Wikipedia:Featured article review

 

Zobacz też:
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts:
WP:FAR
WP:FARC

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

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

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

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

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

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

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nominating an article for FAR

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

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

Contents


Featured article reviews

The Lord of the Rings

Notified:SorryGuy (also original FA-nom), Carcharoth, Uthanc ,WP Middle-earth, WP Books,WP Novels, WP Children's literature and article talk page.

The article appears to fail criteria 1a) being well written. The overlong plot summary is past tense which is unconventional, not to say unprofessional, and is littered with other grammatical strangenesses. The article fails 1b) being comprehensive. There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work and should cite the huge amounts of critical and academic literature which addresses the work in order to cover those issues. The article would then encompass the many significant published viewpoints on the subject. Resolving these criteria would bring the article up to FA.Davémon (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who has more experience with this wikiproject should probably weigh in on this as I'm still pretty new to this whole wiki thing, but within the article there is the following comment:

Before editing the synopsis back to present tense, please refer to Talk:The Lord of the Rings/archive 03#In universe style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses

I'm not sure whether this is the forum for people that have opinions & information on the topic, but from what I know of the subject, there is a certain sense in which Tolkien is claiming to write something in a historical/mythological vein rather than a fictional vein. However, many Tolkien scholars typically distinguish between Tolkien's works that are meant to be "artifacts" of his world, and therefore have their place in that history, and simply "stories" synthesized from the history itself. I have misplaced the very nice article that discusses the distinction, but I will edit my comment accordingly once I find it (and if this is the appropriate place to post such information. Astraflame (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While I would welcome the addition to the article of any sourced discussion of Tolkien's use of the "False document" literary device in the Lord of the Rings, the authors use of such a device is not a reason to have the plot-summary in the past tense. Other books, including Robinson Crusoe, Dracula, and a whole swathe of gothic horror short stories etc etc. use the same device, and they have plot summaries written in the correct tense. Using the fiction as a framework for discussing the fiction isn't really acceptable for an encyclopedia. --Davémon (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify my argument above, what I meant was, even in the context of Tolkien scholars, people generally do not consider the Lord of the Rings to be "texts" in the sense that The Silmarillion as it was originally conceived was (the reference, by the way, is Christopher Noad's "On the Construction of the Silmarillion" in Tolkien's Legendarium). Thus, even in that context, the past tense may be applicable for concepts in the legendarium, such as the articles on Middle-earth or Aragorn or texts that actually claimed to be true documents, such as the Lay of Luthien. In the case of the Lord of the Rings though, even though is some note in the introduction or something claiming that it is a story in the Red Book of Westmarch, Tolkien really never considered it a historical artifact at the level of The Silmarillion, but much more of a fictional work more like The Hobbit. So, even to Tolkien scholars, I think the present tense would still be more applicable to discussions of the Lord of the Rings.
I accept that this distinction may or may not be relevant to this discussion as I do not claim to be fully proficient in the conventions for what is or is not acceptable in this encyclopedia. However, I thought such information would be generally useful to know in the context of writing about Tolkien, even if it does not prove to be applicable to Wiki-articles. Astraflame (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. This discussion is primarily to decide whether or not the article The Lord of the Rings currently meets the WP:FA criteria, and to help decide what to do about it. The kind of broader subject-matter and multi-article approach may be better suited to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. --Davémon (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for the clarification on Wiki-etiquette, and done! --Astraflame (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That's my initial response. I'll aim to get back to this later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying the other editors. The reference to the academic and critical literature, isn't to merely state that such a body exists, as Tolkien research does, but to be able to correctly cite, through reliable, independent, sources the significant viewpoints on the subject of "The Lord of the Rings". The basis of the missing style, theme and reception (beyond the initial reviews) can only be supported by citing this material. I've reworded the intro to clarify. Davémon (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with dab's comment below) Yes. That should be obvious. Would you like a history of views on The Lord of the Rings over the last 50 years, or just a precis of current (sometimes still conflicting) opinion? There is rather a lot of literature to cover. This covers the work from 1984 through 2000, and the "Year's work" sections in the issues of Tolkien Studies covers most of the rest. The stuff before 1984 is covered in "Richard C. West’s Tolkien Criticism: An Annotated Checklist and Judith Johnson’s J. R. R. Tolkien: Six Decades of Criticism", but I don't have access to those. I will, however, look for articles summarising views on style and themes in The Lord of the Rings. The J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia has several relevant entries giving an overview of the sort I think you are after, as does The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion. One problem with writing something trying to summarise what is still a developing field of literary scholarship is being wary of original research, and keeping it up-to-date. I fully intend to use reliable sources, but there have been problems in the past with people saying that what Christopher Tolkien wrote about his father's works, and what Tolkien wrote about his own works (eg. in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and The History of Middle-earth) is not "independent". I've tried to explain that to a certain extent such sources are valid, and that overviews published in the secondary literature should be the starting point, but in some areas it helps to cite all the way back to the primary sources (that the authors in the secondary literature are working with) when a citation or further explication is requested or seems needed. Does that make sense? I suppose what I'm really after is for you to say what you think are unreliable and non-independent sources when it comes to writing our article about The Lord of the Rings - can you give examples? One problem is that it is not entirely clear which views are significant among the myriad of views. There are some themes that keep being mentioned in the literature, so I guess pointing that out would be best, though ideally someone would point that out in a published paper themselves. Where the scholars disagree, that should be mentioned as well, though there are some "fringe" theories that sometimes get published, so deciding how to handle that could be a problem. How long do we have and how much room would you devote to this in the current article? Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to quibble about CT's independence on LoTR (but is his role as draft-reader, map drawer and commentator in the article? if not it should be!), but to rely majoritively on his work (or that of the authors) whilst discussing Style, Themes, Reception would be missing out on many other significant viewpoints, and so isn't really the answer to that problem.
The scope of the reception issues? Yes, the whole 50 years. Everything. From the initial views to "it's a hippy book" to "let's put this into the literary canon" and everything in-between. Whatever can be properly sourced. If it becomes too unweildly, it can get split off, but not gefore it's written WP:SS.
How much space to devote? As much as we need to show all significant viewpoints. I can't say which ones are significant, and which ones aren't, but if there are multiple reliable sources on them, then they're probably significant enough. Yes there will be conflicting views, and they make the article more interesting.
How long do we have? Well, this stage (discussion of "does it fail criteria, if so what do we do about it") is two weeks. Then as it appears that we have editors who are willing and able to address the issues, then stage two (vote to demote) will be put on hold for as long as it is evident that progress on the article is being made. If nothing constructive happens at all to the article in two weeks then we'll just move to the next stage. --Davémon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Carcharoth, I find the article generally rather weak and uninspired. The plot synopsis is too long and the discussion of "Reception" and publication history are rather weak. It generally reflects the take on the LotR taken by nerds, as opposed to literary critics or bibliophiles. I.e.,focus on pop culture, adaptations, later fantasy literature etc. Is it FA worthy? I don't know. I am not aware of a better encyclopedic article on the work available online, and I feel we have to measure the quality of our articles against what else there is out there, not against what quality they could ideally have in theory. I also don't care two bits if an article has a bronze star at the top. What we need to do is simply try and keep improving the article, FA or no FA. Carcharoth is pointing the way to go, the LotR article can only ever become excellent if we first produce excellent Themes of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien studies articles it can rely on. So, anyone interested, why not just cut the discussion and sit down for a couple of hours' work on those. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What, instead of writing long comments here? :-) You have a point. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My primary motivation wasn't to get the article delisted, but to encourage people to improve the article, so I'm glad that is the response we're getting. For the purposes of this discussion "is LoTR article an FA", whether article's meets WP:FACR is of paramount importance. I'd like to dissuade people from seeing developing "supporting" articles as a way forward. The problems aren't with those articles, it's with the fact that the wikipedia Lord of The Rings article (demonstrably the most popular work of fiction of the 20th century) just isn't very good. Improving related articles isn't going to fix that problem. If the LoTR article actually develops enough properly sourced, reliable content to need to be split into a summary style article, then that would be great, but I fear (if you'll excuse my Tolkienism) painting the detail on the leaves before constructing the branches is counter-productive. --Davémon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ on the point that improving an article's WP:SS sub-articles is indeed a crucial step towards the improvement of the main article itself. Any article on a major topic will eventually end up in WP:SS, and as such needs solid sub-articles that are to be summarized properly in the main article's various sections. dab

(𒁳) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The real question is "shall we take sub-articles into consideration in this FA review?". My answer is "No: let's not lose focus". The article under review is The Lord of the Rings, not a combination of it and one or more of Themes of The Lord of the Rings,Translations of The Lord of the Rings,The Fellowship of the Ring,The Two Towers,The Return of the King,J. R. R. Tolkien's influences,Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien,Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings,Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien and any other sub-article I may have missed. Themes of The Lord of the Rings has absolutely no wp:v,wp:rs content, so starting from scratch in the main article shouldn't really be a big challenge for anyone wanting to develop the themes section. --Davémon (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't "the real question" at all. The real question is, how to improve this article. We do need work in the Themes of The Lord of the Rings department for that, but not in the The Two Towers department. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been my experience that writing subarticles first and then summarizing in the main articles is much more efficient than writing the main article, writing the subarticles, and then rewriting the main article. However, I do recognize that we would need a committed group of editors to achieve this in a short amount of time. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to make myself clear one more time before dropping this as irrelevant: my aim is to improve our coverage of the topic. I don't really care which article sees an addition of quality material first, just as long as quality material is being added. Once it has been added, it is perfectly trivial to transfer it from one article to the other. So yes, it can also be added to the LotR article first and then be transferred to the sub-article, the outcome will be identical. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image For Image:Middle-earth.jpg, the source [1] gives permission for anyone to use the map for their personal or classroom use, but I don't see where it's released under GFDL. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

worse, the map isn't so much "based on the works of JRRT" as the copyright note claims, as a blatant rip-off of Christopher Tolkien's map. I don't think there is any way we can justify keeping it on any Wikimedia server. We might sooner just hsot a copy of the actual CT map and give some fair use rationale. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit I agree with the nominator. I have thought myself about nominating this article for FAR for just these reasons, but I have never had the time to devote to improving it. I can commit to copyediting at this point, but no extensive research.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have looked at the ToC, but not actually read the article, let alone the articles linked via the main templates. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I could throw back far worse against you. But I think my history and experience here with these pages verify what I say above. Furthermore, those linked articles don't diminish the quality of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland national football team

Notified: Kanaye, HisSpaceResearch, user: The Rambling Man, Matt Lewis, Matt Lunker, WP Scotland, WP Football and article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this article as a Featured Article for the past few months, I can't help but to get a few things out of my mind. Some language and layout issues are at hand here, ones which I think have been generously ignored somehow. As much of a secondary fan of Scotland as I am, I must point out some of these things. There are numerous cases of POV, grammar and others! Its a shock seeing this as a Featured Article after thoroughly reading it. This also further arouses the possibility that it obviously hasn't been stable, a clear FA criteria!

Are you serious? I dont know if this was in here when this article was promoted, but it surely wont pass now or maybe even ever! First of all, on the smaller of issues, it should be written in consistent prose. If they beat New Zealand, they wouldnt 'beating' or 'drawing' against USSR, they would 'draw' to USSR. So basically, It should read - "They beat New Zealand 5–2, drew with the USSR 2–2 and lost 4–1...".

Furthermore, a magical Brazilian side? Thats Clear POV without excuse! Brazil may be good, and their team may have been world beaters, but stating that they were a magical side in an encyclopedia is insane! If in any case it was accepted, I dont know how it got by the fact that there is an unnecessary space after each comma. It, should, be, listed, like, this -- not , like , this!

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete the notifications and post them back to here; as a sample, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bank of China (Hong Kong). Also, Jmorrison230582, your interruptions of the FAR declaration make it hard to read; refactoring might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs semi-protection because it will always attract low-level vandalism, either good natured by Scotland fans or sometimes by England fans. I have rewritten both the intro and the section to state that it Archie Gemmill's goal is one of the best goals scored in the World Cup, for which there is several reliable sources in support. In relation to "yermaw", that was one of two edits last night that look like vandalism which have been reverted. I have rewritten the sentence re "traditional rivals" as you suggested. I have also rewritten two sentences re the 1977 match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


Image comments

The Image:Archie gemill1978.jpgdoes not have any FU rationale and I feel it fails WP:NFCC#8
The copyrighted Image:SFAShirtLogo.svg is used represent the team in preference to the free Image:Flag of Scotland.svg, as is used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, I am unconvinced that this use meets WP:NFCC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

comment The infobox lists World and Euro Cup, surely for a team like Scotland the BHC would be of more improtance, it was the primary copmpetition for 70 years, and the other competitions have only been of interest for 60, this seems like recentism Fasach Nua (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments in reply to Fasach Nua: I have added a rationale to the Archie Gemmill goal and limited it to only his page. I think it passes point 8 for his article because it is by far the most significant moment in his career. In relation to the logo, this is consistent with all other national team articles. A flag of a nation doesn't necessarily represent the national team - indeed, in the context of Scotland, you could get some people arguing that the Union Flag is the primary flag of Scotland and should be used instead. For example, Flower of Scotland was only adopted as the team's official anthem in the 1990s. In relation to the point about the BHC, the infobox template limits the information to the world cup and the regional tournament (in this case the Euros). I don't think it is just recentism to suggest that the World and Euro tournaments are more important either, because the three tournaments ran concurrently for over 30 years and the BHC died because it didn't hold as much interest as the other tournaments. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The flag of Scotland is good enough for FIFA & UEFA and is an official emblem of the team, unlike the Union Flag, the issue is why is it good enough for FIFA/UEFA to represent the team but not good enough for Wikipedia, I sympathise with you over other soccer articles having logos, but WP:WAX really isnt a good argument for an FA. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see what you are saying there. Television broadcasts normally use a flag to represent a team in score captions rather than the logo of the national association (or federation). I also think, however, that there are weaknesses in using national flags. Some players who have very tenuous connections with a nation end up playing for that national football team (eg Tony Cascarino). The logo does more directly represent the team concerned. The Scotland team is selected, organised and operated by employees of the Scottish Football Association, not the Scottish Government or some other public body, and the same is true of every other national team. FIFA regularly take strong measures against Governments that interfere in the operations of national teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The flag is not just used by the Scottish government to represent Scotland, but also by FIFA and UEFA to represent the Scottish football team. If it is acceptable for FIFA and UEfA, why is it unacceptable here? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Fasach Nua We've been over this. This isnt why I nominated this article for review. Clearly, you have been proved wrong and diminished over this more times than anyone keeps count. Images of the flag are not sufficient in relation to the national sporting teams of that country. I'm not going to go on about this, I'm sure you've heard it all before. They are all relevant arguments. Not so much that it is OK to use copyrighted images, but clearly there is no other alternative that can symbolize the same information as the logos do. Take a look at the non-free content review page where you mentioned this, that should solve all your inquiries. You can't just go around WP stating things that have already been proved incapable and incorrect. Let the logo's go, once again, they are the only thing that symbolize the national football team. There are more important issues at hand here, this is one we can cross of the list. Domiy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Support Featured article removal candidacy due to inappropriate use of images (criteria 3), I had hoped someone would try and justify why the standards of WP are different than either of those used by FIFA or UEFA, but alas not Fasach Nua (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comments on the article:

And my initial points still stand until further fixed up! Domiy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have rewritten the article to address your concerns. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The use of the logos is still subject to WP:NFCC in addition to the logo guidelines. NFCC#1 states "...if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.". The issue is why is what is acceptable for organisations like FIFA and UEFA unacceptable for an organisation like Wikipedia, and how much does the use of this logo increase the readers understanding of the concept of a national football team. I have raised the issue at WP:FUR and with little support from editors, but no-one has justified the use of logos in these articles in terms of policy, but meerly attempted to shout down the topic on because they didnt like the idea of it and wouldn't tolerate a discussion. In my opinion the primary means of identification is the highly visible flag flown at every match as demanded by FIFA, and the blue shirts worn for a century, not some 10cmx10cm piece of embroidery that is hardly visible from a distance, Italy are called the "Azuri", not the red white and blues, Northern Ireland are "the green and white army", not the gold cross, The Republic of Ireland are "the boys in green" not the tricolours, France are called "Les Bleus", ,not the chickens, Belgium are the "Diables Rouges" not the belgian flags, Spain are called the "La Furia Roja", not the bulls, The netherlands are "Oranje" not the lions, it is clear from the fans point of view that the colour of the kit seems to be the primary means of identification, not whatever the current incarnation of the badgge is. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
England are called the Three Lions though. And in some of the cases you mention the flag doesn't represent any better than the logo, most obviously with Italy - green, white & red tricolour, but called the Blues (Azzurri). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed England and Wales are the two exceptions, but the badge is definietly the minority view as the primary means of identification. As for "the flag doesn't represent any better than the logo", given the choice of two equal options, I would choose the free alternative per WP:NFCC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The likely outcome here is that we will agree to disagree. Nicknames are just that, not the primary means of identification. The nickname "Tartan Army" refers to the fans more than the team. The Scotland team use the FA crest to identify themselves, just look at their website, or try the Google Images test. Of course there's always the fact that if removed from the infobox, the crest could quite justifiably pop up again when it is discussed in the section about the colours and crest. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Final comments

The article looks and sounds MUCH better now. Please note that even though reliable news stories may call something 'famous', its still no excuse to use it in an encyclopedia. Reliable sources gain attention for their creative, if not biased language, all the time. Its how they earn recognition. A lot of reliable sites will call a goal or a team famous, but it is still POV even with references. You should search for alternatives as much as possible, although it's not much of a problem now as I see such has already been done. 'Famous' is only in there a couple of times on my estimated count, thats good to know. Please note that it can give away POV so you should be wary of it.

Other than that, I like the way it is written now. Well done. If possible however, I would change one last thing. In the final paragraph of the lead section, you start the sentence and paragraph with 'England'. This can give away the wrong idea, most sentences, especially in the lead, should restrain from subjecting another article. I would start the sentence with 'Scotland' first and then go from there to stating the rivalry. This would be much better and appropriate.

If that's done, then I will have no more objections. Please also note that FA criteria requires the article to be stable. I've seen a lot of things being changed and added even before this review was bought up. If your worried about vandalism, then I suggest you request protection for some time. Otherwise, there are many bots you can use to restore previous versions in case of vandalism. Well done again btw, hope the Croatian team makes it to FA soon :) Domiy (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (House)

Notified: WP:TELEVISION, The Filmaker (talk · contribs)

I have nothing to do with this article, but it is really bothering me that this article remains an FA when it fails many parts, if not all of them, of the criteria. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article needs both additional citations and more sources, a majority of the information (including entire sections of the article) may be deemed completely original. I'm baffled as to how this managed to pass it's original FA review, an article requires more than just information alone. UniversalBread (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Moore

Notified: Solipsist (talk · contribs), RobertG (talk · contribs), Teapotgeorge (talk · contribs), WP England, WP Yorkshire, WP Bio, WP Visual arts

Despite the fact that I love Moore (one of my WP:GAs is Man Enters the Cosmos and I created Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) and Large Interior Form), this article no longer is up to snuff. It would be classified as a C-Class article now upon independent review, IMO. Even though I love Moore, I prefer to research topics I can research fairly completely over the internet. My experience with art is that to properly research things I have had to take many trips to the library. I have a lot on my plate and hope someone else will step forward and improve this article. The article has very few inline citations and many are not in modern footnote format. Some images may be questionably licensed, but that is not my area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, is your only concern cites and images, or did you read the article. My suspicion is that you came across it while brousing the arts section of the FA page looking for articles with more images that in Crown Fountain. Ceoil sláinte 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not read the article in about a year (about the time I created Man Enters the Cosmos (WP:GA)). But it has not gotten much better since then in terms of several issues. Believe me this article is well below standard. I did come across it while comparing FAs against my current FAC, but that does not mean this is any less below standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
ADDENDUM I have been watching problems with this article for a year and a half since I first noticed its deficiencies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I always knew this would happen someday, and I suppose we might as well get it over with now. If its cites only is the prob; easily fixed. Can you calarify on this, as you have taken the responsibilty to nom for a delist. And please stop mentioning articles you've created; they have nil relevance here. Ceoil sláinte 22:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I know they have little relevance, but I feel very guilty nominating the article. I have not taken responsibility for the article. It will now be monitored by the FAR directors, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Accepted. Ceoil sláinte 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Under UK copyright law, there is specific statutory provision made for sculptures permanently situated in a public place or to which the public has access. It is one of the clearest exceptions to the basic copyright position (that no-one can reproduce copyright work without the express consent of the copyright owner). Just like works of architecture under UK and US copyright law, outdoor sculptures under UK law can be reproduced two-dimensionally, even be filmed or broadcast/transmitted, without the copyright owner’s consent; and such reproductions can also be used commercially without consent." in a blog here - seems sound. Also see here. Clearly the citations are not up to today's standards. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just remove them. Johnbod, the gallery seems a little unweildly; could you whittle down the no of images. Ceoil sláinte 22:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Various US images removed - now a 2 row gallery, which I think is about right. But still US pics left; I need to check other countries legal situation. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree re gallery. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The gallery seems OK to me also, it's useful. Modernist (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the infobox and combined the galleries..Modernist (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better now. Ceoil sláinte 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the notifications correctly? The correct message is obtained via {{subst:FARMessage/Henry Moore}}; see the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ido

Most of the main body is unsourced, thus against WP:WIAFA criteria #1c. D.M.N. (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've informed Mithridates (talk · contribs), but I don't know whether to inform WikiProject Constructed languages as it's inactive, and whether to inform WikiProject Languages as it covers a huge scope of articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia is probably a better judge but it wouldn't hurt popping a note on the constructed languages and/or the languages pages. The article looks dormant and there may be some Ido lovers out there. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 18:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As a rule, notify as broadly as you can, in the hopes of snaring an editor willing to work on an article. Even inactive editors may have friends who still follow their pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've informed WP:Lang and WP:CL of the FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Image:Ido.jpg and Image:Ido Kongreso en Desau 1922.jpg are released by the copyright holder? While it is possible that Alfred Neussner is alive today and took a photograph in 1922, it seems unlikely. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Katamari Damacy

I count five sections without any sources, and the rest are desperately in need of citations (I could litter it with {{cn}}, but that seems counter-productive.) Goes into unnecessary game detail, and lacks information on development, failing comprehensiveness criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given this a first cleanup pass - cut down story and gameplay drastically and have worked out a development section. There's still more in the sales section that can be improved and fixed. --MASEM 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that that concern is no longer as relevant, though it was with the revision I nom'd for FAR: rev1 --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, there was no development before I did a mass edit to add some. --MASEM 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are sections of story and gameplay needing sourcing. Reviews can be used for that, I just haven't had time. --MASEM 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Baloney. Both are implicitly sourced to the primary source material, i.e. the game, which is an utterly fine source for identifying its own plot and gameplay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This generally doesn't fly anymore for FA's, at least for gameplay, which 99% of the time can be easily backed by collaborating evidence from reviews. The plot, fortunately, can also be cited as such. --MASEM 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am appalled that that doesn't fly. Backing with evidence from reviews, given the egregiously poor editorial and ethical practices of the video game review industry, is a miserably poor idea for something that can be straightforwardly gleaned from primary sources within our policy. This is something we ought push back on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
At worst, a review from a reliable source (meaning that some editorial oversight has been done) is better in terms of verifiability than an editor's interpretation of game mechanics or plot, when it can be done. Even sourcing the game itself or the manual is preferred over no source at all. Mind you, I agree that in most cases, plot and gameplay can stand on its own, but its clear from several recent GA/FAs that I've been through that lack of any source in gameplay and plot will be called out and questioned. --MASEM 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, obviously there are places where secondary sources can have a role to play. But in this specific article, I see nothing of significance in the gameplay section that seems to me to require a secondary source. That people will raise the concern seems to me beside the point - it is a needless concern that imposes undue requirements on articles, and it cannot meaningfully help improve them. It's something I think it's better to hold a firm line on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Edward VI of England

This article needs a lot more inline citations to verify the content of the article, which is very lightly referenced at the moment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I may try to add some. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm cleaning the house out a bit prior to restoration—see the article's talk page. I have the books for this (Alford, Loach, MacCulloch, etc.) and am rolling up my sleeves. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm proceeding, but I am very very slow, so please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that Image:John Dudley.jpg is a picture of a portrait in Penshurst Place? Can anyone close the deletion debate on Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg [2]? DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different versions of the Dudley portrait exist. In books it is only ever in black and white. I don't think the lack of a source is important in this case, because I can't think of a circumstance in which this wouldn't be public domain. However, I could scan one from a book and source it to the book if a source is thought essential. qp10qp (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am 100% confident that the Scrots portrait will be kept. I think the delay is that Commons are negotiating a new policy, since Jimbo Wales and some other highups recently stated that old art shouldn't be deleted on the grounds proposed in that deletion discussion. As a precaution, PKM did upload a Wikipedia version, but I can't find it: perhaps someone has deleted it on grounds of duplication. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's Image:Edward VI William Scrots c1550.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha—that's the one; cheers. I've replaced the Commons version with it for the present, adding a hidden note not to change it till the deletion case has closed with a keep. For reasons I don't really understand, images like this are OK on Wikipedia, but (until recently at least) assailable on Commons.qp10qp (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The image has just been declared a keep at Commons, and so I have swapped the versions round again. The public domain policy on old art at Commons has just been freed up, I'm glad to say. qp10qp (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoo

FAR 1 FAR 2

1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:

I rarely comment on a FAR but I feel that this policy must be clarified. The policy uses the word "should" which is not be confused with the word "must". The FA criteria requires reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Should and must are synonyms. "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" appears in an official policy, and all FAs must abide by official policies. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No they aren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree on this. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As do I. There's a very clear difference drilled into me in High School debate team, yea these multiple decades ago. If a policy states a requirement, it must use must. In the same way, a guideline should use should. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
So when WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", we don't really have to follow it, since it says should instead of must? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That is the way it's written, yes. Of course, there may have been a decision made to avoid the more precise language. Reasons to do so include that the use of the word 'must' seems demanding and incompatible with a volunteer project, or that the Foundation's legal counsel felt that use of the word 'must' would create legal problems for the Foundation in the event that the policies are not followed. I have no knowledge of any such considerations, however. Rather than saying that should and must are synonymous, which they are not, it might be more on point to assert that 'should' when used in an official Wikipedia policy is normative, not optative. That seems to support your point, while still avoiding unnecessary torture of the English language. :-) (disclaimer: I write policies for a living, so my usage of words in this context may be overly precise and downright arcane) Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That does indeed say "should" as it ought. Using "must" in that context would have the unfortunate meaning that any editor who sees such material is obliged to remove it, no matter what. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" does not mean that "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Primary sources are legitimate sources, per WP:PSTS, the very section you're selectively quoting, and are often the best sources for a given area of coverage. You cannot use primary sources as the basis for an independent analysis of a subject (that is OR), but factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing. Have you looked, for instance, at the "Plot" section of nearly every movie article on the site, including the FAs?--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Of course factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing—when used in conjunction with ample secondary sources. That is not the case here. Movie articles, if they truly are FA quality, will draw heavily upon secondary sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, then what you're saying is "delist, too much use of primary sources". I don't see how this in and of itself should be a reason to delist an FA. If it had no secondary sources, it would fail WP:N. (That is, depending on whether you considered "inherited notability" kosher... which is not at this time a resolved issue.)--Father Goose (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious I haven't presented this point very effectively. My point is that once you remove the 7 citations that clearly violate WP:V and WP:NOR, as explained below, you are left only with primary sources and a few highly questionable secondary sources. The problem is not too many primary sources but rather too few, or no, good secondary sources. Solid secondary sources are the flesh and blood of this encyclopedia; although primary sources are useful in some cases, for the most part we should let the historians handle them. This, I take it, is what Jimbo means when he says "this is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists" in the quote below. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has only minor changes since the last FAR, mostly some changes to accessdates. Sourcing was addressed in previous FARs. Nothing really has changed here, so no need for a review. Gimmetrow 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I did, I remember when they happened, and I didn't agree with the AFD or the FAR then, and I don't now. The sources are not the most optimal, but they are from the creators of the substance, and are therefore reliable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Midnight_Spoo_copy_lite.jpg might be unnecessary, but the others all seem pretty justifiable. There aren't going to be free images available of a fictional subject.--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That's only a small portion of the non-free content criteria. Does Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg convey signification information that Image:Spoo Close Up 3 lite.jpg does not? (3a) Does it significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? (8) Is it impossible to convey by text alone? (1) Pagrashtak 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Have the WikiProjects/users associated with this article been notified of this FAR? I don't see a list of notifications at the top of this FAR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced /= reliably sourced. I could make you an excellent sourced article on the Helljumpers from the Halo series. That doesn't mean it is fit for this encyclopedia. Spoo lacks secondary reliable sources for its continued inc