Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2012

Removed status

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:49, 29 May 2012 [1].

---

Katie Holmes

Review commentary

Notified: Users: (the only three that edited the article in the past year) Nymf, Malkinann, MarionFrazier. Projects: Ohio, Actors and Filmmakers, Scientology, Religion, United States.

Article was promoted in 2006. Talk page notice was given in September 2011. Work was performed in the interim but there are still issues present.

• 1a Many areas of the article have the "In .... and on..." disease and are list-like in their appearance as single sentences. The phrase enchanted the press is a bit of glowing narrative but also the cherry picked quotes of praise are quite noticeable. The addition of material since the article passed FAC in 2006 has been inserted without considering the flow of the article.
• 1c There are maintenance tags present, factual accuracy, dead links, not in citation given, update and others. Are mainstream entertainment publications considered "high-quality" sources?
• 2a Lede needs to be more comprehensive in explaining the article contents. It's short and outdated presently.
• 2b I don't understand the purpose of the bibliography and further reading sections. They contain articles that are already listed in the citations for the most part.
• 2c Uniformity, uniformity. There is a mixture of mdy and ymd dates; it should be one or the other. Some publication names are not italicized. Please update the retrieved on dates.
• Reduce wikilinking wherever possible. Brad (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC, maintenance tags, yet no work on the article since it was nominated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, MOS compliance and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delegate query: do any reviewers have an opinion on this article? Do its current issues merit delisting? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm troubled that no one seems to watching this important BLP, but can't convince myself that one section that needs updating is enough to delist it. Wish someone who works in this area would have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing here that isn't fixable. I'll take a shot at it next eek. Courcelles 18:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delist', as the article currently stands. I just can't see that this page would pass FAC if nominated today. The lead is too short, the "Early work" section is actually just a description of how she came to get the role in Dawson's Creek (while there actually is some information about her early work in the "Early life" bit - poor organisation). The second half lacks flow, with lots of stubby paragraphs (many just one sentence), and little information beyond "In X year, Holmes did this". I just don't think it has that professional, polished feel to it that means the page "represents Wikipedia's best work". --Lobo (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist I agree completely with Lobo512 Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist I'm a bit confused by Sandy's comment that there's only one section that needs work. Are we looking at the same article? The entire body is littered with one- and two-sentence paragraphs, making it more a collection of facts than an actual article. The sentences themselves are not particularly well-written either: "...Batman Begins along with art house films such as The Ice Storm and thrillers including Abandon." This and this and this = bad writing. The lead is too short, the reference formatting is inconsistent, Checklinks turns up multiple dead links. If it wouldn't pass FAC today (and it wouldn't, let's be honest), then it shouldn't be a FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)
• Delist', missing a lot of information. I also see a lot of consecutive sentences starting with "in" near the end. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:49, 29 May 2012 [2].

---

Transhumanism

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProjects Technology, Religion and Philosophy, User:Loremaster, User:Colonel Warden, User:Shadowy Sorcerer, User:IRWolfie-, User:Ian.thomson, User:Explosiveoxygen, User:Ewigekrieg, User:misternuvistor, User:Wawawemn, User:StN, User Greg Bard

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet FA criteria, and little headway has been made in improving it. Specifically, it does not meet 1. (a). The prose is reasonably good but not brilliant. 1 (b). It does not adequately place the subject in the context of mainstream social science or science research. 1 (c). It overuses sources within the Transhumanist perspective, in particular the work of James Hughes. 1 (d). It sets up criticisms as straw men, and its characterisation of criticisms with short phrases is original synthesis that has the effect of reducing the power of those criticisms. 2. (c). Many citations are to bare URLs. Some are to deadlinks. Citations to books do not always include page numbers. There has been relevant discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"...it does not meet FA criteria...1. (a). The prose is reasonably good, but not brilliant." Is non-brilliant prose disqualifying for a FA? It does not seem so to me. Here is the relevant passage in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

• Comment The article contains synthesis, some of which are from a fringe, undue perspectives. The article contains many fringe viewpoints other than transhumanism. An article should represent the mainstream view and so not contain unrelated fringe arguments or specific criticisms of one fringe against another (i.e neo-luddite criticisms of transhumanism) as it is undue, unless, it is discussed in mainstream sources, but the mainstream position should also be noted. There appears to be a lack of uninvolved secondary sources in the controversy section. This appears to be a systematic problem within the controversies section. I will look at the first two sections of the controversy section (for previty) to demonstrate my point:

In the section Transhumanism#Infeasibility_.28Futurehype_argument.29

Max Dublin is described as a sociologist, I am not sure where this is verified from. (searching for author:"Max Dublin" on scholar.google.com returns 3 results, for author:"M Dublin" a variety of hits are returned in diverse fields which I assume is a collection of individuals). I can not find any information about him. (is this a pen name?)

The Kevin Kelly reference talks about Futorology not Transhumanism.

Bob Seidensticker does not appear to explicitly mention transhumanism in his book 'Future hype: the myths of technology change'. I do not see where he explicitly "argues that today's technological achievements are not unprecedented".

In the section Transhumanism#Hubris_.28Playing_God_argument.29

The vatican statement appears to be directed at genetic engineering in general where it is to improve a characteristic. When read carefully it doesn't seem to support the statement of the inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual god..

Jeremy Rifkin is an American Economist and based on his book, an anti-evolutionist. His views on synthetic biology seem inappropriate/peculiar and undue as he is not a biologist, chemist or engineer. He is also. (the Kirkus review provided by google books has the statement about his cited book: It's yet another simplistic dichotomy, which grants mankind omnipotence and ignores what biologists have been learning about the behavior of genes all these years.) Perhaps I am merely unfamilar with journals in the humanities but the paper in the Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy seems pecular for a paper in a journal. The journal is run by students and does not seem to have peer review; surely the rest of the paragraph has no due weight unless discussed in reliable secondary sources.

The paragraph with comments attributed to Kirsten Rabe Smolensky appears to be pure synthesis to link it to the discussion in the previous paragraph and to Transhumanism in general. The actual source appears to be directed at any genetic engineering, not only just the fundamental transformation applicable to Transhumanism.

The phrase "Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals" seems to imply some sort of conflict. The statement is also illogical as someone can not be allied with a goal. This should probably be reworded.

It appears from the response that, although I can't be certain as I have no reasonable way of verifying it, the opinions of James Hughes and Gregory Stock are not directed at Jeremy Rifkin. But this is unimportant; the views of Jeremy Rifkin do not appear to be, or give no indication that they are the mainstream viewpoints; his anti-evolutionist views are juxtaposed beside those of his anti-tranhumanism.

Transhumanism#Contempt_for_the_flesh_.28Fountain_of_Youth_argument.29

Similar issue to the previous section. His criticisms do not appear to be mainstream. He appears to go further than His praising of the renounching of technology like in the Tokugawa shogunate and amish communities are hardly mainstream viewpoints. His viewpoints on rejecting the use of" germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes" is even more strict than the viewpoint of the catholic church as seen in the vatican statement above, Gene therapy, directed to the alleviation of congenital conditions like Down's syndrome ... would help the individual to give full expression to his real identity which is blocked by a defective gene. [3].

I suspect the rest of the article also contains many more examples of this mixture of original synthesis, fringe opinions, original research and lack of reliable secondary sourcing. If required I can give many more examples of this in more sections. For these reasons of systematic issues I think it should not be a featured article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The commentator above seems unfamiliar with the concept of a law review, which in the United States are the main venues for legal scholarship. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy is a law review published by law students of the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America. The law reviews of the Harvard and Yale law schools are similarly published by law students at those schools. Is it proposed that citations to those journals throughout Wikipedia are also inappropriate? StN (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they typically lack peer-review? The issue still stands with the point that the criticism is not mainstream (the paper is in association with Jeremy Rifkin who's views on biology are not mainstream, i.e anti-evolutionist, which was the basis of the book). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What paper is "in association with Jeremy Rifkin"? StN (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Paper from Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy mentions his association with Jeremy Rifkin. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to get some sense of the basis of your criticism of the Transhumanism article relative to this point: It cites an article in a law review by a biologist (Stuart Newman) who entered into a joint project with Jeremy Rifkin at some point in the past. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book (Algeny; 1984) critical of Darwin's mechanism of evolution, which means that Rifkin doesn't believe in evolution (not simply Darwin's mechanism for it). This is discrediting not only of Rifkin, but of Newman, the sole author of the article in question, since it implies that he also does not believe in evolution. Therefore the law review article should not be cited. Is this what you are saying? StN (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently cites Jeremy Rifkin's book for his argument. It then expands on this with the law review in which Stuart Newman refers to his joint project with Jeremy Rifkin. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The comments attributed to Kirsten Rabe Smolensky are an accurate summary of this legal scholar's presentation at a conference on Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights. Human enhancement technologies are synonymous with much of transhumanism, as any reader of the article, or anyone familiar with the subject can ascertain. Even though her comments could potentially apply to "any genetic engineering," that was not the context in which they were delivered. StN (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your deduction is not based on the sources, therefore the linkage is not verifiable. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you access the web page linked to in reference 98 of the article you will find the name of the Stanford University conference at which Smolensky delivered her talk. It is the same as I indicated above. Are you presenting these criticisms in a serious fashion i.e., do you know anything about the issues you refer to, or have looked at all into the references cited in the article? StN (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not need an in depth knowledge of Transhumanism, I look at the references and see if they make the connection. I've looked at many of the references, I have looked at all the references in the sections I have mentioned. It is through these references that I see the synthesis as the linkage to Rifkin etc is not made in these references. While I do not doubt that transhumanism is interested in an extreme fashion with Human enhancement technologies I do not think they are synonymous. i.e Transhumanism is a subset of those interested in Human enhancement technologies, this is not important, what is important is that no source links the opinions of Kirsten Rabe Smolensky to the opinions of Rifkin, this is not in any secondary source, therefore it is a synthesis. If something does link the two please provide reliable sources that make the linkage or point out something from the existing references that I may have overlooked. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fully engage in this review (which I deem unnecessary) in order to refute the many dubious arguments it contains. However, I would like to point out that some of the people who are currently trying to strip the Transhumanism article of its featured article status are not only motivated by a bias against the subject itself having such a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable Wikipedia article but seem more interested in hacking it down to a boring uninformative stub rather than improving it by adding substantive new content. That being said, I am willing to eventually work on fixing the real problems the Transhumanism article has when I have more free time to ensure it remains a great article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Attack the argument, not the person. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep.

All of your claims are not critical. They can be resolved without any bureaucratic exercise.

I'm agree with your point about characterisation of criticisms with short phrases. (although you are wrong about the effect - it has the effect of strengthen the power of those criticisms).

We can probably use corresponding titles from Spanish version of the Article (also note: its a featured article, and it is very similar to our article).

Google translate:

5.1 Reviews technical infeasibility

5.2 Reviews of immorality

5.3 Criticism of the concept of human body

5.4 Criticism of the possible trivialization of human existence

5.5 Criticism of unequal access to technology

5.6 Criticism of the impact on social order

5.7 Criticism of the danger of dehumanization

5.8 Threat of a return to coercive eugenics

5.9 Threats to human survival as a species

Also note: you can't name transhumanism as fringe theory, because transhumanism is not a science, but cultural movement. It's all about values and goals, and not about "how the things works". It's not "Creationism" but "Christianity". So, you can't expect scientific purity of the pro and contra arguments. They can (and should) be moral, ethical, philosophical.

"it does not meet 1. (a). The prose is reasonably good but not brilliant."

I can't say anything about the prose (I'm not a native English speaker). But I can use page ratings:

Trustworthy - 4.5 (57 ratings)

Objective - 4.5 (58 ratings)

Complete - 5 (57 ratings)

Well-written - 4.5 (60 ratings)

Its a really good results, don't you think? Almost all of readers think, that the article is well-written. - Ewigekrieg (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase: please see the instructions at WP:FAR. The FAR phase is for listing improvements needed and working on them-- Keep or Delist are not declared until/unless the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment Page rankings in themselves do not indicate if an article is trustworthy, it only indicates that whoever clicked on the page rankings thought the article was trustworthy. Transhumanism is a fringe viewpoint and as such relevant to the FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't say anything about this. It was the answer about a quality of the prose. The readers say, that the article is well-written. Thats all.

"Transhumanism is a fringe viewpoint" Could you provide a reliable source to prove this? -Ewigekrieg (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that transhumanism is in fact mainstream? Transhumanism has a long history, but in modern times, it has been dismissed by most as a fringe element of ... [4], This is DIY transhumanism, the fringe of a movement that itself lies well outside the mainstream of philosophy, ethics, technology and science. [5] IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cable news channel and "Wired"... Could you provide a reliable scientific source to prove this?

I can. Transhumanist works in University of Oxford and events in Arizona State University. -Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it, one minute you claim transhumanism is not a science and now you have switched to asking for scientific sources? I don't see any reputable scientific sources there either. Also being published does not make something mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for scientific sources about something non-scientific.

Compare: feminism is not a science, but you can find scientific works about feminism (sociological, philosophical etc). Also, feminism is not a fringe viewpoint, because it is not a science. -Ewigekrieg (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a science. Secondly, your references do not show transhumanism is mainstream. Thirdly if you are suggesting that I must show scientific sources, then the non-scientific sources used for claims in the article should also be dismissed. Views described in non-scientific journals or other sources which characterize or discuss transhumanism would be unreliable. edit: I don't think this should be the case but it would be a consequence of only using scientific sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Page ratings for the article are 2.6, 2.6, 2.7, 2.6 now (and going down). Without any sagnificant change in the article for months. Very interesting. Someone want very hard to change the status of the article? I don't see how it can help him, but I don't have another explonation.

-Ewigekrieg (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There has, frankly speaking, been an attack on this page for quite some time. There has been a significant amount of shouts to "grab the pitchforks" in fringe-based discussion pages, and very little effort on the part of the people making complaints to explain themselves. The earlier argument above to discredit a source based on the actions of someone he worked with far previously is one such weak example, and if one was to try putting that statement in an article it would be immediately removed as original research. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He discusses his working with Rifkin in the source not in the unconnected manner of "someone he worked with far previously". The particular usage of the source is how he elaborated on the position of Rifkin. Do you wish to describe how Rifkin's biology (we quote his definition of Algeny) related opinions are due when he lies so far outside the biology mainstream? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I can't say that I'm particularly familiar with that specific work. It's a big, big article; I've been working through it here and there for years, and I wouldn't claim to have full mastery of it. That's kinda part of the reason I'm suspicious of anyone that pops up stating otherwise for themselves. This is part of the reason for my posts on the talk page, which have not been responded to. It's also part of the reason why editors involved with this article expect anyone suggesting major change to produce a clearly elaborated argument on the talk page; for some of these matters we need to know what you're actually talking about so we can look it up ourselves.

My above comment was more aimed at the rather suspicious sudden downranking without major changes since the previous reviews. The same goes for this general "review" in comparison to the previous reviews linked up there at the top. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There has never been a featured article review of this article, the last review of this article seems to have been about 5 and a half years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And I am now wondering whether procedures were followed in its promotion to FA in the first place. It's a long time ago and procedures have changed. I will try and find out. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't just stick the bronze star on any old article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism. Procedures are being followed here-- it's being reviewed. A list of items that can be worked on in the FARC phase is below-- I will provide more as editors begin to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Besides the issues already brought up

• 1c The large lists of movies and other "pop culture" items are unsourced. It would appear these are collected lists of what someone believed to be related to transhumanism therefore making original research. There are also numerous uncited passages and entire paragraphs throughout the article. All quotes must have citations. There are several sources reporting dead links. There are citation needed tags.
• 2c The lack of page numbers is a serious problem. External links must have retrieved on dates. Either oclc numbers on all or none; either dashed isbn's on all or no dashes on all. Brad (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC: from this version, and see this sample edit of the lead only. [6] Only 23 edits (including mine) and very little improvment since the FAR was initiated. There is WP:OVERLINKing (samples, suffering, gender), words as words should be in italics, not quotes, vague sentences that need attribution or clarificaton (Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views), a list of trivia in Arts and Culture that is also uncited, pull quotes in "Arts and culture", citation needed tags, incorrect use of italics in section headings, missing page numbers, and there is uncited text (samples) :

• and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
• several paragraphs in the "Aims" section.

While this list of issues appears long, it doesn't strike me as too much to be able to clean up during the FARC phase, if there are editors willing to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the FAR section include prose, sourcing, and neutrality. While there was extensive discussion above, many of these concerns appear not to have yet been resolved. For further discussion, please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies and the featured article criteria, and remember that page ratings are not relevant to FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Could we please get some comments here on whether or not editors (those who commented above or others) feel the article meets FA status? Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those of you who feel that the article meets FA criteria please comment on how the article does so while still retaining multiple tags and having multiple unaddressed issues above? Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think the Transhumanism article still meets FA status even if it needs some improvements to make this status permanently uninpeachable. --Loremaster (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm agree with Loremaster --Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The article needs improvement but nonetheless meets FA standards in my opinion.StN (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There has been little or no progress on the technical quality of referencing (deadlinks, missing page numbers), just to mention one very important issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I note in regard to the supposed "straw man" nature of the critiques that these should be summaries of material with more in-depth (attempts at) criticism in their own article, since said article exists. (And if people suggest merging these two pages, I suggest doing the same with, say, Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Catholicism - it's at least as justified, if just as impractical.) Regarding the technical quality of referencing, this should certainly be improved where possible (for instance, if nobody active happens to have a copy of the particular book with page numbers being requested, it may not be). Allens (talk | contribs) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues surrounding the Criticism section have been debated and resolved on the talk page a long time ago. --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those who are in favor of de-FAing the page please list their remaining issues? Itsmejudith above suggested that there was more than one issue remaining (in Itsmejudith's opinion). Allens (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Many paragraphs are based solely on primary sources and sources which do not give due weight. A simple example is the large paragraph which starts: "The second category is aimed mainly at "algeny", which Jeremy Rifkin..." which is based on two primary sources for the opinions of the individuals. The paragraph after that is also primary sourced as well as the paragraph after that. (I've already commented above on the substance of the text but now I highlight a different issue) IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much appears to have changed in the last month. [7]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess people have better things to do than obsessing over an article that is relatively fine... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Loremaster, there have been quite a few issues raised above that have not even begun to be dealt with in the article: dead links, missing page numbers, an improper synthesis tag, the sourcing concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and IRWolfie - the list goes on. These need to be dealt with before the article can be kept as an FA; at the moment the article is in danger of being delisted due to the complete lack of regard being shown for the reviewers' comments. Ignoring what other editors are saying is not going to make them go away. Dana boomer (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just being facetious. That being said, I agree that some legitimate issues have been raised. However, as the main and sometimes only contributor to this article, I am just too busy at the moment to address them. However, I will as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Delist. The following sources need page numbers in order to satisfy WP:V. Ref numbers are based on this version of the article.

• (Ref 1) A history of transhumanist thought, 30 pages
• (Ref 2) Citizen Cyborg, 294 pages
• (Ref 12) The Age of Spiritual Machines, 388 pages
• (Ref 13) Are you a transhuman?, 227 pages
• (Ref 14) Man into superman, 428 pages
• (Ref 16) Up-wingers, 146 pages
• (Ref 23) Report on the 2005 Interests..., 16 pages
• (Ref 41) The singularity is near, 652 pages
• (Ref 124) Our Final Hour, 288 pages

The following references are also problematic:

• (Ref 17) EZTV Media ref incomplete, unreliable source
• (Ref 18) Great Mambo Chicken, ref incomplete (link? isbn?)
• (Ref 20) ref blatantly incomplete
• (Ref 21) publisher needed
• (Ref 34) Are Humans Obsolete dead link
• (Ref 77) bare link
• (Ref 78) bare link

And many more, I'd imagine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist – Too many issues at the moment. In addition to what's up there, allow me to bring up the following...

• While page numbers probably weren't a subject of review back in 2006 when this article passed FAC, they are important for providing easier verification for our readers, to prevent them from having to look through a whole book to find the relevant fact(s). With that many references needing work, I don't think that the verifiability part of criterion 1c is met.
• I also note the presence of a synthesis tag in the Hubris subsection, which is a serious matter that should be resolved if this is to be kept.
• Ref 3 is a dead link to a WordPress page, which is likely not a reliable source. That's two problems in one.
• Ref 86 is also a dead link.
• Many references need publishers listed.
• The magazine cover likely fails the non-free content criteria, as most magazine covers are not valid fair-use in a general article like this, and not one about the magazine where a cover image is easier to justify. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 14:12, 23 May 2012 [8].

---

Azerbaijani people

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Khoikhoi, User talk:Parishan, User talk:Lysozym, User talk:Grandmaster, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups; User:Tombseye inactive

I need help on this article. It fails criteria 1a, 1c, 2 and 3. As of this version:

• 1a: Prose. In the lead alone examples of prose include: "have a various other heritages including Turkic, Iranic[38] in addition of indigenous Caucasians." and "Azerbaijanis are the Indigenous small-numbered people of the Republic of Dagestan". Repetition includes "Russia (Dagestan)" and "Dagestan (Russia)" and "international border since the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmenchay (1828), after which Iran lost its then northern territories to Russia" and "the treaties of Gulistan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828 finalized the borders with Russia and Iran".
• 1c: Reliability: Citation needed tags; dead links; potentially unreliable sources such as everyculture.com and lawru.info
• 2: Blockquotes formatted as pullquotes. Inconsistently formatted citations.
• 3: Thorough media review is needed. Copyrighted images without fair use rationales are used in the lead composite image. Two images were recently deleted as copyright violations[9][10]

It is unclear whether concerns over 1d (bias) and 1e (stability), are resolved.[11][12] DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead composite image issue is easy to solve. A year ago, there was a nice fair-use image above the infobox, which in my opinion, looked a lot better than a collection of barely visible images, where some, as it turns out now, even lack a fair use rationale. Parishan (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That image is still in the article, below the infobox at the top of the "Part of a series" template. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm the one who initially posted the notification to the talk page (back in late December), and unfortunately nothing has been done to address the concerns I brought up in that notification. Besides the obvious (tagged) issues with dead links, citations needing page numbers and places needing references, there are also unreliable sources (some examples mentioned above by DrKiernan, but there are others), poorly/inconsistently formatted references and poor compliance with MOS (including issues with image sandwiching and quote formatting). Also agree with the prose and image licensing issues brought up by DrKiernan. Dana boomer (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment—A bit of a problem with 3. The infobox is too thick due to the number of pictures. It probably should only have at most four columns. --Article editor (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced it by one column for the moment by removing the files with the least solid licensing information; it could be further trimmed by removing the next 5 least reliable files or 5 files with the least licensing information (missing sources; broken sources; etc). DrKiernan (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited, spot-checked, and thinned out the images. The article is no longer tagged with any clean up tags, and there have been no complaints or comments about bias or any edit-warring during my edits. DrKiernan (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that looks a lot better - nice work! A few more thoughts:

• What makes refs #4, 14 (LookLex) a HQRS?
• What makes refs #58, 60 (Iran Chamber Society) a HQRS? Also, the publisher should be formatted consistently between these two.
• Ref #35 is supposedly to Encyclopedia Iranica, but upon going to the reference it's a completely different website (and in a different language, so I don't know who the publisher is/what the content is).
• Refs need to be checked for consistent formatting. Some use a note:page number format (for example [6]:113[54]:285), while others include the page number in the note itself.
• Image licensing needs to be checked more closely. For example, File:Azeri 1900.PNG uses a author life+70 tag, but the author is unknown, File:Sattar Khan.jpg has the same issue (tag based on author lifespan, but we don't know the author). I didn't check any of the images in the lead composite, and I am also not an image expert, so I may have missed things on the other images in the article.

• I haven't taken a thorough look at prose yet, but from a quick glance it's looking a lot better. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look. I've just chopped those five sources: two can be replaced and three are just extra sources for statements already supported by other cites. The page numbers in the footnotes are for sources that are used once; whereas for sources used multiple times the page numbers are by the identifier. I don't know why this format was used, probably accident more than anything, but I just kept it the same. I think for Sattar Khan, we're using the second half of the license: 30 years after publication? (But there's no proof of publication either I guess..hmmn..I'll think on that.) I've changed the tag on Azeri 1900. DrKiernan (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for taking a bit to get back to this, and my apologies for putting my review up in pieces... I've had a read through the article and just have a few more comments:

• The paragraph starting "Brief independence for northern Azerbaijan in 1918–1920..." could probably use a reference, just for safety's sake.
• The paragraph starting "Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan have developed distinct institutions..." could use a reference.

• Once these two things are taken care of, I think should article should be good to go. Prose looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again.

• Cites added.
• I've dismantled that section and merged it into the other sections that talk about Azeris on each side of the border. There was some repetition and the material is similar.

• Close Comments addressed; tags cleared. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. The only further thing that I would suggest is to investigate the charge of non-neutrality in one sentence (see article history), but this is a very minor issue. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep without FARC - DrKiernan has done a great job on this article, and has addressed all of my comments above. Article is in much better shape than when this FAR was started. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• The recent edit warring and POV pushing on the article has made in unstable and again pushed it below FA quality. Because DrKiernan seems unwilling to continue working against this type of editing (and I don't blame him, I wouldn't want to either), the article needs to be moved to FARC and delisted. It is disappointing that so much work went into this article and then was disturbed with edit warring, undiscussed removals of sourced information, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality, sourcing, and prose. Though improvements were made in the review, recent instability and disputes have necessitated a move to FARC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anybody? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - I am sorry to see that Dr. Kiernan, who did an amazing job at cleaning up this article, has had to step down from editing due to the edit warring that took place on the article after his work (not that I blame him in the least). The article currently sports a large disputed accuracy tag, has had information critical of the current regime removed (diff), and has a very, very unstable recent history. Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• comment, well the version that got promoted in the first place WAS indeed featured. It was far more balanced. I don't think anything major has happened since that time to this topic. Is it possible to just revert back to two years ago and lock it down? Pejman47 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No. What has changed between then and now that makes the previous article "more balanced"? DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

well, basically every bit of change! The new sources are all iffy. I really liked the original intro. It made all sides happy. Alas, those people who wrote the article and made it featured are not active anymore. Well, I guess that's Wikipedia. Pejman47 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delist – With the tag at the top of the page, and another later on for a dead link (admittedly minor in comparison), I can't say that this meets the FA criteria anymore. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 15:29, 15 May 2012 [13].

---

Madonna (entertainer)

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Legolas2186, Wikipedia:WikiProject Madonna

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the many recently discovered problems with facts that are not supported by directly cited sources. This FAR is part of a general cleanup of articles about Madonna's albums and songs, ones in which sources were misused and even fabricated. Because of the high visibility of this article, and because of its status as a biography of a living person, we are very much encouraged to get it right. Let's make sure the article is as accurate as possible. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I have a policy of not participating in FARs of articles that I promoted at FAC, so I'll be sitting this one out, but I share the concerns that have been raised on article talk and elsewhere,[14] and note that I have not been able to decipher why I didn't request a source check on this FAC (I waived source checks if the nominator had previously had one, but I can't figure out why I thought this nominator had). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish to add links to the original discussion and the workpage:

• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Legolas2186_possibly_falsifying_references
• User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems

Ongoing work on other articles should be brought to the second linked page. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to be involved with this FAR and fix as much as I can. Does anyone have Taraborrelli? My local library system doesn't have it available. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think we should move your Partial_source_audit here, or copy it here, or leave it where it is? Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. We'll need to make a master list of refs that are OK and not OK so we can track which ones have been fixed. The partial source audit will be a start to that list. --Laser brain (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Laser brain comments copied from Talk:Madonna_(entertainer) (ref numbers need updating)

Resolved source issues from Laser brain

Ref 3, close paraphrasing: Article text: "Madonna was nicknamed 'Little Nonni' to distinguish her from her mother." Source text: "They nickname her "Little Nonni" to distinguish her from her mother." Ref 4(b), fails verification: Article text: "Her mother died of breast cancer at the age of 30 in 1963." Source text: "In December 1963, Mrs. Ciccone died of breast cancer at the age of 31..." Findagrave and some other web sources say that Madonna's mother was born in July 1933, and that she died in December 1963 at the age of 30. Madonna says her mother was 30 years old at death. "When I turned thirty, which was the age my mother was when she died... I kept thinking 'I'm now outliving my mother.' I thought something horrible was going to happen to me." This same source confirms Madonna Fortin Ciccone's gravestone as bearing the date range 1933–1963, which must belong to a 29- or 30-year-old person, not 31. Madonna told Rolling Stone that she was "obsessed" about dying "because my mother died of breast cancer when she was thirty." I think we can replace 31 with 30. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I think you might be reading my comments backward. We do currently say she died at 30, which appears to be true. The problem is that the source we cite (FoxNews) states 31. So we need to use a correct source. --Laser brain (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I'm turned around. The cited Fox News source is wrong in this case. I will move a book cite into that position. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 4(c), fails verification: Article text: "Madonna later attended Rochester Adams High School, and was a straight-A student and a member of the cheerleading squad." Source text: Does not mention her being a "straight-A student". Multiple reliable sources dating from before Wikipedia confirm straight As: "Madonna was a cheerleader and straight-A student", "she became a straight-A student in an attempt to win her father's approval", "I was a straight-A student, and they all hated me for it", "She got straight As", and "She was a very goal-oriented student and always brought home straight A's on her report card." Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 8, fails verification: Article text: "Her father married the family's housekeeper Joan Gustafson, and they had two children: Jennifer and Mario Ciccone." Source text: Does not mention Jennifer and Mario. Ref 20, incorrect/fails verification: Article text: "Madonna signed a singles deal with Sire, a label belonging to Warner Bros. Records." Source text: Does not mention who the label belongs to, and the article text is correct anyway. The label belongs to Warner Music Group. Did it in 1982? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 22(a), fails verification: Article text: "Her debut single, "Everybody", was released on October 6, 1982, and became a dance hit." Source text: Does not mention the single "Everybody" at all. Ref 32(a), fails verification: Article text: "Madonna further came under fire when she performed the song at the first MTV Video Music Awards where she appeared on stage atop a giant wedding cake, wearing a wedding dress and bridal veil, adorned with her characteristic "Boy Toy" belt buckle. The performance is noted by scholars and by MTV as an iconic performance in MTV history." Source text: No mention of some details (such as belt buckle) or "noted by scholars". Not at all sure what that's referring to.

Ref 20, fails verification:

• Article text: "Her first documentary film Truth or Dare (known as In Bed with Madonna outside North America) was released in mid-1991. The documentary chronicled her Blond Ambition World Tour and provided glimpses into her personal life."
• Source text: Does not mention alternate title or anything about "glimpses into her personal life".

Ref 25, fails verification:

• Article text: "The title track, 'Like a Virgin', topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart for six consecutive weeks."
• Source text: Shows the tracking going to number one, but not for how many weeks.

Ref 32(b), misapplied/redundant.

Ref 57, fails verification:

• Article text: "However, she was allowed to retain her fee of five million dollars."
• Source text: Does not mention the fee at all.
• Fox News source reliability. What makes Fox News an expert on Madonna? I don't see any sources cited, and I get no sense of who the editors/authors are, what importance they put on getting this right, fact checking, etc. Should we just jettison the Fox News source and use the reliable book sources? Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • At least one Fox News biography source can be traced via quoted comment from Madonna, where she says she arrived in NYC with $35. The Metz/Benson book, The Madonna Companion, quotes Madonna saying "I was only 17. I had $35 in my pocket and knew no one. I told the taxi driver to take me to the middle of everything. I was let off in Times Square." However, the Fox News bio does not dip into Metz/Benson for its information about older brothers Martin and Anthony, nor about Adams High School or the thespian club; these are not in the book. So we know that Fox News is using more than one source. It's wrong, of course, about Madonna's mother dying at 31. What else is wrong? Her older brothers and her thespian involvement are all verifiable in other books. I'm not seeing any obvious mistakes except the mother's final age. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty close to getting a sustained period of time to go through at least the first section. My plan is to eliminate that source. I don't see anything that's not covered by other sources that are proven to be more reliable. I've seen Fox News do okay on some things, but it looks like whoever assembled this bio was just making quick work of it. --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

More surely to come. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus comments copied from Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)

Comments on this version of the article.

• Bronson 2002 (#56, #79, & #118) is undefined, although it may be Bronson 2003 in Further reading.
• Michael 2004 (#95, #96, & #107) is also undefined, but may be seeking St. Michael 2004.
• Taraborrelli 2003 (#136) is another undefined source, that may be intended to be Taraborrelli 2002.

Alarbus (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Gimmetoo comments copied from Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)

Refs 21 and 22 (in the current version) are probably switched. Ref 21 does mention "Everybody", with a release date of April 24, 1982, which was the date given in the article though much of its history, and ref 22 is more focused on the recording contract. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Progress notes

• Life and career 1958–81: Early life and career beginnings is done except for book sources. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Update

I'm only part way through "1982–85" and running out of enthusiasm. Since I don't have access to any of the book sources, it's impossible for me to verify half of the refs. The density of problems in the ones I can check is taking the wind out of my sails. So many of the refs simply don't cover what they are stuck on, and it is taking me hours of rooting around in the other sources on the page to find something that covers it. Hopefully some other folks are willing to grab some sections and help save this, and hopefully someone has Taraborrelli and the other books.. otherwise it looks pretty grim. This is a complete clusterf---. --Laser brain (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Courage! I will jump in and help but give me a section or more that you will leave alone; I will do some hunting and fixing. I don't have any books on Madonna but I can poke at search engines pretty well. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Really, you could grab anything Artistry and downward. I've gone through my local library and requested Taraborrelli, of which there seems to be one copy in the entire city library system. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Artistry and downward. There's only one Taraborelli book in Oakland's library system and it is already on hold in case it shows up again, but I'm guessing the copy is probably lost, not an unusual occurrence here in my burg. There are four copies in San Francisco's library system, so that could be a better deal for me. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Citation needed tag; concerns over verifiability; unsourced sentences. Citations should be next to the sentences they support. On a minor point, please don't use curly quotes per WP:PUNCT; besides most of the quote marks are straight, and they should be consistent throughout the article. Consider bundling multiple citations per WP:CITEBUNDLE. DrKiernan (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to the party. The primary editor has vanished, so any help you could offer would be valued. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've copyedited, and have spotchecked available internet sources numbered between 1 and 81 (so far, maybe more will follow). There are two dead links and one unverified quote (ref. 19 in Musical style section). DrKiernan (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking this is going on the main page in a few hours or so, and the article is still in review of it's FA credentials? How are things coming along? I'm not very active anymore, but I used to edit this article quite a bit. I just researched into the background of why this review is in process, I'm disappointed. — R² 19:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We are all disappointed. Regarding TFA, at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests they replaced this article with one about a storm, as stated at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Upcoming_Madonna_TFA. I did not know the article had ever been under consideration for TFA. I would expect it to be featured on her birthday, August 16, or on some other day strongly connected with Madonna. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Probably wise in the circumstances. — R² 20:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Face cover article from August 2000

On August 4, 2011, Legolas2186 added a quote in this series of edits, referencing The Face magazine but fabricating a volume and issue number of 32 and 8, not the correct 3 and 43 which can be seen here and here. The tumblr site is the "official" archive of the magazine, the other site is a back order sales site (which does not have the issue in stock, unfortunately.) My guess is that Legolas got the quote from allaboutmadonna.com where they have transcribed something that appears to be an interview here. A big problem with that quote is that I cannot be sure it is accurately transcribed. It certainly does not give the author or page numbers or volume or issue. Legolas made up the volume and issue which makes me suspect that the page number and author, "Johny Davies", are incorrect as well. I don't know! Because of my uncertainty, I have deleted the page number and the author from the citation. Anyone who has a physical copy of this magazine issue is welcome to thumb through it and find out the pages and author—I would appreciate it. Also, is the article title simply "It's My Love-You-But-F**k-You Record!" or is it preceded by "Madonna" as in "Madonna: 'It's My Love-You-But-F**k-You Record!'"? (The word "fuck" is printed as "f**k" in the title.) An examination of the cover image makes me think maybe the latter is the case. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article in The Face as transcribed by Madonna fans gives the quote differently. Legolas wrote, "As she explained, 'I sing about shattering an image that you have of somebody...'", but the magazine does not have the words "I sing about". Those appear to have been fabricated for convenience. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid Sischy interview in Interview magazine, April 2008

The content of the Sischy interview was misinterpreted. In our article we have Madonna's voice "in higher register ...with employment of double tracking." The Sishy interview (as transcribed by Madonna fans here, and it says nothing about singing in a higher register or double tracking the voice (there's something about double-tracking Madonna's guitar playing, an expert guitarist doing the same part in unison but later, which is often a euphemism for "we dumped your lousy instrumental part and got somebody much better to play it.") I ditched the bits about high register and double-tracked voice.

Note that Legolas put a false URL in his reference for Interview magazine in this series of edits. He gave us the false http://www.interview.com/april-2008/madonna but the Wayback Machine indicates that in 2008, the domain interview.com was owned by a job agency. The URL proffered by Legolas was never one that pointed to the magazine article. Instead, he gave an "archived" URL taken from allaboutmadonna.com. This was a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, as it threw up a smokescreen of legitimacy. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues brought up in the review section focused mainly on copyright compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments please - anyone have any thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The remaining problems are not so bad that the article should be demoted, in my opinion. A little more work to match quotes, facts and sources should do it. Nothing sticks out as terribly wrong; it's just that the sourcing needs sorting. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this. The print sources have been difficult to come by. The sections that we've looked at have been largely fixed, but there may be hornets' nests waiting in others. I'd feel much better about it if someone could get their hands on Taraborelli and do some spot checks. Since it's a BLP, we need to be extra careful. --Laser brain (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dang. Just today I looked up a reference to an article printed in The Face magazine in August 2000, and I found that Legolas2186 fabricated at least the volume and issue numbers. See Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Edit_request_on_5_May_2012. You could be right that there is a hornet's nest waiting, hidden in the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So do you guys have opinions on whether the article should be delisted (given the likelihood that there are additional problems lurking in the sources) or if there is someone out there who wants to go through the sources one by one, which is what sounds like needs to happen? Dana boomer (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be delisted. There are too many instances of the text not meshing with the sources, and there have been too many cases where the sources are partially or completely fabricated. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist. Concur with Binksternet, unfortunately. --Laser brain (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist, if this much trouble is arising from synchronizing the sources, it probably needs to be extensively rebuilt. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 15:29, 15 May 2012 [15].

---

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Review Commentary

Notified: Pagrashtak, WikiProject Video Games

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 1c, not enough inline citations to support the article. A talk page notice was started 1 month ago, but no sources have been added so far. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sections exactly need more inline citations in them? GamerPro64 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gameplay section. In fact it's completely unreferenced. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cutecutecuteface2000, now that you have an editor apparently interested in working on the article, please give a list of all the issues that you found with the article, rather than just listing them one at a time. Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Gameplay section is unreferenced.
• Plot is excessively detailed.
• There is no information on the awards it received at E3.

Those are all the issues I could find. If you find more issues, please reply here. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Reception section isn't nearly beefy enough for an article like this one. This game received huge reviews from every major publication at the time. Development could stand to be expanded as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Could we get some thoughts as to whether this article should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I think there's room for improvement, but I don't think the problems are severe enough to warrant delisting. Looking at the sources already in the article, I'm betting at least a few could be used to reference the plot and gameplay. There's also a new book out in Japan that discusses the series in great detail (and, presumably, the games including this one) - Hyrule Historia, I believe the name was. I don't have access to a copy, though, but it could be a key resource. The E3 award is noted and referenced, at least at the moment, so that's one item off the list. If these are the only issues, they should be trivial to fix. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ultra, this article currently has three major cleanup banners on it. How does this mesh with your statement that the article should not be delisted (bearing in mind that it doesn't look like anyone is prepared to do something like integrate a new, integral, source)? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to get your point of view on this. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - While I see that there is room for improvement, the article right now is not up to standard. Maybe it can become a Good Article if worked on a bit, I don't see it re-obtaining the Bronze Star anytime soon. GamerPro64 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delist. The gameplay and plot sections are very crufty, not to mention unsourced. There's no mention of why Miyamoto changed direction for the Zelda series (namely why he went the cartoon-y route), beyond age appeal. The development seems to be lacking, with regards to the actual development of the game. Instead, it just seems like a history of released information on the game. "The script of the game was written by Mitsuhiro Takano and Hajime Takahashi,[19] based on a story idea by Aonuma" - this is a very interesting part, since it deals with the actual history/development (not just what the public found out), and that sort of stuff should be expanded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 14:41, 12 May 2012 [16].

---

Free will

Review commentary

Notified: Edhubbard, LoveMonkey, Peterdjones, Lacatosias, WP Philosophy, WP Neuroscience, WP Religion

Unfortunately, the quality of this article has deteriorated over the years, to the point where a FAR is needed. Some specific thoughts:

• The biggest issue is the lack of referencing. There are two citation needed tags, but these do no illustrate the whole of the issue. In the In Eastern philosophy section, for example, the last two paragraphs of the In Hindu philosophy section are unreferenced and the end of the first paragraph and all of the last two paragraphs of the In Buddhist philosophy section are unreferenced. This is repeated throughout the article.
• Expand tag on the Hard determinism section.
• Numerous book references lacking page numbers.
• Clarification needed tag in Compatibilism section.
• Prose needs some work. First and second person language (we, our, etc.) is used throughout the article when third person should be employed instead. Contractions (doesn't, won't) are used in the body of the article outside of quotes. A mix of British and American English is used (I saw both behavior and behaviour, for instance).
• The See also section is quite long and could use a trim.
• Why is it "In western philosophy" and then "In Eastern philosophy" (capitalization)?

The referencing (or lack thereof) is currently the biggest issue. An examination of the layout, coverage and prose will be easier to undertake once the referencing work is completed, since content sometimes changes significantly when major referencing work is done. Dana boomer (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I've made a few easy fixes to the article, and despite some rot added in over time, it's still a basically featured-quality article. I removed the uncited Buddhist / Hinduism paragraphs as those sections ended up a bit overlong anyway, but didn't do a more exhaustive search for uncited additions that may have crept in since the featuring. I also removed the expand tag on Hard Determinism; the article is pretty long already, and there's a main article link to Hard determinism for those who want to know more. I corrected the fact that lowercase Western somehow creeped in. I also gave both See also & External links a trim.

As for the other comments... well, I didn't write this article, but the person who did has since mostly departed Wikipedia, so I doubt page numbers will be coming any time soon. However, the person who wrote the article was one of the bona-fide experts who occasionally stops by Wikipedia, and one willing to source all their work, and page numbers weren't required at the time, so I'd be in favor of WP:AGFing the references. As for prose, the article probably could use a careful polish just from the slow accumulation of edits, but I'll point out that in philosophy (just like mathematics), it is in fact the style to refer to "you," the royal "we," and so on when appropriate. These first and second person phrasings occur in the books & papers from actual philosophers, so pretty sure Wikipedia can mirror that practice safely.

I don't think I have the time nor inclination to fix the article up further, so please don't wait on me to do so. I hope someone else does, though, as I believe the article is borderline at the moment (albeit borderline-keep side for me), and could probably pushed back into the safety zone with a bit more work. SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - While I applaud SnowFire's work and think it has helped the article's quality considerably, I still believe that this article is below the quality standards required by FA guidelines. Expert or not, page numbers are required in order to meet verifiability guidelines. This is still a minor issue, though, when compared to the remaining unreferenced spots (see most of the Metaphysical libertarianism section, much of the Two-stage models section and various other paragraphs scattered throughout the article). I'm also concerned with the reliability/verifibility of several of the references, most notably #112-114 - what makes "unpublished raw data" a high-quality reliable source, or really even verifiable? There has also been an upswing in edit warring on the article over the past week or so, which makes me wonder about its stability. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delist too many problems as presented by Dana Boomer. "Unpublished" sources really need to be booted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delist Lots of unsourced material, and the footnotes (while many in number) are a mess: inconsistent formatting, articles without links/dois, books without page numbers, and questionable sources (wtf is infidels.org?). Only one source used to summarize Buddhism, and only two sources for Neurology. That's simply not enough. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:26, 7 May 2012 [17].

---

Federalist No. 10

Review commentary

Notified: Christopher Parham. Projects: Law, United States, Politics, Books, GLAM/NARA.

I placed a talk page notice about two months ago that had no response.

• 1a There are weasel words scattered about and at least one confusing passage marked with clarify.
• 1c The obvious is the lack of citations throughout the article. Direct quotes need citations.
• 2c Of what citations currently exist they're missing retrieved on dates and publication dates.
• Minor problems not worth a mention at this stage. Brad (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focused mainly on prose and referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist No acknowledgment of the FAR and other than a bit of copyediting, nothing has been worked on. Brad (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I addressed the above concerns—"many other essays ... saw much wider distribution⁸" If this is what the source states, is it reasonable to demand more? In cases where further detail was in an available source I added it.¶ The cn in the lead was accounted for in the later section Application.¶Direct quotes were clearly attributed to brief works. I referenced them to online copies.¶"missing retrieved on dates ": added.¶I added a brief preceding section on how and why the Constitutional Convention met. 86.44.26.64 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Great start! Thanks for the effort.
• If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays...blah blah" So essentially a quote.
• An article on WP shouldn't be cited with the contents of original documents. There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves. It's not an ideal situation. Brad (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  I feel there are precious litte raised issues outstanding.

  If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays..." I disagree. It sounds like you are mistaking the statement for opinion, whereas it is a sourced statement on the facts. Do you think "many" is opinion? what about "several", or "multiple"? It would be very odd indeed to attribute a statement like this, as it would imply there was something singular or opinionated about it. When a work states something on the facts, or shows that the statement is true, the thing to do is cite it, not attribute it to the author. Otherwise we must attribute every sourced line on the site. The source for the article's statement is Kaminski. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves You requested specific references for direct quotes. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for not having time to contribute to this, but as to citing the original document, my impression is that the precis of a work itself is regularly cited to the work. That seems to be the practice still even in recent FAs, e.g. plot summary sections. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update? Do any reviewers have an opinion on the current state of this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that this article does not meet FA standards. Just a couple of examples:

• The claim that "Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy" is supported only by a popular poll conducted by newspapers.
• "Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan" only has several court rulings that quoted the essay to back it up. Such a statement is only tenable if you can produce a source, or preferably several sources, that actually say that. Listing several cases where the essay was cited in this way and concluding this statement from that is original research at the very least.

• There are many more problems. Just fixing these two won't make this a featured article. They just serve as examples.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Delist. The prose leaves much to be desired. There are some phrases that are unclear and some that are weaselly.

• "The essay is the most famous of the Federalist Papers" This phrase doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. I was under the impression that we concern ourselves with notability, not fame.
• "No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history." Did they share that slot? Or was No. 51 somewhere else on the list?
• "David Epstein, writing in 1984, described it as among the most highly regarded of all American political writing" Who's this guy?
• "A particular point in support of this was that most of the states were focused on one industry" I'm not sure that it's possible for a state to be focused on something. Mammals and books can focus on things, but states and other landmasses cannot.
• "Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan." I'm not a fan of the use of "classic" here. This statement is presented as a fact when it is actually an opinion of an unnamed author.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:26, 7 May 2012 [18].

---

Medal of Honor

Review commentary

Listed at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Article alerts, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has the most cleanup tags of any featured article. Tagged with: lacking reliable references from November 2011; accuracy disputes from November 2011; dead external links from August 2011, June 2010, October 2011; unsourced statements from October 2011, November 2011, September 2011; disputed statements from November 2011; self-contradictory articles from May 2011. Someone noted problems on talkpage a month ago Tom B (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments There are some fundamental mistakes in the article:

• As there were only two medals that could be issued until World War I including the Purple Heart Wrong. The Purple Heart was not instituted until the 1930s.
• HLI Lordship Industries Inc., a former Medal of Honor contractor, was fined in 1996 for selling 300 fake medals for US $75 each.[58] Wrong. The medals were real. "fake" may mean not awarded.
• Quality of sources are very weak and far from "high-quality and reliable". Too many "homebrew" websites are used.
• The "post-Vietnam" section is out of place considering that no other war era has its own section. Brad (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focused mainly on referencing and accuracy. Although some work has been done, the majority of the concerns remain unanswered, so I am moving this to the FAC section. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist There are major problems with 1c and to a lesser extent 2c. Brad (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-five edits only since the FAR was initiated, mostly an IP editing the Video game series section, little improvement. Having said that, while there are a large number of categories of tags, there are actually very few tags in the article (they're hard to find!) Some effort should be made to find a MilHist editor willing to work on this. Notifications to templates might not be noticed, and personal pleas may be more effective. Unless someone takes this on within the week, then I will also be an unfortunate Delist, but I consider it a shame, as the article should have been able to be repaired in the month is was here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm gonna start working on this tonight and see if I can turn it around. I see a bunch of stuff I shoudl be able to fix and expand pretty quickly and I think that will help turn it around. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'll help out, too where needed. Let me know where.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks like some work has been done on the article (thanks guys!), and all of the tags have now been taken care of. Can we get some comments by the above editors on how they feel the article stands right now? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, work by Mike appreciated, tags removed, but because of past concerns with Vanished User's work, I'd not like to enter a Keep without a source spot check. Where are all the MilHist folk? I'd think they'd care about this one (perhaps so many of them are non-US?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, I just wanted to point out that Kumioko retired so its unlikely they will be doing any work on the article. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi everyone. Just to let you all know, I'm going to put in some effort over the next few days to save this one. Hate to see it delisted after almost 8 years. I'm unfamiliar with the article and I'll need to know what, other than the tags User:Tpbradbury mentioned and what User:Brad101 said, to do to fix things up. This is my first FAR so please be patient with me! Thanks, —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Some other editors and myself have trimmed dead links, replaced links with new links and added book referenced in place of some links. I've checked every link and all of them currently link to a source. I also can't find any more accuracy disputes tagged or any sources of questional reliability. Are there any issues with the sourcing I didn't spot? —Ed!^(talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Nice work, sir! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Prod I'm still waiting to hear any feedback from others. I believe all concerns have been addressed on the page, but I'm willing to work on any additional comments. —Ed!^(talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ed, thanks for the great work! Feel free to ping the editors who commented above (Brad, TomB, etc) and ask them to revisit their comments. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Source spot check from Spinningspark

Sources spot-checked at 10% randomly machine selected

• FNs 19, 73, 82, 85 all ok. FN29 agf; google snippets refuses to verify but facts easily confirmed with a gsearch.
• FN23 does not verify the two routes for nominations
• FN38 is verified, but citation should be expanded, the abbreviation is quite obscure. An online link would help also.
• FN71 "numerically superior force" is not verified.
• FN88 Source confirms facts but I don't think that the view of one source can ("...wall of government bureaucracy and prejudice towards minorities...") can be translated to "...many believe to have been overlooked because of his religion". Also president G. W. Bush is not named in hte source. It can be deduced that Bush awarded the medal from the date and the fact that this is normally the president that carries this out but I don't think that is really good enough, it needs a direct cite.

SpinningSpark 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the spotcheck turned up verification problems I feel further checks are needed but I am not willing to put in the work while the ones found so far are not being worked on. SpinningSpark 09:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• CommentI may be able to help out on some of the Civil War and Indian Wars stuff. The history section of the article is especially weak, IMO. This is also my first voyage into FAC territory, so please be patient with me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Delist. Lots of issues, some of which don't even require a careful read-through:

• Lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs, including some in the lead. These should be expanded, merged, or deleted.
• The article is not well-organized. Many of the sections contain information about both the present and the past. Appearance, for example, describes not only the current appearance of the medal, but also the historical designs. If there is historical information throughout the entire article, then why is there a History section at all? Conversely, if there must be a History section, why is there so much historical information presented elsewhere? One symptom of this poor organization is the existence of redundant information: "The only female Medal of Honor recipient is Mary Edwards Walker, a Civil War surgeon. Her medal was rescinded in 1917 along with many other non-combat awards, but it was restored by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 (see Evolution of Criteria, above)".
• The quality of the prose is severely lacking in some places:
  • "A ribbon bar that is the same shade of light blue as the neckband, and includes five white stars, pointed upwards, in the shape of an "M" is worn for situations other than full dress uniform." The subject of the sentence is "A ribbon bar", and the predicate is "is worn...", which appears 24 words later. The meaning is lost due to all the extraneous details.
  • "Many Medals of Honor awarded in the 19th century were associated with saving the flag..." Saving from what? Does "saving" mean the same thing as "protecting" in this context? Or does it mean "rescuing"?
  • "There were two awards of the Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor for non-combat to Commander, later Rear Admiral Richard Byrd and Floyd Bennett" Very confusing wording. Did they each receive the medal twice, or did they each receive it once? Why is Byrd's rank mentioned but not Bennett's? Or were they both Commanders?
  • "On November 11, 1921, the U.S. Unknown Soldier was reciprocally awarded the Victoria Cross, the British military's highest award for valor." So he was awarded ${}^{\frac {1}{\text{Victoria Cross}}}$? Also, why is this relevant?

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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