Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive 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

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Archives

Contents


Kept 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 kept by User:Marskell 10:28, 21 August 2008 [1].

John Bull (locomotive)

Notified Trains Portal, Trains Project, and User Slambo.

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004 and has not been reviewed. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1(c) seems to be the biggest problem for this article. There has been a "nofootnotes" tag on it since May. Halgin (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this to add footnotes for some time. I guess now is the time to get to it. B-) Slambo (Speak) 10:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on this now. I couldn't get to it over the weekend as it was my wedding anniversary, but I'll be putting some time into this during the week. Slambo (Speak) 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of the early history is now footnoted to multiple independent references. Work has slowed now because I'm looking for my copies of the books in my collection about this locomotive. I found a few New York Times articles about the 1931 and 1981 operation events, but they're behind an archive fee so I haven't added them yet. Slambo (Speak) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I found my copy of the book by John White and added the remaining footnotes to the main text. I'm still looking through the books in my personal library as well as at books available online and at my local city library for more reference material (and that's not mentioning the various magazines and historical journals that I have yet to look at again), so there may be more footnotes still yet to come. But, I think it should satisfy now. Slambo (Speak) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there has been no response either here, on the article talk page or on my talk page, I've requested that the review nominator return to review the changes. Slambo (Speak) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the first article I have asked for a review of. Thanks for the Message on my talk page. I was not sure if you were done. I will review the changes. Can you drop some information on the New York Times articles. If provide the information to support the statement in the summary or title you should add them. If not maybe if we can find another source. If someone else wants to review it also that would be good. Halgin (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I added some “citation needed” in some places. Maybe some of the technical information in the Intro box should be referenced also. I don’t have access to the References books, so I can’t check them. I assume that the information above them is supported. I have not checked the one online book. The article says that in 1939” It was then placed in somewhat permanent display back in the East Hall where it remained for the next 25 years.” But then its states “make its final public appearance outside the Smithsonian for another 39 years.” When was the Century of Progress exhibition in Chicago 1933–1934 or 1939? The article states both. Halgin (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I'll get onto those today. For the sections about the locomotive's museum displays, the information is all in John White's book (I have a copy in my collection). 1939 appears next to the phrase "Century of Progress" on page 46, but 1939 refers to the New York World's Fair. I've fixed it in the article (good catch). Slambo (Speak) 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The flagged statements are all referenced, and I also found and fixed an incorrect reference URL. I plan to further address your concerns later today. Slambo (Speak) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
My concerns about the references have been addressed. Halgin (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

Other experienced editors have helped to list reliable sources and proper license tags for all three images. As all three were published in the United States before 1923, they fall into the public domain. Slambo (Speak) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still concerned over Image:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg, as the Library of Congress says it could have been taken "ca. 1950", if that's the case the US-1923 tag would not apply. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it said 1920 when I added it to the article. However, even if it was later, [2] asserts "The photographs Theodor Horydczak made for his own use or for the government are in the public domain." That page also says that any client information on work-for-hire images would be stored in the catalog records with the image. I don't see anything obvious on [3] or the associated MARC record that would indicate that this would have been a work-for-hire (there is no lot number or client name listed in either location). Slambo (Speak) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable. Thanks for checking. DrKiernan (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Close. My and the nominator's comments appear to have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 14:09, 19 August 2008 [4].

December to Dismember (2006)

Review commentary

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)


    • Note: I am going on vacation this Saturday for two weeks until August 3rd, meaning I will have no internet access and will therefore be unable to deal with any comments that come towards this FAR on Saturday or after. D.M.N. (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to leave this in the FAR section until the beginning of August. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article has undergone a serious copy-edit, please see [5] - D.M.N. (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an explanation of the concerns regarding comprehensiveness and referencing? I'm unsure of what (if anything) remains to be done. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think (although you'll probably have to ask iMatthew this) the concern was about the writing style, which has since been changed. I see no concerns about referencing though. D.M.N. (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be due to refs 49, 48, 36, and 25.--SRX 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced ref #25. I've changed ref #36. Ref's #48 + #49 may be classed as unreliable, but they are used to adequatly source what general fans felt of the PPV as a whole, and source the statement "Critics and fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view." adequatly. D.M.N. (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: This is the copy-edit has gone through now. D.M.N. (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, concerns seem to have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 12:57, 19 August 2008 [6].

Iowa class battleship

There are not enough words in the English language to impart to the community the extent to which I really do not want this article up on FARC, but its been three long years since the article was presented here, and much has changed in that time both on the article itself and in the FA/FAC procedures and standards that we now hold such articles to. It is with much difficulty today that I finally managed to find the courage to place this article here, with the recognition that as the user who has worked on it the most these last three years, including its initial run through FAC back in '05, I am in all probability the user who will work the hardest to ensure the article stays at FA class.

Thanks in part to those of you who commented during the Montana class battleship FAC, I know for an absolute fact that some of the articles source are of questionable value (FA criterion 1c), and I am aware that in the three years since the article was at FARC both weasel and peacock words have wiggled back into the article. Aside from adding specific examples here for my benefit, I need to know what else needs to be done to ensure the article remains top notch. I am in summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here please be patient with me, in all probability I am occupied with school work, but I intended to throw my all into this after summer school ends (about the first week of August). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the need to maintain this article to the FA standards is made more important by the fact that this subject (the class of battleships) is about to become a Featured Topic once two more articles attain FA status. -MBK004 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here goes what I can turn up, but be warned that I may not be the most level-headed when dealing with this article since I've tried to maintain it. -MBK004 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    ...tell me about it ;-)
    • Keeping up on current events, the section on reactivation potential and the Zumwalt-class destroyers needs to go under a microscope because of the recent announcement that the Zumwalt class will only have two vessels because of costs. Hence, what are the effects to the NGFS picture? Also, thinking about the summary style of the article, it might be about time to split this section out to its own article. If it isn't at that point, it will be shortly because of these recent events.
      • This latest move by Navy with regards to the DDX will likely impact the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act, if it does, then we can break out the section and building it into an independent article. At the moment though the descion to stop construction at two DDX destroyers doesn't directly impact the Iowa's, though I suspect that will change soon.
        • Ok, I did a little digging on the Zumwalt class and it appears from the wording in the NDAA that at the moment the DDX program is being suspended to that the CNO can review his options; at the same time it appears that the USN has reversed its postion on the DDG-51's and is now considering constructing additional DDG-51 class destroyers. Taken as a whole this seems to be a good indicator that the DDX progam is dead, but I think a wait and see aproach here may be best to ensure accuracy.
      • I have added information on the apparent cancellation of the DDX program to the article, though more may be added later if and when I can find a copy of the NDAA for 2009.
    • Make sure that each paragraph in the History section has at least one reference (some don't have any), and more than two would be ideal. Also, try to merge the short paragraphs together (remember what they taught you in Comp I at university about paragraphs, multiple sentences).
    • Article could use a thorough copyedit by someone who hasn't seen the prose before.
    • I know it will be tough, but the Engineering plant could use more references and I know I'm beating a dead horse but that section is rather thin overall compared to the armament and history.
      • Looking into it. This one's kinda hard becuase I can not find any online sources to start with, but I do have the library so I can check there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I will take a look as well, since I might have something here in my collection. -MBK004 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I may add some more bullets later if I see some other things. -MBK004 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comments

  1. Dump the pop culture section, all this does is attract people to add more silly entries. Try to work the more important mentions into the article if they directly effected the subject ie: Missouri in a movie and not one of the ships in a video game etc. If it won't fit in the article, dump it.
    Not nessicarly, there are very strict guidelines in a hidden notice at the top of the page explicitly outline what can and con not go into the section. So far, the notices has worked as intended by redirecting attempted inclusion to the talk page first. None the less I will look into removing the section via the suggested methodes.
Please read some of the recently passed FA's that Bellhalla wrote. They're nicely done and introduce pop culture topics in a way that remains encyclopedic and doesn't attract people into adding references about GI Joe cartoons (the bane of my existence over at Constitution) This saves the effort of having to explain over and over again to people trying to insert trivia. --Brad (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. For all of the DANFS citations use <ref name="Ship">{{cite DANFS|title=|url=|accessdate=}}</ref> it creates uniformity in the references.
    Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. In the references section use: <ref name="NAME">{{cite book|id=ISBN|title=|last=|first=|publisher=|year=}}</ref> for the same reason as 2.
    This has been addressed with the exception of one source (noted on article talk page). — Bellhalla (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Dispense with the Discovery Channel as a major source.
    Actually, it was (originally) added to cite two statements, but as with the pop culture section I can scrap it if the need arises. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    This was actually on the Military Channel, not the Discover Channel, so the link has been updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.25.1 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Use the ability of the infobox to have separate sections for the various changes it went through over the years.

--Brad (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. Here are some book sources: Battleship Missouri : an illustrated history ISBN: 1557507805, The complete encyclopedia of battleships : A technical directory of capital ships from 1860 to the present day ISBN: 0517378108, Mighty Mo, the U.S.S. Missouri : a biography of the last battleship Newell, Gordon R. ; The Iowa class battleships : Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin ISBN: 0806983388, Battleships of World War Two : an international encyclopedia ISBN: 185409386X , American battleships : a pictorial history of BB-1 to BB-71, with prototypes Maine & Texas ISBN: 1575100045, U.S. battleships : an illustrated design history ISBN: 0870217151 , Battleships of the U.S. Navy in World War II ISBN: 0517234513 , United States battleships in World War II ISBN: 0870210998 ,

--Brad (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I own a few of these if you need access for page numbers and verification, see: User:MBK004/Library. -MBK004 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by doncram
(numbering to allow easier reading; this is really just one comment:)

  1. What attracts my attention is the use of DANFS material and the very small text note This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. at the very end of the references section. I think that the incorporation of public domain text into the article, with this small disclaimer, undermines the quality of this otherwise great and obviously well-researched and well-sourced article.
  2. There is now only a guideline on plagiarism in draft form, and no explicit policy yet, in wikipedia on this issue. I am one who believes that any appearance of plagiarism is worth taking steps to avoid, and I hope that discussion here will eventually provide more explicit policy for featured and less-refined wikipedia articles. I think it should give specific guidelines that public domain sources should be treated like any other, with the important exception that very long quotes from PD text are possible, unlike for other sources where only shorter passages can be quoted under "fair use" rules.
  3. I, and at least some others, believe that "incorporating" public domain text into an article without use of quotation marks and other treatment that is necessary for referencing non-public domain text is not good practice in general, and I further believe that it should be disallowed in featured articles. Although great swathes of wikipedia were built by pasting in public domain texts such as from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, it is also believed by some that there were mistakes in doing that, or that was a different time, and there is sentiment that different practices are needed.
  4. One way that it compromises the value of wikipedia articles, that I focus upon, is that it makes others' reliance upon the articles difficult. How is a scholarly work, or a student term paper, supposed to cite a featured wikipedia article, as of a certain date, of mixed sourcing? With the public domain incorporation, it is not correct to cite the collective wikipedia editorship as being the author of some pithy phrase; the phrase may well have been the exact wording of the public domain text that should be credited instead. A conscientious consumer would need to understand the significance of the public domain disclaimer at the bottom of the article, and go and explore all of the DANFS articles mentioned, in order to ferret out how to credit properly any quote from the wikipedia article. This is an unreasonable burden, and it would be costly to try to educate those who would be conscientious of the necessary machinations.
  5. Because I have analysed other ship articles, I am in a position to understand the meaning of the fine print notice, and to link that to the occurrences of DANFS mention within specific references further above. Without performing an exhaustive review, I believe that use of DANFS material is located in only a few locations in the article, specifically at the four instances of footnote 30, and the single instances of footnotes 40, 42, 44, 45, and 49. These are 9 instances from 5 footnotes out of a total of 110 footnotes in the article. It is possible that directly copied passages of DANFS material existed at those locations at one time, but have been combed over and revised so much that they are no longer recognizable as DANFS quotes. So it is also possible that only a very little editing would be required to treat the DANFS material like any other source (adding a quote or two of any particularly apt phrases, and rewording some other passages to avoid using DANFS's words).
  6. I ask that the wikipedia editor, revising this article, give some consideration to the value of avoiding different treatment of the DANFS source material, and consider revising the article to allow fair removal of the small-print template about DANFS use. doncram (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Striking my comment above, as TomStar81 responded below that his review of the article indeed justified DANFS text was no longer incorporated, and he removed the general DANFS disclaimer, and as it has been suggested to me that my striking is then appropriate in FAR process. It was discussed more fully in the Talk page to this review whether my comment was appropriate to make at all. But anyhow with respect to this article my comment was indeed fully addressed. I believe the following comments make no further call for edits to the article, but i didnt write them so I don't believe/don't know if i can strike them. Again the point raised seems to have been fully addressed for this FAR. doncram (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been reworking some of the references for this article and am not the article creator, nor was I involved in its writing. Given that, I don't know that the {{DANFS}} template is even appropriate on this article. In the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), there generally are not articles about ship classes, so I'm not sure why the tag is in place. Specific information about each ship in this article is cited to each ship's entry in DANFS.
  • With that said, making an accusation of plagiarism beating around the bush with hints of (and the implication of) plagiarism in this article is a pretty extreme example of not assuming good faith on your part. If you have specific instances of plagiarism in this article, please list them so they may be corrected. Otherwise, please strike your comment, because it is entirely inappropriate. You and I (and others), have butted heads before over the use of attributed public domain text in Wikipedia. I am aware of your positions on the issue, and believe that they are against the general consensus in the Wikipedia project. Those discussion are best held in appropriate fora, and not here, where we are reviewing the featured status of this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(thread edited for clarity - complete thread as of 05:03 26 July 2008 is at the FAR talk page) Franamax (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So the question here seems pretty simple: has the copy-pasted PD text been substantially rewritten to the point that the general reference is no longer required? Note that this extends beyond just the original wording to the original structure of the text. Also note that words such as "battleship" and "campaign" do not qualify as original wording, and simple timeline descriptions do not need attribution to the original PD authors. So what is left? Are there distinctive phrases remaining from the PD source, like "the old lady tiredly went once more forth to battle"? Is there a distinctive structure to the text that was copied from the PD source, telling a story rather than laying out temporal facts? If not, the footnote attributing to DANFS -IMO- should be removed - it has no justification. If those distinctive traces remain, they should be individually identified for purposes of FA review. Franamax (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Simply put, the answer to your question is yes, but I believe the cites to DANFS need to remain in. Understand that this article is part of a series, drawing material from each of the other six battleships for the ships section. Right now we could remove the {{DANFS}} template, but not the cites to the individual DANFS ships histories; as that would be in itself a form of plagerism by dening the role that DANFS material had in the building of the ship section. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just suggesting removal of the general DANFS template disclaimer, if there is no longer any use of "incorporated" but unquoted text. I was not suggesting removal of the separate DANFS references that support the facts. doncram (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the {{DANFS}} template from the article. Does this meet your request? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I accept completely that your familiarity with the current text removes any need to perform the kind of automated cross-checking that I was offering to perform, and I am glad of that as it would not really have been very easy to do. doncram (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments 2 by doncram

  • The formulas for speed and for capital ship speed in the article are interesting, but lack units. Is it speed in terms of knots per hour, as a function of ship length measured in feet? Depending on the units of measure used, the constant in the formula would be different. I kinda like how succinct the statements are in the article proper, without getting bogged down in what are the units involved, so perhaps the clarification --perhaps with a relevant example on the scale of one of these ships-- should be in the footnotes. doncram (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I have looked at the article passage a few times, and believe that the quantity is probably meant to be read as knots, but as it doesn't say that specifically I think it would be premature to put words in someone else's mouth. Davis has sited two reference for the material on speed, and I am trying to track them down. I will get back to you on this as soon as I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I find the following passage convoluted, and wonder if it represents some unfortunate compromise:

"When firing two broadside per minute a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a target per minute, a figure that can only be matched (and in some cases beaten) by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force,[53] which can carry up to 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, and mines, or any combination thereof." I assume the main point is that the Iowa-class battleship can deliver 36,000 pounds of ordnance in one minute, and in the next minute and the one after, while a B-52 can only do it at that rate for 1.6667 minutes and then it is done. Perhaps something like: "When firing two broadside per minute a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a target per minute, a rate of delivery that can only be beaten for a short time by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force,[53] which can carry at best 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, or mines."

I'll look into this and much more tommarow, right now its 4:00 am and I am exhausted. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My (admittedly quick) read of the B-52 source seems to find only a payload of 10,000 lbs., not the 60,000 currently quoted. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Specifiactions section, armament subsection, says "Bombs: up to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) bombs, missiles, and mines, in various configurations", although the cite for that has dissappeared since I last looked. The intro now says 70,000 lbs ordinance, but like the 60,000 lbs quantity this also has no cite. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I suspect there is a trade off between B52 range and bomb carrying capacity. But if I was the USAAF I'd classify that sort of detail. I think the article is fairly typo free, though can I suggest someone double checks the names of the Bismark's Barbettes, esp Ceaser. Also is BBBG correct? BBG would stand for Battleship Battle Group. Also can I suggest a bit more detail on the crew? It mentions 2700 in the 40s and only 1800 in the 80s, What do they all do? Why were 900 fewer needed? What were the conditions they served under and, and is it true that they didn't get alcohol in their rations? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
BBBG is correct, the US uses a dual letter system to ID its vessels (DD for destroyer, BB for battleship, FF for frigate, and so forth), and as luck would have it Battleship Battle Group has its own article here in case you were curious. The rest of your questions are complex enough that I will need more time than I could have here to locate and answer all of them adequately. On the issue of personel, I can give a preliminary answer that there was some modernization work done which reduce some weapons and installed others that were less manpower intensive. Like I said, I can tighten that up for you when I find better info on the material. As to the B-52 comment, it was meant to provide people with an equipment camparison, though if need be it can be removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI: the B-52 can carry around 54,000 pounds of ordnance. In Vietnam, the B-52 was modified to carry 108 500-lb bombs, so it can at least carry that much. This is not classified info and is publicly available per the START treaties. — BQZip01 — talk 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Images I can't find Image:Wisconsin museum.JPG at the original source, presumably it's been removed in a web-site redesign. Can we be sure that it was taken by a US sailor? DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We can. A handy trick to recalling such information is to go through the internet archive, which saves a particular version of the web page(s) from a specific time period. According to the upload log, the image first appeared here in september 2005, by going through the internet archive I found the original page, and as you can see in the image section the site reports that all images are credited to the U.S. Navy, and thus, are PD-USGov. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How do people feel about this one? Much left to do? Marskell (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the quotes are formatted correctly (someone pls check WP:MOS), image captions aren't punctuated correctly (see WP:MOS#Captions, full sentences have periods, sentence fragments do not), and portals belong in See also per WP:LAYOUT, so it's always confusing to figure out what to do with them when there is no See also. I prefer to see them moved up, to the top of References, but that's personal preference. I also see some errors in logical punctuation; User:Epbr123 is good at these sorts of fixes, if someone wants to ping his talk. If Bellhalla is satisfied, so am I, after these minor fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue with the quotes came up earlier, and I made a point of asking the MoS people directly what they thought about the use of the quotes in the article here's a link. The ruling on the field was that the quotes were good and did not need to be changed, but that was with the respect to word limitations at the time. I'd be open to more input on the point if anyone would like to weigh in on there use in the article. I will look into adressing the rest of the issue you brought ASAP.
I have removed the portal reference to military of the United States since our milhist templates links directly link to the portals in which the articles appear, this having been done explicitly to reduce the appearences of the "x portal" templates in the article namespace. That leaves the commons template, but the fact that commons is a seperate site I tend to group it in with the external links (though I would be open to moving it if others agree to do so as well). I have also tweaked the image captions to comply with the MoS, though I am not sure I got everything correct.
To Marskell: the key issue here was questionable source (FA criterion 1c), but I have made a move to locate and eliminate all the external links that were judged by the community to be iffy. The rest of the material (excluding relevent MoS issues which can and will be adressed as fast as I can [leigably?] type) should be more or less a large pool of suggested improvements as oer a peer review, therefore we ought to be able to list those on the article talk page and invite editers to look into implementing the suggestd improvements as time permits. Thats my opinion anyway, but its your call, so I defer to your judgement on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Sandt's suggestion I have left a note on Epbr123's talk page, but I do not know when he will get a chance to look at the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Epbr got to it today. I think this is good to go and that article talk can indeed accomodate future changes. Marskell (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 16:57, 18 August 2008 [7].

William III of England

previous FAR
Main editors aware of the FAR
WikiProjects England‎, Royalty‎, and Netherlands‎ are notified on July 31
WikiProjects Calvinism, Military history, and LGBT studies are notified on August 4

The article fails featured article criterion #1c.

It needs reliable source references for the information in the following sections:

Also, the following (sub)sections need additional source references:

Best regards, Ilse@ 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. This article just had an FAR in April. Since then, people have added more citations. I don't see why we should repeat this exercise when the FA standards haven't changed and the article has only improved. Coemgenus 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    I believe this article does not meet the FA criteria and should be improved, regardless of whether it was reviewed earlier. – Ilse@ 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in the Legacy section are additional references required? Clearing the single [citation needed] marker in the "Marriage" section should be relatively easy, either by adding one or removing the sentence. The other three sections are largely irrelevant trivia. Besides, the "popular culture" section can be verified simply by watching the films, or reading the books. DrKiernan (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Several citations have already been added by User:Coemgenus after this review was started. Currently there are two more facts that need a source reference in the Legacy section. If it is simple to find source references for the facts in the Popular culture section, these references could easily be provided in this article. After going through the article again, I have added a few more "citation needed" markers. – Ilse@ 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The FA criteria do not demand that every sentence be followed by a citation. I have written several FAs that are more sparsely cited than this article now is. Coemgenus 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified User:Necrothesp, who wrote the popular culture section, of the review. But he's on holiday, so may not respond swiftly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying this user. – Ilse@ 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems:

The image of Johan de Witt can be replaced by another portrait from commons:Category:Johan de Witt. – Ilse@ 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to close This is getting perilously close to the end of the review section, and I'd like to forestall this moving to FARC. I've removed the images lacking information, which leaves the citations in the popular culture section the only remaining issue. As I said before, I think that the films and books act as their own sources, so I do not feel that citations are required for that section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. K's assessment. --Coemgenus 14:31, 18 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Joelr31 22:44, 10 August 2008 [8].

Ahmedabad

Review commentary

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.

This has been removed now. --gppande «talk» 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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 and data with http://www.udd.gujarat.gov.in/Default_files/UrbanScenario.htm to make it more reliable. --gppande «talk» 16:50, 6 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
Done by User:Dwaipayanc. Thanks! --gppande «talk» 16:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Check the External links.....What does the Link4 mean?What is Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. It should be Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
Done

Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; decisions to move articles to FARC are made by FAR delegates Marskell and Joelr31. This article is still in the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3), Kensplanet (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove. More than 2 weeks are over. Still no significant improvement. Only minor improvements.

  • 1 (c)
  • Arvind Mills, located in Ahmedabad, is one of the largest textile mills in the country.
Removed. --gppande «talk» 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The prestigious Gujarat Vidyapith was established in 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi; it was among the first institutions of higher learning managed entirely by Indians, despite British control.
Formatted + referenced. --gppande «talk» 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Some titles and publishers of the references are entirely in Capitals. This shouldn't be there in a FA.
I corrected the 2 refs to lower cases which I myself had added. I didn't knew this rule. Thanks for pointing. --gppande «talk» 19:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Removed --gppande «talk» 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 3

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

  • The Image Retail is a big portion of the commercial economy in no way represents economy of the city. It is just a picture of a Mall.
All points addressed. --gppande «talk» 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Peacock terms

*The prestigious Gujarat Vidyapith was established in 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi; it was among the first institutions of higher learning managed entirely by Indians, despite British control.

  • Prestigious institutions such as the Indian Institute of Management, the National Institute of Design, the Mudra Institute of Communications, the National Institute of Fashion Technology, the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, and the Center for Environmental Planning and Technology are located in Ahmedabad.
  • Who decides whether they are prestigious.
All points addressed. --gppande «talk» 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

Please review the instructions at WP:FAR; decisions to move an article from FAR to FARC are made by Joelr31 and Marksell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. All the issues haven't been resolved. The Site also uses data from unreliable sites. A lot of data which need to be cited is uncited. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RESOLVED ISSUES
What makes the following Sources reliable:

World Gazetter has been used for showing the UA data in most of the FAs like Mumbai & India. I agree, WikiProject India says Census data is only valid but for UA data World Gazetter has been traditionally used across WP. As you can see census data is already present in Demographics section which tells the population of Ahmedabad city itself and not UA. --gppande «talk» 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Remember, the current revisions of Mumbai and India may not be featured revisions. World Gazetter references have been added recently. If they have a FAR currently, those sites may vanish. So please do not compare your article with other FA articles. What makes you think that World Gazetter is a reliable source. Perhaps you can find a nespaper article mentioning World Gazetter is noteworthy or an University/reputed organization such as Census of India recommending World Gazetter for population statistics. Only then can World Gazetter be considered as a reliable source. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you seemed to support WG on Manglore FAC which showed me this link but hold an opposite view for this FAR. Anyways, I have replaced World Gazetter now with census of India. Hope this is sufficient. --gppande «talk» 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do support World Gazetter. But, I also do beleive that the Census of India is much more reliable than the World Gazetter can ever be. The problem with this article was population figures in the main Infobox were mentioned from the World Gazetter, which I have objected right from the beginning. How can World Gazetter be more reliable than Census data. You can mention World Gazetter details maybe in the Demographics section. But anyway, I am trying hard to prove that World Gazetter is a reliable source. Maybe, you can help me in proving that it is reliable in the Mangalore FAC. Once proved, we can freely use it for all city articles. In any case, preference of World Gazetter over Census of India may be difficult to prove. Although not impossible. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sad to know that Mangalore FAC is really related to this FAR. This should not be the motive in my opinion. If one FAC doesn't go through we should not pull down another FA. Anyways, I am not concerned and will continue to do improvement here in good faith. -- preceding text reposted as it was deleted by reviewer Coming to the point, since WG is no more referenced in Ahmedabad please strike out this point. --gppande «talk» 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Done Although there is no such rule/guideline that reputable newspapers cannot be source for nicknames, I have replaced the citation with a citation from a book. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. I don't say Newspapers and books are unreliable for such data, but they are marginally reliable. If Ahmedabad is the Manchester of the East indeed, then why are you finding it difficult to give me a reference from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Nicknames have official recognition and are usually mentioned in the respective corporation websites. Bangalore is called the Silicon Valley of India. Is it true? Yes it is, since it is mentioned in http://www.bmponline.org/ . (The Corporation website of Bangalore). There's no way I can question this nickname. Websites can be used as secondary references but primary sources have to be such references. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/04/stories/2005040410830300.htm) [a reputed newspaper] says Mangalore is Rome of the east. But we cannot rely such data because it has no official backing. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You say, "I don't say Newspapers and books are unreliable for such data, but they are marginally reliable." I tell this sentence of you is Original Research. A reputab