China (Taiwan) is also a "part" of China. The article on China is actually about the Chinese civilization. If the country is not divided today, then there would be only one article China, which is not the case as there are two- People's Republic of China and Republic of China.
2. Since the Chinese civilization is presently divided into two (PRC and ROC), the demographics of the mainland(PRC) is different from that of Taiwan(ROC). The same hold true for language, as there are ethnic groups (with their own languages) and dialects on the mainland that are not found on Taiwan.

I never meant to offend you when I made those responses. At the time, I thought you are against the PRC article just because of some previous bias towards the country (which does not hold for a sincere "remove" vote). However, I now hope my points are clearer than before. If you have any more questions or suggestions, please feel free to ask. Thank you.--Ryz05 06:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that I am glad that I misunderstood you (which has to be the first time that phrase has appeared on Wikipedia), & that you weren't being hostile. Thanks for considering my objections.

And it does appear that there is a difference of view here between you & me, whether PRC is identical to "China", or is simply one episode in the history of that nation. Although I still believe I am right on this issue, this is a point that shouldn't be used to keep this article from being considered for FA status, so I'm withdrawing it. (Consider those sections struck out.) -- llywrch 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean you are withdrawing your weak removal vote?--Ryz05 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

update: I just removed the repeated mentioning of bring the people "out of poverty." Thanks for pointing that out. Feel free to edit and fix any other minor issues that you come across.--Ryz05 06:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the mention in the lead instead and keep the sentence in the economics section; WP:LEAD states that the lead of an article should be a summary of the article. Generally, facts mentioned in the lead should be mentioned somewhere later in the article, so if the fact is important, it should actually be kept twice. Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. Please change it as necessary. Thank you.--Ryz05 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

update:I've alreayd edited it accordingly. Thanks again.--Ryz05 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

update 2: I fixed the intro a bit by saying "The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a one-party system since the country's establishment in 1949." It's good to keep in mind that the names PRC and China are sometimes used interchangeably, and that China can be considered just another name for the PRC, even to the exclusion of the Republic of China or Taiwan. Hope that's more clear. Thanks for point that out.--Ryz05 06:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed status

Smile (Brian Wilson album)

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article has absolutely no inline citations. While the "further reading" may have been used as a source, I'm pretty sure that these are not the only sources that can be used for a topic this huge and controversial. The see also and external links sections formatted properly are not properly formatted either. It's a shame because I think that this could be a very good article. Unfortunately, it is not a Featured article without properly identified and formatted footnotes (which appears to be mandatory for today’s feature article acceptance policy, even though this was inducted in 2004). --P.O.N.Y. 04:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - not because of the absence of inline references/footnotes (there has been considerable debate recently about that topic - see the talk page, where I think the consensus is "not yet") but because of the article has no reference. The absence of references was raised by Taxman on the article's talk page in April 2005. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove no references and a lack of inline citation Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove no references. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per aloan Zzzzz 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove no references --jiy (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Even "Further reading" barely has any reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove no references or sources. -- Underneath-it-All 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Crime fiction

Article is no longer a featured article.

this article is from "brilliant prose" days, and, despite having clear consensus to remove it from the featured list in a previous vote (see Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_People_and_culture#Culture) it hs somehow managed to stick around. it contains a "further reading" section but nothing in the way of references. request was made for references in april 2005 with no response. the lead fails to suitably summarize the body of the article. it is full of poor writing, even in the lead: "boundaries can be, and indeed are, blurred". much of the writing is over-casual, not suitable for an encylopeida. it is full of original research phrases (with bonus weasel words): "Seen from a practical point of view, one could argue that a crime novel is simply a novel that can be found in a bookshop on the shelf or shelves labelled "Crime".". thanks for that insightful statement guys. fairuse images without fair use rationale, and pd images with obsolete tags, abound. finally, stylistically its a mess with inline external links all over the place instead of wikilinks.

• Remove per nom Zzzzz 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, you get a pass on this one since there has been a longstanding request to ad or clarify the references and that hasn't been done. But per the FARC guidelines, please detail the article's deficiencies on the talk page and give some time for them to be addressed. Unfortunately I must say remove, because there are no references. There's no evidence the Further reading were properly used as references. - Taxman ^Talk 13:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• This can't be easily fixed soon. Remove for now. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Good essay, but borders on original research. Definitely not an example of the best of WP. Davodd 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Zuiderzee Works

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article fails to meet: 2(c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). No Reference section and no inline citations. The only candidate for a general reference source available in the article, from External links, is not in English. The article is detailed and the writing is OK, but there are numerous interpretations and conclusions beyond simple facts that should have some source, e.g. Though agriculture was initially again the main purpose of the polder, it had not yet been decided, the post-war period saw a shift in the design goals.--Tsavage 09:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: I created this FARC at least a couple of months ago, then withdrew it and posted a request for references on the article's Talk instead. I agree with this being restored at this point under my sig (although I...hadn't gotten around to restoring it myself), as the article hasn't been improved... --Tsavage 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

• Remove per delisted former nom above. refs were requested in april 2005. now, still not a single ref to be seen. not one. zero. Zzzzz 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No references at all, and I don't have the ability to fix it myself. - Taxman ^Talk 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, zero references. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. And slap and original research tag on it. I hope the editors of newly-rejected featured candidates don't get a gander at this one. Davodd 10:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox

Article is no longer a featured article.

I posted the comment that I might take this page to FARC three days ago, without reply. I'll simply re-post here what I mentioned on the talk page:

1. Most obviously, this page lacks in-line citations. There are only three references. I assume some of the External links were also used for writing but this doesn't help some one who wants to source things later, as what link matches what point isn't obvious.
2. (It should have) "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." The TOC is absolutely overwhelming here.
3. "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." That's debatable here.
4. Finally, some of the logic is a bit tortured and hard to follow, and a touch liberal with undefined "they"s and "critics": "Even if intelligent life occurs once for every few billion of these "ordinary" planets and takes billions of years, they argue, there are potentially trillions of planets (or more) and the universe is billions of years old as well." Marskell 14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1 I agree with. However, although I wasn't involved with the article when it was a featured article, it seems unlikely that any citations that were present then have since been removed.

2 I feel that the table of contents to this article is perfectly appropriate. It's in the nature of the article that it has to cover a long "tree" of topics, branches of those topics, arguments that are branches of those topics, and counter arguments to those arguments. The TOC does an excellent job of organizing all of this. The article would be vastly less readable if one were to interfere with its TOC structure. Furthermore, "overwhelming" is a subjective word with no quantitative meaning.

4 It's not the fault of the article that there are lots of "billions" involved when discussing something that concerns the size and content and age of the universe. That said, it goes almost without saying that some of the writing in the article could be improved.

In conclusion, this is the first time I've heard of FARC, so I'm not at all familiar with the policy or its history. My impression is that it would be a mean-spirited action to take except in cases where the quality of the article has become so bad that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I find it hard to believe that anyone would feel that way about this article. KarlBunker 14:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Agree: I've been heavily involved in the re-write. Even so, I have to agree that the article is not currently up to FAC quality - nor do I believe the article was up to FAC quality before the re-write due to the "inline citations" issue. I believe that this article is another of those "this was a FAC in 2002, but our standards have tightened since then" articles. A total of 3 inline citations were removed as far as I know, because the points they were supporting have been removed. Still, I would address the issues.

1. Agreed - this article needs to be cited. External websites should be listed in a cite.php manner.
2. I echo the comment about the TOC made by KarlBunker: the topic is large, and branching, and to remove parts of the TOC would either mean the removal of large sections of the article, "mashing" related but distinctly seperate points together, or using some other means of dividing the article (like breaking sub-points into bullet lists - clumsy and against the style guide). While the TOC is very large, for this article, it cannot be anything but.
3. The article states the Paradox, then goes on to discuss the emprical means by which we have tried to resolve the paradox, and then dicusses the theoretical means by which we have tried to do that same. While some sections - probably the SETI section - could be split off into a seperate article and linked in as a summary, there's not a lot by way of totally un-needed sections.
4. Some of the language can be tightened. However, rather than decrying it, "be bold" and tighten it. Un-named critics and theys should be thinned out, and specific people named who have such views, I agree. This would, however, come about automatically as a by-product of fixing point #1.

Vedexent 15:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Ok, I'm sorry, but the table of contents is absolutely unnacceptable. Yes of course overwhelming is subjective, but so are all the criteria. This TOC is exactly why that is in the FA criteria. Make some of the lower level headings just bold instead of sections. That will solve the TOC problem at no real loss. And yikes, I hate to vote remove, but this still needs a lot of work that I'm not qualified to help with. - Taxman ^Talk 16:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Counter-Comment: Why not, instead of gutting the article's organization, use the __NOTOC__ tag, and create a manual TOC, perhaps limited to the first two levels. This would still make the article navigable, would not require violation of style or organizational guidelines (bullets or bolds for section headings), and would make the TOC smaller. - Vedexent 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional Counter-Comment: Given a choice, I'd much rather see the article be snubbed by the Cool Kids Clique of FA status than see it made stupider in order to conform to an arbitrary standard that makes perfect sense for other articles but not this one. Vedexent's manual TOC idea sounds good, though I don't know how that would be done, since [[Article#subheading]] tags don't work within an article. KarlBunker 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Lovely response. Changing overdone subsections into bold headings doesn't make an article "stupider" (sic). It would simply make the table of contents less overwhelming. - Taxman ^Talk 13:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It's also a non-issue now if you check the article - the TOC has been redone. - Vedexent 13:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion Actually the manual TOC isn't that hard. Include the __NOTOC__ tag in the article. I didn't know that [[Article#subheading]] tags dont work, but [[#subheading|subheading_alias]] do. As for the "dumbing down" - I don't think anyone is suggesting that. In some cases it is possible to summarize a section and migrate the information to other articles where the info is more appropriate, and the SETI article is a good candidate for this. Still - even in such cases you still leave a summary of the migrate material, along with a {{main|article_name]] tag at the head of the section. This gives an "overview" and allows the reader to easily dig deeper if they want. It is also possible that other sections could be thus treated, and may end up creating new articles. - Vedexent 17:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Point #2 resolved: I've added a manual TOC as per the discussion, limited to two levels. - Vedexent 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that if the article can be cited, the SETI section merged into the SETI article, summarized and linked, and a manual "level-limited" TOC can be implemented, (been done) then a lot of the article problems will be vastly improved. Not all, and it may still not be FAC material - but it makes inroads into some of the article's major problems. - Vedexent 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if you check out the Talk Page, it looks like right now there's a considerable effort to improve upon some of the points discussed above. I would propose keeping this article as an FA for now to give the editors some time to deal with these objections. Furthermore, three days is not enough time to add inline citations to an article of this length and detail. I don't think this nomination was made in good faith, and I think it should be withdrawn to give this article's editors time to act on these criticisms. The Disco King 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Defense: I think the nom was made in good faith - at the time the nominating user was getting no feedback on the talk page. Also, since that time, the nominating user has been one of the ones involved in fixing the problems. I agree with everything else said though :) - Vedexent 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Further defense: Why do you think this nomination was not made in good faith? That's a poor thing to say without an explanation. Given that you seem to have looked at talk and the history since the nom, you'll notice that the nominator (myself) has been actively attempting to address the points at issue. If this is FA worthy after two weeks, great. Two points:
      1. TOC/Length/Focus issues are being rapidly addressed (by Vedexent, me, and others). On this basis I think the FARC nom can be answered soon (certainly within two weeks).
      2. Citation issues have been partly addressed, but are still of enormous concern. I honestly don't think this will be properly cited before the FARC nom runs its course. But...
    • Let it be de-listed. If this is removed and there is still good momentum to improve it, we can live with no star for a week or two, and get the satisfaction of a good going over on the main FAC page. It needs the full attention of an FAC.
    • In sum, this is absolutely not bad faith and I have no intention of withdrawing it. It should be improved, regardless of whether that means it's not featured for a time. Marskell 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply - I feel that it's in bad faith because the comments you made on the talk page about items which were in need of improvement were made three days before you nominated this for FARC. Not giving the editors sufficient time to address your criticisms is unfair, and as you mentioned, it's not likely that these issues can be addressed in the brief time-window that the FARC nom process allows for. I feel that this article earned the right to become an FA by merit of meeting the criteria at the time it was passed. The criteria have changed; do we blame the editors of this page? They need time to bring it up to the current standards, and they shouldn't be punished by demotion while they are actively trying to do so. The Disco King 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I've explained myself. If you'd like to continue to assume bad faith, go for it. Marskell 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
          • To step away from the harsh words here, but still comment, I must say 3 days is not enough time. Some authors don't check Wikipedia every day, and they may simply have missed the edit. Try asking again, or better yet, making some edits to the article. That tends to get people to notice it as it pops up on their watchlist. An edit summary referring to the deficiencies listed on the talk page would help. In any case there seems to be good work being done on the article so I commend you for that, Marskell. Less arguing and more editing is always good. - Taxman ^Talk 14:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
            • The first response to the suggested nom on the talk page occured 22 minutes after the nom actually occured. "Talk:Fermi paradox" plus "Featured Article removal" is a clear enough heading, and three days is clear enough time. You nom, you get a response. So it goes. Marskell 21:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Update. Well, this nom is sort of at the end of the line. I and other users have made substantial changes, but about half of this (the last half) remains uncited and un-gone-over in general. Great improvements but still great defeciencies. The last plea for comment on its Talk Page has been unanswered after a week. I would like to see this a FA in general and hope to work toward that, but I think it should be delisted until we're sure our 60K on the topic is a tight, sourced 60K. I posted a note to Jeff to this affect, but he hasn't turned up yet. Marskell 22:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

European Union

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article passed through FAC many almost two years ago. It has no references, is mostly tables, and does not cover such a large subject with any adequate treatment. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for lack of references and poor structure (the article is dominated by short bullet points). The information is probably all there, though, or could be easily fetched from the subarticles, so the article is not unsalvagable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Remove for lack of references (i.e. basically none for the article text) but the structure alone isn't THAT bad IMHO Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 06:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Super-weak keep Although there is a lack of refrences, (And the ones there are are merged with external links), this is a well written, informative article,; it's one of the best on wikipedia. If refrences are added, I will renominate this on FAC.
• Remove. Unacceptable. Neutrality^talk 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, regrettably: first, please sign your name here (super-weak keep); Neutrality, please don't just say 'unacceptable'—that means little here. At least one reason is necessary.

IMV, this article is inadequate, but within reach of FA if the main contributors can bring themselves to fix it now. The writing is OK, but it's not comprehensive (Criterion 2b). In particular, there's little information on the relationship between the Commisssion, the European Parliament, the Council, the judiciary, and the governments of the member states. There are links at the bottom that probably say more about this, but it should be provided here in summary form. There's nothing about the budget, how revenue is raised and what it is allocated to. There's nothing about language in the institutions themselves. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are non-members: tell us why. In the lead, there are a few misleading statements: should the clause in brackets appear after "the euro"?: "a single currency (the euro) managed by the European Central Bank (adopted by 12 of the 25 member states)". Noumea is missing from the parts of France that are not on the main map. Tony 06:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak remove, but only for lack of references. The structure is, in principle, okay. Should references be added, consider my vote to be strong keep. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  References are being added, so consider my vote a keep. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per nom Zzzzz 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per nom --Off! 11:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep I don't really see how anyone can say that the article is mostly tables? Maybe I am looking at revised version? Yes, it needs more references but I think editors seem to be getting to it. So count me as conditional keep if appropriate references are added.--Blacksun 23:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and add the required references. Page Up 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove since the article is basically an intro to a big list; a not particularly outstandingly well-written list at that. Davodd 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove lack of refrences. Computerjoe's talk 07:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Glass

Article is no longer a featured article.

When I nominated this article an old conversation came up on the template. I'm not sure why.

That'd be the old Farc. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is very messy. It is not visualy appealing, has a bad paragrpah layout, and only has three refrcnes. On top of that, It was never voted a FA Look at the nomination page, and you will see that it never won the vote. Someone put it as an FA even thouhg it lost. This is a poorly formatted, poorly refrenced article which should not be here. Tobyk777 00:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC IS NOT A VOTE. For the record, Glass is a legitimate featured article, promoted by Raul July 2004. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

One just despairs of the electorate's knowledge Giano | talk 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. The referencing for this article is poor and the intro section is awkward with the focus of the article not being entirely clear. -- Lewis 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove lead fails to properly summarize article, too many 1/2 sentence short paragraphs, too few references, stacked images, "glass in buildings" is far too listy, overlong "see also" and "external links" sections, and despite FAC not being a vote all those valid objections are still unaddressed. Zzzzz 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per above Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per Zzzzz --Happynoodleboy 19:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - featured articles of lesser quality should not be granted grandfather clause status just because of an appeal to tradition. If it were freshly nominated today, it would fail for various reasons. Davodd 09:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per Davodd, Zzzzz. — mark ✎ 08:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics

Article is no longer a featured article.

Not a featured article for these reasons:

There are no references or inline cites that I can find. While the "further reading" may have been used as a source, I'm pretty sure that these are not the only sources that can be used for a topic this huge. Besides references, the see also and external links sections are ridiculously long and several italicized see-alsos are interspersed throughout the text. It's a shame because I think that this could be a very good article. Unfortunately, it is not a Featured article. Also, this was designated a featured article of concern in Featured Article Review.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I've struggled through enough economics textbooks to be able to say this article is not comprehensive. Also, the lack of references and inline citations by itself makes the article a clear removal candidate. Mikker ^(...) 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what would you say it is missing, with regard to being comprehensive? Christopher Parham (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • To give you a full answer I'd need my ecos textbooks in front of me but these are in a box 1500km away so I'll answer off the top of my head. Firstly, and most obviously: mathematics! With the exceptions of neuroeconomics or behavioral economics, economics is fundamentally a rationalist enterprise that attempts to explain the world through mathematics. I get no sense of this from the article in question. (Compare the article on, say, Game theory). Secondly, the "Development of economic thought" section needs to be expanded (I'm aware there is a sub-article, more still needs to go in the main article). Thirdly, "Schools of economic thought" is extremely sparse and gives no real sense of the debates in the discipline. Fourthly, the actual content of economics is not really covered. Where is the explanation of basic national income accounts? Where is the IS/LM macro model? (it's not even in the macroeconomics sub-article for crying out loud!). Where is the discussion of the RAT assumption? Why are the explanation for the basic microfoundations? Etc. etc. We really need an economist to come re-write the article. (and that's not me, I hated every second of my four years of ecos...) Mikker ^(...) 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know that we want the article to go into too much mathematical detail; that is not material that is likely to be helpful for people who are entering the subject at the broadest level. Those readers are, frankly, very unlikely to want to work with national income identities or model a money supply. Your second and third points I'd agree with, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying the article should have master's level mathematics, just some basic Eco100 mathematics, a couple of basic micro and macro models etc. (i.e. roughly at the same level as the game theory article). Those who are not interested or not willing can skip the math sections, but those who are willing and interested would benefit from some rigour. If you don't know much about ecos (say, you're in high school deciding whether to study it at university), you'd be positively misled by the article as it stands currently. Most of the discipline is an exercise in mathematics, and this doesn't come through at all in the article! Mikker ^(...) 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
          • • I disagree that an intro article should have much if any mathematics. Leave that to the more detailed subarticles. There is no room in this article to discuss detailed models. - Taxman ^Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Economics is mathematics. So that view confuses me utterly. In any case, why did you find my other comments concerning comprehensiveness unpersuasive? Mikker ^(...) 09:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Economics is the study of human choice. Mathematics is the heaviest component, sure, but not everything in economics is explained through it, especially not from the onset. You don't need to show an example of vector analysis to say what mathematics is. You don't need thermodynamics to explain what chemistry is. This article is like the first chapter of any intro to microeconomics book you'll find on the market. It might use some graph, but all it's meant to do is explain what economics is and give a basic history and introduction to it's school of thought. They don't show an IS/LM macro model or discuss the RAT assumption. Most of the time, they don't even explain the theory behind opportunity cost. Any person first entering school who thinks he or she wants to study it will have to start with the basic classes like everyone else, and they will get a feel for what the study entails. That's not the purpose of an introduction article like this is. It's a 6th grade science report, not a master's thesis. You make some good points that parts of this article could be expanded, but you seem to want far too much explained in the introduction. 139.78.96.218 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Now, all that said, I still don't think it's good enough for a feature artical. There's a lot that should be addressed and expanded on before considering making it one of the prime examples on wikipedia, I just don't think explaining the math of it is what needs to be addressed. Most of the article is links to other links and there are many parts that should be expanded, such as the development and schools of thought sections. Hawk405359 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - it is quite hard to write a good and comprehensive article on such a broad topic, and I think this article makes a good attempt. However, it has no references. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It does have references, they are just weaved into the prose. - Taxman ^Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It did not have a "References" section: I have added one, using the few "weaved" references; I still think the referencing is inadequate, though, and have also added a forest of {{fact}}s. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. While this has no references, there's not really much of anything incorrect in it either. Nearly all of it could be cited to any comprehensive econ textbook. I've got a few sources I could use and I'll see if I can't get to it on Sunday. - Taxman ^Talk 21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble allocating the time to this one, but could the people that would like to remove it create a summary of problems on the talk page? Then we can decide on which ones everyone agrees to and fix them up. - Taxman ^Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove lack of references. Not really a reason I'd give to remove but the see also section could use some pruning as it looks like a link farm Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. As comprehensive as it needs to be in a general encyclopedia. It may not have a section actually titled references but is is obviously well referenced. To cal the external links and further reading section "references" at the time this was FACd was not essential criteria, as Miss Madeline well knows. Secondly, Miss Madeline will you please not keep citing "no inline cites" as a reason to FARC. If their absence bothers you so much why not go through the external links, further reading and add a few, that would do the encyclopedia more good then these FARCs you keep nominating. No inline cites, as has also been explained, is not a reason to FARC. Giano | talk 16:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Giano, presumably you read my extensive comments above concerning the lack of comprehensiveness in this article. Could you please explain why you think I'm wrong? Mikker ^(...) 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• As the one seeking to alter the status quo you have two choices, either to argue your case, or not to argue your case. I can understand the article perfectly and am happy with it. - You seem to have chosen an opposing view. So you can either stand by your view, or you can edit the article to become even more comprehensive that it is at the moment. I look forward to your future editing and improvement of this already featured article. Giano | talk 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but no references is. Based on your reasoning, obvious references for a broad topic would be a brief introduction to part of it, an abridged version of a book written hundreds of years ago, and an essay which isn't mentioned anywhere in the text. Do you really think that that is adequate? Furthermore, "further reading" does not mean that it was used as a reference. It could just be a document that someone knew about and put it in, without actually having read it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ummm... I have argued my case in detail. (again, see above). Now, the article in question either does or does not satisfy WP:WIAFA. If it does satisfy WIAFA it should be kept featured, if it doesn't it shouldn't be kept featured. WIAFA 2(b) says "'comprehensive' means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details". The article does not come near to covering the topic of economics in its entirety, as I've shown above. If you disagree with this view you could (a) (unreasonably, in my opinion) stick to your vote without engaging in discussion, (b) demonstrate why I'm wrong or (c) be convinced by my argument and change your vote. I hope you do either (b) or (c). Mikker ^(...) 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• As you both have so succinctly highlighted where you feel the perceived shortcomings are, I look forward to seeing your combined efforts on the improved article. Which as it of of FA standard now can only be improved by you interests and contributions. Congratulations to you both for picking up the challenge. Giano | talk 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ignoratio elenchi of note. Mikker ^(...) 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• ....of those it humours to believe etc. Giano | talk 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I guess. Quite ok without maths, which belongs in daughter articles. I wonder why there's no mention of Daniel Kahneman, a key pioneer of the integration of economics and cognitive science, in particular with respect to risk management and happiness. He won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2003. Tony 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, since it lacks inline citations. Having inline citations might not have been part of the criteria back when this was featured, but that does not say why it should not have to meet that requirement; articles are not grandfathered in, and they shouldn't, since they represent the best of Wikipedia's content. For example, every single quote in the article should have a citation adjacent to it; otherwise, there's no way for other contributors to check the accuracy of the citation. Furthermore, it also lacks images on the top, and it doesn't follow a clear organization (e.g. why is supply and demand defined before scarcity?) Also, something as fundamental as monetary policy is not mentioned anywhere on the article, except on the See also section, which needs a good trimming. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It has inline citations folks. Did everyone actually read it? I must admit that on my quick check this time I did not, even though I had seen the references before. - Taxman ^Talk 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, though this may return to FAC soon. References are actually the easy part; right now it is simply not very well written. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Good, lord yes. Economics professor here. Frankly, it's just not good, citations or no. Derex 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Not written well. 20:06, 15 April 2006
• Remove - Doesn't cover enough. Not enough references.--Urthogie 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Request—Can we have more details from Derex as to how it might be improved? Tony 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Medieval literature

Article is no longer a featured article.

Reasons cited from Wikipedia:What is a featured article?.. 2b) "comprehensive" it is not comprehensive, 1000+ years of European literature is extensive; many of the sub-articles have not even been created yet (see the red-links in the "see also" section). The sub-articles that exist should be part of the narrative of the article (in summary form), as they are the primary subject of the article. 2c) "factually accurate" .. no references or footnotes. 3a) "lead section" .. a single weak paragraph 4) few images, the graph is questionable (created as original research by a wikipedian). -- Stbalbach 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Achieved FA in late 2003/early 2004 on the basis of nomination and a single support vote: it may have been among Wikipedia's best articles then but it wouldn't qualify for GA now. No references, list-heavy, and without the lists rather short. Durova 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Half or the article is a giant list and there are no references - what more needs to be said?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Remove Remove!.Good God--this article should be removed immediately. Absolutely not up to FA standards. In addition, when it was nominated back in early 2004, it only received ONE vote of support (see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Medieval_literature)--Alabamaboy 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. While it is a good article, it is definitely not up to featured article standards. Zreeon 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. It doesn't seem comprehensive and it's not referenced. Definitely not a featured article. Mikker ^(...) 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 09:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Lacks references and the last half of the article is dominated by long lists. The article also does not appear to be complete, and should at the very least have some information on the differences in literature between the early, high, and late medieval periods. --Allen3 ^talk 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. The article is incomplete. To be removed. And that's that. --62.84.15.238 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - It's obvious this article got nominated poorly, and it fits barely any of the FA criteria. Schizmatic 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Good catch. --DanielNuyu 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Fails to be comprehensive on the subject. Besselfunctions 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, unreferenced, incomplete. --Terence Ong 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankfurt School

Article is no longer a featured article.

First Farc

With only three references and no inline citations, this article does not meet the current standard. It could also be made a little longer.--Bkwillwm 08:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep At its current length, I think this is quite a good summary of both the history of, and the theoretical developments associated with, the School. Rather than making it any longer (which would involve increasing the complexity of the content to explain more of the concepts — something that might deter readers of a less academic disposition), it might be better to spin off explanatory material to separate pages. The major problem lies in the absence of any proper referencing but, for someone with access to a good library, it should not be too difficult to remedy this. Thus, subject to remedial work on citations, I would recommend a keep. David91 18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove

• References: should be referenced better, the image too. (Image should also be made to look prettier... but that's not so important) -- Especially necessary to reference where we got the quotes from, especially since translation could matter for some of them.
• Criticism... this section is just bad... it has no real integration and is passive voice criticism and then a list of critics. This is something beyond the references that needs to be worked on to bring this up to par. It doesn't need to be in its own section... it can be integrated into each phase (because criticism differs by phase)... but it does deserve to be there in some sense.
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms... I see a bunch of this in the article... especially the weasel words talking about who has been influenced.
• I'm not an expert on this by any means... but from my limited knowledge it just seems that this article doesn't flow so well in its present form and really needs work to be on the level of the new featured articles. I do agree with not making this too complex in terms of theory since that would make it long (and should be in sub-articles)... however, since we're going the summary route it needs to be thematic and explain the overtones of the school rather than be anecdotal quoting different works willy-nilly (which this does to some extent... like where it just digresses into Adorno's philosophy of music)

gren グレン 15:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. For an article such as this, references are definately needed. In addition, that massive image in the "First Phase" section is hard to read and understand and strikes me as an amateurish way of laying out the information. The information in that image should be written out in the standard encyclopedia format (using sections and subsections) that all our best articles use. I also agree with the issues gren raised. --Alabamaboy 00:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Come on people, perfection in a little much to ask for when the article is open for editing by everyone. The article is a very good summary of it's topic and does have references. Would it be better if all the most important points were cited to reliable sources? Of course. I've probably pushed as hard as anyone to get to the point people reallize inline citations are needed for new FACs, but to go back and apply that to all FA's isn't a good idea. We'd be left with 300 FA's. If it weren't referenced at all, then yes I agree that's unnaceptable and we should remove the rest of those if they aren't fixed. As for the criticisms section, fix that, don't list it at FARC. - Taxman ^Talk 16:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No inline refs is a problem, but it's way too short for such an important topic. Just look at the 'Critics of the Frankfurt School' which is basically a stub section, or 'Major Frankfurt school thinkers and scholars' which is just a list! This could barely pass for 'History of a Frankfurt School', and as a comprehensive article about the school it is a complete failure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong remove. How could this article possibly be comprehensive without going into Habermas properly? (the article mentions his views, but not nearly enough is covered). Also, it lacks citations, even leaving direct quotations uncited. Additionally, "Critics of the Frankfurt School" is essentially a section stub and is therefore far from comprehensive. Mikker ^(...) 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Looks good to me. If you feel something is missing - why not add it? Giano | talk 16:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Aljubarrota

Article is no longer a featured article.

Primarily, this article is not comprehensive at all and is very poorly sourced. The battle appears to be one of the most relevant in Portugese history, yet nothing is mentioned about its reception in popular culture. Contrast this article with the recent FA Battle of Badr. Furthermore, it's repetitive. This is part of the introduction:

"Independence was assured and a new dynasty, the House of Aviz, was established. Scattered border confrontations with Castilian troops would persist until the death of Juan I in 1390, but these posed no real threat to the Portuguese monarchy. To celebrate his victory and acknowledge divine help, João I ordered the construction of the Monastery of Santa Maria da Vitória na Batalha and the founding of the town of Batalha (pronounced /bɐ.'ta.ʎɐ/, the Portuguese word for "battle"). The king, his wife Philippa of Lancaster, and several of his sons are buried in this monastery, which is an important part of Portuguese heritage."

And this is most of the second paragraph in the Aftermath section:

"Independence was assured and a new dynasty, the House of Aviz, started. Scattered border skirmishes with Castilian troops would persist until the death of Juan in 1390, but posed no real threat to the Portuguese crown. To celebrate his victory and acknowledge divine help, João ordered the construction of the Monastery of Santa Maria of Batalha, and the founding of the town of Batalha (battle in Portuguese). The king, his wife Philippa of Lancaster, and several of his sons are buried in this Monastery, an important part of Portuguese heritage."UberCryxic 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Referencing is a big problem, the article does not seem comprehensive and a substantial amount of important information is presented almost as an afterthought ('oh, the English were on the field too'; 'oh, there were 30,000 troops' etc.). Additionally, the prose is lacklustre at best and the information is simply not conveyed in a precise manner. The lead does not conform to WP:LEAD and "Prelude" is very unsatisfactory. Mikker ^(...) 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove for all the reasons stated above. Tobyk777 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Besides the issues listed above, a quick Google search has led me to seriously question the article's factual accuracy. This site, one of the first search results, describes casualties as 54 Portuguese dead and a few hundred Castilians. Somehow, this doesn't strike me as compatible with the article's description of heaped Castilian corpses damming the area's creeks. And what the article, in "Aftermath," describes as "scattered border skirmishes posing no real threat to the Portuguese Crown" was in actual fact a series of pretty crushing (albeit small-scale) Castilian victories. I'm no expert on Medieval Iberia, of course, but there clearly exists a radically different POV here that hasn't been touched upon at all. Albrecht 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - A few hundreds of casualties in the biggest battle that ever happened in Portuguese territory? It seems to me, a Portuguese, that your sources are not correct. The article provides the most widely accepted numbers. The battle was indeed a decisive victory to the Portuguese, in the site of the battle you may find the Monastery of Santa Maria da Vitória na Batalha [4] (something like Holy Mary of the Victory in the Battle), why would the king build such a monument if the battle was just a skirmish? Along with this, the presence of hundreds of british longbow archers were decisive to the victory, although the battle was held in Portuguese territory, it was an event of the Hundred Years' War, as the Castillians were allied with the French. The role of the British archers was like the one they had, for example, in Agincourt. The aftermath was not as you describe it, the Castillian king had to flee the site of the battle and in the way, he found several Portuguese groups, nothing of important as the real battle had already happened. Probably, this old time FA is not up to the standards anymore, but do not laugh at its content, as it still is a very good article. Afonso Silva 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offence at my comment. I don't mean to ridicule the effort that was put into the article, nor do I doubt that it was a seminal event in Portuguese history. My feeling, however, is that the material results of Aljubarrota might have been exaggerated (not exactly uncommon with Medieval events) to fit the moral impact. The website I cited isn't necessarily an authority; I only wanted to show that a different POV exists. The article simply doesn't give the impression of rigorous historical standards with attempts to balance analyses with more than one POV (Battle of Agincourt, for example, has a section on historiography and the debate over French numbers and casualties). I don't think these are calculated Portuguese plots; they're probably just human errors. Albrecht 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)