Wikipedia:FAR

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:FAR is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts:
WP:FAR
WP:FARC

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates Marskell and Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this second stage, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nominating an article for FAR

Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Place {{FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
    Note: if an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1
  2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FAR indicating who you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Contents


Featured article reviews

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

Notified WP NRHP, WP Bridges, WP SF Bay Area, WP California, Sam‎ and Leonard G.‎.

An August 2005 promotion, this article is largely uncited (including hard data and direct quotes); has an inadequate lead; needs an image review and is burdened with excess images; has several sections tagged; has an WP:MSH issue (strange section, "The Bay Bridge at a glance"); has unformatted citations; the text contains external jumps; needs a MoS tuneup (example, dash issues throughout); and needs attention to Wikilinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like overview section could be combined into the lead with some rewrite, but I'm not sure if the entire set of information in the third paragraph should be included. I've moved all of the images to commons, and removed the excessive ones, but I'm still trying to figure out how to format the earthquake damage and retrofitting images to make them work. The "Bay Bridge at a glance" section seemed like a rehash of the infobox so I removed it. I've moved the external jumps into ref tags and formatted them. I'll try to template the citations next. -Optigan13 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Limerick

User:Seabhcan (only major contributor and nominator), WikiProject European history and WikiProject Ireland notified

Article needs FA review fundamentally for 1c, having only a single footnote and that without a page number. There is a list of references, but without inline citations its impossible to know where or how they are used. I think there are also some deficencies in 1a, 1d and 2a as well as an image claimed as fair use without an adequate rationale, but these are all fixable fairly simply, unlike the dearth of citations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness (1b) is a greater concern to me. There is a rather sudden jump from 1200 to 1642, meaning much of the later medieval period, the Tudor period and the plantations is completely excluded. There is another sudden jump within the misnamed "The famine" section, which actually includes details of a time of prosperity. The source of the famine and why Limerick's prosperity fell is not explained thoroughly enough. Half the article is on 20th century history with the remaining half covering over a thousand years; that seems unbalanced. I would like to see more information on the earlier history added to the article. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Limerick is a small city and there just isn't very much documented history for the periods you discuss. For the medieval and tudor periods there is a good deal of information in other articles, but little information is known of how Limerick was specifically faired during these times. ... Seabhcan 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahmedabad

User:Aksi great, WP:WikiProject Cities, WP:WikiProject India, and WP:WikiProject Gujarat have been notified.------Kensplanet (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

  • Since 2000, the city has been transformed through the construction of skyscrapers, shopping malls and multiplexes.[3][dead link]
    Dead link in the Main Lead.
  • A newly conceived Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT) is going to pop up near NH-8 by year 2010
    This sentence doesn't deseve the Lead in the first place. No mention of how it is related to the city. Red links. No reference. It violates 1(c).

Thus, the lead criterion 2(a) is violated.

Paragraphs after Paragraphs are uncited. An Entire paragraph without even a single citation surely violates 1(c).

The Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad appears in the Geography and Climate section. Irrelevant. It violates criterion 3.

There are sentences like Arvind Mills, located in Ahmedabad, is one of the largest textile mills in the country. without a reference. Ofcourse, the list is not exhaustive.

The Image Retail is a big portion of the commercial economy in no way represents economy of the city.

Too. many images of Rivers..River Sabarmati should be enough but editors have included Vastrapur Lake too..

Please have a glance at the quality of these sentences........

  • Media

Ahmedabad has a number of newspaper publications. English-language dailies published and sold in the city include, The Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Indian Express, DNA, Economic Times(in Gujarati & English language, Indian Express, Financial Express, Divya Bhaskar, Gujarat Samachar, Sandesh, Rajasthan Patrika, Sambhav,Metro(noon newspaper)& many more.

The city has seven local FM stations at Radio Mirchi (98.3 MHz), Radio City (91.1 MHz), My fm (94.3 MHz), Radio One (95.0 MHz), Gyan Vaani (104.5 MHz), All India Radio (96.7 MHz),S FM (93.51 MHz).

Clearly violates criterion 1(a) -- well written.

An unofficial review suggestion was given by Amartyabag on the article's talk page Talk:Ahmedabad#This article need an unofficial FAR. But there has been no improvement still. So that calls for an official review.

I think the Article can easily retain its FA status once these issues are addresses.--->>Kensplanet (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the points mentioned by you are mostly quite objective and can be done. It is much easier to remove unnecessary lists of media or sentences contributed by newbie/ip address. Few days back I had noted one sentence in demographics for citation needed. Apart from that I do not feel the citations are missing for many paragraphs. Please point which sections are missing citations as per you. Also I do not see many river images in the article. --gppande «talk» 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Replaced all the refs from these cites with credible news sources like timesofindia, indian express, etc. --gppande «talk» 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference page is working good. I opened it now. --gppande «talk» 10:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? I am still getting a 404 error----Kensplanet (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure whats the difference between the two. But the link in reference section of article works. I noticed the link copied here (on this page) does not work. click this - http://temple-news.com/2000/10/19/professor-sees-philadelphia-in-an-indian-city/ --gppande «talk» 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Replaced ref with http://gujarat-education.gov.in/Literacy/aboutus.htm --gppande «talk» 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In Transport, I think these sentences require a reference----(Ahmedabad is one of the six operating divisions of the Western Railway.), (It would be very good if some more refs are provided in the first para).
done --gppande «talk» 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Media section requires a thorough Copyedit. (The city is home to the historic Navajivan Publishing House — founded in 1919 by Mahatma Gandhi — which is one of India's premier publications company.)....This sentence requires a ref
  • Ref19 is not in proper format. Title in Capitals. Publisher surely can be better than mospi.gov.in.
I don't think there can be any better source for census data(past & present) than mospi.gov.in. The site is Indian central government website with data for all major metros of India and shows past and present population in a very good tabular format. Infact, this information added by me, has been similarly added on other major metro articles of India like Kolkatta#Demographics, Kochi##Demographics, etc... --gppande «talk» 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The source is 100% Reliable. I meant instead of just putting mospi.gov.in., why don't you put Government Of India: Ministry Of Statistics And Programme Implementation---Kensplanet (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Done.
  • Check the External links.....What does the Link4 mean?What is Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. It should be Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
Done
  • In the Sports section, these sentences should be cited....(The stadium has frequently served as venue for matches during major tournaments such as the 1987 Cricket World Cup, the 1996 Cricket World Cup and the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy.).........(Ahmedabad has a second cricket stadium at the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's Sports Club of Gujarat, which, as the home ground of the Gujarat cricket team is the venue for domestic tournaments such as the Ranji Trophy, the Duleep Trophy and many inter-school and collegiate tournaments.)----KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions

Jerusalem

Notified WikiProjects Israel, Palestine, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; notified all seventeen editors with more than 40 edits to the article. <eleland/talkedits> 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has serious problems with FA criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e. Specifically, it systematically neglects, minimizes, and downplays important aspects of the international controversy over the legal status of Jerusalem since 1967, and the "facts on the ground" created by Israeli policies in housing, entry visas, and political activity of the Palestinian population in the East. Attempts to redress these failings of accuracy and neutrality have let to edit skirmishes, so the article is also unstable. There are also somewhat less severe problems in the areas dealing with the British Mandate period and the 1947-48 war.

A chorus of UN Security Council resolutions (252, 267, 271, 298, 476, 478) have condemned Israel's occupation and attempted annexation of the Eastern sector. The wording has become progressively harsher as Israel continues to ignore the resolutions; by 476, they speak of "overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;" Israeli measures which "have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention." However, the lede continues being restored to a version which describes the occupation of East Jerusalem as merely a Palestinian view, and reduces this chorus of condemnation to a mere lack of "official recognition." Under "Establishment of the State of Israel," there is a vague and diffident account of the UNSC condemnation, which is described tendentiously as "non-binding," without a source. This last bit is particularily galling, as A) there is no international legal consensus whatsoever that resolutions such as these are "non-binding," and B) the article simultaneously describes an earlier UN General Assembly reccomendation as a "ruling," apparently because the resolution was favorable to Israel.

Israel has mounted a sustained, intense campaign to marginalize the Palestinian community in Jerusalem and fully "Judaize" the city. Palestinians are denied building permits, they build houses anyway because they need a roof over their heads, and then Israel comes in with soldiers and bulldozers and knocks the houses down. Palestinians leave for a month and while they're gone, their residency permits are suddenly, mysteriously revoked, again leaving them homeless. And outside the city, the figurative wall of Jewish-only settlements, coupled with the literal concrete separation wall, cut off Jerusalem from the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, with dire consequences for the economic and cultural life of the entire nation and cast doubt on the viability of any future Palestinian state. The article mentions almost none of this. Interestingly, it actually cites an article which discusses some of the issues; however, the main thrust of the article is completely ignored - instead, every sentence favorable to Israel is cherry-picked. All this under a section entitled "Palestinian claims," no less!

The same is true for Palestinian political activity. Israel has taken an extremely hard line against any organizing or electioneering in East Jerusalem. In 2001 they seized the tiny PLO office in Orient House, ransacked the place, and shut it down for good; the article merely mentions that it is "currently closed." During the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Israel arrested every candidate who tried to campaign there. They originally planned to allow no voting, but then relented under pressure, and decided to allow Palestinians to vote for their preferred candidates, openly declaring that nobody suspected of holding the wrong loyalties would be blocked from the polling stations. The article doesn't mention this even in some vague abbreviated fashion.

What vague reference to "controversy" and "dispute" do exist, with no specifics presented, don't come close to comprehensive and neutral coverage. In addition, the massive watering-down of the controversy has led to factually dubious statements, such as the aforementioned "non-binding" silliness, and to article instability and even protection. In summary, this piece comes nowhere near meeting FA standards. It's a weak B-Class, in my opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think this FAR is completely inappropriate. It reads as if Eleland is just trying to force other people's hands in a content dispute by hanging the threat of FA removal over their heads. Half of this is Eleland explaining why his position on something (I'm not sure what) is correct, rather than explaining why this article does not meet FA standards. While one might reasonably be able to argue that there is more to be desired from this article (like a good cleanup), Eleland's vision of what this article should look like really concerns me. There is excessive attention given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and specifically what Israel is doing to Palestinians. This article is about the city of Jerusalem, not the about the conflict itself. Of course, the present-day conflict needs to be mentioned, but the details suggested by Eleland, if (all) included, would give undue weight to the conflict and Palestinian suffering. Eleland seems to be basing much of this FA on a rather recent (< 1-week-old) dispute, a dispute, incidentally, he has inaccurately portrayed. However, the lede continues being restored to a version which describes the occupation of East Jerusalem as merely a Palestinian view. What are you talking about? It didn't say that before Imad's edits nor after Jayjg's, and it certainly doesn't now. Eleland suggests that the article repeatedly takes the stance of Israelis, when I see little evidence of that happening. Just about the only time anything conceiveably related to the conflict is mentioned is when the capital issue is mentioned (as disputed by much of the international community). The second paragraph under "Palestinian claims" looks a little flowery, but that could easily be cleaned up -- no reason for an FAR. So, yes, much isn't said about Palestinian sentiment and treatment, but the same can be said about Israeli sentiment and treatment. And it shouldn't; this article is not about that. It's a weak B-Class, in my opinion. Unbelievable. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a considerable number of editors who are worried about the neutrality of the article, and about the absence/minimizing of some significant information. Something that is apparent in the article talk page. Imad marie (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, this article does not meet FAR standards: there is neutrality problem, the "citation need" appears twice, the article is not stable, and the section "Culture" contains a tag that says that the section has to be expanded. Idontknow610TM 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope that this FARC gains significant contribution from the normal featured article contributor and isn't just a place for those of us who have been active in the arguments around the page to continue it in another place. On one level I would like the FA status to be removed as it has been used by some editors as an excuse to say that all is right in the world and any claims that the article is politically biased are dismissed onthe grounds that this is an FA and all FAs will have been properly evaluated. Of course, the best solution for Wikipedia would be to fix things. My biggest gripe with the article is with the first sentence which makes it seem uncomlicated that the city is in Israel. This is clearly the de facto position but reflects an extreme view of the de jure position in international law. There is an equally extreme view that woul deny all legitimacy to Israel and refers to it as the Zionist Entity. But Positions on Jerusalem demonstrates that the position is complicated. Countries such as the United Kingdom believe that the position of Jerusalem is unresolved as it was intended to be a corpus separatum and was illegally occupied by Jordan and Israel. Others accept that the pre-1967 West Jerusalem is part of Israel but deny that East Jerusalem is. Having the opening sentence of our article assert uncomplicatedly that the city (imploicitly the whole of it) is part of Israel ignores the disputed status and fails to reflect a neutral point of view instead taking an extremist position in the dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The comparison between the first sentence of the article and people calling Israel a Zionist entity seems plainly unfair. Clearly, the latter is a more extreme and derogatory tactic. That being said, I'm not sure what else you're hoping the first sentence to say. That Jerusalem sits partially on the West Bank? Or are you expecting the whole intro to be reworded entirely? In any event, the biggest point of contention during the FAC was the introduction. There was a bit of discussion surrounding that before we settled on an introduction very similar to the one that currently resides in the article. So, it seems a bit strange to me that the current introduction was a product of the FAC, and now is a source of the FAR. But, for that reason, if a consensus for changing it again really exists, this would be the best place to initiate the discussion. I'm not sure if that's the case, though. However, I dispute the idea, which could easily be inferred from the tone of your comment, that the original writers of the introduction were not aware of the complicated issues surrounding Jerusalem (or, as Eleland has more directly suggested, knew about them and have intentionally suppressed them). Just as complicated as the issues is how to address them without taking the focus away from the topic of the article, which, after all, is a city with thousands of years of history and significance that continues to this day despite the conflict.
As for the rest of the article, I think the issues there could easily be addressed without the FAR as a motivator. If you think some of the people involved with the article or who had a vested interest in bringing this to FA status should get involved, you may want to notify them. However, I don't have the time at the moment to work on cleaning up this article or notifying others who certainly have an interest in maintaining this article's status. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Further: I'm not sure if your referring to me, but I am going to stand by my statement that biased articles do not become featured articles. But this is also similar to saying bad articles don't become featured articles. This is not to say nothing should be changed; changes have obviously been made to the article in the sixteen months since this article was made an FA, and (many of them) rightfully so. Rather, this is in response to claims, either explicit or implicit, that there is a cadre of pro-Israel editors that have been defending the article against anything critical of Israel. The featured article process is supposed to gather opinions from a variety of editors, and this case was no different. While some may still contest parts of the article -- as you wish -- the assertions by some (not, apparently, you) that this article is a bastion of pro-Israel sentiment are off the mark and do not take into account the suggestions that were offered, considered, and/or implemented during the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for taking the time to think about my comments. What I would regard as a preferable opening to the lede would be something like the following: (
Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎ (audio) (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (audio) (help·info), al-Quds) is an ancient city of great significance to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Following the Six-Day War of 1967, the whole city has been united under Israeli control, functions as Israel's capital, and has been expanded to be her largest city both in terms of populaton and area. However, the status of the city is internationally disputed.
I'd like to see if anyone has any observations I'm missing, but for now I don't have anything to dispute. -- tariqabjotu 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re-wording of my proposed text to highlight long history of international dispute follows: --Peter cohen (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎ (audio) (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (audio) (help·info), al-Quds) is an ancient city of great significance to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It has been fought over many times, including during the Crusades. Most recently, the whole city has been united under Israeli control following the Six-Day War of 1967. It functions as Israel's capital, and has been expanded to be her largest city both in terms of populaton and area. However, the status of the city continues to be the subject of internationally dispute.
I have listed on the Talk page several of some dozens of notes I have made on the text indicating why this article does simply not approximate to FA quality standards. It is not simply a matter that the political controversy on the city's status is consistently glossed over. The etymology section is woefully substandard, and indeed biased towards wild unhistorical etymologizing. Both I and User:Zero0000 have indicated how it should be handled. The section on Palestinians sounds like hype from a tourist brochure, whereas the record shows a situation of extreme administrative prejudice against Jerusalemite Palestinians, as Eleland has noted. The history section is poor, as Jewish editors themselves admit, particularly on the non-Jewish aspects of its traditions, but also the Jewish history of the city could be much improved. There are many sentences that require rewriting purely from a stylistic point of view.
Take, just these few arbitrary bits and pieces:-
‘client kings of Judea’
can mean they are clients of a power called Judea’ or ‘kings of Judea’ who are client of Rome.
'Hadrian proceeded to rename the entire Iudaea Province to Syria Palaestina after the Biblical Philistines'
You don’t in English ‘rename . .to’. Syria Palestina is not a naming after the Philistines. It is a restoration of the 6th century BC Greek designation of the area. Philistines are not identifiable with Syria.
'16th and 17th centuries, . . Regional trade flourished and Jerusalem's economy and population expanded.'
Elsewhere we are told that trade in Jerusalem was historically based on pilgrimage, which is, again, untrue. In any case the two sentences contradict each other. No hint here of the real state of the city in those centuries, by the way.
'foreign missions and consulates were established throughout the province that the Ottomans were unable to dislodge following re-occupation'
What was to be dislodged? the province or the consulates? In any case, 'following reoccupation' is obscure, and the point not reliably sourced.
'As the British Mandate for Palestine was expiring'.
'Expire' is an inappropriate word here, suggesting a natural end.
'the nascent Israeli troops'
(we are really meant to get the impression that the Israeli troops fought a war in swaddling bands?!!.
'Contrary to the terms of the Armistice Agreement of 1949 between Jordan and Israel, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites,and only allowed extremely limited access to Christian holy sites.'
I.e. Israelis were denied access to Jewish sites, but could, rarely visit Christian holy sites. So what does this imply? Where are the Christians? Were they denied access? The subject makes Israelis the only relevant category in the disputes.(There should be more on the very strong Christian revival of interest in Jerusalem at that time. The Christian myths and work on the city spurred in turn the Jewish revival.
'The status of the city and of its holy places remains disputed to this day'
(IF you admit this in the text, then ‘disputed’ belongs to the lead definition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel). Yet all attempts to signpost the fact in the lead suffer massive challenges. The status of its holy places is too generic. Most are secured in law all accept, except for marginal areas of any one site.
'On December 5, 1949, the State of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's capital' I.e. he proclaimed all of Jerusalem the capital of Israel, or West Jerusalem, the part in Israel's sector?
'It has also been critiqued for its emphasis'.
'Critique' as a verb is academic jargon for a critical review of some thesis. It is a textual operation. The word intended was obviously 'criticized' .
Dozens of other slipshod usages, unhistoric assertions, unsourced remarks ('sacred to the Jews from the 10th century'? No historian would underwrite this, since it cannot be documented), could be added to the list (I'll provide a full list if required). One can only remark on these, since editing the text tends to run into revert wars by hyperventilating editors. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed with a senior administrator, preferably two, imposing strict supervision, preferably with the most disputed element left until the end (i.e., the question of political status). The rest of the page is ragged and consistently uneven, and that should be addressed first. As a contribution and sign of good faith, I would be quite happy to provide a thorough, strongly sourced rewrite, according to the standard philological criteria, of the Etymology section, a section which does not involve political differences. On condition that the page is placed under intelligent, depoliticized supervision by administrators who care about textual quality. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with a statement high above that this article is about the city of Jerusalem, not about the Israeli Arab conflict itself. Unfortunately, Israeli articles are being attacked ferociously in wikipedia by many anon users (I'm not commenting on users on this page) in the hope of crushing the spirit of editors who works on Israeli related articles. Jerusalem is just a city in Israel, its capital, and it's not a political issue - or more accurately it doesn't have to be. People live there and the article is written about the culture, the government seats, the parliament, the geography, the climate of Jerusalem. It is quite understandable of course, but sad, that users like to exploit the platform to sway discussions to the conflict. This is the whole point of course - to de legitimize the state of Israel. It's a similar situation to if the New York City article would be attacked by supporters of Saddam or Castro for example. They would make it out that it's not of course, but it really is. The experienced editors like User:Eleland should know better not to be dragged to these anon users' wishes. If the article "downplays important aspects of the international controversy over the legal status of Jerusalem since 1967" it is because this is not Politics.com or Jerusalem-the-future.com . It is an Encyclopedia which describes the city of Jerusalem. Not more than a paragraph or two should be concentrated on political violence - it just opens the door for extremists to make antisemitic comments about Jews, about whether or not it is the capital (which is a fact on the ground) and whether or not Israelis should be allowed to be free in their country and write about their cities in wikipedia. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
In line with this, I think the most significant thing about Jerusalem is its religious history. Mecca starts with a mention of its status in Islam before moving on later to mention it is Saudi. Bethlehem, I think mistakenly, mentions it is Palestinian before mentioning its place in Christianity. And similarly, I think Rome's status as the core of the Roman Empire and the seat of the Roman Catholic church is actually more important than its being the capital of the youngish nation state of Italy. In my proposed opening to the Jerusalem above, I have placed the religious status first and the current political status of a city that has changed hands many many times second. I hope that you would agree that that is progress.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A palmary suggestion, beautifully worded,Peter. To respond to another editor's remarks, there are implicit and explicit politics in these textual redactions, indeed there's far too much politics driving our edits. The Jerusalem article, as it stands is a very good example of the former, while all attempts to challenge the covert drift are taken as 'political', whereas they are driven by a perception, not unfounded, that attempts at a comprehensive NPOV account of the city has yielded to a rather one-sided perspective, centered around the possessive myth of the eternal return, what was 'ours' in the beginning shall be ours at the end of time, and on the facts of recent acquisition. I would underwrite every word Peter has just written, a sense that 'eternal' cities, must be narrated sub specie aeternitatis and not in terms of the temporal politics that focus on possession. It has played a powerful role in the religious and literary imaginaries of three civilizations, and that unity of transcendental value should unite the various narratives, rather than divide them, as a politically-centered narrative does.
But my preoccupations remain predominantly those I alluded to above. Too many sections are simply not up to snuff, and ripe with errors, of detail, generalization, strategic underplayings of realities extraterritorial to the dominant impress of Jerusalem as a Jewish city, and issues of expression and style. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
R to Amoruso
I certainly understand and respect the argument that present-day politics ought to be minimized in an article about a city that is several thousand years old. I would be willing to leave this issue alone if the article just skirted modern times entirely; technically that's not acceptable in a featured article, but whatever, it's not my concern.
However it seems to me that nobody has yet proposed that politics be left out of this article. Rather, they've defined an extremist, irredentist "pro-Israel" position as being the natural, objective, apolitical state of affairs, and then proposed that Palestinian politics be left out of the article. This can be seen clearly in Amoruso's own comment. "Jerusalem is just a city in Israel, its capital," and to argue for any nuance beyond this fiat is an exploitation intended "to de legitimize Israel," comparable to supporting Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro, linked to an effort to "crush the spirit" of Jewish editors, and a stalking horse for antisemitism. "Israelis should be free to write about their cities," the twin corollaries apparently being that 1) any city Israel manages to conquer becomes "its city" and 2) everybody else shouldn't be free to write about them.
This view would be at variance with WP:NPOV even if the issue were as clear cut as Amoruso pretends it to be; of course, it is not. Israel's official claim that all of Jerusalem is and ought to be Israeli is rejected by the entire international community. Even the United States, out at the extreme fringe of "pro-Israel" opinion, voted for the relevant resolutions. All fifteen judges of the ICJ reject this position. Every respectable map of the area uses the 1949 cease-fire line that divided Jerusalem in two, even though it is completely irrelevant "on the ground." The BBC apologized for calling Jerusalem Israel's capital, saying that "We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such." Even Disney World, for pete's sake, took the same position.
If Amoruso wishes to believe that this is all a worldwide conspiracy led by Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro to crush the Jewish spirit, of which I am a hapless dupe, fine, that's his prerogative. It's not his perogative to demand that WP comply with such beliefs, or to present them as neutral, apolitical facts. They are clearly not. <eleland/talkedits> 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the article reads like a discussion of Jerusalem as an Israeli city, and the talk page reads like a discussion of the need to also treat Jerusalem as a Palestinian city. In my opinion, above all, the article should emphasize Jerusalem as a world heritage site that in fact belongs to all of us, including Israelis and Palestinians, but not exclusively. I think if it were to read in this way, then there would be more of a willingness to treat Jerusalem as a city that has, at different times and in different ways, been perceived as "the capital" of a variety of different peoples, whether in possession of a nation-state of their own or not.This is indeed what makes Jerusalem so significant, no?, not merely its status as today's capital of Israel or Palestine. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm just going to be brutally honest here, though not politically wise. It is incredibly tiresome to find editors whose main purpose for editing Wikipedia is to demonize Israel coming here to try to "punish" an article because it doesn't view the ancient city of Jerusalem through their incredibly narrow "Zionism is evil" lens. Tariqabjotu, who doesn't have a dog in the I-P fight, did an admirable job of creating an informative and well-written article about the city; those who lack either the talent or inclination to contribute in this way have come here to tear his work down. The main "issues" raised so far are trivial at best, and rank POV-pushing at worst. Yes, the article might benefit from a little more detail about the city's religious significance, and parts of the history section could be sharpened, but these are issues of personal preference more than anything else, and overall the article is top-notch. Using this process in an extortionist attempt to advance a political agenda is shameful. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply: I suggest you focus less on being brutally honest and more on being intellectually honest. Your comments here, as on Talk:Jerusalem, are simply thesis statements (there's no real issue here, the article is informative and well-written,) followed not by supporting evidence or logical argument, but by insulting speculation about personal motives, mock astonishment, and other such histrionics. The one time, Jay, that you've actually cited a relevant source (Britannica) to support your position, you claimed that "you wouldn't see" it saying, in the introduction or anywhere else, something that it said in the very first paragraph. Apart from this one rather ineffective attempt, and from a torrent of personal attacks, all you've done is re-state your original premise, preceded by phrases like, "As has been previously pointed out to you" and "As can be clearly seen." If you haven't anything of substance to offer, then kindly desist from such useless and trivial exercises. <eleland/talkedits> 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

    'It is incredibly tiresome to find editors whose main purpose for editing Wikipedia is to demonize Israel coming here to try to "punish" an article because it doesn't view the ancient city of Jerusalem through their incredibly narrow "Zionism is evil" lens.

  • There's nothing 'brutally honest' about this. It's terribly tiresome for all of us 'on both sides' to find irresponsible POV editing for political or national or partisan ends. It happens to be an unfortunate reality that I/P articles by their very nature deal with mediating a variety of strong and opposed perspectives (not, as often as some would wish, simplified oppositions between an Israeli' and a 'Palestinian' perspective). Their editing, for that reason, requires particular talents, equanimity and a capacity to listen. If you think there are specific editors here whose 'main purpose is to demonize Israel' name them. Perhaps there are, but I see none. The implicit corollary in your declaration is that 'there are no editors in Wikipedia whose main purpose is to demonize Palestinians, when not eliding them from the cognitive map of the area'. Arguments are to be addressed on their merits, not by preemptive torpedoeing of their proponents by raising suspicions about their mala fides. Finally, it is not to 'tear down' an article that one notes that two sections are lamentable sub-par. The Etymology section is, precisely because it has been written to highlight the 'Hebrew' etymologies for the city and apparently secure its jewish identity linguistically, a disgrace. Had it not been politicized, we should have had no problem in simply drafting what any reference book says of its etymology, that the term is Semitic, predating historical Hebrew and the Jewish presence in the city by nearly a 1,000 years. Afterwards, the word, assimilated into Hebrew, developed a rich series of folk etymologies, that happen to be just that, speculative attempts to give a foreign word a religious significance within Judaic tradition. Is it pushing a Palestinian POV to note this? It is a good example where an apparently non-political issue, from a technical point of view of pure linguistics, has unwittingly assumed a strong POV colouring, innocently perhaps, because not all are familiar with the philology of the term Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jerusalem is currently the capital of Israel. Other countries can decide that New York should be the capital of the US because it has special significance for more people, but it is not up to other countries or entities to decide the capital of another, sovereign state. Whether that is legal by international standards or even accepted by other countries is really moot , unless they try to take it over like the Crusaders or Saladin. Right now it is in Jewish (Israeli) hands (again). There is absolutely no way that a Jewish/Arab-Muslim consensus about this city will be reached either here or in "real life" in the near future. The article will never be written to please both sides. Already a user suggests another believes in " a worldwide conspiracy ... to crush the Jewish spirit." One might be excused for thinking this latest effort to de-feature the article is part of the endless propaganda(and real) war [1] being waged, part of the asymmetric warfare cycle, at minimum transparently an attempt to instill WP:POV. The substance of this article reaches back thousands of years; tens of centuries. The debate that's being raised here is a little over 60 years old. Can't we just leave contemporary political arguments out of it for once? There are plenty of blogs and political interest groups concerned with (the status of) Jerusalem from both sides. [2] Don't let's import the battles to Wiki. There is absolutely nothing wrong about correcting errors of fact, if indeed there are factual errors in the article. But if unhappy with the politics of it all, how about starting a whole new other, "Jerusalem" article, calling it "Political Jerusalem" or "Muslim/Arab/Palestinian Jerusalem" or "Arab East Jerusalem" or something, and give as much time to the Israeli/Jewish perspective as the Arab/Muslim perspective has enjoyed in this article? This has been considered a good 'featured' article and doesn't need to be burdened with these politics. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly, as you say, Tundrabuggy, "The debate that's being raised here is a little over 60 years old." Jerusalem's significance reaches far beyond this debate. Despite the fact that the city is thousands of years old and has wide-reaching historical significance for many peoples worldwide, about 2/3 of the article focuses on Jerusalem's significance as an Israeli city. I am a Jerusalemite, and would welcome an entry called: "Israel's capital, Jerusalem"; however in an encyclopedia entry on "Jerusalem" I expect to see an emphasis in tone on the broader significance and context of the city than we see here. (It's all a matter of flow and organization - much of the content is there, but because of the article's ordering, the emphasis of the entry is on Jerusalem as a center of Israeli governance rather than Jerusalem as a center of world history.)
In particular, although personally I am secular, it stands out as quite bizarre that one has to scroll halfway down the article to get to the "religious significance' section.
Jayjg says that a little more religious significance would be useful, as would some sharpening of the history section. Well, let's get to it then - as we have seen in the debate over the capital issue, a few sentences, and their placement, make an immense difference in conveying the tone/focus of an article. It's easy enough to move the religious significance section up, to start...LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I hate to be the guy that adds the "citation needed" tags in article and I always try to avoid doing so, but some subsections in the history section (of an FA by the way) are almost completely unreferenced. I placed several tags where needed and I can't believe no one has brought this up (actually I didn't look at above conversations so I'm not sure). We get these passages referenced, improve the general style, add info on the Arab Jerusalemite culture as well as the Arab, Crusader and Mamluk history in the city and this article could be saved. The "status" sentence is an issue, but I don't think it'll bring down the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't waste bytes by repeating what Tariq and Jayg said. I agree with their words here. The issues raised here are mostly minor stylistic issues, or issues of personal preference. Some of the less-than-optimal phrasing is a natural result of a heavily edited article, and basically "crops-up when no one's looking". A simple cleanup would solve these in less time than this discussion is taking up. The article could refer more to the Arab aspect of the city, both today (mainly in the Culture section), and in the past (History section). While it's easy to refer to such points to claim the article is biased, it's also misleading; this information isn't there not because "pro-Israeli" editors removed it, but simply because no one wrote it. It wouldn't be prohibitively difficult for one of the Arabic speaking editors to research this issue, but I guess it's easier to complain and argue against an article than do something productive. I also find it in very poor taste that people are, on the one hand, complaining over lack of stability of an article, and on the other causing it. okedem (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentThanks for the previous two constructive comments, AlAmeer son and Okedem. The article is not a disaster by any means despite the contested sentence. It just needs some finetuning. Who is willing to do it, rather than just complaining? I'm afraid I will not have the time myself in coming days... LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Perhaps a good model, as far as ordering goes, would be Rome? The Rome entry, I see, emphasizes the city as the capital of Italy as opposed to a world heritage site (contrary to my arguments above) however it gives due emphasis via placing an "Architecture, landmarks and city layouts" section after "history" and before "Government". I think what this article is perhaps missing most of all is a "Landmarks" section? What do others think? Or are the landmarks simply too numerous to count?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note. If some doubts persist as to the inability of many editors to perceive obvious bias in word choice, I would ask them to see the recent edits designating the Moroccan Quarter as a 'slum'. All of the old City was, technically a slum. The Moroccan Quarter alone is a 'slum', a word prefacing a comment on its being razed (slum clearance, a sanitary measure) to allow Jewish access to the wall. People who note this kind of operation and protest it are not, in Jayjg's description, 'demonizers of Israel' who set out to 'punish' Israel. They are readers who are appalled by the inability of otherwise forthright editors to see the implications of the choices they make, as though our perspective is the only real option available. True, there follows a long setpiece to satisfy the 'minority' (opposition): several notes on foreign condemnations. As Peter Cohen, LamaLoLeshLa and others have pointed out, one could well wipe out most of this political documentation, reduce it to a single phrase, with sources, and used the saved space to actually provide a little detail on that historic quarter, now razed, with its two mosques. Instead, a waqf property, with attached mosques, razed to the ground is described implicitly as an improvement on access to the wall. The indelicacy of the editors who support this is, frankly, quite unbelievable (were it not so frequent). Perhaps, since one doesn't expect much to change (people are conservative about this text, I am conservative culturally; what was, should be remembered), one could open up an article on the Jerusalem we have lost, the many historic areas destroyed, from the 19th through the twentieth century (Jordanians in 1948 included), down to the present destruction of archeoligical ground sites in Silwan. I live in Rome, and in reading of such razings, recall spontaneously what was done in this city: Quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

User:Jmabel, User:Amys, WP:WikiProject LGBT studies, and WP:WikiProject Germany have all been notified. —Angr 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an old FA, from 2004, when FA criteria weren't applied as strictly as they are today. It has a number of issues:

  1. Lack of inline citations. Most (but not all!) direct quotations are cited, but individual claims in paragraphs are not. One claim has been tagged "citation needed" for almost a year and a half!
  2. Much of the article seems to use German Wikipedia as a source, but Wikipedias are not considered reliable sources.
  3. The non-free images Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg and Image:Paragraph175filmdvdcover.jpg are problematic. Both are larger than 100,000 pixels (i.e. not low-resolution); neither is used in conjunction with direct critical commentary (neither the poster itself nor the film itself is discussed in the text), and Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg doesn't even have a fair-use rationale.

For these reasons, I don't think the article is up to FA standard. —Angr 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I basically translated this from the German Wikipedia at a time when our (and their) citation standards were a lot more lax. The German original had been heavily discussed and vetted. I'm quite confident it is an accurate article and extremely informative on its topic. But there is almost no chance that I can bring it up to current FA standards. I never saw the sources myself; they are in German, which I read decently, but not well enough to work my way through multiple books and do re-research (especially now that I'm working an intense, full-time job); and, in any event, I doubt that any large number of those sources would be available to me here in Seattle. So even though I translated the bulk of this, I'm very unlikely to be able to help.
I would strongly recommend improving the citations in the German original and then bringing them over rather than working on this primarily and directly in the English Wikipedia. And I realize that will probably not be a fast route to bringing this up to the level of citation currently required for an FA. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not at all sure Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg rises to the level of copyrightable (so there may be no rights issue at all). In any event, it would be trivial to overwrite the image with a lower resolution equivalent: it's a rather minimal black-and-white poster that would look almost identical as a very coarse JPEG. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, their citation standards are still lax. I live in Germany and read German easily, but I too have an intense full-time job and don't have time to go to the library to do the amount of research required to bring this up to today's FA standards. I think the drawing of the fist is enough creativity to make the poster at least potentially copyrightable; the representation of the § symbol as a meathook might or might not be. (I have no idea whether German law required registration of copyright in 1975; in order for it to be PD in the U.S. it would have to have been PD in Germany as of 1-1-1996, and I don't know how to go about determining that.) —Angr 06:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
In Germany, there is no registration required. Since the enactment of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (1966), works are protected 70 years p.m.a. Greeting, -- kh80 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then if the poster meets Schöpfungshöhe, then it's not PD. I'd expect the drawing of the fist is enough to make it a kleine Münze, but I'm no lawyer, and the German articles are so full of legalese they make my eyes cross. —Angr 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

I propose this article be stripped of its featured status. I was translating the article into my own language in which I got it reviewed. Under the impression that the huge amount of sources would make it acurate I just copied the sources into my translation. However, later I discovered a reference that was wrong-cited, and another user discovered two more errors, I will list the three cases below. The errors were, according to the article, supported by scientific literature. So I went to the library and checked it out. The mentioned sources, however, did NOT confirm these statements.

I can remove the passages from the article, but the article has a total of 77 references. This means 74 are not yet verified and since the three that I tried to verify appeared to be based on loose sand, I do not trust the other content to be well-referenced either. The best would be to check and verify all refs in the entire article and find new ones when they cite the source incorrectly. Meanwhile, the article should be stripped of its star.

List of bad citings found so far:

  1. Here I mentioned the first wrong-cited ref I discovered, I already removed it from the article. The text read : Identified in 1990 based on the work of Glen Penfield done in 1978, this crater is oval, with an average diameter of about 180 kilometers (112 mi), about the size calculated by the Alvarez team. The source did confirm that Alvarez had done this calculation, but the whole point of the paper was to disprove Alvarez' hypothesis. That was not the right source to cite here.
  2. A few orders of mammals did diversify right at the K-T boundary, including Chiroptera (bats) and Cetartiodactyla (whales and dolphins and Even-toed ungulates), as a result of the reduced competition in those niches. -> Gives Springer et al (2007) as source. Springer and coworkers do not mention whales or bats in that way. In fact, bats and whales are commonly supposed to have originated in respectively the Eocene and Paleocene, later in geologic time. (See for example Sutera (2002) on the origin of whales)
  3. The Northern hemisphere marsupial families became extinct, but those in Australia and South America survived. Gives as source Dodson (1996). I could not find the book in my library yet, but if it confirms this it contradicts other literature. For example McKenna & Bell (ref below) write that oppossums lived in North America continuously from the Cretaceous to the Miocene.

Listed literature that is not in the ref-list of the article:

Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to complete the notifications of relevant Projects and involved editors, and post the notifications back to this FAR as on other FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of offended by these comments. I guess me and a few dozen editors who did review each reference were idiots? I don't know what to say. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like a fine article to me (a few patches of choppy paragraphing/sectioning might be attended to around the middle). The density of citations looks good, but I guess a quick check of the claims above might be conducted. I look forward to reading through it properly. TONY (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Responding to point 2 above, the article is freely available. It says "Within orders, subsequent basal splits are approximately at the K-T boundary for Afrosoricida, Chiroptera, and Cetartiodactyla." The text quoted in point 2 then lists the types of mammals in Cetartiodactyla as we know the clade now, presumably as a courtesy to the reader. However this might be misleading and could be corrected by saying "predecessors of..." or such. In any case, the referenced article supports the substance of point 2. Isolation booth (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I reviewed some of the references, and it appears that the reference supports the statement. And the article is a key review reference for mammalian speciation after the K-T event. I'm not sure I can find a better one. The book that Woodwalker references is 6 years older than the published reference. Sometimes I despise the democracy of Wikipedia. One editor gets all upset, and there we go. And if I hadn't noticed that SG had made an edit to the article, I wouldn't even known that this existed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have Dodson (1996), and although it did not verify the material in point #2, OM has removed that reference. The remaining Dodson reference [57], is correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 2: yes, I read the article. The point here is that a basal split is not the same as an origin of a species or even a higher group. The Chiroptera for example are regarded as having their origin in the Eocene. Further, the paper is a molecular clock-studies. Such things are not undisputed and not regarded as 100% evidence (as appears from the article). What the paper says is then: based on the not uncontroversial method of molecular clocking/phylogenetics it is found that the split between ancestors of the whales and bats occurred most probably around 80 Ma. It has nothing to do with modern orders! The ref is therefore misleading (it does not support the point in the article!) and should be removed, or the text has to change in a way the information in the article reflects that in the paper.
Orangemarlin: I'm sorry. If you reviewed these refs in this article, you did not read well or did not have the nessesary background to understand what is really meant. That's the only conclusion I can make from what I found by delving through the article. When confronted with a score of 3 out of 4 refs that are wrong or misleading I don't feel comfortable the rest is to be trusted. Woodwalker (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Question: were these random references that you were checking? Your comment above indicates they were, and that of four references you checked, three were incorrect...? Is that the case, or were these all the problems you found with the article? As far as necessary backgrounds go, nearly every paper comes with an abstract at the beginning which should be understandable to the lay reader, and most of the papers used as references in this article aren't overly technical anyway, to my mind. I don't feel it's fair to pull out three examples of possible errors (in a 67k long article!) and tell someone "you did not read well" or lack the "necessary" background. What background is necessary here to write an encyclopedia article? Firsfron of Ronchester 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
@Firsfron: Not totally random. The user that asked me about the errors in the text is an expert on mammals. At the wiki in my own language we don't have many users that are specialists. For example, we do not have a real stratigrapher, or a real expert on amphibians. Therefore two of the cases above are on mammals. Since that section of the article is rather small a good portion of the refs in that particular section are wrong. What does that say about the rest of the article? I have no idea, except that I found that the only other ref I read entirely (my first point above) was not to the right paper. I am myself not an expert on amphibians (for example) and am not really 100% sure if the refs in the amphibian section are correct.
For me this uncertainty if the content is true is a big problem with any featured article. The article does not really have to have references in every sentence, as long as it mentions a few reliable, well-cited sources that confirm the main points in every section. A featured article should in the first place contain no errors or mistakes. I think that if a ref is not well cited, it should be removed. The amount of content or the level of the content is -for my sake- definitely not what is at stake here. On these points the article meets the criteria for featured status, I think.
Someone (I don't know if it was Orangemarlin) has, you said, checked the references for their credibility. If I find that 3 in 4 references are not well cited, yes, then I conclude that the particular editor that checked these three refs did not read well or has not enough background on the subject, I am sorry to say. Scientific literature is not easy to read for people without experience on the covered subject. Not only does one have to know the jargon, in many cases, authors make claims that aren't supported by most of their colleagues or are based on uncertainties or controversial experiments/methods. One has to know the whole scientific community to know what the consensus is. That does not say the reviewers of this article have tried to do their uttermost best, it can be they misunderstood the meaning of the cited texts because they did not know the ins and outs of the literature on a specific subject. Woodwalker (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
To continue on Woodwalker's points: The cited Springer et al. article does not support the text in the article ("A few orders of mammals did diversify right at the K-T boundary, including Chiroptera (bats) and Cetartiodactyla (whales and dolphins and Even-toed ungulates), as a result of the reduced competition in those niches."). It is original research to deduce this from the cited article, which only says that the basal splits are at the K-T event. Also, the article cited for the previous sentence (Nature 446:507–512), actually gives much older times of basal diversification for both orders (74 and 75 Mya), and it is more recent and comprehensive.
Also, the article still contains the wrong assertion that Northern Hemisphere marsupial families went extinct. In fact, the North American Stagodontidae did go extinct, but, as Woodwalker said, marsupials remained there until the Miocene.
I also reviewed the citations given for the reasons why mammals survived K-T. One of these, Geodiversitas 23:369–379, can be found at [3]. It is a quite interesting article, but it does not contain any information on the fact it is cited for. The other citation given, GSA Bulletin 116(5–6):760–768 [4], actually is about the correct topic, but its assertions are different in details from those given in this article. The Wikipedia article mentions a body size below 1 kg, the cited article does not say this. The Wikipedia article mentions "shelter in a number of different environments", the cited article says all mammals must have sheltered underground, in soil, or in water. The Wikipedia article says "many early monotremes and marsupials were semiaquatic or burrowing", the cited article reasons that several lineages of living monotremes, marsupials, and placentals contain semiaquatic or burrowing groups, so that it would be reasonable to assume that some end-Cretaceous mammals were also semiaquatic or burrowing (or were, at least, able to find shelter by moving into the water or the soil).
In conclusion, the mammal section of this article partly contradicts its sources, partly is wrong, and partly does not follow from the sources cited. I do not know if the same situation exists in other sections, but a check may be appropriate. Ucucha 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be rude here, because it annoys me. But instead of coming here and bitching about the article, written by me (a physician, businessman, and knowledgeable about mammalian evolution from a course in mammalogy in college about 30 years ago) and a few other individuals, none of whom, as best as I know, are mammalogists either, why don't you rewrite the section? Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to contribute? The point of the article is not spend paragraphs discussing every insignificant order of mammals, it's to give a general idea of what happened to mammals. They key point is that mammals (and I suppose birds) radiated into environmental niches previously encumbered by dinosaurs. Come on everyone. Help make the article better at the article's talk section, not here. This is ridiculous.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I am sorry if my comments were offensive to you. I am not familiar with this process (and generally not with English Wikipedia customs). However, I would have thought it would have been considered reasonable to review a section of an article at a process that is called Featured Article Review. If this is wrong, I am sorry.
That said, I do actually wish the article to improve, but I preferred to first identify the problems with the mammal section and to hear what the original authors had to say about it. As I now understand, I should actually improve the article myself. I will do this, but not now, as I am quite busy in real life now (in fact, I should be learning for an exam). It is, of course, easier to find a contradiction between an article's text and its references than to improve it with other references. There are several interesting points that could be added to the article, though, including the apparent extinction of some "archaic" mammalian lineages, and hopefully I will be able to add something of that the day after tomorrow. Ucucha 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do archosaurs and other prehistoric reptiles, and can interpret the other stuff. Show me what else ya got! :) J. Spencer (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

Major editors and Wikiproject have been notified by IMatthew.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating this article here, not because I want to, but because I feel it is what's right. The article was promoted a while before the criteria for a Featured Article became more challenging. The article does not go into the storylines the best that it could, and there are other flaws as well. My main reason for nominating this is that judging by this and this, the article needs major improving to meet the criteria. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to list this correctly and to notify relevant parties and projects. This page is not listed at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this, I withdraw this nomination. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't have the sourcing problems seen in some other wrestling articles, but while it's here, it could use a tune-up and prose review. Errors are easily spotted, including at least:

  • Less than twenty-four hours ... (WP:MOSNUM issues)
    • Changed to "24" - D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In early-2008, in ... (faulty hyphens)
    • Shouldn't there be a hyphen then, or should it be – ? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • None at all. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Removed hyphen. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Meltzer, Dave (2007-01-22), ... (unformatted dates in citations)
    • I don't see the need to change it, otherwise it becomes inconsistent with the other date formatting used for the references in the article. Or does that particular one need to be Wikilinked? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikilinked, yes. That allows a users' preferences to auto-change it when the view the page. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (Campbell, CA): 1-12 (WP:DASH errors)
  • ... stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle." (WP:PUNC issues)
    • Done (I think) D.M.N. (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ... December 5, 2006). ECW December to Dismember - REVIEWED. The (MOS:CAPS#All caps)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

      • Those were samples only; has someone checked the entire article for MoS cleanup? User:Epbr123 is good at cleaning up MoS issues, but first you might check the text yourself to be sure similar issues are clean throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • OK. I'll probably ask someone to look through the prose tomorrow. I don't think there are any other MoS violations in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Cr 1a: distinctly substandard throughout.
    • "which would have meant there would be"—clumsy, and exposed in the lead.
      • Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's take one sentence, close to the top. "Outside of the weekly ECW broadcast, the pay-per-view received very little buildup on either Raw or SmackDown!, with WWE concentrating more on the Survivor Series pay-per-view that aired one week earlier." The second word is redundant. "Very" actually has the opposite effect—get rid of it. The old "with + noun + -ing" construction, which is very poor. That had aired, I think.
    • "an entire month and a half before the event occurred."—"entire" is excessive. Can six words be conflated into just two, "six week"?
      • Yeah, guess it can. Changed it to six weeks. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgent reconstruction required. TONY (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. --Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified Nominator, User:Urhixidur, User:Noren, [Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. --Eleassar my talk 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Eleassar, please see the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR and sample notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trigonometric functions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. (and note that Worldtraveller no longer edits here) -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [5]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? --Noren (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. If I understand you correctly, some of the reliable sources that the article rests on are listed in the 'external links' section. I suggest they are referenced inline. As you said, current format makes single claims difficult to verify. --Eleassar my talk