[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
arch
Raul654 (talk | contribs)
70,896 edits
No edit summary
Line 48: Line 48:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cane toad/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lake Burley Griffin/archive1}}


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/African American literature/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krag-Petersson/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Names of the Greeks/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Names of the Greeks/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rail transport in India/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rail transport in India/archive2}}

Revision as of 03:03, 3 August 2009

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

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

Archives

Kept status

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

The article was kept by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009 [1].

Cane toad

Review commentary

Notified:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, LiquidGhoul

I have split out Cane toad (Australia) since it was a large part of the article (and is also deserving of its own article). Having split out such a large amount of content a FAR is probably needed. I had also found a number of other issues that should not have occurred in a FA. There was a lack of punctuation and poor structure, and before I split out the information about cane toads in Australia the article lacked balance. I have corrects some of these issues. On a minor note I created the Cane toads dab page to get rid of the two links and explanations in the hatnote. Makes it look a little nicer! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article size should not have anything to do with FA status. Splitting out Cane toads in Australia is surely a requisite for the ability to retain the FA status. The info I split out gave the article an imbalance toward Australian info - especially with the large "In popular culture" section. It is interesting to note that the new article has already been rated as C Class. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it'd be rated C-class as it was well referenced and comprehensive. My point is that the rest of the article probably needed expanding, not the aussie bit needing contracting. There is also a guideline not to make radical changes to Featured Articles, and also some form of adequate summary should have been left on the article page. I am sad as I have seen many of these daughter pages receive little traffic compared with the mother article, even when the link is very obvious. As the article is now unstable, its Featured status should probably be revoked on the spot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aussie info is not contracted - it is simply moved. I suspect that the info about other countries is not likely to be expanded and the Aussies stuff may be of a higher notability (I will expand the summary at cane toad at some stage). I don't think the traffic difference is a valid argument. Cane toads is of interest to a wider sector than cane toads in Australia - and that is another reason to split the article. I was not aware of a FA guideline re splitting but I guess being bold can override a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion this FAR was a bit premature since the FAR was opened moments after the split was made. Discussion in the article's talk page would be better to avoid redundant discussions. Joelito (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FA was not justified before the split IMHO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in overall better shape before the split. You've left the article with stubby, single sentence sections where previously there were fully fleshed out paragraphs in a single section. Although, Joelito's point was that there should have been a discussion about the split on the talk page prior to an FAR. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aussie stuff was spread throughout the article and giving it its own article cleaned it up. The stubby section I left can be expanded and I will do it as soon as possible. I saw no need for a discussion on something that looked like it needed doing. It was hardly a case of being overly bold. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now is not a good time to review this article, given that major changes to the article have been attempted in the last few days, but not completed, and there is a current discussion about the split/merge on the article's talk page. Apart from this, there has been little change to the article over the past year, so I think it's a bit premature to strip it of FA status on the basis that it's unstable. Doing that would set a very bad precedent, in my view. To avoid wasted effort, let's put this review on hold until the talk page discussions and any action resulting from them are complete. -- Avenue (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. I had intended the original as a rhetorical question and hope it keeps FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Featured article criteria "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing." Even before I split out the Aussie section the article should not have fitted that description. WP can do much better than what was on offer in the article. Also, article stability is but one of the FA criteria. A few points to justify remove of the FA status (in no particular order):
    • A lengthy hatnote that should have only been one link
    • lack of punctuation
    • Presence of redlinks
    • A lengthy "in popular culture" section all about Australia yet the sections on other countries were very short and generally lacked references.
    • Poor article flow in the "Introductions" section. It should at least have Level 3 headers for individual countries
    • Unsourced statements since April 2008
    • The Notes and References should be one section (I notice that the References header has since been removed. Not all the References are linked to the article text. It should therefore be in a Further reading section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the refs are not linked to inlined refs as they predate a big move to inlining. So are probably relevant to the text. Hopefully, they can be accessed and we can determine which references what and help get the text inlined. I don't think a further reading section will eb required. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for the following reasons:
    • presence of redlinks
    • references that could be inline rather than listed after the refs section
    • lack of info on the introductions to the different countries
Note that I had split out the info pertinent to Australia to the Cane toad (Australia) article. See the discussion at Talk:Cane toad#Merger proposal. I had also fixed a number of glaring reasons why the article should not have had a FA status. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am thinking probably Hold for the time being as from the discussion above, there appear to be a few issues left to resolve that have attention from editors that could potentially address them. I agree with Casliber (talk · contribs) that instead of spinning out material, it may have been best to instead expand the other subsections. However, there do appear to be some 1c issues that should be addressed. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm currently working through the article to address the referencing and comprehensiveness issues. It should take about a week to see that complete. On the plus side, there are sufficient references available to meet any 1c concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
In the description section, it's unclear to what the length is referring to in the first sentence: the male or female toad.
The tadpoles' length mention needs an Imperial conversion.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toadlet size (in mm) needs an Imperial conversion.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snout-vent length needs an Imperial conversion.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eat widely" is unclear ... is that area or the variety of their food?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The cane toad" and "cane toads" are used interchangably throughout the article. I'd suggest picking one style and sticking with it.
It adds a bit of variety I guess, but as it isn't the same as using different common nouns or formats, but just a plural/singular is it a big problem? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've changed most of the instances of "cane toads' to "the cane toad", as the former suggests more than one type of cane toad, while the latter is clearer. I've left "cane toads" only where the discussion seemed related to individual instances of the cane toad, rather than the species. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation needed tag at the end of the predators section.
Bilby got rid of the sentence YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a citation for the thought that it was introduced to "most Caribbean islands"?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Martinique, what does it mean that the toads were "successful"?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad idea to start a sentence with a numeral, as in 1884.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Fiji, "the government of" what?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How were toads used in human pregnancy tests? It's not mentioned until the New Guinea section, when it's thrown in casually, even though that prompts strong questions.
It is explained in the "uses" section at the bottom. It's hard to fit it in the intros part without doubling up YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added a little bit of context to the pregnancy testing reference in the New Guinea section, and extended the material in "Uses" for balance. (I found a really cool source, so it made me happy). - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final thing ... that last sentence of the lede seems a bit awkward. I don't understand the use of "farmers" since other people's pets also are apt to eat the toads, and livestock are herbivorous. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness as a result of section split. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on them. :) I'm marking missing ones as I go, but given the topic citations won't be a problem. There's sufficient, readily available material to source each statement, although it will take a few more days to be done. - Bilby (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about the citation for Chaunus marinus, I can see that this name is used in more modern literature on cane toads. It's the identifications that confuse me. The rococo toad is given an unfamiliar Latin name, surely it should be Bufo paracnemis? I'm inclined to think that Schneider's toad is something else. I think this section is rather confused, and should be removed until something better can be written with verifiable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I've removed those sections, as they don't seem core and I've been unable to find any support for them in the literature. - Bilby (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I had missed that fact tag. That's a tad embarrassing. It should be covered now. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm onto it. Yes I think the prose could be improved quite a lot. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is mostly OK, but needs attention in quite a few places; I've done a little cleaning up. But I haven't fixed multi-bloopers like this: "... it was introduced to Puerto Rico in the early 20th century in the hope that it would be more effective against a beetle infestation that was ravaging the sugar cane plantations. It was, and following the economic success of the toad in negating the beetles ...". If this FA retained, I think the authors should locate copy-editors who will spruce it up. ... or now? Tony (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did a round of full copyedit YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will copyedit more this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting now - it looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009 [2].

Lake Burley Griffin

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lakes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia, User talk:Ta bu shi da yu.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues throughout. Could use copyedit/review for flow, check for comprehensiveness, and review of images (14 images in article). Cirt (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has comprehensiveness issues which I wasn't aware of at the time, but picked up in later research. There needs to be an entirely new section of the history covering before it was built - there were quite substantial political battles over the design of the lake, and the entire basin near the museum and the university was nearly not bueilt so as to save the sporting fields and racecourse that were on the site at the time. (The article doesn't even mention that they were there.) I also think the layout of the article isn't great - some strange sections, some quite short sections, and lots of dot points. It doesn't flow all that well either. Rebecca (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dot points all gone YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Perhaps you could write a list of things that are missing... Bilby (talk · contribs) completely rewrote two things on the run while they were on FAR last year. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things that the article really needs to mention:
The early proposals for the lake: the Griffin plan, and how this was altered to form the current one. This would probably require hitting up books on Canberra history.
What was on the site of the lake before it was built (among other things, sporting fields, the first Canberra racecourse, I think it may have also flooded part of what was the suburb of Westlake.)
The political battles fought over the final design. There was serious opposition from within parliament about everything that was to be flooded, and the entire basin over near ANU and the Museum was very nearly removed from the plan. The NLA's online newspaper archive would be okay for this I think; the Canberra Times of the period covered this in quite some detail.
How this was resolved - unfortunately the disputes ran past the end of currently public domain newspapers at the end of 1954 so this isn't online.
The lake naming issue (which is referred to in passing in this article at the moment).
Development along the shores over the years (High Court, Royal Canberra Hospital, National Museum, etc.); fit the implosion in somewhere
Most of these accounted for. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modern-day development - the Kingston Foreshore (which has actually altered the shape of the lake)
Besides history, it strikes me that a section about the lake and surrounds for public events might be warranted too. Rebecca (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Eric Sparke that I cited in Canberra and this article has about 20 pages on the planning and changes, but not so much on the local amenities type stuff, which is why I could only cite a few things with the current focus of the article when I tried to change it last year. It should be useful and more than thorough enough, I checked ANU, Melb, USyd, UNSW, Adelaide they all have it and chances are every other uni has it as well YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sparke, Eric (1988). Canberra 1954–1980. Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-08060-4.

Other things that need fixing:

  • The safety section needs to be put into prose, and quite possibly shortened; it's a little bit irrelevant compared to much of the other information
Shortened by removing repetition and merged into recreation as it relates to swimming/boat accidents not crime or water poisoning YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "lakeside recreation" section needs to be cleaned up - the subheadings don't work well, and it should integrate public activities on the lake shore
  • "Captain Cook Memorial" should be in a "Features of the lake" or similar section, along with islands, bridges, the Carilion, etc - this would eliminate a lot of the article's flow problems caused by all sorts of random sections
  • "Water quality" is a stub of a section, and looks messy. Perhaps this could form part of a broader environment section, and be mixed with information about fish and bird life in the lake
Fish/aquatics and water pollution are together YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is also quite short for featured articles these days
Expanded a bit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Design" could do with a paragraph or so on the final proposal for the lake, and a description of the various basins, etc.

If these more stylistic problems were dealt with, it would start to look a lot more salvageable in terms of featured status. Rebecca (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this round of changes - the article is much improved.

  • Under "Walter Burley Griffin's design", there's mention of a casino. I have no idea what this is referring to - the wording is a bit vague.
  • Where would the removed eastern lake have been in terms of modern-day Canberra?
Added Fyshwick YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see some more sources used for the history. While the basics are generally covered, it feels like there's a fair bit of potential detail missing - that only one source has been used shows.
  • From "Construction" down, the organisation of the article is very strange. It integrates the sections describing what is there now, with new information about their construction, and it doesn't fit together well. I still think "Bridges" might be better off in a "Lake features" section, along with the former Captain Cook Material section, which seems to have mostly disappeared. This would leave what's left more tightly focused on the actual construction.
  • Not a big fan of the remaining list. This feels like engineeringcruft to me.
Prosified. It is discussed in detail in the official governement report, so I think it should be mentioned YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Dam" section should be merged into "Final layout", and that this section should be emphasisised a bit more, considering it is the design that actually got built and now forms the basis for the lake.
  • I think the "Lake as city centrepiece" section is a bit odd - the title implies that it's describing the lake now, but it's really a history section. I think calling it something like "Recent history" or "Modern history" might be better. I think this section could be fleshed out more. It also doesn't mention the Kingston Foreshore, which in turn doesn't make much sense unless you mention the almost industrial area that was there before it.
Evolved into history. Kingston added. Nick-D added stuff on the Immigration bridge YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to "Later development into...."

In spite of all of this, much improved - nice job! Rebecca (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of article structure, my suggestion would be:

  • Design - take the final layout section, blow it up, so it doesn't immediately launch into history - same was it was before the latest rewrite
  • Design history
  • Construction
  • Modern history
  • Features of the lake
  • Recreation
  • Environment Rebecca (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly the way it is now. Still hoping for more comments. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: I tried to complete it from the article: catchment area (1865 km² according to [3][4] or 2100 km² if Molonglo catchment of 78,000 ha is 37% [5]) and residence time (0.2 years [6]) are still missing. I'm sure better references are available. -- User:Docu 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC), updated 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


One further thing - what happened to the images? The tiny image in the infobox looks awful, all of the new content is bereft of images, and then there's a cluster at the bottom, none of which are all that great general views of the lake. Rebecca (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the infobox is probably better in the panoramic images section (File:Twilight canberra as seen from telstra tower observation deck.jpg). It's too wide for the infobox. Maybe a cropped version of File:Canberra view from telstra tower.jpg would fit the infobox.
There is a discussion on Talk:Scrivener_Dam#Which_image_where about the images in that article. -- User:Docu
I'm not a fan of that image either. Of the ones in the article, either the one of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge or the Captain Cook Fountain would be better. The article could do with some pictures taken from less strange locations, though - from the National Capital Exhibition across the lake, or of the National Museum from the other side, or from the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, would be much better photos. Would also be nice to have a picture of the Kingston Foreshore. Rebecca (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at an old version of the article ([7]), all of these images were originally a lot larger, and they, and the article, looked much better for it. Even fixing this up would help things a lot. There's also a dumped image [8] which looks better, IMHO, than several of the ones currently there. Rebecca (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some sorting over at commons (Commons:Category:Lake Burley Griffin and Commons:Lake Burley Griffin). As commons seems a bit slow today, I didn't categorize more of the available images [9].
A few larger panoramas are now at Commons:Lake Burley Griffin. Now that there are imagemaps, we could probably make one that replaces File:Lake burley griffin from telstra Tower2.jpg.
Any selection that illustrates the article's sections and gives an overview of the various parts of the lake and its surroundings, .. is fine with me.
Some of the differences in size might come from the removal of the image sizes from thumbnails. Normally, one would use "thumb" and leave the scaling to the individual users preferences. -- User:Docu
All of these photos are pretty rotten. The larger pictures are really amateurish and taken from too far away, and the close-up ones don't show anything significant of the lake. They're of random stretches of water, and despite living near the lake for four years, I have no idea where they were specifically taken. There's so many good scenic vistas there, but even if we can't get new ones, we have the larger ones that were there before. I have no idea if the change you suggested caused the tiny images, but any image formatting that makes them look like crap in an ordinary browser is probably not good in a featured article. Rebecca (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can take some pictures at specific points you might like to nominate, perhaps waiting for a sunny day.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fantastic if you could. We just need a couple of good shots of the lake that aren't taken from somewhere Mt Ainslie, or closeups of some obscure point on the lake. The points I suggested might be useful, but anywhere where we can get a decent shot with a few landmarks would be great. Rebecca (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a map of images at commons that have been geocoded. Not too many based compared to the number of images available at commons and compared to the number of Wikipedia articles listed. -- User:Docu
Thanks for this - that's a great little resource. This image was, I'm sure of it, in the original nomination, and it's the sort of one we should have in the infobox. Rebecca (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a stack of photos on related articles that you can plunder. To be honest I don't care about picture quality much (or lack of pictures full stop) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some pics at commons, some are a little dark, but there are a couple of cute pics of black swans feeding at the SIEV X memorial.--Grahame (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons the layout is a bit "short" is because the layout is already discussed in terms of alterations to the original plan, which is all in the history. Reiterating it all could be a bit repetitive YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt refs added side by side YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article looks much better, great work on recent improvements. Might be worthwhile for someone to stub the redlinks and make some of them blue with a couple WP:RS/WP:V sources:
  1. Immigration Bridge
  2. Acton Peninsula
  3. Royal Canberra Hospital
  4. Kings Avenue
  5. Sullivans Creek
  6. Jerrabomberra Creek
  7. Kingston Foreshores Development
  8. Kingston Powerhouse
  9. Regatta Point, Canberra
  10. Black Mountain Peninsula
  11. Yarralumla Yacht Club
Just a suggestion. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration Bridge, Acton Peninsula, and Royal Canberra Hospital could all do with articles. Kings Avenue should be at Kings Avenue, Canberra. I think Sullivan's Creek probably warrants an article; raised quite a few engineering challenges in the early days and has been the source of pollution controversies more recently; not sure about Jerrabomberra Creek. The Kingston Foreshore link should be titled either Kingston Foreshore or Kingston Foreshore Redevelopment (actual names). Someone recently wrote an article on the Canberra Glassworks; I'm not sure if a seperate article could be written on the Powerhouse, so a piped link might be okay there. Regatta Point and Black Mountain Peninsula need articles; Yarralumla Yacht Club is probably non-notable. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All created. Except Regatta Point, it's just a thing inside Comm Park unless I am mistaken but some Canberran intervene as I don't know. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a quick response, awesome! Cirt (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were mostly a bunch of mickey (monkey) mouse 3-liners. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is immensely improved over where we started out. It still has problems with not seperating history from describing the current state of the lake very well; the bridges and dam sections, despite being in the middle of the construction section, arent really about the construction, and some important lake features, like the Captain Cook Memorial, are only mentioned in the context of stuff-that-was-built-in-the-70s. This means that key landmarks adjoining the lake which aren't necessarily necessarily notable in a historical sense - like the National Capital Exhibition, or on the other side of the lake, that it practically fronts on to Russell Hill, are not mentioned. Speaking of things adjoining the lake, it mightn't hurt to work Blundell's Cottage into the early history somewhere. I still think a "features of the lake" section would make all this a lot more coherent. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other niggly things: The couple of sentences describing the criticism of the lake's construction are a light on detail, generalising and only use one source. "Later history and development of the lake into a city centrepiece" is an awkward title.

shortened YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this is now solved. I'm still a bit unsure about the way the article mixes history and lake features, but in its current state, I think it works okay. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph - Government House and the newly-built Australian National University, on the southern and northern shores of the West Lake, both gained a waterfront. The National Museum was later built on the former site of the Royal Canberra Hospital. The public were encouraged to watch the controlled demolition of the hospital, but a girl was killed by flying debris, leading to criticism of the ACT Government. - jumps from 1966 to 1996 without really any implication that three decades has passed, and that the first half of these paragraph occurred chronologically before the previous paragraph in the article (which refers to the Captain Cook Memorial in 1970). I'd be surprised if there was really nothing that could be said about historical developments in a 30 year period there; either way the text needs to be clarified.

Clarified I think. hopefully rearranged better. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with this - nicely solved. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lakeside Recreation" section still isn't stellar. Still of its use for major public events - Skyfire and Floriade are the big two that come to mind, but there are others. The water sports section is a little bit strange; no mention of paddle boating (seen on the lake every day), but windsurfing (which I never saw in four years) is popular? "Opportunities for swimming have decreased"? I'd like to see a source for it ever having been a particularly common activity.

Added info on Floriade and pedalboating, windsurfing is in the book; tweaked to say that swimming has often been banned, although it is already noted that the water is cold. But the book said that swimming occurred without specifying numbers YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely superb job. The only quibble left is the "...crowded area in terms of swimmers and vessels being in the water" - one thing Lake Burley Griffin will never be is crowded with swimmers! Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent history section could do with a bit more work, too. One thing which I totally forgot to mention before was the huge controversy over the National Capital Authority's now-axed plans to develop the Albert Hall precinct, which could have seen developments right on the water. The Kingston redevelopment is missing mention of other urban renewal there; the Old Bus Depot Markets and the Canberra Glassworks. The intended expansion to demolish the somewhat historic Causeway neighbourhood next door might warrant a sentence. I think the weight placed on the Immigration Bridge proposal is possibly a bit high; it gets as much article time as the far more notable Kingston changes. Finally, "...luxury apartment complexes were built in the suburb of Kingston, turning into a upper-class area" is a bit strange; Kingston was already an upper-class area.

I thought Kingston was an industrial area.... please fix as required. Added into on powerhouse and glasworks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Hall mentioned. Help with some of thsi Kingston thing requested YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a really good job here. The one remaining issue here is the Albert Hall redevelopment; the significance of this is that it would have led to shops/bars/etc on the shores of the lake in the central area (and wasn't just heritage activists; was generally very controversial) - a couple more sentences here would be good (though the refs you've already got there should be enough to support it). As for Kingston; it's an upper-class suburb - it's where the pollies hang out at night when parliament's sitting, but there used to be a strip of industrial facilities along the edge of the lake, which is what's currently being redeveloped. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted above, the article has a fair few redlinks. I've noted above that some could be delinked or piped to existing articles, but there's still a fair few that need writing.

All in all, it's hugely improved, and its already an excellent article. But it could still do with a bit more work to really bring it up to top standard. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the tough workout will be good in the long run. Ideally people within a wikiproject know more so they can scrutinise more properly. WP:AUS is better than some others with 100% pile on supports of any old article, that's for sure. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the stubs (although I'm still not sure that at least the Yacht Club is notable), but could you please write an actual stub about the Royal Canberra Hospital? The Royal Canberra Hospital was a separate hospital serving Canberra along with the Woden Hospital for a quarter of a century before it closed and the Woden Hospital changed name; it really deserves an article of its own. That, and the one other slight quibble above, and I think we're done here. I'm really impressed with the job you've done here - I've been a damn hard critic with a fair bit of background knowledge, and you've turned out the sources and put together an article many times better than the one you started with. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RCH has its own now. Also, Albert Hall is a bit bigger. Found a bit more ref diversity. Tweaked a few more things. No pain, no gain. Thanks again for your help. A check for typos/copyedit/consistent formatting should suffice now. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superb. No further objections, well deserving of featured status. I'm very impressed. Rebecca (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of references, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009 [10].

African American literature

Review commentary

Wikiprojects and author notified

Old FAC from 2005. The article has many uncited passages, especially in the subjective parts about pundit analysis. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:Color purple.jpg: fair-use rationale insufficient. As there is literature from before 1923, a free-use cover could be used. File:Frederick Douglass (2).jpg: incomplete information, no author, first publication or date. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are few short stories that are discussed, and short stories make up a substantial portion of African American literature. For instance, Uncle Tom's Children is not mentioned in Richard Wright's section (and yet was very important). Thus, there is a weight issue/comprehensive issue. Also, many of the Harlem Ren works (like Wright's) discuss communism, which is not mentioned at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1a, 1c, 2b, 3
1a) There are some lingering prose issues. I found some sentence fragments as I was reading (see talk page). Also, many of the paragraphs begin with "another" or some other such weak transition. The article needs a good copyeditor. I would be willing to do this if all of the other issues are resolved.
1c) There are large swaths of uncited material. I started adding {{fact}} tags, but I grew tired. The problem is mostly in the "History" section.
2b) I find the structure of the article a problem. It is divided into "Characteristics and themes", "History", and "Critiques". The "Critiques" section, to me, should be structured and named to reflect the diversity of views about what African-American literature is rather than around the idea of criticism (we are supposed to avoid "Criticism" sections). Perhaps this section and "Characteristics and themes" could be merged into a "Definition and characteristics" section.
3) All images need alt text.

I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, structure, comprehensiveness, image copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009 [11].

Krag-Petersson

Review commentary

Article fails 1c. Apart from two hobby websites, one book is cited, and no details are given wrt page numbers, just the name of the book. Images are dubiously tagged under 100 years after death but the designer died in 1916. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons (which the files are duplicates of), the copyright was valid during the owner's life plus 70 years, and as he died in 1916, the copyright has expired.--LWF (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many problems with this article; consider this to be a "delist" !vote when this moves into FARC mode.
    • There is too much of a reliance on one source.
    • Page numbers are needed.
    • Even when assuming that citations cover more than one sentence (and I'm not confident of that, with seeing multiple [2]'s in one paragraph), I still see much that is unreferenced.
    • I don't think refs 1 and 4 are reliable.
    • THis is without checking the prose... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • I've given the article a quick copy edit and have added citation needed and weasel word tags where the appropriate items should be added or fixed.
  • Citations 1 and 4 are not reliable.
  • "Mechanism" is used twice in the first sentence of the design section.
  • "Major" components is an imprecise term.
  • The extremely heavy reliance on just one source, particularly since that source isn't in English, makes me unhappy.
  • The photos need alt text and should be checked for fair use criteria.
  • The anthropomorphism exhibited toward countries: "France also tested" ... makes me uncomfortable, but that might be a common use in military articles. This should be checked against MILHIST style and corrected if necessary.
  • USD figures vary in style and presentation in the article. These should follow WP:MOS.
  • Was the weapon used at all during the WWII resistance? Given its age and the fact that it was sold to civilians, it seems possible.
  • Overall, this article could be kept as an FA with just a bit of work on the citations. The prose is acceptable, if not particularly striking, but there are a few weasel words and unclear spots. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 [12].

Names of the Greeks

Review commentary

Main editor User:Deucalionite has been blocked indefinitely. There seem to be no other main editors.[13] I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece[14],Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Etymology[15] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy[16].

WP:CGR should be notified; they are likely to be the most helpful.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted in 2005 and since then much text has been added to it. Currently the article has numerous citation needed tags, a POV tag, and an accuracy disputed tag. There do not seem to be editors actively interested in improving the article.

The original nominator of the article Colossus has not edited since Spring of 2008. However, one of his last edits addressed the problems with Names of the Greeks on the article talk page.[17] He agrees that the article's quality has fallen sharply, despite having many references.

I feel that the article fails the following:

  • 1a - there are questions about article quality. The article is hard to follow and varies in quality of prose. Editors appear to add and remove material without discussion on the talk page.
  • lc - it has many {{citation needed}} tags. There are uncited quotations, eg 'Cicero delivered the coup de grace by coining the truly derogatory term, Graeculi, "contemptuous little Greeks".' Some sections are entirely uncited.
  • 1d - questions about its neutrality per the {{disputed}} tag and {{pov}} tag.
  • 1e - questions about its stability as there is adding and removing of tags and material without consensus or discussion.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, the article has great problems. And I am not sure I have the time or the material or even the appetite to work on it at this phase. I can promise I'll have a look at it during the weekend; and it is really unfortunate that both Kekrops and Deucalionite are blocked (both of them unfairly IMO). I don't promise anything, but if I do some cleaning, I suppose I can count on Mattisse's copy-editing skills!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, their absence offers some hope of making the article less like a Greek high-school textbook, of some thirty-five years ago. It is filled with nonsense and nationalist POV, and always has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will help in any way I can. I suggest that you remove material that is not well sourced. I am hesitant to do that myself as I am unfamiliar with the subject matter and do not know what is important and what can easily be referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mattisse, in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors begin in the intro:

  • virtually all Greeks were Roman citizens and therefore considered by name to have the right to be free and own property
    The two halves of this sentence have nothing to do with each other; one never needed to be a Roman citizen to be free or to own property.

Much more could follow; but it may be simpler to add a new layer of {{cn}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do, if I were Jimbo, is to remove all the non-linguistic assertions, including the claims about what the Aetolians did in the twelfth century BC (about which we have no reliable information at all), the point-scoring about Philip of Macedon, the assertion (above) that Cicero coined a perfectly normal Latin diminutive, the claims that the Greeks felt superior to other peoples (and who hasn't?); limit the linguistics to what is plainly consensus; and then consider whether what is left would be better on Wiktionary. Whether the result would deserve to be an FA is another question; but it would meet my standard: not being a public embarassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of [citation needed] tags, added some more
  • I noticed many WP:PRIMARY non-English sources are used. The author may have mis-interpreted the Greek source, at least citations to English translations needed or secondary sources. e.g.

File:Hieronymus wolf2.JPG: PD of course, but it's always nice to know the original source and artist. Otherwise, images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a horrible mess. Even the title is misleading. I went there expecting an article about names of individual Greeks, but find instead one about names of the Greek nation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, POV, accuracy, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 [18].

Rail transport in India

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject India, WikiProject Trains, Nichalp and Dwaipayanc.

This article was an FA promotion from 2005. It was previously at FAR, but closed early on a good faith assumption that improvements would continue to be made on the article. Although some improvements were made, the article still has a number of issues:

  • More than 60% of the references are from Indian Railway Fan Club, which is quite clearly not a reliable source
  • Other RS issues – reliance on Indian Railway sources, aboutpalaceonwheels.com, triptoindia.com, self-reference to Wikipedia (!)
  • The article is not representative of the published body of work on Indian rail transport
  • Inconsistent capitalization
  • A number of unsourced paragraphs/sentences
  • This article focuses too heavily on listcruft, rather than prose
  • R&D section: What about private investment? What exactly has it done since 2003?
  • Image issues: File:Budgam Station.jpg is tagged at Commons as missing permission, File:Bholu.png does not have a fair use rationale, and File:IR sample ticket.jpg might be a copyright violation.
  • There are a number of areas where the article lacks info:
    • Freight railways in India
    • Costs? economy compared to road or water freight? pro/con of rail compared to road/water transport
    • Safety? People hanging off the trains without proper seats?
    • Train terrorism
    • Technology? Good or bad?
    • Complete lack of historical development
    • Technical specifications in lots of detail but other things are neglected

To summarize, there are numerous issues with FA criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How is IRFCA not a reliable source? Their content is peer-reviewed on their mailing list, and can they not be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand ? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no indication that there are site editors who review contributions by the fan club members to ensure accuracy, verifiability and neutrality. Some of the articles from other publications and reprinted on the site, authored by specific persons, might be all right as references. But the site is clear that it is not an "official site". —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliables sources, prose, comprehensiveness, balance, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 [19].

Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Review commentary

Messages left at Biography, Lord Emsworth, Royalty and UK notice board. john k (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, largely written by User:Lord Emsworth, who was, at the time, a very smart high school student, I think (he might have been in college, so don't quote me on that), is not a bad article. But when I was looking at it this morning it contained considerable factual errors. It is probably also not well-enough sourced, and lacks a certain degree of comprehensiveness. In particular, I found these paragraphs problematic. I have already changed them to make them better, but I present them to indicate the sort of problems that occurred in the article:

Anne's first ministry was primarily Tory; at its head was Sidney Godolphin, 1st Baron Godolphin. But the Whigs, who were, unlike the Tories, vigorous supporters of the War of the Spanish Succession, became much more influential after the Duke of Marlborough won a great victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. The Whigs rose to power on the strength of Marlborough's victory and almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley).

This paragraph seems to imply that Marlborough was a Whig, which was not the case - Marlborough was, in fact, a very close associate of Godolphin, and their political views were virtually identical - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes them, as moderate Tories, and Harley as a Country Whig, who together acted more as mediators between the Queen, the Junto Whigs, and the High Tories than as party politicians. The contention that Godolphin was only the nominal head of the ministry after 1704 is nonsense, and talking about Sunderland and Harley, who were great enemies, as leading the ministry together is also misleading.

Furthermore, it's not true that "almost all Tories were removed from the ministry" after 1704. The High Tories, most notably Nottingham and Buckingham, left in 1704-1705. But Godolphin and Marlborough, who led the ministry, were still seen as Tories. So was Lord Pembroke, the Lord President. While Harley himself was originally a Whig, he was at this time moving closer to the Tories, and several of his associates (notably Henry St John, the Secretary at War) were considered Tories. It was only in 1708 that the ministry became virtually entirely Whig.

The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin. Their power was, however, limited by Anne's insistence on carrying out the duties of Lord High Admiral herself, and not appointing a member of the government to take Prince George's place. Undeterred, the Whigs demanded the appointment of the Earl of Orford, one of Prince George's leading critics, as First Lord of the Admiralty. Anne flatly refused, and chose her own candidate, Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke on 29 November 1709. Pressure mounted on Pembroke, Godolphin and the Queen from the dissatisfied Junto Whigs, and Pembroke was forced to resign after just a month in office. Another month of arguments followed before the Queen finally consented to put the Admiralty in control of the Earl of Orford in November.

These paragraphs also were problematic. Anne only retained the Lord High Admiralship for a couple of months after her husband's death, then gave it to Pembroke in November 1708. It was after Pembroke's appointment that the pressure for putting Orford in occurred, and Orford came in in early November 1709. I'm not sure where these details came from, but they seem wrong.

As the expensive War of the Spanish Succession grew unpopular so too did the Whig administration. Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer was particularly skillful in using the issue (of the cost of the war) to motivate the electorate. In the general election of 1710, discontented voters returned a large Tory majority.[25] The new ministry was headed by Robert Harley and began to seek peace in the War of the Spanish Succession. The Tories were ready to compromise by giving Spain to the grandson of the French King, but the Whigs could not bear to see a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne.[26]

Firstly, a minor issue, that Harley was not yet earl of Oxford until 1711. But beyond that, the key issue is that this gets events reversed. The queen put Harley and the Tories into power before the 1710 general election, which the Tories won because they already controlled the government patronage. Sunderland was replaced in June 1710, Godolphin fell in August, Somers and Boyle were dismissed in September. The election did not commence until the beginning of October, and the remaining Junto Whigs, Wharton and Orford, were gotten rid of while it was occurring. The Tories got a majority in parliament because they came to power; they did not come to power because they got a majority in parliament.

As I said, I tried to correct these issues and clarify things, but I suspect there are similar issues relating to other parts of the article. I think it would be useful to look it over again - especially by people who actually know something about the subject matter. john k (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this might come up. I agree with the above, but I'm up to the gills in Anna Anderson right now, so I probably won't have time to devote to this. DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on 1c: This article is based on a single biography of Anne in addition to books covering a much wider scope (history of Britain sort of things). I checked around and there are several biographies of Anne. An FA version of the article would not present just one biographer's view of Anne, but the views of all of the major biographers. Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, accuracy, comprehensiveness, breadth of research, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=305745228"