Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2011

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 Nikkimaria 14:15, 28 July 2011 [1].

---

India

Review commentary

Notified: Nichalp, Saravask, Ragib, Dab, Abecedare, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, WikiProject India, WikiProject History

I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed thoroughly since 2006. The page's history (2) and culture (7) sections are not only poorly written, but also beset with unlikely or undue claims. The other sections are in better shape, in part, because I have just copy edited them. The history section had grown to twice its usual size towards the end of last year, a result of editors ignoring the injunction to be brief and, in the throes of WP:Main article fixation besides, contributing directly and ceaselessly to it. I have rolled it back to an earlier version, but that is not satisfactory either. I invite the Wikipedia community to help improve the page, especially these two sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PS I should add, though, that just because I have copy edited the other sections, doesn't mean that they don't have significant issues, especially ones of sourcing, balance and meaning. In my view, very few sections meet current FA standards. With many editors, both registered and IPs, champing at the bit to leave their footprints on this highly-trafficked page, maintenance, it seems, would be major task once the page has been improved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally support User:Fowler&fowler for this article to be nominated for featured article for review.User:yohannvt

Why? Could you point out the ways in which you feel this article does not meet the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a total mess from the beginnings to history section. Lots of inaccuracies, weight issues all over the place.. for instance the history section is nearly totally based on foreign intruders as India itself would have none. Think of America and they only would write about Columbus and the colonialists and how they were destroyed or conquered. A total injustice to Americas history. In India we had several impacts, but none of them changed the foundation of our world. We are still the Indians despite all these "great invasions". People should read more about our history, when they come to this page. And since India is a pluralistic country, where all regions take pride in their leaders, not only the Hindi speaking belt, they should be mentioned accordingly here with some details of their achievements for India as a whole. I would like to see details of the Mauryas and Guptas of the North, the Shatavahanas, Marathas and Rashtrakutas from the Deccan, the Cholas and Vijayanagara from the South and the Palas and Kalingas from the East. There are many more great Indian history makers, but these are essential in our history besides the independence movement. The lead section should be a good introduction to this article, but it is merely describing some points about India, which I find unsatisfactory. It should have been more an epical style as India is epic in all forms. There should be a brief summary of the setup of the union, and a comparison to other supernational entities like EU and Soviet Union. Give a hint why India became to be known to the western world since ancient times and how India remained an ancient civilization to this day. I don't consider this article to be even remotely excellent. Please review this with the right spirit of India and Indians.--David Fraudly (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, don't know what to do with this FAR. A number of editors are wasting time, theirs and everyone else's, on the Talk:India page arguing endlessly about the sweet intangibles that Wikipedians like to argue about. I can't get them to spend any time on the FAR. As for David Fraudly (talk · contribs)'s post, Welcome aboard, this being your second edit on Wikipedia. Could you suggest something concrete to change and how? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Imperial revisionism is the new black, although its zealots would not care for the cliche. any Indian editor who has had the courage to say anything positive or good about India is immediately accused as one of a Hindu or Indian nationalist. While i will be the first to admit that the wp attracts a lot of such editors, their unreferenced rants and ravings stand no chance and are often drowned out by another groups of editors, the likes of Andrew Roberts, Niall Ferguson and Lawrence James and retro-historians mentioned in the article. anyone who has had a chance to read this book by Lawrence James Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India will see what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown means.

• my rants aside, i was the one who tagged the article for neutrality issues. the reason being, that the history part of the lead does not adequately summarise Indian history and gives WP:Undue significance to british period by linking to two aspects of british rule in india (the company and the raj) while omitting a significant amount of Indian history as can be seen in this article History of India. --CarTick (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (First bullet): Something actionable please. None of the "retro-historians" are cited on the India page.
  • (Second bullet). The History of India page, which is about the History of the Indian subcontinent (ie. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) until 1947, does have a significant Colonial era section. Please also see the template on the right there; Modern India there is Company Rule and the British Indian Empire (or the Raj). Besides, the final version of the lead that we (I, AshLin, RegentsPark, Munci, and Chipmunkdavis) offered you hardly gave undue significance to the British period, given that the History of India's own lead gives a great deal more significance to the British period. I am happy to switch the current history paragraph in the lead for the one we last offered you in the link above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Zuggernaut, Yogesh Khandke, Pdheeru supported my version that does not include the link to company rule. RegentsPark expressed support first only to withdraw later. I wasnt aware Munci supported your version, would like to see it.
    • no mention of Vijayanagara rulers who ruled Southern India for centuries or Cholas, able administrators who built the Brihadeeswarar Temple and went on military expeditions outside the subcontinent or Ashoka, the man who ruled the entire Indian subcontinent whose Ashoka Chakra was adopted as the national emblem of India thus carrying enormous cultural significance. i am not saying we should mention all these guys. now, is there any reason why you would want to split the british rule into company and raj other than to provide links to both your pet articles from the lead of one of the highly visible wp articles (almost 30,000 views every day). why cant we let the readers go to the British Raj article and find their way around from there? isnt it like linking Ashoka in addition to Maurya Empire? why the redundancy? --CarTick (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • In recent decades, human encroachment has posed a threat to India's wildlife; in response, the system of national parks and protected areas, first established in 1935, was substantially expanded in Biodiversity is unreferenced. guess the 1935 refers to Jim Corbett National Park and it would be nice if we can find a reference that supports the exact sentence. --CarTick (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • (First bullet) Zuggernaut is now topic banned from India-history related topics. His vote, on the history paragraph in the lead, therefore, doesn't count. Munci expressed support for my version in this edit of 12 March 2011. Your version has three support votes including yours; mine has five, including mine. That is enough to show that there is no consensus of the changing the sentence about the British rule and Indian independence movement.
      • (Second bullet) It appears that you are now chanding your own objections to the lead. In the alternative lead proposed by you on 10 March 2011 none of these were mentioned. In fact, the only difference between by lead (mentioned and linked above) and yours was in the last sentence, where you had an abbreviated mention of the British. Again, the history section of the India page is essentially the lead of the History of India page, and the history paragraph of the lead of the India page, is a bare bones précis of its History Section (approximately one sentence for each paragraph). The lead of the History of India page has one paragraph devoted to the British years in which both the Company rule and British raj are mentioned. It is therefore entirely apt that we devote half a sentence: "Gradually annexed by the East India Company from the mid 18th century and colonized by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India ..."
      • Thanks for discovering the missing cite. I will fix it shortly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • PS to (Second bullet). In rereading the old history section, I feel you have a point. Not necessarily that the history section is slanted towards the British, but that it is slanted geographically in favor of North India. (In part this reflects the old historiography.) I will attempt a rewrite of the history section to correct this, and you can let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• In first line, it says India is a state in South Asia, it needs to be changed to country rather than state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.35.169 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This has been done. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, undue weight, lack of summary style and general non-compliance with the MOS. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist Sadly there are still dead links and ongoing neutrality disputes. I didn't bother to look more closely. Brad (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I could nitpick on this article but I'm not going to. It has seen substantial improvement from F&F. Brad (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To be more specific as requested the article does not meet:
    • 1c based on dead links making verification impossible.
      • All external links are working as of now. There are many links that are missing retrieved on dates. Please fix those. Brad (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • 1d based on the neutrality tags present.
  • If these issues are fixed then I'll be glad to rescind my delist. Brad (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done Dead links fixed. --rgpk (comment) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • F&F asked me to revisit the article. Substantial improvement has been completed but 2c is now a serious problem. A mixture of date formatting and missing information throughout references. I found one marked dead link that isn't dead; worked fine for me. Brad (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad, Could you please explain a little more. I'm not sure I understand your concern. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, by 2c Brad refers to the inconsistency in citations, for instance article has all possible date formats like big endian (2007-06-21), middle endian (April 23, 2011) and little endian (31 October 2007); for this article I would prefer little endian (Commonwealth format). Also many of the references lack complete information like work, publisher, format, typefaces, etc. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Bill. I will redo all the references in the Citation template format with little endian dates. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Brad and Bill, I have now redone the cites in the citation+endian format as well as Harvnb for books that were cited many times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work there! just check Ref118, which is a dead link. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per WP:FAIL#Wikipedia became battleground playpen. Honestly, I don't see myself the POV issues with this article, but I concede that unlike science-type controversial topics, in nationalistic ones WP:2LAW can be eternally invoked to tag the article with {{POV}}—and this is what has been going on on this article's talk page for quite some time now, and on multiple issues. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Would those asking for a delist perhaps give specific examples of what exactly is UNDUE and what DUE information is perhaps missed etc. So far the only real substance here was given by David Fraudly, and I'm not very convinced of their opinion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We must be looking at different articles. Editors on the talk page can't even agree how the country is called (in English) and what the first line of the article should say. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • And that's not currently an issue with the article. All articles about ethnicities countries or regions are going to suffer this at some point or another. India with its multitudes of english speakers will have a lot of interested editors. Where in the current article is there an UNDUE problem, if not for this FAR then for improvement later? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I see quite unreasonable positions there from a lot of the participants, and not just the presumed (Indian/Hindu) nationalists. That's why I linked to FAIL above. The discussion is dominated by people with extreme ideas on both sides and that's the just the way this wiki works. Unless you can somehow produce a topic ban for half a dozen people, I don't see how the POV dispute will end anytime soon. And I checked talk archives 31 and 32 as well, which are fairly recent. Different topics, same problem. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I too would like to see specific comments from those asking to delist the article. I'm no expert on the FAR process, but I can't see how the process can work without specific directions on what needs improvement (preferably from editors with confidence inspiring monikers). Also, re Tijfo098, I fail to see how talk page battles translate into quality judgements on the article itself.--rgpk (comment) 10:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's even worth commenting on the (current version of the) content... The lead has two links that violate the principle of least surprise: "annexed" links to Company rule in India and "colonized" links to "British Raj". Also, the lead appears heavily overlinked with 50%+ of the text being links. I'm trying to find a good article to compare it with, but the recently FAR-kept Japan is certainly failing WP:LEAD (WWII or the Meiji period isn't notable next to Paleolithic or the first Chinese writings), so I'll try to find some other basis for comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain the principle of least surprise thing further. Annexed links to Company rule in India because the process of annexation was carried out by the British East India Company. Colonized links to British Raj because it became a direct colony of Britain only after the end of company rule. Were you expecting something different? (Also, while the principle you quote applies quite nicely to the design of user interfaces, I'm not sure how useful it is for encyclopedias or for scholarly work in general. Surprises are not always a bad thing.) I'll take a look at the linking issue, thanks for that. --rgpk (comment) 16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems a fairly simple matter to reduce the number of links in the lead but is that an FA criterion? Links tend to be useful connects to detailed articles (this is a summary-style article) and don't detract from the readability of the lead. But, if that's an FA criterion, please let me know. I removed the trivial memberships from the lead. --rgpk (comment) 17:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:LEAD and the links appear to satisfy the requirements set out there: Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to, particularly if they are links to a more general article, as this puts the article into context. --rgpk (comment) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the lead could spare the reader trivialities such as India being member of the UN. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done trivial memberships removed. --rgpk (comment) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how India's membership of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Commonwealth among others is trivial. Its membership of the UN certainly is, because these days it's something exceptional for a country not to be part of the UN. And the same goes for WTO. Munci (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

These are debatable issues. I'm not sure if the non-aligned movement matters anymore (not aligned with what?) and the commonwealth is a club with no political weight.--rgpk (comment) 14:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominator (Fowler&fowler)'s comment: Hmm. Now it is my turn to be surprised! As the nominator of this FAR, a process that we are told lasts some three or four months, and as an editor who has taken part in other FARs, I am a little surprised that we have reached FARC already. Usually, there is much discussion in the review, where the nominator and others are given ample opportunity to improve the article. This time, however, I didn't hear a peep, either from the editors of the India page, who it seems prefer to hold forth on the Talk:India page, or from the FAR regulars. From the first group this was especially surprising, since only a month ago they were coming at me with a vehemence unheard of in the annals of Wikihistory. It may be that this page will eventually need to be delisted, given all the POV issues that are coming up on the talk page—where a newbie editor such as Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs), who may or may not be a sockpuppet, but who cannot write intelligible English, is endlessly holding up any progress, and normally productive Wikipedians are spending all their time kowtowing to inarticulate amateurism—but I feel the regular editors of the page should be given half a chance to improve it. Tijfo098, some of your comments (e.g. about the lead) should have been made in the review process, not in the FARC. I think we should revert back to the review process and then begin anew. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

PS Putting my money were my mouth is, I've created a talk page and added critique of the first paragraph (or two) of the culture section there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

PPS Maybe more "delists" will finally get this page the attention it deserves!! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler for taking the trouble to list specific deficiencies. At least we'll have something to work with. This FA process, where anyone can make general statements about articles and these then become "identified deficiencies", seems odd to me. At least you're providing some structure. --rgpk (comment) 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is surprise that this is at FARC. The article was in the FAR section for almost three weeks, and there seemed to be little discussion and fewer improvements to the article. Because of this - the identified deficiencies and the lack of progress - it was moved to the FARC section. If there is ongoing article improvement, then the article can remain at this stage for as long as necessary, although it is preferred that work is completed in a timely fashion. However, if there is little or no improvement to the article and multiple editors agree that the article does not meet the FA standards, then it will be delisted. I appreciate the extensive (although partial) review you've posted on the talk page of this FAR, although if additional time goes by with no improvement to the article and editors continue to view the article as deficient, the article will have to be delisted, regardless of the extensive discussion either here or on the talk page. I hope this explanation helps; please let me know if you have further questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Not all of us are familiar with the FAR process and I assumed that its purpose was primarily to help editors improve the article by pointing to specific areas where it is deficient wrt featured article criteria. However, it appears that the process is focused more on 'demotion' (if that's the word) and that editors are themselves responsible for figuring all this out. Since I have little idea of what the criteria are, and not much time at hand to identify specific shortcomings vis-a-vis these criteria (though I would be happy to address meaningful suggestions both inside and outside the FAR process), I suggest the article be delisted. Personally, I would ask for more specific reasons for delisting, "ongoing neutrality disputes" is way too general, and would ignore commentary from new editors with hard to assume good faith names, but I'm sure that the regular FAR editors know best. --rgpk (comment) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, (Dana Boomer) what I meant was that the people who have now voted in the FARC didn't offer any critiques! I can't do both (offer critiques and improve the article). Actually, on second thoughts, I can. I can very quickly fix the article, but the POV-warriors on the Talk:India page will turn out by the droves and make sure that I backtrack two sentences for every one that I write. As someone who has sort of overseen the article for upwards of four years and written a few sections (the good ones, I believe) such as Geography and Biodiversity), I would be sad to see the article delisted. However, I am also sick and tired of being accused of being an apologist for the British etc etc, all by people who won't lift a finger to improve the page, so, a part of me would be relieved as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

F&F, thanks for the clarification. When you said you were surprised that it had moved to FARC so quickly, I thought you were requesting a response from one of the delegates! RegentsPark, it is wonderful when an article is improved through the FAR process, but editors must come forward who are interested in improving the article. The criteria can be found at this page. I don't know what you mean by editors with "hard to assume good faith names", but I would suggest that if you want to bring the article back into line wit the FA criteria, you carefully read the comments of all editors and act on any good suggestions, regardless of the user's name. Dana boomer (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most editors (f&f excepting) haven't really given any actionable suggestions or identified specific deficiencies. I suggest that these editors take a look at Wikipedia:FAR#Katyn_massacre as an example of how to give suggestions in a FAR. I also suggest that these editors, and I assume they are familiar with FA criteria, be specific, with examples, about which particular criterion they believe the article is failing. My 'hard to assume good faith names' comment referred to User:David Fraudly (as in fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others), the only person to comment before this was moved to FARC. --rgpk (comment) 12:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad mentioned the dead links, of which there are still 11, which is an actionable complaint. The neutrality comments are also valid, in that there are neutrality cleanup banners on the top of the page and in one of the sections, which is completely unacceptable for a featured article. If there is dispute on the talk page - fine. However, when it begins to affect the article, in terms of major cleanup banners on featured articles, then it affects the FA criteria and becomes actionable. As for Mr. Fraudly, I am going to AGF and say there's a good possibility that it is his true name or pen name, rather than an attempt to point out that he is a fraudster. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better. These are actionable comments. Thank you. I was a little disappointed at the lack of structure in this process but f&f has begun to provide that structure. (Don't worry. I too AGF on Mr. Fraudly. My only point was that an "identified deficiencies" statement on a single 3-edits editor, with an unlikely name, and a tendency toward statements like It should have been more an epical style as India is epic in all forms, is not a good idea. I have no idea how to remedy a deficiency of the un-epical sort!) --rgpk (comment) 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dana, I'm sorry if I sounded so negative, but after my experience with MHP, where I wrote a very detailed review but 90% of which (so far) has been ignored by the article regulars who continue to squabble over their pet peeves, I felt like investing a similar effort in reviewing another article where most likely there won't be consensus on the key issues on the talk page to be a waste of my time. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some aspects of the history of India are sufficiently controversial that this recent lawsuit happened, so I'm not optimistic at all that the Wikipedia editors involved can come to an agreement. It's almost like trying to keep Israel FA—that didn't seem to have worked. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A few brief comments:

• The infobox about the Bahá'í House of Worship being so important is sourced from a possibly less than neutral Bahá'í book.

  Couldn't find the infobox. Has it been removed or did I miss it?--rgpk (comment) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is repetition of "in the world" in the brief paragraph on Bollywood.

   Done --rgpk (comment) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is a broken reference "Error: no |title= specified when using {{".

   Done Seems to have been fixed along the way. --rgpk (comment) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are also some bare URLs in the reference list. Other web citations have only the page title and retrieval date, but no author or publisher.
• Some harv refs are broken (don't link to anything), e.g. the two Achaya ones, possibly more.
• The article uses an extremely questionable convention of not giving the page number for some harv footnotes, but giving a "p." for the full ref linked to. Is that "p." the number of pages of the book, or the actual page referenced? Also, this convention is not uniformly used.

-- More later. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I can answer the last point. The actual syntax (which is standard in journal reviews of books, for example) is Pp. xvi, 347. That means there are 16 preface (front matter) pages and a total of 347 actual pages (including the index). Unfortunately, someone, who thought the Pp. referred to a page number being cited changed Pp. to p. So, now it is really confusing. I'm happy to remove the total page number information altogether. The page number being cited, however, should appear in the first half of the references section in the form {{Harvnb|Smith|2002|p=32}} or {{Harvnb|Gandhi|1932|pp=23–24}} (wikified, of course). (See, for examples, cites 47 through 55.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • PS I'm happy to fix the inconsistencies as well. Will let you know here when done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • PPS Yeah, the refs are a mess. I will fix them, but it will take me a little longer than I had thought! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the total page information as well as commercial urls from all books in the references section. I'm rewriting the history section. It is more than half done. All new notes have harvnb-style author, year, and page information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that GB page links are useful when they help very the material. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to add the Google URLs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Have added the URLs to all those history books that have Google previews available. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tijfo098: You are correct about the language in the lead: it is imprecise. I have now changed the sentence fragment, "Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century ..." to "Gradually controlled by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, ..." There is less surprise, and also it is more accurate, since the East India Company did not annex all of India (it annexed some regions and formed subsidiary alliances in other regions) and in 1858 the United Kingdom began to directly administer India. "Colonised" is incorrect, because the East India Company had colonised parts of India too, especially after 1820, which most historians consider the beginning of India's colonial period. I hope this is satisfactory. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist The article is not comprehensive enough and does not present the issue in an adequate way. Sections such as Religion, Transport/Infrastructure, Education, Science and Technology are missing. The History section is too long and needs a split. Italiano111 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Can any person walk off the street without taking part in the review discussion and without providing anything meaningfully actionable and pronounce, "Delist" or "Keep?" Do the FAR delegates disregard these perfunctory votes? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Anyone may make a declaration; however, delist !votes that provide no actionable commentary or do not reference the FA criteria will commonly be disregarded. That being said, while I haven't checked to see whether Italiano's comment is a valid criticism of this article (and I don't intend to comment on it at this point), "comprehensiveness" is part of the FA criteria, so responding to him (as you have done) is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Response to Italiano111: What issue? Yes, the history section is long because it is in the process of being rewritten and will be reduced again. Seriously, how difficult is it to split a section? What would make the page comprehensive? And which country FA is comprehensive by this benchmark? The article has all the sections suggested on the WP:Countries page. Australia doesn't have Science and Technology or Infrastructure. Germany's history section is way too long and its geography and biodiversity sections way too short. Canada doesn't have a biodiversity section. Should we be demoting all country FAs while we are at it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Have split History into three subsections (for now). Will update at the end of the rewrite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I´m flexible enough to change the current delist recommendation once the article has gained a comprehensive outlook. Being comprehensive is the second most important criteria (1. b)) Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Italiano111 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The current history section dedicates half of its prose to ancient history, and about an eighth to events since the founding of the republic. Thoughts on this? I think the ancient history probably needs to be massively cut down, and an expansion on modern india. I think that as a start the sentence "India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism" should be expanded with a short explanation of each of these points, rather than a list. Some, such as terrorism, already have information in that paragraph. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunk, I'm rewriting the history section and have got only as far as 700 CE. That was done in response to various posts in the FAR, in particular those of CarTick and Italiano111. See, for example, the last post in the review section above. Since I'm also travelling and have had to reread some hefty tomes, it is taking a little longer, but I should be done in about a week's time. Please hold on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment About two weeks have passed but the history section still has some unsourced material. When will the construction end? TGilmour (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we get an update on this? There are still multiple outstanding delists... If the editors working on the article feel that the comments of the various reviewing editors have been addressed, please feel free to ask them to return and update their comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dana, I will be returning home on Tuesday July 5. Will address the unaddressed issues soon thereafter. Thanks for being patient with this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

F&F, can we get an update on this, please? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, I am back and have been working on expanding the history section (the last remaining section that needs work). I am almost finished with it; I need to add two paragraphs for the British period. A couple of days more. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The expansion of the history section in response to FAR comments is now complete. It is sourced with a dozen of the most modern textbooks being used around the world, all peer-reviewed for balance and WP:DUE. I feel that the India article, which became an FA in 2004, is now up to date, and in line with current FA standards. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Thanks, everyone, for your patience. Superhuman patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on this! Perhaps you'd have a few minutes to ping the editors who commented above and ask them to revisit their comments, now that you have had a chance to address them? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've already pinged everyone who has weighed in here, except User:David Fraudly, who turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I am now working on redoing all the references in the Citation template format and little endian dates, in response to Brad01 and Bill william compton's concerns. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've finished the Citation work and I note that Brad has changed his "delist" to "keep." What about the others? Any comments? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No idea whether it's matter or not, but as I mentioned above, Ref118 is still a dead link. F&f, would you please correct it? — Bill william compton^Talk 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Have fixed 118, which very mysteriously has become 119 now! Anyway, I have checked (and improved) all the links from 117 to 120! Thanks for pointing out the error. Having the link is very important. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When I pointed it out first (above, which I changed later to match with the article) it was 119, but yesterday evening it became 118, and I know the reason, it's due to the tiger image of Template:Indian image rotation, which has citations in its caption. As far as I can see, all the references have been checked, with proper citations and format, so I would elatedly Vote! for Keep, and for this all credit goes to indefatigable F&f. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you BWC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Of the other people who have weighed in here, David Fraudly (as mentioned above) has been indeffed, as has TGilmour; Tijo098 hasn't edited since 22 May, CarTick is on Wikileave; Munci has been editing intermittently, but I'll leave another post on his talk page; and Italiano111 hasn't edited since 28 June. The only others are Chipmunkdavis and RegentsPark. I'll ping them again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: It appears that the issues have been largely addressed (thank you fowler&fowler). BTW, fowler, I corrected Bill Fraudly to David Fraudly in your post immediately above this one, hope that is ok. --rgpk (comment) 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, RegentsPark, both for weighing in and for correcting BF->DF. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Fowler&Fowler has done a remarkable job with copyediting and sourcing etc. My only qualm is that during this process the article has become much larger, a total of over 150,000 bytes. The prose tool isn't working for me for some reason on this article, but I'm willing to bet it's quite large in itself. I defer however, to F&F's judgement about what is WP:DUE in the article. It doesn't fail any requirements. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true, Chipmunk, that the article is bigger. The history section has been expanded in response to comments by two weighers-in. The old history section was a haiku-like list of subpage links, which not only made for poor prose, but was also being perennially raided by people who were miffed that their hero was missing. The new history section is a high level description (that for the most part eschews naming names) which is based on a dozen of the most modern textbooks that are currently in use around the world, books that have been peer-reviewed and vetted for DUE. Most statements in the history section have been sourced to multiple sources, and when they haven't, it is only because I didn't have time then, but will gradually add the others. In other words, they represent consensus or near-consensus among historians. That's pretty much all we can reasonably do. Thanks for weighing in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• F&F and friends have done pure work restoring this to FA class. Thank you. Commenting out of ... irritation ... with some of the "comprehensiveness" casuistry above. Suggestions like "ancient history probably needs to be massively cut down" almost strike me as vile. But whatever. At this point, it's neither here nor there. Saravask 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Saravask. Glad to see you back. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 13:23, 13 July 2011 [2].

---

Rebecca Helferich Clarke

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, User talk:Mindspillage, User talk:Huntdw, User talk:Missmarple.

FA from 2005, has some referencing issues throughout, including 1c issues. Notice posted to talk page over one month ago diff link, but no response. Pictures in article could use image review. There are some short paragraphs, one or two-sentence-long paragraphs. The lede/intro could be expanded a bit more. Could use overall copyediting throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good efforts so far, thanks. Good still use a significant bit of improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Could you be a bit more specific? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with inadequate sourcing that fails WP:RS

1. Liane Curtis - these sources are inadequate and fail WP:RS.
2. The information sourced to these references should be removed.
3. In certain places, this even violates WP:NOR, see for example the cite that says, "Liane Curtis, personal correspondence, May 2005." ???
4. In multiple instances, these cites also fail WP:V.

-- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: all sources by Liane Curtis, or only certain ones? It would seem to me that the Grove entry and the Musical Times article obviously meet WP:RS, and that the program notes may be acceptable. Also, regarding the fact tag added here: one cannot prove (or likely cite) a negative, despite its veracity. I'll look for a source supporting the other disputed fact. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, if one cannot prove a negative, that is a violation of WP:NOR to include it in the article. Especially so, for the high standards of FA articles. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Voceditenore

• Referencing. I see that all previous cites to "personal correspondance" have been removed. I'm not sure what the problem is with the other works by Liane Curtis as reliable sources. They seem fine to me, especially the Grove article which is extensive. However, the citation style needs improvement in my view. Firstly, it should be consistently "last name first" for the authors and when printed sources are cited, the exact page number should be given, not simply a cite to the entire book or article. Also, the entire Rebecca Clarke Reader is available in full view at Google Books [3], which probably wasn't available when the WP article was first written . It has articles by three other musicologists besides Curtis, as well as other previously published interviews and articles by Clarke herself. This would considerably help the referencing. This book by a fifth musicologist also has a lot of material. As for the two remaining statements with {{fact}} tags. The bilingual assertion can simply be removed, it's a very minor point. The other about "...large-scale pieces such as symphonies, which she never attempted to write." can be revised to something like:

  "There are no large scale works such as symphonies in her total output of compositions (52 songs, 11 choral works, 21 chamber pieces, the Piano Trio, and the Viola Sonata)." (verifiable via the Grove or here (p. 91).

• Writing style. I haven't looked at the rest yet, but the section on the Rebecca Clarke Society needs a major copyedit. It reads a bit to much like a blurb, and "put out" instead of "published" or "made available" is infelicitous, as is:

  "Due to copyright clearance problems, the book was withdrawn from circulation by the press due to the author's belief in her freedom to use music examples against the complaints of the copyright holders."

  There are other places in the article with weasel words which need addressing (see also Lede below), e.g. "her father's disapproval of her musical ambitions as well as his harsh treatment of her and her three siblings are speculated to have influenced her compositional career." Speculated by whom? This needs rewording to reflect who speculates this or has reported the speculation—not simply a footnote. Another instance is "Perhaps the greatest barrier to composition was..."

• Lede. Needs considerable expansion to include the essential facts of her life, not just her importance. Also, expressions like "is considered by one commentator to be" should be avoided. Better to state in in the article itself who said it, e.g.

"Described by musicologist Liane Curtis in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians as one of the most important British composers in the period between World War I and World War II, Clarke...."

• Images. Need review. I'm concerned at the documentation for them on Commons, e.g. "Personal correspondence with the Rebecca Clarke Society asserts that the copyright holder of this image no longer exercises those rights." For one thing, there is no indication who the copyright holder is or was, and the personal correspondance really needs to be on record via an OTRS ticket. Another one which is copyright 1919, doesn't qualify unless there is proof it was actually published before 1923, not simply taken or copyrighted before then. I suggest asking User:Elcobbola or User:Jappalang to review them. In any case, the article could use a greater variety of images instead of three of her. You could get away with just one, under "fair use" if necessary. Also, the images need alt text.

• Recordings. This would be useful to include, since her music has been rarely recorded until recently. There are a lot of reviews from Gramophone available: [4]

Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick note - per WP:WIAFA, featured articles no longer need alt text. Editors are welcome to provide it if they wish, but it is not a criteria for featured article status. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Could we get an update on this? How is work going, and do the commenting editors think this could be kept without going to FARC? Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been copy-editing and working on referencing. I think I've fixed the image issues too. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nikki, I'm not sure from this comment if you feel that you've finished your work on the article or not. If so, please feel free to ping the editors who commented above to come back and take another look (or let me know and I will). Thanks for all your work on this, Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Followup, problems with sourcing

1. I have tagged some additional problems with sourcing with {{fact}} tags.
2. Newsletter of the Rebecca Clarke Society = this seems to be a primary source, how can one obtain it? Is it verifiable? Is this straying too close to WP:NOR violation for a Featured Article?
3. The same problem could be said for program notes to Clarke's Sonata for Viola and Piano.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. I've removed one of the fact-tagged assertions. I will disagree with you on the NOR/primary source issue, as I don't believe either of the sources you mention are problematic in the way that they are used. Both were written by Clarke scholars. The newsletter is a publication put out by the Rebecca Clarke Society, which as the article mentions is concerned with studying Clarke's music. One subscribes to it in the same way that one would a traditional print journal. Both sources are IMO verifiable and not OR; can you expand on your reasons for believing otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do libraries subscribe to these? Or does one have to pay individually to obtain back issues? -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Some libraries subscribe to this newsletter, although given that it's fairly specialized there aren't many that do. As for the program notes, there's no such thing as "back issues" - it's not a serial source. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to hear further thoughts on these issues by Voceditenore. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that WP:VERIFY says nothing about sources being easily verifiable, just that they be verifiable. If the newsletters are available to the public in any form (through purchase from the society, held in even one library, etc), then they are verifiable sources. Same with the program notes. Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment re sources At the moment, I'm just commenting on the sourcing issues raised by Cirt, with which I disagree quite strongly. The Newsletters are available online for free here, including the article cited "When Virginia Woolf met Rebecca Clarke". The Newsletters are also held in the New York Public Library and the Brandeis University Library. [5]. As per Dana boomer, subscription access or requirement to physically visit a library is not at all an impediment to something being a reliable source, or the material it contains adequately verifying facts in an article. But this is not even the case here, and I cannot see how this would remotely approach original research. These articles (and program/liner notes) are public third party sources by respected musicologists and musicians. See for example Schleifer, Martha Furman at WorldCat and Liane Curtis (who wrote the Clarke entry in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians) here and [6]. Likewise the recording Rebecca Clarke: Midsummer Moon with liner notes by Michael Ponder (who also wrote her entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) is held in 53 libraries [7] and the program notes by Schleifer which accompany the score for Sonata for Viola and Piano are held in 138 libraries [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Image review: File:ClarkeViola.jpg is okay. File:1917Program.jpg has the wrong template for copyright, and is incorrectly dated (1918, not 1917). I have corrected the copyright template, sourced the date, and put in a request to rename the file to some more useful title. Jappalang (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I thank Voceditenore (talk · contribs) very much for the detailed source analysis. I defer to the rational and sound judgment of Voceditenore. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Can the reviewing editors (Cirt, Voceditenore, etc), please comment on whether they think the article should retain featured status as it stands now? If so, we don't need to move to the FARC stage. Dana boomer (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I still see a paragraph that is one-sentence-long.
2. I see another paragraph that is two-sentences-long.
3. There is still one remaining citation needed tag that is unaddressed.

-- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Should now all be addressed. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Better, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note - article has been moved to Rebecca Clarke (composer). I have no idea what, if anything, needs to happen at this page to reflect that, so I'm mentioning it so those more knowledgeable than I may take appropriate action. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some general review comments, as requested

Lead

• This in my view falls short of the requirements of lead sections as determined by WP:LEAD. In particular:-
  • The lead is not a complete summary of the main text of the article.
  • It contains material that is not covered in the body of the article, namely (1) the description by Liane Curtis ("one of the most important composers..." etc and (2) "Clarke has also been called the most distinguished British female composer of her generation".
  • "See below" directives are unnecessary in the lead; it is assumed that lead statements are amplified in the text.
  • Statements which are cited in the text do not need to be cited in the lead (the revival of interest after Clarke's 90th birthday)

Early life section

The section is rather superficial, e.g. no mention of any compositions before 1916, yet the List of compositions shows that before 1914 she had written several dozen songs, choral pieces, a couple of violin sonatas and numerous viola pieces. And the first paragraph of the section lacks any date information. When did Clarke go to the RAM? When was she at RCM? When did she study with Tertis, and when did she join the Queen's Hall orchestra? Without any dates we cannot get any clear indication of the progress of her life. Far too much space is given to a single piece, the 1919 viola sonata. The section is headed "Early life", yet it ends with her apparently past her peak as a composer.

Later life and marriage

The previous section ended in 1923, and now we jump forward nearly 20 years. The List of compositions shows at least 20 more pieces composed in this period, so Clarke was not as inactive as the text implies. In all, this section is far too brief a summary of nearly 40 years of life. It is very hard, on this basis, to sustain the view that Clarke was indeed "one of the most important British composers in the period between World War I and World War II".

Music

This section is much stronger than those that precede it. I don't know Clarke's music, so I can't comment on the substance. The tone at times is weaselly ("a striking example") and phrasing such as "the very next year" is somewhat non-encyclopedic. I don't have time for a copyedit, but there is some clumsy phrasing, e.g. "she has begun coming back into public awareness"

I appreciate that a difficulty with the biographical sections is lack of source material, but I feel more could be done with what is available. By comparison with other composer articles, I don't think that this is of featured standard at present.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

The criteria mentioned in the original nomination focused mainly on referencing and prose. Although much work has been completed on the article, the reviewing editors seem wary of stating that the article should be kept without a FARC. Due to this, I am moving the article into the FARC section, to hopefully spur more reviewers to add commentary and come to a final consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - a nice succinct little article. Prose is good. I removed one POV adjective, "abusive" father is mentioned early on without any supporting material (until right at the end). I am in two minds here - personally I'd be more inclusive of some early biographical material on this issue, especially if in the biography Clarke reports that it shaped her composing or performing in some way, but others might have a different view and I can see there is latitude for personal preference here. I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to comment authoritatively on the comprehensiveness, and will defer to others, but I am leaning towards keeping this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• PS: I just noted the above. If there are RS covering material of concern noted by Brian above, then agree it needs be added. We just need someone who knows whether this is available....Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There is a reliable source for much of the missing material that Brian noted. The Rebecca Clark Reader is available in full view at Google books here, with multiple articles by musicologists and several annotated interviews, and much more biographical information than is currently in the article. I pointed out this source in my comments above during the FAR, and I'm suprised that it hasn't been used yet. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added many of the details Brian requested using that source. However, it's not available in full view in my geographic location. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The article is in better shape than it was, largely due to Nikki's editing, but I would still say it is short of FA standard. For instance:-
• Unexplained paranthetical Friskin looks odd in the lead. If she was professionally known as Clarke there is no need for this
• Was she literally "kicked out of the house"? The language seems a little informal.
• A concern I expressed previously was about the length of the period covered in the so-called "Early life" section. My point remains; the section runs to 1931 when Clarke was 45. This is not early life. The section should be split after the second paragraph
• A biog of a British person should have uniform British spelling. ("criticized", "neighbor" etc)
• the formulation "patron of the arts Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge..." is poor style and should not be used; a person's description is not their title. You would not normally say, for example, "Grocer Jim Brown" or "Painter and decorator Bob Smith". I suggest something like: "sponsored by Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge, a patron of the arts who was Clarke's neighbour".
• Was "Helferich" her middle name? It seems to have neen dropped.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Helferich was her middle name and Friskin was her married name, but she was known professionally almost exclusively as Rebecca Clarke. I think I've addressed your other points. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My points have I think been fully addressed, and other than nitpicks there seems little else to be done. Well done, those who worked to rescue this article and bring it up to standard; I am happy to register a keep. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, essentially per comments by Casliber (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm commenting here in response to this request. I'm not sure that this is up to today's FA criteria, even now. I have limited experience with the FA process, but am basing this on other FAs on similar topics. My overall impression is that the prose is still clumsy in places, some of the coverage is skimpy and/or confusing, and there's an awful lot of overlinking. I've given some examples/suggestions below. However, the improvements to the article have been piecemeal and done in reaction to various previous comments from reviewers rather than with an overall plan and vision. It's much improved, but it still lacks flow and consistency because of this.

• • "Examples of recent publications include two string quartets and one composition published in 2002, a short, lyrical piece for viola and piano entitled Morpheus, the latter composed under the pseudonym of "Anthony Trent". Reviews of the concert praised the "Trent", largely ignoring the works credited to Clarke."

    What concert? When? I was only able to figure this out from the caption under the image of the 1918 programme. And shouldn't this, with more about the use of this pseudonym, go in the Early life section, rather than an aside in the discusion of recent publication of her works?

• • Re the Early life section. Shouldn't we be told that her father was from Boston and her mother was German. It might make more sense out of "She made the first of many visits to the United States shortly after leaving the Royal Academy.". A 19 year-old English girl bopping off to the US in 1905 (on her own?) is somewhat unusual unless she had family connections there. There needs to be more of narrative in this section.

• • "Having been put out of the family home without funds by her father for criticising his extramarital affairs, Clarke supported herself through her viola playing after leaving the Royal College, and moved to the United States in 1916 to perform."

    Apart from being overly long, this is confusing and leaves out the fact that her father refused to fund her tuition at the Royal College. Is that why she "left" without finishing? Or did she in fact finish by supporting herself and paying her own tuition? According to this source, it was the former. Break that sentence up and clarify. Also avoid the passive, e.g. "Having been put out of the house...". Suggest, "Following her criticism of his extra-marital affairs, Clarke's father turned her out of the house and cut off her funds. She had to leave the Royal College in 1910 and supported herself through her viola playing. In 1916 she moved to the United States to continue her performing career."

• • Surely there must be more to say about her husband, James Friskin, and their relationship than one short sentence, plus allusions elsewhere to her views on a married woman's role? How did they meet? How long was the "courtship"? Was the marriage a happy one? When did he die? Again, the Later life section lacks a narrative

• • "Clarke's views on the social role of women—herself in particular—were incompatible with any ambition to compose music in the larger forms. There are no large scale works such as symphonies in her total output..."

    According to whom? There could be other reasons for the lack of large scale works. Unless this is a musicologist's considered opinion (which should be credited), it's a fudge.

• • There's way too much linking of common words, a minor point perhaps but it really detracts from the article, e.g. birthday, printed, heirs, cremated. And how relevant is it that she was cremated without any further information as to where her ashes were placed or whether it was her specific wish that she be cremated?

• • "The Rebecca Clarke Society was established in September 2000 to promote performance, scholarship, and awareness of the works of Rebecca Clarke. Founded by musicologists Liane Curtis and Jessie Ann Owens and based out of the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis, the Society has pushed forward recording and scholarship of her work, including several world premiere performances and recordings of unpublished material as well as numerous journal publications."

    This whole bit needs a re-write. It's clumsy and repetitious, and "pushed forward" is a rather odd turn of phrase.

• • "The head of the Rebecca Clarke Society, Liane Curtis, is the editor of A Rebecca Clarke Reader, published by Indiana University Press in 2004. The book was withdrawn from circulation by the press due to the author's belief in her freedom to use music examples against the complaints of the copyright holders."

    This doesn't make sense. The publishers ("press" is ambiguous) withdrew the book not because of Curtis's belief but because of the copyright holder's complaints.

• • The coverage about recordings of her music could use some elaboration since her music has been rarely recorded until recently. There are reviews from Gramophone available: [9] and they can give an insight into modern reception of her work. I would have thought this would be pretty important to this article, but it's lacking at the moment.Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I also forgot the lede. It's still way too short and lacks the essential facts about her life. i.e. that she lived in the US for a large part of her life, who she married, and where she died.

– Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of these points have now been addressed. Changes have been made in response to the review because I'm not the original author of the article, and had never heard of Clarke before this review started, so any further suggestions you have would be helpful. Very little information about her relationship with Friskin is available, or about her wishes for her body (though I would argue that the cremation is relevant). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done some further copyediting thoughout, expanded the lede, and expanded her biography with more information, i.e., her affair with John Goss, how she met her husband (James Friskin), and the nature of their relationship. Curtis's 1996 article "A Case of Identity" was actually crucial for this and is freely available online. This also involved some changes in the "direction" of content. Curtis makes it clear that her husband had actually encouraged Clarke to continue composing and to try more large scale works. Also, the quote "I can't do it unless it's the first thing I think of every morning when I wake and the last thing I think of every night before I go to sleep." referred to a period several years before she was married, and as such does not support the inference that "Clarke did not consider herself able to balance family life and composition." She was referring in general to her life-long difficulty in balancing a personal life and a composer's life. Anyhow, I'd support a Keep now, although the it might be a good idea to make one last pass through the references to check for formatting consistency. Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 14:08, 6 July 2011 [10].

---

Pixies

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music/Pixies, User:CloudNine

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues that compromise its quality and I have brought them to talk a week ago with no response there and only some of the changes I suggested below being addressed:

• Some recentism with choppy sentences about 2009 and 2010 and an excessively long section about the Chilean miner show. (E.g. is it really noteworthy that the band didn't play a show in Tel Aviv?)
• Link rot per bare URLs ({{Barelinks}}).
• Use of non-free media: File:PixiesVelouriaVideo.png
• Unsourced information: if for no other reason, it fails 1 (c). See also (e.g.) the first paragraph under After the breakup, which is entirely unsourced.
• Some copyediting issues. E.g. the first paragraph under the heading Bossanova, Trompe le Monde, and breakup is only two sentences long and has an unnecessary quotation. Someone should review the text of this as well as the more specific issues mentioned above.

I think this is salvageable as a featured article, but it is not currently FA status in my mind and without a more substantial response on talk, I feel like FAR is appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• I think the After the breakup section should be cut. It is not directly related to the Pixies, but rather to its band-members.
• A number of unreliable sources (incl. fansites) are used as sources; these will need to be replaced.
• Many song samples are embedded into the text; these need to be formatted with captions using Template:Listen to satisfy WP:NFCC.
• Could use copy-editing throughout, but yeah, the biggest concern is the awful Reunion section.—indopug (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment -sigh- I'm currently trying to wrap up the Nirvana (band) FARC. Otherwise I could fix this up with little effort (I have access to biographical sources). I would ask for a delay in bringing this to FAC, but then again I don't think that's fair for an article that obviously needs cleanup. The main issue is that the primary contributor to the page has more or less retired. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the Pixies FA-level album articles Surfer Rosa and Doolittle (album) are better-sourced and much more stable, meaning some material can be imported from them. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Problems are mostly due to depreciation and the main author having more or less retired. I have sources, and scissors - chunks cut, more to go. I think this might be an easy enough to to head off before FARC. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Indopug - I wouldn't completly remove the 'After the breakup' section, but severly trim. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've added a few "cite needed tags" where appropriate. There's a lot of unnecessary detail about the albums themselves best reserved for the album articles. I feel if we can make the article flow more like R.E.M., it'll be a much stronger read. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I did some trimming. I think all four songs samples should be removed for NFCC, since they're only being used for color. Any objections? Noisalt (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Once we spruce up the Musical style section we can use one there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Holidays and trying to finish up Nirvana (band) take top priority for me, but I aim to do some serious work once the new year commences. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I'll help here, but then forgot about it. Time granted is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm trying to help fix up some of the refs. Has there been discussion before about whether aleceiffel.com is a reliable source? It looks dubious to me, but is used as the source for several pieces of info, for which alternate sources would be needed. Moisejp (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Gauging from the last time I saw it years ago, it looked to be a fansite to me. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Do we have an update on how work is going on this? Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on trying to get the references in order. I have tried to make the formatting style consistent and make sure all refs are sourced to reliable websites, but I still have a handful left to do. There is still however quite a bit of information throughout the article that is unsourced, so sources will need to be found or else other information will need to be substituted into the article. That is what I hope to focus on next. Besides that, I feel that especially the Legacy and Television Appearances sections need work. The Legacy section is presently just a scattering of quotes from bands saying how much they love the Pixies in no particular order. I would like to try to tone down this section (make it less idolatry) and give it better structure. I wonder how useful the Television Appearances/Videos section is and would not be sorry to see it cut. If it is kept we will certainly need better references for it. I also cut the Instrumentation section for reasons given in my edit summary. It seemed to me not of great interest to non-musician readers (i.e. "specialists") and most of the information came from unreliable sources from 1997 or earlier—we have no way of knowing if bandmembers may have changed their instrument preferences since then. Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Moisejp I agree that there is a lot to be cut yet, and considering the Pixies hold on contemporary music is comparable to the velves on the 80s/90s, I'd leave out any specifics, and slant towards a more general postumus fame. Listy lists really suck and there is a danger here. Ceoil 06:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point, making sure everything is referenced is probably more important than making sure the ref format is consistent. However, your work to remove unreliable sources seems to be going well, and was definitely needed. Perhaps ping some of the editors (Ceoil, etc) who commented above offering to help and see if they're still interested. Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to deemphasize the reliance on the official 4AD profile for the band. Quoting the band's record label website isn't the most objective route we can take. If possible, use alternate sources for the information cited. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, esp considering the fall out between Ivo and Frank towards the end. Ceoil 06:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also worried I may be using Allmusic refs too much, but it's just so handy. If people think there are too many, we can try to reduce them throughout the editing process. Moisejp (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Allmusic bio is fine, but remember that there are at least three books that cover the band in-depth. I have Fool the World checked out and can hopefully add more cites and info from it soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: OK, I've got pretty much every line referenced; what I have yet to do is the last paragraph of the Reunion section, which I also want to update with more recent info, and the Musical Style section. There may be one or two other sentences that I have missed, but I will go through line by line before I'm done to check. Oh, I just noticed now there are a couple of sentences in Music Videos and DVDs that lack refs. So that's the references, how about the balance of information? Are there any areas that get too much or too little text? I would like to add a little more to the first paragraph of Songwriting and Vocals, where Francis' themes are discussed, if I can find reliable refs—or another option would be to mention some critic's interpretations of the songs rather than direct citations from Francis. The lead also needs to be updated to reflect changes in content. If anyone would like to jump in and help out, for example with wording or really anything, please feel free. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I believe every statement in the article now has a citation. Was the consensus that the "Velouria" image should be cut? What about the sound clips? I am happy to cut them, too. Someone else suggested that they could eventually be incorporated into the Musical Style section. I don't see myself doing that, but if anyone else wants to add info to the Musical Style section that can be shaped around the sound clips, that's cool. Besides that, are there any holes in the article, or areas that otherwise need improvement, that the reviewers wish to point out? If so, I'll see what I can do to address them. Otherwise, I am happy to move onto the FARC commentary stage and to iron out any final wrinkles in that stage. (By the way, I will be out of town for the next 3 days.) Moisejp (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can we get an update from all of the reviewers/editors on whether they think this article needs to go to FARC or can be kept without a FARC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

With the Nirvana FARC pretty much wrapped up at this point, I can devote time to helping out here now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that the Nirvana FARC closed as a "keep", I can focus attention here now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

With the work that has happened so far, can some reviewers please comment on whether this can be kept without FARC, or whether it should be moved? This has been languishing in the FAR section for several months as work has been happening, but it should either be closed or moved soon. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Although extensive work has been completed on this article, work seems to have stalled in the past month or so. However, requests for updates and reviewer comments have gone mostly unanswered over this time period, so I am moving the article to the FARC section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, non-Wiki responsibilities have been eating into my time. I'll see what I can do in the next week. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Could we please get an update on how the work is going? Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I may have been mistaken about how this process works, but I have been expecting feedback from reviewers. I feel the article is in relatively good shape but may need slight polishing here and there depending on the opinions of the reviewers, and have been waiting for this feedback. I'm willing to take this wherever they want it taken. Or if there is no feedback I'm happy to leave it at this stage, depending also on whatever changes WesleyDodds wants to make. I've been a little bit frustrated at the lack of feedback, but I guess I can't blame anyone since we're all volunteers on here. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, it can sometimes be hard to get reviewer feedback here at FAR. I would suggest pinging the people that have commented above (Ceoil, Indopug and Justin (the nominator)) to see if they have further feedback or if they think the article can be kept as is. Just make sure to keep your notification neutral :) Pinging other music editors that you know to come take a look is also a good idea. I was just mainly not sure if you and Wesley had made all of the changes you were planning to make, or if you felt there was still more work to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I have neutrally pinged a few people and will try to ping a few more in the next few days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I got delayed recently by work, but I should be able to resume editing the article this weekend. The trouble I find is that the best comprehensive sources are oral histories of the band, and thus tend to be fuzzy about the details. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please get an update here? I know extensive work has already been completed on the article, so even pinging the editors who commented above and other music editors to check in and see what else needs to be done would be a help. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

---

• My two cents I'm sorry that I've taken so long to get back to Dana, but I've only started editing Wikipedia again after a few months of very little editing and Internet access/free time. At the very least, this article still fails criteria 3: "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly" for the inclusion of the "Velouria" screencap (I noted this months ago when I originally proposed this review: "Use of non-free media: File:PixiesVelouriaVideo.png". The article is in much better shape than it was before, but I'm pretty sure that this needs to go.

As an aside, it seems to me like the FAR process is broken if the review can even go on this long without being closed. Again, I have not had much input here, but someone else should have stepped in and shut it down awhile ago until the necessary changes were made and then it could presumably be fast-tracked to FA status again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Velouria" image. That said, I'm sorry but I think I pretty much have to drop out of this FARC process because a bunch of things have come up in my real life and I probably won't be able to get much or any Wikipedia time in for the next few months. Wesley, I hope this process won't drag on too much longer and you'll be able to take care of whatever comes up. My apologies for dropping out. If I do find a bit of time or succumb to the temptation and get on here when I should be doing other stuff, I'll try to have a peek here from time to time, though. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe that the article is up to FA-standards. GamerPro64 02:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• No objection I am not really qualified to assess whether or not it has met the FA requirements—nly that it didn't before. From what I can tell, it's a very fine article and adequately covers the topic. Just now, I changed the article to collapse the notes section (which only had one entry) into an aside at the end of a sentence with a citation (which is apparently out-of-step with the rest of the article, but was like that when I got there.) I suppose if someone else really thinks it important, the notes section can be added back, but that seems silly to me. I would like to congratulate everyone who worked on this article (particularly WesleyDodds), as it seems like very fine work and something that I could not have done myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Query - do other editors feel this article's issues have been adequately addressed? Can this article be kept, or is additional work needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• no objection to staying FA - i'm sure there are small things to repair (as always), but the article is very solid. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Dana boomer 16:22, 28 July 2011 [11].

---

Daniel Webster

Review commentary

TonyJoe (talk · contribs) has not edited since 2007. Notified: Biography, US Congress, New Hampshire, Dartmouth College, United States, Presidential Elections, Politics

This article was promoted in 2006 but no longer meets the featured article criteria. Some serious problems are:

• 1a The entire legacy section needs to be in prose instead of a bullet list format.
• 1c is questionable based on the extensive list of books in the bibliography when only a handful are used for inline citations. There are cites to Lodge (1883) but no listing in the bibliography. There are cites used from other online encyclopedia's. There are entire sections and paragraphs without citations. Heavy use of JSTOR does not allow ease of verification.
• 2c needs a lot of work. There are entire sections and paragraphs without citations. This is a 1c issue. Brad (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• MOS There are too many photos and block quotes which are creating overcrowding and text sandwiching. Articles are discouraged from having photo galleries. Photos need alt text.
• Notice posted on article talk page 25 May. Brad (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple things I noticed as well:

1. Some minor issues with the existing inline citations
2. Some of the links need to be reviewed per here
3. The lede seems a bit lengthy IMO.

All in all though I don't think its in terrible shape and it would probably be fairly easy to get it straightened out. --Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI Tried to reduce text squeeze by moving and eliminating images (but someone is trying to return at least one). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist, nothing's happened. The legacy section being a list is reason enough to delist, never mind the other problems brought up by the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Other than some pic shuffling no serious effort has been put forward. Brad (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:22, 28 July 2011 [12].

---

Gremlins 2: The New Batch

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Comedy User CanadianCaesar not active since 2009.

This article promoted back in 2006 and it has not been reviewed since. My main concern that article is failing 1c. Some unsourced statements like "Gremlins are drinking various chemical mixtures altering their structure." and "which hurt the sequel's chances of success." are unreferenced, including dead links. JJ98 (Talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gremlins 2: The New Batch/archive1 (June 2006)
• Revision at time of promotion
• Above revision compared to current revision

Related links for the review. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments If it's felt that the article doesn't meet 1c please explain what parts and why.

• Checklinks reports no dead links.
• Amazingly enough the two non-free images are correctly licensed and acceptable. (Hello Blade Runner)
• There does seem to be unreferenced additions made to the article since its promotion. This would fall under 1c. Brad (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been listed at unreviewed featured articles. The paragraphs like "There was plans for Gremlins 3, but got cancelled because Gremlins 2 didn't do well at the box office." and "Another rock music appearance with the song "Sling Shot" by Jeff Beck occurs midway through the movie when the Gremlins are drinking various chemical mixtures altering their structure." are unreferenced. My main concern that sources are thin just like main article Gremlins which was delisted back in 2009 due failure of 2c issues. I have feeling that this may fail 2c. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, statements in the article such as you point out should simply be removed without question. I'm not familiar with the topic at hand but overall it appears the article only has a few minor problems. Maybe if you went through the article and placed {{cn}} tags where you think there needs to be a cite would help clarify things. Brad (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Commentary on Featured article criteria of concern in the review section focused mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist as an nominator. I see little improvements, but I don't see any concerns addressed above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that you've been specific enough as to what criteria the article is not meeting. What are your concerns? You claimed dead links but there are none. I've taken a closer look and removed some of the more silly trivia and video game instructions that were present. I cleaned up per WP:LINK. Some of the references are a bit weak in the HQRS department but even those are still acceptable. It's unusual for me to defend an article at FAR because normally there are multiple criteria not being met. This isn't the case here that I can see. Brad (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist I attempted to "save" the article from delisting but on closer inspection that's just not possible in regards to 1c. I found links that are "not dead" but their content is no longer what the citation claims it was. Promoted in 2006, the article is just not up to 2011 standards. Brad (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per Brad. Too many citations to IMDb and Amazon, and the low number of sources indicates a lack of "depth" to the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:22, 28 July 2011 [13].

---

Swedish allotment system

Review commentary

Notified: Bishonen, Johan Elisson, Peter Isotalo, WikiProject Military history

I am nominating this featured article for review because It was promoted in 2005 and have not kept up to standards, specially in regards to sourcing. The issue was raised on the talk page in December 2009, but since then not much has happened. This is a low traffic article, but it covers a very important phase in Swedish military history. The article is overall well written, and the major problem is just sourcing. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• 1c certainly but in turn this may also effect 1b.
• 3 All pics need alt text. File:Gustav Vasa.jpg needs source information and File:Generalmonstring.jpg needs source and author information. Brad (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note - Alt text is not part of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are several measurements given in metric without any conversions. Brad (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• 1c due to lack of citations. 2c on the webcites. 1b/c on demographics (source not competent for claim). 1c on HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sort of inactive but I might have time to fix this since it's mainly just a matter of adding more citations. Just give me a week and a few days or so since next week is exam week... – Elisson • T • C • 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Elisson, are you still interested in working on this? Hope your exams went well, Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist No effort at all has been made to address the listed issues. Other than two edits I made on 18 May of this year the article hasn't been touched since August of 2010. Brad (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per above. Nobody's touched the article at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 02:26, 22 July 2011 [14].

---

Tooth development

Review commentary

Notified: Medicine WP, Dentistry WP (no user with over 20 edits to the article has been active since 2009)

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a notification of work needed in April, nothing has been done on this article. Here are some of the issues:

• Referencing is the largest issue with this article, as can be seen by the multiple citation and clarification needed tags.
• Multiple dead links, leading to even more of the article being essentially unreferenced.
• What makes ref #66 ("Ovarian teratoma (dermoid) with teeth") a reliable source?
• Many web references missing access dates.
• Prose needs some major work. For example, just from the Tooth development in animals section: "Teeth is atavic structure" and "Fish have many specialized bony structures,[77] it exist with".
• Many, many, many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which make the relevant sections very choppy and list-like.
• Technicality and over-referencing. For example, from the Molecular biology section, "Enamel knots as a signaling center in the tooth morphogenesis and odontoblast differentiation.[60][61][62][63]" First, what does this mean? It is complete gobbledegook to me. Second, why does it need four references?
• Technicality tag on the top of the article (it was on the talk page, so I moved it).

Overall, needs some major work on references, technicality, prose and MOS before it is back up to FA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as issues in the review section include referencing, prose, MOS compliance and cleanup banners. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delist, agree with the concerns per Dana boomer (talk · contribs) above. No effort has been made since the FAR started. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delist - Nothing has been done to this article since I nominated it for FAR. Needs major work (outlined above) before it is back to FA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Have to agree that no one has shown effort on this article in order to keep its status. Brad (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per above, nothing's happened since FAR started. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 19:53, 16 July 2011 [15].

---

Economy of India

Review commentary

Notified: Pamri, Kkm010, WP Business, WP Economics, WP India

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is a 2005 FA that hasn't been reviewed since 2006. Significant work is needed, including work on references, prose and images.

• Several places where opinion and statistics are uncited. For example, the second paragraph of the Balance of payments section – there are others, this is just an example.
• Bullet pointed lists are discouraged per MOS. There are several places where bullet points could easily be turned into prose.
• Image captions can should be shortened in several cases, and refs removed wherever possible.
• Twenty dead links (some marked and some not) and one dab link.
• Mix of spellings (neighbor and neighbour, etc)
• Improperly formatted references, web refs missing publishers and access dates. Books accessed through Google books should be formatted as books, not websites, and Google books should not be given as the publisher – they are simply making the information accessible. Books should have full information – publisher, ISBN, page numbers.
• Unreliable/non-high quality sources:

• #80 (Sify) – redirects to a nonexistent page.
• #88 (Nationmaster) – Nationmaster is an unreliable aggregate site, they often use WP or other wikis for information
• #94 (Indianchild) – using a site dedicated to child internet safety for statistics on oil and gas?
• #122 (Swaminathan) – what is this?

• Lots of 2005 data throughout the article – should be updated if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include MOS issues, references, and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

*Delist Agree with concerns cited by the nominator. Concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 03:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Most concerns raised above have been addressed:

• Citations have been added wherever required.
• Bulleted lists have been replaced with prose.
• All dead links have been fixed or removed.
• Spellings have been made consistent.
• References have been formatted.
• High-quality secondary sources have been added; poor-quality sources have been replaced wherever possible.
• Data has been updated to 2008-09 or 2009-10 figures wherever possible.

Please point out any specific concerns that remain to be addressed. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I've added a few more fact tags where I think references should be included.
  • Income and consumption section, Why does "As of 2005, according to World Bank statistics, 75.6% of the population lives on less than $2 a day (PPP), while 41.6% of the population is living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 (PPP) per day.[136][137][138][139][140]" need five references?
  • Still many web references missing publishers.
  • Still some book refs in split format and others not.
  • Still a mix of cite templates and hand written references, resulting in inconsistently formatted references.
  • Still a mix of British and American spellings (both criticized and criticised, for instances)
  • Still one dab link.
• Probably more to come, this is just another quick skim. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been working on these, but am at present on holiday and have only limited internet access. I'd like to request for an extension of a couple of weeks in order to enable me to complete the work once I return. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine - FAR/FARCs are allowed to remain open as long as necessary if an article is being improved consistently. Thanks for the note. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this FAR now. I will pitch in on this too and try to resolve your issues.--Pamri • Talk 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we get an update as to the ongoing work here? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All issues raised above, plus some more, have been addressed. References have been added where necessary, redundant/unnecessary references removed, all references consistently formatted using templates, publisher details and accessdates added, dab links and spelling fixed, image captions shortened wherever possible, and sources replaced with better-quality ones. Further inputs are awaited. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments

• Still need to check British/American spellings. Still both jewelry and jewellery, organized/organised, colonize/colonise, hordes of ization/isation, etc, etc, etc. Done.
• Still have inconsistently formatted refs. #5 is a bare link, #10 has its retrieval date formatting differently, #19 is a bare link, #52 has no publisher, what is #59, #138 has no access date, #200 has no publisher. This is just from a quick scan, and this is the third time I've pointed out inconsistencies like this.
• Ref 17 (World Economic Forum) is dead Removed.
• Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is in the Infrastructure section Done.
• Pre-colonial period, "with a dominant subsistence sector dependent on primitive technology." What is a "dominant subsistence sector"? Clarified.
• Colonial period, What is a "policy of discriminating protection"? Clarified (although the source does not directly define the term, an explanation has been added).
• Post-liberalisation, "capacity expansion for incumbents". Incumbents of what? Clarified with wikilink.
• Post liberalisation, "reduced corporate taxes and small scale industries are created in large numbers" What? Clarified.
• Post liberalisation, "This has been accompanied by increases in life expectancy, literacy rates and food security." This sentence seems to imply that there is a link between government liberalization and population health/education improvements. Do the sources actually make such a link? If not, it might be better to place this sentence elsewhere, or at least make it clear that there is no scientifically-proven link between the two. Clarified.
• Post liberalisation, "by its nuclear tests in 1998" Nuclear power? Nuclear bombs? Nuclear genetics? Clarified with wikilink.
• Post liberalisation, "is believed to play a major role in the global economy in the 21st century." The 21st century is now. Do people believe that it currently plays a major role, or do they believe that it will play a major role further into the 21st century. Clarified.
• Industry and services, "In absolute terms," What do you mean by "absolute terms"? As opposed to what other kind of terms? As opposed to percentage terms (i.e. as a % of GDP).
• Industry and services, "Economic reforms brought". Reforms when? Clarified.
• Industry and services, "fast-moving consumer goods." What is meant by "fast moving" goods? Clarified with wikilink.
• Energy and power, "India is also believed to be rich in certain renewable sources" How can you be "believed to be rich" in something like the sun or wind? Clarified.
• There is quite a bit of overlinking that I found in the article - some of it I removed, but another check would be good. Most countries, basic terms like "agriculture" and others don't need to be linked. Linking only to high-value links prevents the dilution of the linking experience for the reader - if all they see is a sea of blue links, they are less likely to click on any of them. Done; please let me know if there are any more links which are unnecessary.

Gotten through the Sectors section so far, will do the rest later. Dana boomer (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove, unfortunately. I remember calling for this article to be radically improved ages ago. I can't believe it was promoted to FA status. I does seem better than when I last saw it; but just looking at random—

• Why is "US" specified for dollars at all, let alone every time (see MOSNUM), why is it linked? I see a space ($ X) in at least one instance. Spaces have been removed; the "US" and link is due to the use of the {{INRConvert}} template which auto-links the currency.
• En dashes needed for the year ranges, not hyphens. I'll run a script on it now.
• Exports map: the caption needs to be more explicit, and the map about twice the size. Same with the other maps. Done.
• Poverty-line graph: fuzzy visually, and the caption is weird: "Percentage of population living under the poverty line of $1 (PPP) a day, currently 356.35 rupees a month in rural areas (around $7.4 a month)." Done.
• "World map showing the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality."—So India is light blue; shouldn't the caption say that India is among countries placed ???? in the Gini index? Done.
• "The question of whether economic reforms have reduced poverty or not has fuelled debates without generating any clear-cut answers and has also put political pressure on further economic reforms, ...". Prose problems in the redundant wording (this needs attention throughout); how does one put pressure on further economic reforms? And shortly after I see "and has also put political pressure on further reforms" again. Done.
• "chronic or disguised unemployment" -> "chronic (disguised) unemployment", piped accordingly. Done.
• "banning employment of children (under 14) in"—the employment of. And why the parentheses? Done.
• Spaced em dashes (see MOSDASH). Replaced with spaced en dashes throughout the article.
• Overlinked: e.g. telecommunications, textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining, petroleum, machinery, information technology, pharmaceuticals. Done.

Tony (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked for more instances of the prose issues Tony mentioned above, or did you just fix the ones he mentioned? After sweeping the article again, please ping Tony and ask him to return to his comments. Dana boomer (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have generally swept the article and cleaned it up as far as possible in order to address the concerns above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image concerns

1. File:Indian Notes 10 100 500.JPG: Derivative of copyrighted works without permission; these currency, issued in 1996 or later, are copyrighted by the Indian government for 60 years (not even factoring their copyright status in the US). Replaced by File:Indian rupees.png whose issues are listed below
2. File:Cumulative Current Account Balance.png: Where on Gunnmap is it stated that its works can be released into the public domain? It specifically states in Finish: "All generated images are licenced under CC-BY-SA", which means all derivatives (by sharealike) must follow the CC-BY-SA or similar licenses.

   Changes to licensing should best be made by the author themselves. I have informed Emilfaro and asked if he would agree with the correction.[16] Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

3. File:RBI Tower.jpg: Wikipedia is not a valid source. Where did this image originally come from? Who is its copyright holder? Considering that there is a CC-licensed photograph with a wider coverage,[17] it will be necessary to properly attribute the licensing per requirements. Replaced by the original version that was on Commons
4. File:FarmersIndia.jpg: A local administrator should confirm if this was uploaded here under CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and GFDL.
5. File:Kochi India slums.jpg: Author (k r ranjith)-Uploader (Roberto Mura) discrepancy needs to be covered by OTRS.
6. File:MauryanCoin.JPG: PHG's local upload should be checked for whether it was his work and if he did release into the public domain. However, World Imaging's upload of his better image have complicated the issue. Please refer to commons:Commons:Village pump#Replacing one copyrightable work with another separate copyrightable work for enlightenment for details.
7. File:2006Indian exports.PNG: The base map, File:BlankMap-World.png, has no indication of where it is derived from. Such a detailed map is unlikely to be made from nothing, and the author has not given any indication of what copyright status the source material is (commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images).

   Not quite. The issue is not that "No source information provided" (Vardion is the source), but that no information is given on what basis the map was created. See also the issues that surround File:World Map Gini coefficient.png.

8. File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009.png: No base map indicated (CIA source is for the coefficient data). Replaced by File:World Map Gini coefficient.png, whose issues are noted below.
9. File:Precolonial national income of India(1857-1900).png: Is this an own work, or is it copied directly from the source indicated (there are no clear indications on either)? If copied, then the uploader does not have the authority to release the work into public domain, and it has to be explained why such a work is in the public domain.
10. File:Per capita GDP of South Asian economies & SKorea (1950-1995).png: Same as above
11. File:Private and public industry employment in India(2003).png: Same as above
12. File:BPL Data GOI.png: Same as above
13. File:Indian rupees.png: This copyrighted image fails to meet WP:NFCC criteria #8 ("contextual significance"). The rationale "Used only to depict the notes on Wikipedia pages" does not help to explain why this image is contextually significant to the article about India's economy; such a picture also seems more relevant to an article about the country's currency than its economy (which is more than just the rupee; the currency is an abstraction of the economy of the country).
14. File:World Map Gini coefficient.png: The base map File:BlankMap-World.png has no information of how it is created and licensing whatsoever. Perhaps it was vandalised; however, this older version also gives no information of how the base map was created (which data set used, or what public domain reference map). Furthermore, images that display data should state the sources for the data in the image page per WP:V. The sources for the Gini 2005 data should be stated.

Number 1 and 2 are the most serious—violations of copyrights/licensing. Numbers 3, and 4 probably just need local administrator verification/vouching. Number 5 needs an OTRS (unless uploader is Jimbo Wales... see commons:User talk:Abigor/Archives/2010/May#Hmm and commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 21#OTRS permissions required for old cases?). Number 6 could potentially be messy, but I would prefer to have World Imaging's version (if it gets spin off to another file name or retained here with copyright clarification). Numbers 7 and 8 have to state what is the base map's copyright status (and where it was obtained or how created). The charts/diagrams have to state clearly whether they are the uploaders' own work (based on the sources of information given) or copied content that are not eligible for copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Number 13 is a fair use consideration and I believe a photograph of the currency is not really a good representation (identification photograph) of the concept of a country's economy. Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2, is it necessary that the images be licensed under CC, especially when Gunmapp seems to be only a software for creating the image? Shouldn't the broader license apply? Please clarify.

Re: 4-5, since I'm not an administrator, could an administrator please verify these?

Re: 7, the map seems to have been used across multiple projects without any problem. The creator's user page (currently inactive) mentions that they have created several maps on WP and also licenses all their contributions under CC, does that help?

Re: 8, the user has not made any contributions for 18 months and appears to be inactive. What course of action do you suggest?

Re: 9-12, the descriptions seem to indicate that the map is an original work, while data have been taken from the respective sources mentioned. However, I'll request the creator to clarify.

Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2. CC is a license (the author retains his copyright but allows it to be used by others without permission). It is not a surrender of copyright as is a declaration of public domain. The map is a derivative work of Gunmapp; as such it should abide by Gunmapp's licensing requirements, anything else is a violation of the terms the author of Gunmapp has decided his works should be used.

Re: 7. It would be much preferable to have those details. Several old uploads have been found to be copyviolations, even though they were widely used.

Re: 8. Either transfer the data onto a base map that is verifiable to be in the public domain or created from pure geographic data or a CC-licensed map, or try to investigate where the base map came from (exact match). Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 9-12, Yes, I am the creator of those charts and thats why I used the self-PD template back then. --Pamri • Talk 03:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected 9-11 with your clarification,[18][19][20] but I am curious why you claim #12 as your work. Are you IndianCow (talk · contribs)? Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2, I have replaced the licensing information in the file description per your comments above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 7, this seems to have been resolved now. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: 8, the image has been replaced with File:World Map Gini coefficient.png which does not seem to have any issues. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: 4, the image has been removed.

Re: 7/14, some information has been added [File:BlankMap-World.png here]; could you please clarify on the talk page of that article as to what the specific issue is? Meanwhile, I have removed both images from the article until the issues surrounding them are resolved.

Re: 12, the page indicates that the website mentioned is the source of the data. The copyright holder (i.e. the creator of the image) has released it under the GFDL. What else needs to be done?

Re: 13, the currency is the best abstraction of a country's economy. The use of the image in the infobox is intended to provide a representation of the country's economy which would thereby enhance readers' understanding about it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: 4, eh this has not been removed... maybe Pamri could help confirm the licenses this and 5 had when they were uploaded to Wikipedia?

Re: 7/14, I have raised the issue at commons:File talk:BlankMap-World.png#Source of data for this map?.

Re: 12, firstly, which reports on that website? There are more than 20 downloads and 17 multiple-field downloads. Secondly, User:IndianCow is the copyright holder of the image. Is the admin Pamri saying he or she is User:IndianCow?

Re: 13, I do not agree. Economies are indicators that are not expressly defined in the country's own currency. It can be expressed in terms of US dollar, Japanese yen, etc. In short, it is a relative figure without a standard unit. The rupee notes are not indicative of India's economy. A collage of photographs (which "free" versions can be found) of India's main economic activities/strengths would be more representative of the country's economy than a shot of copyrighted paper bills.

-- Jappalang (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Meant to remove 12, not 4, ended up removing neither :D

Thanks for the comments and follow-up. Subsequent to their issues being resolved, both 7 and 14 have been reinstated into the article. 12 has been removed pending resolution of its issues. 4 and 5 are essentially admin tasks which I am not unfortunately in a position to perform.

Re: 13, a discussion has been opened on the talk page inviting suggestions for images to be included in the proposed collage/montage. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Other concerns

I shortened the dollar statement at the top (by more than half). The wikilinking/piping needs attention throughout.

• Why these links? "Major agricultural [[product (business)|products]],
• Why the pipe? market-based economy. There's a fixation on "-based".
• Newpapers (NYT, Mint, etc) should be italicised.
• "social democratic-based policies" -> "social democratic policies"?
• Why not make the link explicit, or readers will think it's a useless common-term link: "accelerated India's [[economic development in India|economic growth rate]". Same with this: "[[Agriculture in India|Agriculture]] is the predominant occupation in India" -> "Agriculture in India is the predominant occupation".
• Who is going to click on these links? "rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes, cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry and fish"?
• % and percent in the same para.
• "2009-10 government survey"—see my previous comment about dashes.

That's the opening. I appreciate the work that has been done thus far, this has been here since 16 November—too long. This is a textbook case of a FA that should have been delisted after a group of editors was established to bring to again to FAC. Tony (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for this delayed response; I've had only sporadic internet access over the past few days. My replies to your comments are as follows:

• Re: "based", it's a characteristic of Indian English which this article follows, and was mentioned on the talk page as well (I have now added a template to make this clearer).
• Re: overlinking, as a general rule, I have linked words that could be ambiguous in their meaning—such as "product", provide useful related information ("fertiliser", "irrigation", "tax haven"), and also some others that I thought were technical terms or uncommon things which would not be known to an average reader (hence "oilseed", "water buffalo" etc.). I have removed some of the more obvious, such as "cattle", "poultry" and others.

Finally, I think it's unfair to insist on delisting as long as work is in progress on the article—nothing is lost by retaining it on FARC as long as feedback is provided and the article improved accordingly, whether in respect of prose or otherwise. I appreciate all the comments that have been provided thus far, and I will continue working on any more that are provided. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

SBC-YPR, if you have finished with Tony's comments, as well as given the article another good look over, please ping him to come back and review the article again. You may also want to ask some other editors from related projects or who may have an interest in the article to come by and leave comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Update? - are Tony's comments dealt with, and if so has he been pinged? Have any other editors been asked to leave comments? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I had no time to go through the entire artciley but here are some useful comments (I hope):

• Infobox/Credit rating: $1.164 trillion (2010 est.)- What does it mean?
• Lead section is very short (one paragraph only): It should be a summary of the article itself (ideally 3-4 paragraphs as per WP:MoS).
• Section about "economic trends and issues": Why not merge this section with another more specific section (for example, with agriculture, for the related forecast)?
• Overall article structure could be improved (see Economy of Iran as a possible model).

I hope it helps! SSZ (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It says "4000 billion cubic metres", "1123 billion cubic metres", "1074 billion cubic metres". It would be easier to comprehend if 'billion cubic metres' were expressed succinctly as 'cubic kilometres'.
• It says "crore" in several places. I think the article would be more widely accessible if crore values were converted into trillions.
• It says "9,587 MW", "164,835 megawatts", "128400 MW", and "652.2 billion kWh". I think the precision is greater than necessary and could be expressed as '9.6 GW', '165 gigawatts', '128 GW', and '652,000 GWh'. The reduced precision would make easier to read.

These opinions are not strongly held, feel free to do something different or ignore them. Lightmouse (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Delist - This article has been at FAR for almost 7 months, and while it has improved, there are still significant prose and MOS issues:

• The lead is far too short for an article of this length
• Prose is still far below the standard of FA. Run on sentences, plural/singular agreement, missing comments after sentence clauses, etc. all need to be dealt with, and the editors appear to be simply fixing given examples and neglecting a full read-through of the article.
• Text sandwiched between images in the Pre-colonial period (up to 1773) section.

Although the referencing has improved immensely, the significant prose issues in this article is still holding it up from being of FA caliber. Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist - Agreeing that 7 months of FAR is long and probably too long.

• 3c Some image copyright problems still remain per above image review.
• Article fails MOS:LINKS, MOS:IMAGES and MOS:LEDE.
• I see a lot of effort was expended in fixing problems but likely the article was too far gone to begin with. Brad (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.