Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November and December 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kept status

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Has been featured ever since I started watching it. Since then, it has been changed beyond recognition, and is undergoing major rewriting - and imho improvement - now. It sees to be another case of a legacy FA that we are now shocked to find is featured at all -- but my point is not to retro-actively apply present principles, but rather that the present article has very little to do with what was featured at some point in the past. dab () 10:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. --Rikurzhen 12:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. Not sure it is turning into something better but it's not worse, and it originally belonged in FA. JDG 23:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. It is good but it needs slight improvement, especially by ilinking many terms and incorporating terms from see also. I suggest removing it and adding to FAC, that should do the trick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal - The article could use a good refactor (some sections have gotten a bit small after content was moved to daughter articles while other sections are a bit large), but I still think it is still good enough to be FA. --mav 03:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Much of this article concerns the highly debated topic of whether human races are biologically valid/useful. Most of the arguments presented are unattributed, phrased in weasel terms, and repeated endlessly throughout the article. It's not as bad as it was before I started major edits, but it's still going to take quite some time to fix. -- Schaefer 11:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm I can see we are headed for some tussling here if I ever get back to really sitting down to this article again. I'm afraid I don't view your changes as improvements, overall. One man's "weasel terms" may be another's balance terms. You may be missing some of the subtle differences between the statements that struck you as endlessly repetitive. Above all, your shuffling off much of the best material to daughter articles sends the reader on an unecessary clickfest (this is a subset of the 32kb "limit" controversy)... When Race was promoted to FA there was still a fair amount wrong with it (especially some very clunky phrasing), but the Wikipedians who saw there was even more right with it carried the day. You kinda insult them all when you dismiss the FA version as such a stinker and maybe you would do well to acquire a little more respect for their judgment (and I'm not saying this because I was a contributor-- at least three others had much more to do with it). JDG 05:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still FA standard. :ChrisG 13:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
comment: I actually agree that it is FA standard now. It wasn't one or two months ago. dab () 16:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

No sources, only external links. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. Author's credibility makes up for lack of sources. Fredrik | talk 00:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Excellent article, lack of sources are not a reason to remove from featured articles, and also what Frederik said. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It certainly could be a reason to remove them. Just depends on what we want. No article should pass now without them, so why should articles be allowed to stay without them? I think references are important enough. See Talk:Art in Ancient Greece#Lack of References. One writer or reference would be unacceptable for any serious academic work, so why shouldn't we strive to exceed that minimum ideal here? - Taxman 02:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Filiocht 08:57, 21 Dec, 2004 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

Sources are inadequate. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. Comprehensive, and lack of references is not a reason for removal from featured articles. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Agree with Ambi. Filiocht 08:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

Not comprehensive. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep/Oppose removal. Comprehensive, and a rare example of a good article on an American politician. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Filiocht 08:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. What needs to be added? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

This article doesn't read as a coherent whole; uses jargon without explanation; and is far from comprehensive. On coherence: The first and seventh sections attempt (but largely fail) actually to discuss the subject at hand. Sections two to six do not even do this: they are a slightly enlarged version of a list of American poets. Indeed, it's difficult to get an idea of what the main themes in American poetry really have been. On jargon: there's lots of it that's unexplained. Eg there's a whole section on modernism which doesn't even say what modernism is, and surrealism is used without explanation too. On lack of comprehensiveness: The (poorly written) lead section mentions by the end of the millennium (what's wrong with century) there was an "increased emphasis on poetry by women, Afro-Americans, Hispano-Americans and other subcultural groupings". The article proper does not mention this at all, with no discussion whatsoever on Afro-American and Hispano-American poetry. This is far from being an example of one of Wikipedia's best articles. jguk 20:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are clear links to both modernist poetry in English and surrealism. I'm sure the article could be improved in many ways. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I know I have a vested interest, but I find most of the reasons for delisting given both vague and subjective. As for the 'jargon', these terms are linked for readers who want more info. This article is not the place to explain modernism or surrealism, for example. The major theme in American poetry is the emergence of an American poetic idiom and this is covered in the article. After that, there are as many themes as there are poets, or more even. Like any other article, this one could be improved, but FAs are not expected to be perfect. Filiocht 08:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
This from the talk page leads me to believe that the objection is based on the fact that there are words in the article that the objector is not familiar with. The same would be true for me reading a maths article, but that would not make it an invalid use of those words. In this case, words like 'writerly' have a precise meaning that is the exact fit needed. This is what dictionaries are for. Filiocht 13:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
A featured article should be accessible to all. Certainly one on a broad subject with a title that sounds like an introduction to the subject of US poetry. Jargon in a general article like this, if used at all, should be explained. In short, the article should be standalone. I note you have not addressed my other comments. Is that because you agree with them? ;) jguk 20:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree that a featured article should be "accessible to all". The purpose of a good article should be to inform the reader: part of that task is accomplished by using appropriate vocabulary. I agree that needless puffery should be trimmed from featured articles, but in articles where the words are difficult (and perhaps unfamiliar to many) yet necessary for the sake of precision, we can't remove them. There are many featured articles that contain words I do not know. I don't take that as a sign they shouldn't be featured. I may (if I like) take it as a sign I should consult my dictionary. As to the other complaints, I feel some of them are a bit vague, but I'll look at the article more closely and see if they can be addressed. Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After further discussion on the article talk page, I find little merit in this application for delisting. Sure, the article could be improved with more work — goes without saying (must be 1000 poets in its scope). But the standalone business is more like self-righteousness than a serious comment on how to write WP. Linking off a central page like this is only common sense, and trying to discuss all the implications on the page itself is really not the way forward. Charles Matthews 09:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. Generally a very complete article. If it has jargon you don't understand bring it up on the talk page and see what you can help do to make the article easier to understand. But also, I'm sure there are a large number of good print references available on this subject. Filiocht, et al, can you guys put some together? I'll try to take care of properly formatting the external links used as references, thats my bugaboo. A little worse than I thought. Only the first site listed as a reference seems to be able to be reliably used as one. The others seem like standard external links. - Taxman 19:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

No references, Taxman request them to be added 2 weeks ago, as no action seems to have been taken I think it's time to give it a deadline of two weeks. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Absolutely oppose removal. These attempts at imposing standards retrospectively should stop now. Deadline indeed! Filiocht 14:47, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I call nonsense, if we don't hold ALL of our Featured articles to the same standard we invite ourself to a heavy degradation of quality, as we grow bigger our standards grow as well, this is good as it motivates editors to improve articles beyond their current state, up to a higher level. The same is done with Featured picture by the way. Anyways, a featured article without references makes me cringe. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:59, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • It has already been agreed on that the requirement for featured articles to have references should not be retroactive; however, I do agree they should be required. I cannot support nor oppose this nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm interesting, I would have strongly opposed such a decision. Proper source references are an essential element of any decent work of writing where most of the content is often rewritten directly from sem-original sources. For the wikipedia to be taken seriously we need to be able to do simple fact-checking which is made considerably easier if references are provided. While I think references are important for any article on Wikipedia that has evolved from stub-level, I think they are essential for a featured article. I think it's a shame for articles to be presented on our front page as being our "best work" to lack proper references. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Just found the discussion on the talk page, I am glad enough ruckus has been created for this to be properly discussed, note that there was never actually an agreement not to retroactively apply standards, anyways, see talk. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Too trivial a reason to remove something. And there's no absolute requirement to have references for a FAC anyway. jguk 20:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Did you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article at all? But anyways, this is part of a much bigger issue with out FA's, as noted in the discussion on the talk page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • As a point of fact, Wikipedia:What is a featured article says: 'Include references when and where appropriate' which is not an absolute requirement. Filiocht
        • Agreed, but don't you think references are especially important in an article on a semi-secret society? If we don't include them in an article like this we might as well leave em out on all our articles. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • But consensus is that it is always appropriate for any article being nominated at FAC, so what's the difference? Filiocht, are you really going to argue that references are not critical to the credibility of Wikipedia? - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
          • Please leave the straw man out of this. I am not arguing against references, I am arguing against a particular way of imposing new conditions retrospectively. Also, you do not help your case by first appealing to the authority of Wikipedia:What is a featured article and then shifting to an Argumentum ad numerum when that authority is shown not to exactly say what you thought or claimed it did. I'd like to see an informed debate that arrived at a genuine consensus before this page becomes bigger than WP:FAC is. Filiocht 14:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
            • Well this should go to talk, but here goes. There's no straw man, I asked you a question. And it is not a Argumentum ad numerum because the only 'truth' I am pointing out is the very fact that there is a consensus! It is not that case that "that authority is shown not to exactly say what you thought or claimed it did". It is simply that I am asserting my own interpretation of the policy that it is always appropriate. And that I've never seen anyone disagree that that is the way it should be. Exactly as I stated! If you're going to spend time claiming a logical fallacy, please be sure there actually is one. And yes, I'll welcome the informed discussion to come to a recognized consensus on the issue. If the only point you are really going after is that requirements should not be retroactively applied, then I disagree and a number of people on the talk page do too. The only people I've seen agree with your point are people that seem to not understand the value of references to FA's. - Taxman 21:55, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
              • 'Filiocht, are you really going to argue that references are not critical to the credibility of Wikipedia?' is a straw man; I have never argued this. I do not agree that there is a consensus; if a majority may have expressed a single view, this does not constitute a consensus, hence my reference to Argumentum ad numerum. What I object to is the arbitrary creation of a deadline for the addition of references in the original listing above without a consensus as to what that deadline should be. My objection to removal stands, and it seems I'm not the only one objecting, so once again, there is no consensus. Filiocht 08:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - I think we need a structured process for reviewing the older featured articles, as discussed on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I still don't think "lack of references" is yet a sufficiently strong reason to de-feature a featured article, so long as the rest of the article is OK. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

This article looks as if it has been restricted to just a few sets of viewpoints. It seems highly POV. CheeseDreams 20:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is reasonably explicit about the viewpoints it is supposed to be about: the adventist, dispensationalist, and Jehovah's Witness beliefs that various current events indicate an imminent apocalypse. Can somebody be more specific about what viewpoints are supposed to be neglected? Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just because the article makes clear what its purpose is, doesn't mean that the article is NPOV. "End times" is clearly an end-of-the-world concept, but I see nothing here about non-Christian ends of the world, like the Norse Ragnarok. Are there similar concepts in Chinese, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Maori, or other cultures? One would not know from this article. The phrase "end times" may be, in English, most associated with Christianity (maybe even just U.S. fundamentalism), but can anyone say this authoritatively enough to justify the complete absence of any other scenarios? I think that's the issue here. Certainly the current article is robust enough to deserve to be a separate article, but perhaps it should be titled "End times in Christian fundamentalism" and be referenced in a more general overall article. — Jeff Q 20:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good point. The article also focuses so heavily on the three viewpoints it wants to dicuss that it ignores the fact that all Christians that believe in the bible believe in this concept to some extent simply by Revelations being a book of the bible. Support removal. There is little chance this can be rectified quickly. - Taxman 01:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Object to removal from Featured Article status. To remove this article from Featured Article status merely because the Ragnarok and [[G%F6tterd%E4mmerung|Die Götterdämmerung]] stories are not included is ridiculous. This page is already too big! What is this? A witch hunt? :)) All you have to do is rename the page to End times (superstition) or End times (christian) which ever would score more points in your witch hunt. :)) No need to try to remove the names of the week from the dictionary just because the names of the week are named for God. She, it, they will not hurt you. You are letting your superstitious fears show in the sweat of your brow as you look furiously for some way to remove from Wikipedia pages what you fear.  :(( This page is in no way POV defective in covering what it covers. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think its my fault this is here. I had absolutely no problems with the neglection of Norse stories after realising that the correct term was eschatology ("End Times" being used to refer to this is now seems to me as Anglic insensitivity). My problem was that it seemed to be quite jumbled and full of bickering on cross-denominational differences. On closer look it seems a bit better than I thought, but I still don't think it is up to Feature Article status.--ZayZayEM 02:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, Rednblu! Where did all that conspiracy theory stuff come from? You responded as if someone suggested that we murder someone. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted. The question is whether it should be a featured article, which is what this page, Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, is about. According to Wikipedia:Featured articles, this rare status is reserved for "Wikipedia articles we think are particularly well-written and complete". It may be very well written, but it's clearly not complete, unless the phrase "end times" is expected to represent only the eschatology covered in the current article. To use (or perhaps abuse) your own analogy about days of the week, one would not expect an article titled Days of the week to include only Sunday and Monday. One might hope to find detailed information on these days (including origins, connections to religion, interesting cultural connections, etc.) under appropriately titled articles, but one would expect Days of the week to include all seven in the calendar currently in greatest use around the globe. (Even these qualifications might reasonably lead to further discussion.) Wikipedia has a place for all information on properly-presented topics, and a thorough discussion of any and all Christian "end times" beliefs is completely appropriate. But it should go under a title that doesn't assume it is the be-all and end-all on the subject, which is no doubt what triggered the POV complaint. That's all I was saying. Taxman is quite right that the issues here are not likely to be fixed quickly. Just renaming it would leave a gap where an overall article should be, and it takes time and to create a solid encompassing article. Therefore, End times should be removed from featured status until these issues are resolved, at which time it may very well be featured again. Don't have a cow, dude. — Jeff Q 05:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for using my analogy quite well. :) This is an article only about weeks, so there is no reason to expect that it would also include explanations about time periods generally. No need to remove from Featured Article status a Featured Article quality article about weeks just because there is a missing article on time periods generally! This is how I read Filiocht's comment below. What you are implying is that there should be a disambiguation page Time period (disambiguation) which should contain links to weeks and months. So in this case there should be an End times (disambiguation) page that would link to this page renamed End times (Christian) and also having links to Ragnarok and [[G%F6tterd%E4mmerung|Die Götterdämmerung]].  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - can we define its scope closely enough that it is comprehensive in its limited field? (Incidentally, I added a link to Ragnarok, but someone correctly changed that to eschatology; the article also refers to Christian eschatology, which is more general than the article and more specific than eschatology.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Doesn't need to include things it is clearly not about. Filiocht 11:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The term "End Times" is pretty closely connected to these particular opinions and I don't see any need to turn it into an article that is so long that it can't be featured for that reason (which it would be if it tried to cover all of eschatology). As ALoan says, all that is needed is to define the article's scope and link to the parallel articles representing other traditions about the end of the world. Mpolo 13:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Now oppose removal. Much improved. Neutral, close to remove. The new explanation header is helpful, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the article has no references and the lead section is way to long and not all that well written. - Taxman 18:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Everyone seems to be going crazy about Ragnarok, what the point was with nominating it here was that it is simply not up to scratch for feature Article status. - I am now voting to REMOVE--ZayZayEM 02:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This begins an attempt to retrospectively impose new FA standards on old articles. Refs were not required at the time this was featured, and much less stress was placed on lead sections. Filiocht 08:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • All FA's should meet the same basic standards. If they don't, they should be removed. If not that, then what is the point of this page? This gives the page's author's a chance to improve the article to stay featured; if not it goes. At least one article was improved enough after listing here to stay featured. - Taxman 13:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • I have added a references/further reading section to the article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Great. Thank you. But can you split the ones that were actually used to write or fact check the article into the proper references section, and put the ones that weren't as further reading? That's more valuable and correct policy also. Also can you have a go at reducing the lead section? I don't think I could do it without badly hacking it up. - Taxman 16:44, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
              • It's getting hard to count the stars. AAR, I divided that section into references, Bible commentaries, and further reading, and added some more recent works to the further reading section. Smerdis of Tlön 20:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • Thanks, good work. - Taxman 13:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, what's difference between end times and end of the world? I think it's the same. Are they explaining Biblical terms? Rantaro 06:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • AFAIK the phrase "end times" does not appear in those words, not in the KJV Bible anyways. "End times" refers to a belief system that interprets Christian apocalyptic texts to support a claim that the Rapture and the Second Coming are imminent. -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article is still a featured article.

This article is featured on the main page but has had serious issues for quite a while now.

  1. It includes pictures without copyright tags.
  2. There is no section with references.
  3. The structure is messy, it includes very short sections and the ordering is not very insightful.
  4. There is no clear lead section.
  5. The images are overwhelming the article instead of supporting the text.

Hopefully its listing here will stimulate improvements. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal: I feel that in this case it would be an instance of retrofitting current requirements on what is a reasonable article. Obviously I'd like to see the lead shortened and references section added and the image copyright thing sorted and the images made smaller, but no to defeaturing. Filiocht 11:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well thats the point. All featured articles should meet at least a base level of the same standards. If they don't, remove them and then get them back in just like any other article. I still oppose removal while it is on the main page though. - Taxman 18:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think Filiocht has a point here - when we add new requirements (like the requirement for referneces), the idea not to retroactively apply them because that would be unfair to older articles. And I think he is correct that this is an example of exactly that. →Raul654 17:50, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal for now: although this is not of the very highest quality and I doubt would get Featured now, I think it is (barely) good enough to stay featured. But the above criticisms are valid. I've tried to make the images a bit less messy and overwhelming, although the structure and content is not not brilliant. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I listed a few of the same concerns as above on the talk page in order to give the editors a chance to fix it before listing here. I think that is only fair. But if I had seen it coming up as a front page article I would have opposed that there. Now I think since there is a listing of what is wrong with the article on the talk page, maybe all the viewers to it today will help with fixing its problems. - Taxman 13:12, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well I've made an attempt myself to fix at least the structure and create a proper lead. I do think that the text in general is not feature quality material, the flow and readability are below par. It can be fixed, but really needs work. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:48, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, now support removal. It has not improved enough while being on the main page. It does have major stuctural issues, has no references, and seems to lack coverage in important topics. - Taxman 05:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • I still support removal, it has improved to be at least readable now and not a complete mess, but it's definitely not up to our current FA standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Status removed November

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I request that this article be taken off featured article status due to it being the centre of frequent edit wars and having its neutrality and factual accuracy disputed. Vacuum | tcw 02:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) Sigh.... Raul's 5th law is a harsh mistress. →Raul654 03:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't necessarily dispute the factual accuracy or NPOV of the article, I just noticed that they were disputed and that a rule exists that such articles should not be featured. Vacuum | tcw 00:20, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit wars are no reason for removal -- Chris 73 Talk 04:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, they are - "A featured article should... Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." →Raul654 04:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected, and vote Neutral for now, since I cannot judge if the NPOV dispute is justified or not -- Chris 73 Talk 06:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal of any article where accuracy and/or NPOV are under dispute. Filiocht 09:36, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear - support removal until it reaches a stable state. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. The article is not that bad, in fact I don't see any major problems. Anyone can come in an say they object to the material, and that should not automatically remove an article from featured status. It appears that disputes are being successfully discussed on the talk page. I see some issues in POV, that no discussion exists of the negative effects of zionism in this article, but overall it is not such a bad article that it should be removed. - Taxman 14:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • The question is, can we say that this is one of Wikipedia's best, and then have the reader see that its accuracy/POV is under dispute? I am inclined to think not. Filiocht 14:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • So then I can place a disputed template at the top of any featured article and it should be removed as a featured article? - Taxman 17:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • If there is an actual dispute about POV or factual accuracy, particularly if there is an edit war, then yes, the article should have its Featured status suspended or removed. If someone capriciously adds dispute notice, then no, it should not be removed. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • In general, I have chosen to interpret and act on the policy (wrt disputes on featured articles) as follows - give them (the disputants) a few days to sort it out before listing it here. By the same token, disputes that take a long while to sort out should cause the article to be de-featured. →Raul654 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
            • This has been in dispute for almost a month now. Filiocht 16:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
              • Then I agree - take it down. Sigh... →Raul654 19:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Here I am going to go against my general feeling that problems should be listed on the article talk page first before here. I don't think any quick fixes will solve this any time soon. No references, entire portions of the subject with nothing but links to other articles, Image with no source information. - Taxman 05:18, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • As the original author of the article, I support its removal since it has been badly hacked about since I wrote it and is now a mess, which is one of the reasons I have largely withdrawn from Wikipedia editing. On your other points however: (1) I took the photos myself and they are tagged accordingly. (2) Since when do encyclopaedia articles need references? An encyclopadia is a reference. Adam 06:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel that way, collaborative editing can obviously bring out great articles. I am certainly not listing it here because I want it removed, but instead because I would like it improved to the level of other featured articles. The first image does not have any source tagging info. As to references they are now a basic requirement of featured articles. It is important that the information in wikipedia is verifiable, so the best sources in the subject should ideally be consulted and cited. - Taxman 14:03, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, until someone adds text to the blank sections summarising the "main articles". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, agree with User:ALoan. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

This article, featured on the main page today, has several problems. Parts of this article read way too much like an essay, with clear instances of POV and/or original, subjective interpretation ("these bold visions", "beyond text", also see "Publishing web pages" comment on talk). The overall structure is poor; the order and choice of sections seems arbitrary. For example, the "Java and Javascript" section should rather be called "Dynamic content", or something similar, and cover more than these two particular technologies. The section says nothing useful about what dynamic content is and what it is supposed to be good for. The "Sociological implications" section is vague and incomplete at best. Poor writing: many one-sentence paragraphs, missing wikilinks. Sub-standard choice of images. And perhaps the worst problem: this article is blatantly incomprehensive; there is almost nothing on types of websites, search engines, organization of the web and websites, the web's role in commerce, and probably many things I didn't think about. In my opinion, this article could use a rewrite from the ground up. Fredrik | talk 18:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with your points. However, put them on the article talk page — this page will receive enough attention today that perhaps someone will do something about them. Regardless of the article content, I think the idea of taking down an active featured article is unprecedented. Derrick Coetzee 18:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The article must be listed here for two weeks before it can be taken down. Fredrik | talk 20:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Well I mistakingly moved this entry to the WWW talk page. But that article is actually not recently promoted and because processing on this page will last at least two weeks, I see no problem with its inclusion here. The issues Fredrik points out are valid and should be taken care off in some way. So I'm going to add the FARC template to the WWW talk page now. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 20:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. While I don't think it is helpful to list articles here while they are on the main page, this article has not improved enough after being there. It still has basically all of the above problems. Please do copy those criticisms to the talk page so editors can work on them. I think it would have been much more helpful had they been there. I think the image choice is perfect though actually. - Taxman 18:33, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - much more could be said, and this does not cut the mustard (I like the lead image too, though). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

No sources. 20:49, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • OK, having read again, reluctantly, remove for the reasons set out above and below. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)Neutral - not the best, but not awful either. Peer review, perhaps? (although I suppose that a featured article that needs peer review ought not to be featured...) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. It's certainly a decent article, but it's clearly below current standards. It'd be nice to see - and I don't think it'd be too hard for someone to do so - this improved to that standard. Until then, though, remove. Ambi 11:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. No lead section, no references. Some one sentence paragraphs. This is one of those excuse articles, "well if ... is featured and doesn't have ... why does this article have to?" - Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal for reasons given by others. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that spoiler warnings in this context are daft. If someone is reading up about a writer, they probably want to know what that writer wrote about, and how they did it. Filiocht 13:58, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Little structure, no obvious lead section and no references. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree with all the reasons above. Remove - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Short, little structure and no references. Images have no source information either. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Again, agree with all the reasons above. Remove - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Status removed December

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Doesn't quite mix it with the other political biographies in the section. It's got no proper lead, no section headings, and it isn't truly comprehensive. It could, for instance, have gone into detail about his actions during the kidnap of the OPEC ministers. Dbiv 00:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree with the above comments. Evil MonkeyTalk 01:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, remove. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:08, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Is poorly organized, no lead section. Jacob1207 18:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with the above. - Taxman 23:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • It could use a table. Ground 22:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And no references. Remove. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Minus the large list of lineups by year and the lead section, it is barely a page. Very hard to believe it is complete. Also has no references. - Taxman 02:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove--Evil Monkey 04:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Yet again a mediocre article mysteriously promoted by Maveric149. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:18, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's nothing myseterious about it. This was a holdover from the brilliant prose days. Mav did not 'promote' it - he simply happens to be the one who tagged it. →Raul654 09:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • What is mysterious is the reason why this article was seen as brilliant prose at all as I don't think it is, or was in March of this year. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • There is nothing "mysterious" about it, and your tone is less than cordial. All I did was put the featured tag on every article that was then a featured article. I DID NOT PROMOTE THOSE ARTICLES! Please do a little research before making statements like that in the future or else your words may backfire and just make you look rude and illinformed. --mav 02:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I think we had somewhat lower standards then. Now are standards are much higher, which means we're becoming a better encyclopedia. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not particularly well organized or written and largely just lists. Could use more references. Jacob1207 18:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Lots of information, but it reads like a list, no references, lead section includes huge amounts of definitions, poor section structure etc. Don't understand how it ever became a featured article. :ChrisG 22:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Also has no images. Can't find where the discussion for it was either. fac added 06:12, Apr 11, 2004 and then changed to featured on 04:32, Jun 21, 2004 according to talk page. Not sure whats gone on--Evil Monkey 23:43, Dec 5, 2004
  • Remove. Seems generally NPOV, not the best prose, and the author seems prone to ramble. I hope other feature articles aren't this mediocre. Triped 05:15, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see too much wrong with it, although it could do with a bit of a brush-up. Note that it did have pictures when it was nominated - they may have been deleted for copyright reasons. Ambi 05:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You say it had pictures when it was nominated, I can't seem to find the nomination in the FAC archives, did you find it somewhere? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Lots of good material, but it needs to be put together a bit more coherently. (It was promoted on 20 June 2004 by Snoyes. This is a diff between the current version and then version when it was promoted: [1] It had two images, Image:Gay brothel.png and Image:Street Prostitution.jpg.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Some good stuff, but needs a fair bit of work to get up to standard, IMO. 1) Lead section is huge; it needs to be shorter and a discussion of terminology should probably be in its own section. 2) Needs illustration 3) Bullet-points are overused. — Matt 16:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Some good material, but also some very bad writing. Numerous tremendously POV and unencyclopedic comments. - Taxman 04:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Too many lists. Jacob1207 18:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. Pictures on "Prostitution"? Let's try to keep this encyclopedic. vLaDsINgEr 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Incomplete. Mentions it is the second biggest without mentioning what is the biggest. Barely mentions the effects it had in disaster alerts. Many one sentence paragraphs, and doesn't flow very well. Oh, yeah, no references either. - Taxman 17:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Also seems to be too short--Evil Monkey 07:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. A ton more could be written about this topic. --Spangineer 13:16, 11 Dec, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Very short, lacks references, 1 sentence lead section, and is about 35% list. Raul654 (talk · contribs) 11:06, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Huh? It's almost 7K long and has 5 sections, including a 9-paragraph biography. One list contains 3 references; the other ("Discography") isn't particularly long and is standard for a musician. Both are dwarfed by the bio. All of this has been in place since November 1. Are you sure you have the right article? — Jeffq (talk · contribs) 11:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's got "for further reading", which is not the same as a references section. The combined lists of External links, Further reading, Samples, and Discography are over a third of the article. The biography itself is barely a page long. Raul654 (talk · contribs) 11:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are other, much better articles on musicians. This article simply fails to meet many of the featured article criteria. - Taxman (talk · contribs) 15:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove; there isn't even a critical review. There is nothing special about this article. :ChrisG 11:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. I tried to improve the intro a bit, but this needs a lot of work. Not comprehensive, no references, poor lead section. Oh, and I forgot, I'm not sure that pic qualifies as fair use. - Taxman 15:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove--Evil Monkey (talk · contribs) 07:42, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutrality (talk · contribs) 03:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Lacks structure, no lead section, no references, Image:Dreyfus3.jpg lacks tag, although it might not need a lot of work to get it up to standards, depending on whether it is complete at all, I lack the knowledge to decide that. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove, for the reasons above. - Taxman
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page is just the main article in a 7 page article. It appears from a cursory glance that the other pages in the series are up to the featured article standard--Evil Monkey 20:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)Remove. After digging deeper found that most of the articles appears to be wikified etc. --Evil Monkey 20:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. I concur with the remarks of Solitude. Jacob1207 05:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Far from comprehensive, it should provide information on the many different villainous archetypes, on their usage in different media over the course of history, etc. The list of quotes is out of place, there are no references. Article could also use externals and references to literature. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove, I had come to the same conclusion. - Taxman 22:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, just an introduction. :ChrisG 11:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's quite a nice essay, there's just nothing encyclopedic about it. I tried to think how I could help the article go deeper, not to mention wider, but decided it's hopeless. The contributors have done a good job, it's the subject itself that's the problem. The concept is too huge and vague and variable, it's just a bad idea to bring encyclopedic pretensions to it. It's like trying to catch a cloud in a net.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 07:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. It is a diffuse mess that strays from the core of the topic, the quotes are unnecessary and just clutter things up, and the pictures don't help either. Someone needs to break out the Weed wacker and whack about 3/4 of the article away, and then build up something with more structure and coherence. On second thought, the best thing might be to make this a disambiguation page, and then have separate articles for Villains in literature, Film villains, and perhaps even Cultural villains. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

I'm listing this and the above two articles suggested by ALoan, all three lack references, but all three also have more issues than that alone. Montparnasse lacks structure, the lead section is badly written and reads like a list. Further more there are no references (could also use some external links). -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. - Taxman 22:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, not structured, not especially good. :ChrisG 11:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

How the hell did this pass? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:07, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. I have checked the nomination archives, I can't find the nomination anywhere so I assume the tag was added by mistake. I have contacted Mav, who added the template, to ask if it was a mistake or perhaps the nomination got lost. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Response: I was simply adding the message to each article that was already listed as an FA - there was no editorial decision on my part. Many of those listed items at that time did not go through any process other than somebody adding them and nobody removing them. -- mav 07:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - see the talk page - quite a few articles that became "featured" on 15 March, like this one, are pretty poor - for example, Dreyfus affair, Montparnasse, Villain. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. And yes, please list those too, ALoan. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove--Evil Monkey 20:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very nice account of a very important group. Size is not everything, gentleman. muriel@pt 08:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The article is well written, but is it comprehensive? The German version has a nicer image (from which our image seems to be a poor copy of a small part) and the text of the German version could help to round ours out (my German is not up to the task). Some additional off-line research and paper references could help. Perhaps it really needs a good peer review? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I uploaded the photo to commons and to this article. I agree it could be improved. My german is pretty good but i'm afraid the topic really gets to my nerves. I'm tired of hearing all the time germans did this and that in WW2 by people who cant tell the difference between a german and a nazi. This article shows that germans were not only blood thirsty fascist murderers. muriel@pt 14:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Moreover, i find commentaries like How the hell did this pass? extremely irritating. And it was not added by mistake. This was featured in a time when the above gentlemen where probably not in wikipedia. I nominated it, actually. muriel@pt 14:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Neutrality probably did not mean to offend. This article simply comes nowhere close to the level of quality that very many articles coming through WP:FAC do. If you have the ability, please improve it significantly and let us know. If it improves a lot, people will change their votes quickly. - Taxman 02:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

No lead, no references and far from complete, the sectioning is also unbalanced. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove, unless someone deals with the above issues (at least it has a - tangentially relevant - image now). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd definitely say remove. I don't see how it's a featured article, actually. There is no discussion about the theoretical justification for a negligence law, or its theoretical place within civil or criminal law. The actual explanation of the law reads like a basic text book explanation, it doesn't go any deeper into debates and questions about any of the criterion. Is the reasonable person/man standard inherently sexist? Should efficiency (law & economic) concerns underly the breach aspect? Is an economic analysis (with WTP at the hart) classist? More broadly, what is the aim of negligence? Deterrence (ie establishing norms of safety and taking an a priori view of decision making cf a posteriori), punishment and compensation are alcompetin answers, and each lead to different results in any particular case. This is a bare sketch of negligence law, it should never have been featured. Psychobabble 01:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Ambi 04:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. No references is enough for me, the incompleteness and lack of lead just adds to that. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

The article has been cleaned up some (including rm copyvio) since it was FA of the day on Nov 22. However, it never seems to have been properly featured in the first place. It was nominated by User:Wetman on Jan 9 [2],. There were no comments, and on Feb 15, User:Lord Emsworth added the featured template [3]. I do not think it is very far away from FA status now, but since it has been substantially changed since January, it would certainly do no harm to send it through FAC again. dab 13:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • If it was never actually featured the tag should be removed and if appropriate the article can be renominated. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal and re-nomination. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with above, support removal and renom. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Article is no longer a featured article.

Really, I find it shocking that this article was ever even considered for featured status. I find it disturbing that it is on the main page...people will visit it and get the wrong idea of what we mean by "very well-written and complete". I have raised issues at the talk page; little has been done to address these. In general, the writing quality is rather poor, at about the level of C+ freshman high school English class. The article has poor organisation, coherence, and transitions between sections. It is incomplete in many regards, esp. w/ regard to film criticism and theory. It reads like a laundry list of random facts and observations. It needs a lot of work. I believe many people here are confusing length, # of edits, and some pictures and links with real quality (compare to baseball, which appears similar but is actually very well-written and organised). Unfortunately, this is another piece of evidence for the claim of the recent EB author, that articles are "edited into mediocrity". Revolver 03:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. it seems that a WP article will rise to a certain (maybe highschool graduate :) quality automatically, but to keep it above this level requires constant effort and vigilance. dab 14:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, the Hollywood section is especially horrid, it lacks references as well. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)