Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2010

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 Dana boomer 00:49, 29 November 2010 [1].

---

To Autumn

Review commentary

Notified: Alan W, Amandajm, WikiProject Poetry

Within the past several days, there have been some significant changes to the article from when it was promoted to FA a little over a year ago. This has caused some insignificant instability and has resulted in some content disputes. I have not checked the other FA criteria, but this likely fails 1(e) unless something else is going on in which I am not aware of. –MuZemike 01:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note – User:Ottava Rima, who has brought this article to FA, is also aware, but he cannot comment here as he is currently banned. –MuZemike 01:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page regarding this instability so it's hard to figure out what the problem is, how/if it has been addressed, etc. Also, is it wiser to wait until the main contributor is unbanned before this sort of review? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have been notified about this review, I feel bound to say something here, even though my contributions have been minuscule, just a tiny bit of cleanup (and one edit was even undone by MuZemike—correctly, as I see now it was clearly a mistake). The background of this article is something of an anomaly. Looking through the history, I can see two really major contributors: Ottava Rima and Kathyrncelestewright. And they have both been banned indefinitely. (Technically, the latter has been "blocked indefinitely" as a sockpuppet.) Without intending any comment on the reasons or justification for the banning/blocking (there is certainly enough about that on numerous other pages on Wikipedia), I will just say that, with respect to the editing of this article, it is unfortunate that neither of them can be around to participate in a discussion of the merits of any of the recent edits. That said, no Wikipedia rule prevents further editing of an article after it has reached Featured status, and these edits seem to me to have been made in good faith. My own opinion is that, while the above-mentioned banned/blocked editors contributed a lot of very good material, the article did pass into the Featured realm with some problems in the writing, and Amandajm has done a good job cleaning up some of these problems. Occasionally, some of these edits might also contribute a few problems of their own, but most of them seem to me to be improvements.

This edit contains examples of both the good and the not so good: "'To Autumn' employs poetical techniques which Keats perfected in the five poems which he had written in the Spring of the same year. However Keats departs from some aspects of the previous poems...." is much improved upon by "'To Autumn' employs poetical techniques which Keats had perfected in the five poems written in the Spring of the same year but departs from them in some aspects". This is the sort of polish and tightening that good editors provide. On the other hand, I think that changing "There is no dramatic movement in 'To Autumn' as there is in the earlier poems, and the poem attempts to discuss the poetic process without a progression of the temporal scene, an idea that Keats termed as 'stationing'" to "There is no dramatic movement in 'To Autumn' as there is in the earlier poems, without a progression of the temporal scene, an idea that Keats termed as 'stationing'" adds some confusion, making it sound like it is the "progression of the temporal scene" that Keats termed stationing, just the opposite of what is clearly the intended meaning in the first version.

Then again, I can understand removing "the poem attempts to discuss the poetical process", since that clause has no clear meaning in its context, as Amandajm says, and it is hard to see how this article could have been granted Featured Article status with this kind of writing. WP:WIAFA 1(a) states that the prose of a Featured Article should be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", and I don't see how the quality of the writing (whatever its other merits) in the article as it was before Amandajm began her series of edits met any professional standard—not by a long shot. So I think she is justified in her work, even though some specific changes might be debatable. The ideal situation would be for some real expert on Keats—and I am certainly not one—to come along and review all of this. At any rate, I don't see any justification at this point for removing this article's Featured status now that it has been granted. I don't have all that much free time these days, but given the current situation, time permitting I will check back from time to time (the page is certainly on my watchlist) and see if I can make some additional constructive comments or changes if I think the editing is running off the tracks.

Oh, and I will just add that I do not see any major instability or content disputes. If anything, the current editing is being done not to destabilize the article—1(e)—but to satisfy 1(a), something that should have been done before FA was granted.--Alan W (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I bought into this because it was a very poorly written article that required extensive work. It wasn't FA quality.
• There have been no disputes with the exception of MuZemike leaving me a message asking me why I was changing an FA article. I answered that.
• If you check the edit history you will see that the editor Ipatrol reverted the page to an earlier stage, loosing all my edits, and meaning that a number of editors subsequently tried to make piecemeal improvments to the article, once it was returned to its inadequate state. When I reverted it, I went over the intermediate edits and tried to reinstate anything of value. (not sure that I caught them all, but they wer not major)

The reason that User:Ipatrol made the reversion was that User:Ottava Rima, (a banned editor) left a (quote:"goodwill") message saying that the page had been vandalised with the repeated insertion of "cunnilingus". So Ipatrol, on the say-so of a banned editor, reverted the article without actually checking! Whe I saw what Ipatrol had done, we discussed it on his talk page. I'm flabbergasted by such and action, but it was indeed well meaning.

• My changes have mainly involved trying to make sense out of information that was already there and referenced. I have done this by re-ordering sentences, tidying language and providing examples from within the text of the poem. I have removed a meaningless statement, as above, and changed an erroneous statement that had been maintained from the stub.

On the inadequacy of the article, just let me say that there was no mention of "personification" within this, possibly the most cited textbook example of personification in the English language. Neither was there any mention of iambic pentameter, despite the fact that the article stated two ways in which the rhythm varied from this structure. Both these features of the poem are of significance. Where the poetic features were discussed it was done without comprehension, and stated ridiculous things like how many times certain features occcured, in percentages!!

• Alan, I agree with your suggestion about the movement thing. I would have rewritten it better but don't have the sources. Can you rewrite that part in a way that expresses it better. As I see it, "movement" is not the issue at all. There are a great many verbs- the poem is full of them- but the vast majority are about growing, seeing, finding etc and have little to do with motion, so that stuff is irrelevant. How better to put it?

I suggest this dicussion here be closed, and we take our non-dispute about verbs, metaphors and alliteration to the articles talk page.

Amandajm (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've restored the pre-TFA version. A lot of the subsequent edits are really don't do much. For one thing, Amandajm inserted Sparknotes as refs and they're still there. That's utterly astounding. I'm not going to get into the merits of point of view A vs B, but a FA with sparknotes as refs is not a better version. I suggest editors work out their debate on the talk page vice article itself so that this FAR isn't necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, you don't read edit summaries, obviously! The edit summary for the Sparknotes mentioned that this was a temporary measure, until a solid reference could be located.

As for you statement that the subsequent edits don't do much, I'm not sure whether you are referring to the tweaks to language and spelling made by other editors, or to my changes. Have you actually read my comments here? Have you actually read the edit summaries? have you actually read the before-and-after versions? What is nore to the point, have you actually read the poem?

There is a consensus between me and Alan W that the article, in its FA state as absolutely b-awful and shouldn't be an FA, let alone on the front page.

Amandajm (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What a Hoot I have just taken a look to see which one of my additions was referenced from Sparknotes. What was it? The statement that To Autumn is written in Iambic pentameter.

OK! This poem is a prime example of [[iambic pentameter. Look up Iambic pentameter on Wikipedia and you will find it cited as an example. Do you realise that this important fact wasn't even mentioned in this so-called FA?

But because of your objection to a cheap nasty reference, you reverse the whole article, thereby losing

• The fact that it is in iambic pentameter
• The fact that the major poetic tool used here is Personification. (It's the most famous and most cited example in English)
• The important reference to the similarity to the painted works of Keats' contemporary John Constable.
• The comparison between the England-based description by Keats and the Grand Tour views of his contemporaries Byron and Shelley.
• The sorting out of the fact that the sense of "taste" referred to in the old intro does not exist anywhere in the poem and that was is referrenced is in fact the "tactile" sense.
• The pertinent reordering of statement about the form of the poem, giving examples of spondee and so on.
• The filling out of the description of the poem as a Classical Ode by showing the way in which it does resemble that poetic form.

So you think that the article can afford to lose this information?

If you are a solid editor, ie "improver" rather than simply an objector and reverter, a few minutes on Google would have located twenty sites where articles other than that on Sparknotes described To Autumn as being in iambic penatmeter, including several other Wikipedia pages.

I will find a better reference, and then, unless you find some solid problems in the 7 additions that I have made, as listed above, the article will be returned to a more satisfactory state.

Amandajm (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did read them, and temporary is not a valid reason for an unreliable source. And your revert for what you claim is "essential" is a hoot. Given that this situation is obviously hopeless, I'm bowing out; let the FA star be removed and the article remain a battleground. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include prose and sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. Agree with the concerns cited by Dana boomer, concerns not addressed, there has been nothing happening at all. JJ98 (Talk) 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Restore to an earlier version. It's plain and simple. Ottava helped to create the article and others added unsourced information. When we put articles through reviews to upgrade them, we remove the unsourced information. This means that there are three options. One, we restore the article to an earlier version and leave it as is. Two, we go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and remove the unsourced information in question. Three, we restore the article, but if there is some information added that actually has sources, we could just merge it to an earlier version. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so people know, Ottava provided the sourcing and ItsLassieTime copyedited. She was added because of her work at the GA review where she was the reviewer. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as is. This is the first I'm hearing about "unsourced" information. Nowhere here or on the article's talk page has anyone made any accusations about unsourced information. (Before now; and where's the proof of anything being unsourced?) There was one dubious source that Amadajm added but later removed. And maybe there is "nothing happening" right now. But that is because Amandajm, with some help from me, already addressed the concerns expressed earlier. Mostly, the article remains as it was when it became Featured. But there were a few problems, mostly in the clarity of the writing, that have been been fixed. Most of what Ottava and his collaborators put in there is still there. To go back to an earlier version would be to throw out work that others have done to further improve this article. No one yet has offered any real justification for reverting to an earlier version. --Alan W (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist unless someone is willing to check all of the offline sources, per co-nominator Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet, and possible copyvio. Has anyone accessed any of the sources? They are all offline; reverting to an earlier version will not resolve any possible copyvio, so we need some verification that someone has carefully checked the text against the sources before keeping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note, I have cut a whole pile of stuff and pasted it on the talkpage. If any of it is useful, please bring it back, but please remember that ARBCOM authorised proxying by Ottava Rima to add content, not to involve himself in disputes. When he finishes his source analysis, that can be copied in here, as he's better placed than most to carry one out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Source analysis

Carried out by Ottava Rima here. Copied over by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has asked for a Source analysis of To Autumn, a FA. I shall base the analysis off of this version of the page, the one listed in the history as the first FA version. I shall be placing excerpts from the text with quotations from the books. I shall do so in a way that may violate "fair use" but should not since it is for an educational reason - verifying if a work has plagiarism or not.

Lead

I shall skip over the lead, as it is summary from the body of the text and contains no original concepts. It was also substantially reworked.

Background

1. Article: "During the spring of 1819, Keats wrote many of his major odes: "Ode on a Grecian Urn", "Ode on Indolence", "Ode on Melancholy", "Ode to a Nightingale", and "Ode to Psyche". After the month of May, he began to pursue other forms of poetry, including the verse tragedy Otho the Great in collaboration with friend and roommate Charles Brown, the second half of Lamia, and a return to his unfinished epic Hyperion.[1]"

Source: Bate 1963 pp. 526–562 This is a summary of a large section that describes all of the poems listed above.

2. His efforts from spring until autumn were dedicated completely to a career in poetry; he switched between writing long and short poems, and his goal for each day was to compose more than fifty lines of verse. He devoted his free time to studying works such as Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy to further his own ideas.[2]

Source: Gittings 1968 pp. 269–270

A. Page 269 talks about Hyperion and smaller poems. The "goal for each day" comes from: "In his new mood of release, Keats was not content with reaching his old standard of fifty lines of poetry a day" and "He did not stop there, but wrote a longer poem in the same metre."

B. Page 270 has the statement about Burton: "he borrowed from the 'Dialogue between Pleasure and Pain', which he found at the beginning of The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton". The emphasis on "career in poetry" is related to the paragraph (emphasis on first sentence) beginning: "Once more he began to feel himself fully a poetry, with poetry as his main concern."

3. "Although Keats managed to write many poems in 1819, he was suffering from a multitude of financial troubles throughout the year. These troubles were compounded with his concerns over his brother, George, who, after emigrating to America, was badly in need of money. Keats was distracted by his and his brother's fiscal problems, but on 19 September 1819 he set aside time to write "To Autumn". The poem marks the final moment of his poetry career. He could no longer afford to devote his time to the composition of poems and began working on more lucrative projects.[1]"

Source: See 1 about Bate 1963 pp. 526–562. The statement on George comes from p. 526: "George, who had so often helped him in the past, now depended on him. A large reservoir of guilt, accumulating since Keats had left Guy's Hospital, was also suddenly tapped." Page 562 talks about letters from George mentioning money problems. - "but Keats's dispatch shows his feeling of urgency. On September 10 bad news and appeals for help arrived from George; and from then until September 21, when he gave up the new version of Hyperion, the days were distracted by anxiety, by fruitless efforts to help George, and by he determination to turn to some other kind of work."

The page numbers should probably have added 580-581, where it is made explicit that he worked on "To Autumn" on 19 September (it is mentioned partly before, but for redundancy of the date).

4. "In addition to his monetary problems, Keats's declining health and personal responsibilities provided more obstacles to his poetic efforts.[3]"

Source: Motion 1999 p. 461 "Keats wrote the poem when his precarious freelance life was finally coming to an end, when his poor health was becoming unignorable, when he realised that he ould not continue to postpone some sort of resolution with Fanny, when he felt gloomy about the reliability of his 'set', and when his worries about his brother and sister-in-law were acute."

5. "On 19 September 1819, Keats walked near Winchester along the River Itchen. In a letter to his friend Joshua Reynolds written on 21 September, Keats described the impression the scene had made upon him and its influence on the composition of "To Autumn":[4] "

Source: Bate 1963 p. 580 "The Sunday afer he returned to Winchester from London, he took the same walk out to the St. Cross meadows along the small clear River Itchen (September 19). He mentioned the walk in a letter to Reynolds two days later... The poem is the last of the great odes, 'To Autumn.'"

6. "How beautiful the season is now – How fine the air. A temperate sharpness about it [...] I never lik'd stubble fields so much as now [...] Somehow a stubble plain looks warm – in the same way that some pictures look warm – this struck me so much in my sunday's walk that I composed upon it."[5]

Source: Quoted material that can be found in Bate 1963 p. 580 as attributed. However, the quote is attributed to a book on Keats's letters. Spelling is the same in both.

7. "Not everything on Keats's mind at the time was bright; the poet knew in September that he would have to finally abandon Hyperion. Thus, in the letter that he wrote to Reynolds, Keats also included a note saying that he abandoned his long poem.[6]"

Source: Bate 1963 p. 585 Derived from "No further delay was possible. He had probably been thinking since he returned from London on September 15 that he would have to abandon Hyperion--this effort that symbolized so much in his hope to be 'among the English poets.' Three days after the ode 'To Autumn,' he wrote to Reynolds (in the same letter where he described the warm stubble fields and his walk just before he wrote 'To Autumn') that he had 'given up Hyperion.'"

8. "Keats did not send "To Autumn" to Reynolds, but did include the poem within a letter to Richard Woodhouse, Keats's publisher and friend, and dated it on the same day.[7]"

Source: Evert 1965 pp. 296–297 Derived from this: "On September 21, 1819, Keats announced in a letter to Reynolds that he had given up The Fall of Hyperion... What he had composed was, of course, the ode 'To Autumn,' which he did not include in the letter to Reynolds but sent to Woodhouse in a letter of the same date."

Similar language used in part but only from the compactness of facts.

9. "The poem was revised and included in Keats's 1820 collection of poetry titled Lamia, Isabella, the Eve of St. Agnes, and Other Poems. Although the publishers Taylor and Hessey feared the kind of bad reviews that had plagued Keats's 1818 edition of Endymion, they were willing to publish the collection after the removal of any potentially controversial poems to ensure that there would be no politically motivated reviews that could give the volume a bad reputation.[8]"

Source: McGann 1979 pp. 988–989 I am going to quote A Routledge literary Sourcebook on the poems of John Keats p. 58 copy of the text (since it is visible on googlebooks for others to check). "'To Autumn' was first published in Lamia, Isabella, The Even of St. Agnes, and other Poems, the so called 1820 volume" and "The publishers of the 1820 volume were Taylor and Hessey, who also published Endymion in 1818... that had been the target of hostile reviews of Keats, and the poet was not the only person who suffered in that literary whirl-wind. consequently, when Keats approached Taylor and Hessey again, in the later part of 1819, about publishing the new book of poems he had been planning, they were interested but wary. They had no intention of bringing out a volume that would all down again the sort of hostility and ridicule which greeted Endymion.... The key fact in the pre-publication history of the 1820 poems is the insistence by Keats's publishers that the book not contain anything that would provoke the reviewers to attack (they were especially oncerned about charges of indecency and political radicalism). Keats sruggled with them over these issues, but he was eventually persuaded to follow their line. The two poems published in Leigh Hunt's Indicator did not find a place in the 1820 volume, and the reason for this is that Keats and his publishers did not want to give the reviewers any occasion for linking Keats's new work with the politically sensitive name of Leigh Hunt."

Structure

1. "Like many of Keats's 1819 odes, the structure of the poem is that of an odal hymn.[9]"

Source: Bate 1963 p. 499 "One was the odal hymn, of which he 'Ode on Melancholy' and the later 'To Autumn' are triumphant examples."

2. "While the earlier 1819 odes perfected techniques and allowed for variations that appear within "To Autumn", Keats dispenses with some aspects of the previous poems (such as the narrator) and ensures that the poem deals only with concrete concepts. There is no dramatic movement in "To Autumn" as there is in the earlier poems, and the poem attempts to discuss the poetic process without a progression of the temporal scene, an idea that Keats termed as "stationing".[10] "

Source: Bate 1963 pp. 581–582 Derived from this on p. 581: "Most of what Keats had developed in the structure of the ode stanza the previous April and May reappears effortlessly now... There is only one new variation, simple but altogether appropriate: the ode stanza is given a more prolonged effect." and "The poet himself is completely absent; there is no 'I,' no suggestion of the discursive language that we find in the other odes; the poem is entirely concrete, and self-sufficient in and through its concreteness. But if dramatic debate, protest, and qualifiation are absent, it is not because any premises from whih they might proceed are disregarded but because these premises are being anticipated and absorbed at each step."

The rest is derived from this on p. 582: "These resolutions are attained partly through still another one to which Keats's poetry has so often aspired: a union of process and stasis (or what Keats has called 'station')."

3. "Some of the language of the poem resembles phrases found in earlier poems Keats had written and there are similarities between the lines of "To Autumn" and lines in poems such asEndymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[11]"

Source: Ridley 1933 pp. 283–285 These pages lists lines and how they are similar to previous poems. An example on p. 284: "Then there is ' Sleep quiet with his poppy coronet' in Sleep and Poetry (348), and a passage in Endymion whih is interesting for a probably associative link"

4. "Keats relies heavily on monosyllabic words and consonantal sounds – especially bilabial consonants – along with an emphasis on long vowels to control the flow of the poem. His syntax lacks hiatus and there is only a single instance medial inversion of an accent within the poem. However, he does incorporate the Augustan inversion (a reversal of an accent at the beginning of a line) approximately 4.2% of the time. Within his measure, Keats incorporates spondees in approximately 13.9% of his verses. The rhyme follows a pattern of starting with a Shakespearian ABAB pattern which is followed by CDEDCCE rhyme scheme. The verse differentiates itself from his previous odes through use of 11 line stanzas, instead of 10, with a couplet placed before the concluding line of each stanza.[12]"

Source: Bate 1962 pp. 182–184 The first part is derived from p. 182: "The diction, like that of the other odes, is almost monosyllabic, strong in consonantal body, and English in origin" and "Bilabial consonants, which Keats had so commonly employed in Hyperion, the Eve of St. Agnes, and other odes, are equally abundant now: 'Drows'd with the fumme of poppies'; 'Or by a cider-press with patient look'..."

The next is derived from p. 183: "'Long' vowels are dominant, and spondai feet are drawn upon as never before (13.9%), except in the Grecian Urn and the Ode on Melancholy. Senses other that that of sight are once again appealed to, as in the inspired alteration from 'Drows'd with red poppies' (17) to 'Drows'd with the fume of poppies'; and Keats's former happy preference for the passive verbal participle as epithet is once again given free play, as in the translation from While a gold cloud (25) to 'While barred clouds'..."

More pp. 183-184: "Rigorous structural care is once again apparent at every hand: hiatus is non-exisent; medial inversion of accent occurs only one; the strict Augustan device of initial inversion of accent alone is relied upon for variety, and is employed more frequently (4.2%) than in any other lyric of Keas except Ode to a Nightingale; and an even more severely orthodox distribution of pause is employed than in the previous odes. It is enough to add that the stanza of the ode differs from that of the earlier ones in consisting of eleven rather than ten lines, and in introducing a couplet before the concluding line. The former stanza, it will be remebered, consisted of what amounted to a quatrain from the Shakespearian octave, abab, follwed, in the main, by a strictly Petrarchan sestet, cdecde. The rhyme-scheme of Autumn is abab and, in the first stanza, cde dcce; in the other two cde cdde."

5. "Between the manuscript version and the published version of "To Autumn" Keats tightened the langague of the poem. One of Keats's changes emphasized by critics is the change in line 17 of "Drows'd with red poppies" to "Drows'd with the fume of poppies", which emphasizes the sense of smell instead of sight. The later edition relies more on passive, past participles, as apparent in the change of "While a gold cloud" in line 25 to "While barred clouds".[13"

Source: Bate 1962 p. 183 Derived from: "Senses other that that of sight are once again appealed to, as in the inspired alteration from 'Drows'd with red poppies' (17) to 'Drows'd with the fume of poppies'; and Keats's former happy preference for the passive verbal participle as epithet is once again given free play, as in the translation from While a gold cloud (25) to 'While barred clouds'..." "

6. "Other changes involve the strengthening of phrases, especially within the transformation of the phrase in line 13 "whoever seeks for thee may find" into "whoever seeks abroad may find". Many of the lines within the second stanza were completely rewritten, especially those which did not fit into a rhyme scheme. Some of the minor changes involved adding punctuation missing from the original manuscript copy and altering capitalisation changes between the versions.[14]"

Source: Ridley 1933 pp. 285–287 Ridley analyzes how the editions differ. p. 285 has the first example and says: "when he reaches the end of the third line, Keats alters, feeling also no doubt a kind of thin abruptness in the half-line question, and a certain feebleness both of sound and sense in for thee". The second is commented on 286: "this has at least achieved a rhyme; but if the line about the sun is to disappear altogether the rhyme is in the wrong place... So Keats cancels the whole passage with some vigorous cross-hatching, and begins all over again using the re-written sixth line as the fifth".

The rest is derived from p. 287: "The copy in the Woodhouse letter omits to notice the cancellation of the s of stores; corrects some spellings, but writes Stready for Steady; does some punctuating; reads a brook for the brook, and Dased for Dos'd, either an easy misreading of a word so written that it might be either, or a deliberate alteration; and greatly acentuates the opiate z sound of the last line by reading oozings for oozing."

Poem

1. "The first stanza of the poem describes natural processes, unlike the following which deal more with sensual observations, as it presents a harvest in its final stages."

Source: Bloom 1971 p. 432 "The first stanza is natural process; the remaining two stanzas are sensuous observations of the consequences of that process: first, sights of the harvest in its final stages; then, post-harvest sounds, heralding the coming-on of winter. The sequence of the three stanzas then is pre-harvest ripeness, late-harvest repletion, and post-harvest natural music." Any similarity is in the tight statement of fact.

2. "The Stanza provides a union of maturation and growth, two oppositional forces within the work, and this union instills an idea within nature that the season will not end:[16]"

Source: Bate 1963 p. 582 Derived from: "Each of the three stanzas concentrates on a dominant, even archetypal, aspect of autumn, but, while doing so, admits and absorbs its opposite. The theme of the first is ripeness, of growth now reaching its climax beneath the 'maturing sun,' as the srain of the weighty fruit bends the apple tree and loads the vines.... Yet growth is still surprisingly going on, as autumn and the sun conspire 'to set budding more...' and as the bees are deceived into feeling that summer will never end."

3. "The second stanza reverses the images of the first stanza and describes the process of harvesting. Autumn, a harvester, is not actually harvesting but exists in a stasis. Only near the end of the stanza is there movement:[16]"

Source: Bate 1963 p. 582 Derived from: "If, in the first stanza, we find process continuing with a context of stillness and attained fulfillment, int he second--which is something of a reverse or mirror image of the first--we find stillness where we expect process. For now autumn is conceived as a reaper or harvester. Yet it is a harvest that is not harvesting. This benevolent deity is at first motionless... Movement begins only in the latter part of the stanza. Even then it is only suggested int he momentary glimpses of the figure of the gleaner..."

4. "Within the final moments of the poem, there is an introduction of the harvest and Autumn is manifested in the role of a harvester. The end approaches within the final moments of the song and death is slowly approaching alongside of the end of the year. However, Autumn is replaced by an image of life in general, and the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general:[17]"

Source: Bate 1963 pp. 582–583 "in what follows is the withdrawal of autumn, the coming death of the year, and of course the familiar archetypal relevance of the association of our feeling of sequence in our own lives." and "the procedure now is almost completely indirect and left solely to inference... autumn is replaced by the concrete images of life, and of life unafflicted by any thought of death: the gnats, the hedge crickets, the redbreast. Moreover, it is life that an exist in much the same way at other times than autumn. Only two images are peculiar to the season--the 'stubble plains,' and the 'full-grown lambs.' The mind is free to assoiate the wailful mourning of the gnats with a funeral dirge for the dying year, but the sound is no more confined to autumn alone than is the 'soft-dying' of any day"

Themes

1. ""To Autumn" is thematically connected to many of Keats's 1819 odes. For example, his "Ode to Melancholy" introduces the acceptance of the process of life, and the concept is taken up again within "To Autumn".[18]"

Source: Bate 1962 p. 522 (Source is really Bate 1963, this was later corrected). Derived from a page following analysis of "Ode to Melancholy": "Anticipating the ode 'To Autumn' of four months later, the second stanza then turns directly to the vivid acceptance of process. In the very springing of the flowers and the new green of the hill..."

2. "There is a union between the ideal and the real which leads to fulfillment. Of all of Keats's poems, "To Autumn" most closely describes an actual paradise while focusing on the archetypal images that are connected with autumn. Within the poem, the season of autumn represents the growth, the maturation, and finally an approaching death.[19]"

Source: Bate 1963 pp. 581–583 Derived from: "The result... is also a successful union of the ideal--of the heart's desire--and reality; of the 'greeting of the Spirit' and its objet. What the heart really wants is being found... Here at least is something of a genuine paradise, therefore. It even has its deity--a benevolent deity that wants not only to 'load and bless'... but also to 'spare,' to 'set budding more.' And yet all this is put with concrete exactness and fidelity." The rest come from use of "Eah of the three stanzas oncentrates on a dominant, even arhetypal, aspet of autumn, but, while doing so, admits and absorbs its opposite. The theme of the first is ripeness, of growth now reahing its climax". Use of "mature" and "end is approaching" are found also scattered in the passage.

3."The poem also defends art's role in helping society in a manner similar to Keats's "Ode on Indolence" and "Ode to Psyche". "To Autumn" describes a system in which nature and culture are two separate parts of the universe, and nature is turned into culture by an artist. Civilization is furthered by man's ability to use nature for agricultural cultivation. The artist, like the farmer, has to process nature into a consumable object, which in turn allows people sustenance. The end of the poem is joined in song as nature gives way to civilization, which represents the self-sacrificing of both nature and the artist for society.[20]"

Source: Vendler 1988 pp. 124–125 "Finally, in the ode 'To Autumn,' Keats finds his most comprehensive and adequate symbol for the social value of art. He does this by playing, in this ode, two roles at once. Once again, as in the 'Ode on Indolence' and the 'Ode to Psyche,' he will be playing the role of the artist, the dreamer indolent in reverie on the bedded grass or the gardener Fancy...." and "In 'To Autumn,' in his final understanding of the social function of art, Keats chooses nature and culture as the two poles of his symbolic system. He sees the work of the artist as the transformation of nature into culture, the transmutation of the teeming fields into the garnered grain... Since civilization itself arose from man's domininion over nature, the process of nature by agriculture became the symbol in Greece of the most sacred mysteries."

More on page. 125: "Keats's autumn ode takes as its allegory for art the making of nature into nurtuer. The artist, with reaping hook, gleaning basket, and cider press, denudes nature, we may say, but creates food. We cannot, so to speak, drink apples or eat wheatl we an only consume processed nature... Since the artist in his own teeming field, art, in this allegory, is a process of self-immolation." and "Keats is the audience for the artist-goddess's sarifice of herself into food, as she passes from areless girl through ample maternity and into her own death vigil.. nature has become culture."

4. "The three stanzas of "To Autumn" are able to suggest both a movement from summer to early winter and also day turning into dusk. This progression is joined with a shift from the sensation of touch to sight and then to sound, creating a three part symmetry which is missing in Keats's other odes.[21]"

Source: Sperry 1973 p. 337 Derived from: "As critics have often pointed out, the three stanzas successively proceed from the last growth of late summer through the fullness of high autumn to the spareness of an early winter landscape, just as they suggest the progress of a single day through to its close in sunset. As Bush, among others, has noted, the imagery of the first stanza is mainly tatile, that of the second mainly visual, that of the last hiefly auditory. in these and other respets the ode displays a deliberate symmetry and balance the earlier odes do not possess."

5. "Although there is process and the suggestion of motion within the poem, there is a lack of action. Within the second stanza, autumn is described through metaphor as an exhausted labourer in lines 14–15. Near the end of the stanza, the steadiness of the gleaner in lines 19–20 emphasizes a motionlessness within the poem. The individuals are burdened or merely watch the events surrounding them. The poem as a whole creates within the imagination an image of death and a finality that is welcomed. There are no contrary ideas that are common within the other odes of 1819. Instead, "To Autumn" puts forth the idea that progression is no longer necessary as maturation has taken over, and growth and death are in harmony.[22]"

Source: Bloom 1968 pp. 95–97 Derived from: "As the second stanza of To Autumn opens, we see Autumn already 'amid' her store. The promised overabundance of the first stanza has been fulfilled... Autumn is no longer active process, but a female overcome by the fragrance and soft exhaustion of her own labor. She is passive, an embodiment of the earthly paradise" and "The final four lines of the stanza takes us to the very end of harvest, the gleaner bearing her laden head so steadily as to suggest motionlessness even as she moves, which further suggests he running-down to stasis of a process. Finally, we are shown the girl patiently watching, hours by hours, the meaningful sameness of the 'cyder-press' with its final oozings, the last wealth of complete process itself."

More on page. 96: "Winter descends here as a man might hope to die, with a natural sweetness, a natural movement akin to the extended wings of Stevens' pigeons or the organizing songs of Keats's swallows as they gather together for flight beyond winter. The day dies soft in this great stanza" and continues on page 97 with: "close the poem, whih has climaxed in an acceptance of process beyond the possibility of grief. The last seven lines are all sound; natural music so varied and intense as to preclude even natural lament. We feel that we might be at the end of tragedy or epi, having read only a short ode."

6. "Along with this harmony, the placing of the couplet before the end of each stanza creates a suspension of closing within the poem. This suspension within the poem reinforces the theme of continuation.[23]"

Source: Wagner 1996 pp. 110–111 "The creation of a sort of penultimate couplet has, as a strategy, a familiar feel to it. The new ode form grapples with the old problem of closure in the sonnet by bringing here a haunting reminder of the couplete-closure--and suspending it. 'Suspension' in previous Keas sonnets has meant something like a 'gesture of incompleteness'; here, it means something else: a 'principle of continuation.'"

7. "In a 1979 essay, Jerome McGann argued that while the poem was indirectly influenced by historical events, Keats had deliberately ignored the political landscape of 1819.[24"

Source: McGann 1979 pp. 988–1032 - summary of a long essay.

8. "Countering this view, Andrew Bennett, Nicholas Roe and others focused more on the political aspects of the poem, Roe arguing for a direct connection to the Peterloo Massacre of 1819.[25]"

Source: Strachan 2003 p. 175 - this contains a summary of works and short excerpts. Strachan says: "says McGAnn, is 'great' but 'politically reactionary', and 'To Autumn' 'attempt[s] to 'escape' the period whih provides the poem with its context.' This argument initiated a series of historical interpretations of 'To Autumn' (by such critics as Paul Fry, Andrew Bennett, and Nicholas Roe), many of which repudiate MGann's position and attempt to read the poem in explicitly political terms... Bennet's Keats, Narrative, and Audience argues that the .... while Roe's 'Keats's ommonwealth' offers a riposte to McGann which reads... in the light of the 'discourses of political and social justice after the outrage at Peterloo'."

9. "Later, Paul Fry further argued against McGann's stance when he pointed out, "It scarcely seems pertinent to say that 'To Autumn' is therefore an evasion of social violence when it is so clearly an encounter with death itself [...] it is not a politically encoded escape from history reflecting the coerced betrayal [...] of its author's radicalism. McGann thinks to rescue Keats from the imputation of political naïveté by saying that he was a radical browbeaten into quietism".[26]"

Source: Fry 1995 pp. 123–124 - this is a direct quote and attributed.

10. "In regards to other political aspects, post-colonial critic Alan Bewell interpreted the themes of Keats's ode in the context of British imperialism. He claimed "To Autumn" promoted the moderate climate of Britain over tropical climates.[27]"

Source: Bewell 2008 pp. 635–638 - Summary of statements. Example from 635: "Yet at a time when colonialism had made apparent the connection between health and climate, the seasonal cycle of spring, summer, fall, and winter was not taken for granted." Another on page 636: "More successfully than Hyperion, 'To Autumn' enacts a curing of space by tempering pathogenic extremes."

Analysing the changes between the FA state of the article and the editted state that is being complained about

It's claimed here that there have been deletions. The article is actually a little longer than it was. It contains almost all the original material.

Changes were made where material was:

• Erroneous (two sentences)
• Badly expressed
• Confusing
• Not well thought through
• Lacked continuity ie. jumped from form to theme to context withing a single paragraph.
• Clearly challengeable such as analysing percentages of times a form occurred.

A major change was the rearranging of sections. There was also some rearrangement of material within sections. Some parts of the original were shifted to paragraphs in which they had stronger application. Let me emphasise that very little of the original was lost, but some of it was rewritten.

Intro Here are the changes:

• Paragraph 2

The poem has three stanzas, each of eleven lines, that describe the tastes, sights, and sounds of autumn. Much of the third stanza, however, is dedicated to diction, symbolism, and literary devices with negative connotations, as it describes the end of the day and the end of autumn. "To Autumn" includes an emphasis on images of motion, growth, and maturation.

NOTE: "tastes" is incorrect. The FA version had a reference to the "tactile sense" further down the article which contradicted this. The "tactile" has remained and the "taste" which was left over from the original stub has gone.

The second sentences here refers to "diction, symbolism and literary devises" as if they occurred in the third stanza only. "Negative connotations" is not a good description. Later on in the article the editor had referred to Death as being "welcome". That remains, while this conradictory sentences was written out.

New Version:

The poem has three eleven-line stanzas which describe a progression through the season, from the late maturation of the crops to the harvest and to the last days of autumn when winter is nearing. The imagery is richly achieved through the personification of Autumn, and the description of its bounty, its sights and sounds. It has parallels in rural landscape, [1] with Keats himself describing the fields of stubble that he saw on his walk as being like that in a painting.[2]

NOTE: 1. "rural landscape" should read "the works of rural landscape painters".

2. There is a brief but much more satisfactory description of what the poem is about.

3. Personification. This is the major poetic tool used in this poem. "To Autumn" is the iconic example. It had been omitted from the FA entirely!!!

• Paragraph 3

FA version: The work can be interpreted as a discussion of death, an expression of colonialist sentiment, or as a political response to the Peterloo Massacre.

New version: The work has been interpreted as an allegory of death, as Keats's response to the Peterloo Massacre, which took place in the same year; and as an expression of colonialist sentiment.

NOTE: All ideas still present

1. "discussion" has become "allegory"

2. The "Colonialist sentiment" theory has the least currency and has been put last.

3. The relationship to the Peterloo massacre is interpretted in a "non-political" as well as "political" way.

Background

No significant changes.

Structure

Moved further down the page, after the Theme.

Poem

The thematic divisions that were between the stanzas have been put into the Theme section and expanded.

Theme

• Paragraph 1

An all-new paragraph which summarises the theme.

Autumn" describes, in its three stanzas, three different aspects of the season, its fruitfulness, its labour and its ultimate decline. Through the stanzas there is a progression from early autumn to mid autumn and then to the heralding of winter. Parallel to this, the poem depicts the day turning from morning to afternoon and into dusk. These progressions are joined with a shift from the tactile sense to that of sight and then of sound, creating a three part symmetry which is missing in Keats's other odes.[11]

• Stanza 1

FA version: The first stanza of the poem describes natural processes, unlike the following which deal more with sensual observations, as it presents a harvest in its final stages. [15] The Stanza provides a union of maturation and growth, two oppositional forces within the work, and this union instills an idea within nature that the season will not end:[16]

Editted version: Throughout the poem, Autumn is personified as one who conspires, who ripens fruit, who harvests and makes music. The first stanza of the poem represents Autumn as involved with the promotion of natural processes, growth and ultimate maturation, two forces in opposition in nature, but together creating the impression that the season will not end.[12] In this stanza the fruits are still ripening and the buds still opening in the warm weather. The tactile sense spoken of by Sperry is suggested by the imagery of growth and gentle motion: swelling, bending and plumping.[11]

NOTE: 1. the line in the FA version about "unlike the following which deal more with sensual observations" is out of place in describing the first Stanza. It would be more useful in describing the second stanze ie The second stanza of the poem deals with sensual observations unlike the first which describes natural processes. The information contained is identical, but it is pointless to compare something that the reader has not yet read and expect comprehension. That is not good style, regardless of how accurate the fact may be.

2. The significant point about "opposing forces" and ref is retained.

3. *Most importantly*, the Personification of Autumn is introduced into the discussion of theme and this continues into the subsequent descriptions of the stanzas.

• Stanza 2

FA Version: The second stanza reverses the images of the first stanza and describes the process of harvesting. Autumn, a harvester, is not actually harvesting but exists in a stasis. Only near the end of the stanza is there movement:[16]

Editted version: The second stanza presents the personification of Autumn as the harvester, to be seen by the viewer in various guises performing labouring tasks essential to the provision of food for the coming year. There is a lack of definitive action, all motion being gentle. Autumn is not depicted as actually harvesting but as seated, resting or watching.[12] In lines 14–15 Autumn is described metaphorically as an exhausted labourer. Near the end of the stanza, the steadiness of the gleaner in lines 19–20 again emphasises a motionlessness within the poem.[13] The progression through the day is revealed in actions that are all suggestive of the drowsiness of afternoon: the harvested grain is being winnowed, the harvester is asleep or returning home, the last drops issue from the cider press.[11]

NOTE: 1. I have not the faintest clue what the FA edtior meant by "The second stanza reverses the images of the first stanza". It isn't explained!

2. The editted version picks up the themes of "Personification", the "advance of the season", the "advance of the day into afternoon", as well as including and further expounding the "stasis and motion" mentioned in the FA version.

• Stanza 3

FA Version: Within the final moments of the poem, there is an introduction of the harvest and Autumn is manifested in the role of a harvester. The end approaches within the final moments of the song and death is slowly approaching alongside of the end of the year. However, Autumn is replaced by an image of life in general, and the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general:[17]

Editted version: The last stanza contrasts Autumn's sounds with those of Spring. The sounds that are presented are not only those of Autumn but essentially the gentle sounds of the evening. Gnats wail and lambs bleat in the dusk. As night approaches within the final moments of the song, death is slowly approaching alongside of the end of the year. The full-grown lambs, like the grapes, gourds and hazel nuts will be harvested for the winter. The twittering swallows gather for departure, leaving the fields bare. The whistling red-breast and the chirping cricket are the common sounds of winter. In this stanza the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general.[14] The references to Spring, the growing lambs and the migrating swallows remind the reader that the seasons are a cycle.

NOTE: 1. "Within the final moments of the poem, there is an introduction of the harvest and Autumn is manifested in the role of a harvester". This is plainly erroneous. The harvest and manifestation of Autumn as Harvester are not "within the final moments of the poem". They are the whole theme of the second stanza! The only indication of harvest in this stanza is the "stubble fields". I am, frankly, amazed, that anyone who knows anything about this poem or who has read it critically could be fighting to maintain such an inaccurate statement as this!

2. The wording "approaching alongside of" is very clumsy.

3. The meaningful point in the FA version (as against the incorrect one) has been retained- "In this stanza the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general.[14]".

All very interesting, but belongs on talk-- have you personally verified any of the sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Will just stick the rest here, if you don't mind, then cut and paste the lot to the talk page. and delete this, if you consider it in appropriate. It seemed like the right place . Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2

FA Version: The three stanzas of "To Autumn" are able to suggest both a movement from summer to early winter and also day turning into dusk. This progression is joined with a shift from the sensation of touch to sight and then to sound, creating a three part symmetry which is missing in Keats's other odes.[21] Although there is process and the suggestion of motion within the poem, there is a lack of action. Within the second stanza, autumn is described through metaphor as an exhausted labourer in lines 14–15. Near the end of the stanza, the steadiness of the gleaner in lines 19–20 emphasizes a motionlessness within the poem. The individuals are burdened or merely watch the events surrounding them. The poem as a whole creates within the imagination an image of death and a finality that is welcomed.

NOTE: This paragraph contains valuable referenced information. None of it has been lost

1. All the material in this paragraph has been incorporated into a) a comparison of this with the other odes b) the introduction of the article c) the three paragraphs which describe the three stanzas.

• Paragraphs 1,3,4

FA Version: All retained but placed after the description of the three stanzas.

Structure This section has been enlarged, and reoganised and has had examples drawn from the text added to it, illustrative of the forms and figures of speech described.

• Pargraph 1

FA Version: Like many of Keats's 1819 odes, the structure of the poem is that of an odal hymn.[9]

Editted version: "To Autumn" is a poem of three stanzas, each of eleven lines. Like others of Keats's odes written in 1819, the structure is that of an odal hymn, having three clearly defined sections corresponding to the Classical divisions of strophe, antistrophe, and epode. [23] The stanzas differ from those of the other odes through use of eleven lines rather than ten, and have a couplet placed before the concluding line of each stanza.[24]

NOTE: The editted version in the section Structure begins by stating exactly what the structure of the poem is.

• Paragraph 2

FA version: While the earlier 1819 odes perfected techniques and allowed for variations that appear within "To Autumn", Keats dispenses with some aspects of the previous poems (such as the narrator) and ensures that the poem deals only with concrete concepts.

Editted version: "To Autumn" employs poetical techniques which Keats had perfected in the five poems written in the Spring of the same year, but departs from them in some aspects, dispensing with the narrator and dealing with more concrete concepts.[25]

NOTE: Same ideas, reworded with "To Autumn" as the subject of the sentence, rather than "the earlier 1819 odes".

• Paragraph 3

FA version: There is no dramatic movement in "To Autumn" as there is in the earlier poems, and the poem attempts to discuss the poetic process without a progression of the temporal scene, an idea that Keats termed as "stationing".[10] Some of the language of the poem resembles phrases found in earlier poems Keats had written and there are similarities between the lines of "To Autumn" and lines in poems such as Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[11]

Editted version: There is no dramatic movement in "To Autumn" as there is in many earlier poems; the poem progresses in its focus while showing little change in the objects it is focusing on. There is, in the words of Walter Jackson Bate, "a union of process and stasis", "energy caught in repose", an effect that Keats himself termed "stationing".[26] Twice at the beginning of verses he employs the dramatic Ubi sunt device associated with a sense of melancholy, and questions the personified subject: "Where are the songs of Spring?"[27]

NOTE: 1. Expanded with reference.

2. Discussion of "Ubi sunt" device.

3. FA sentence about "Some of the language of the poem resembles phrases found in earlier poems Keats had written and there are similarities between the lines of "To Autumn" and lines in poems such as Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[11]" is retained and used in a paragraph where it relates better to the context.

• Paragraph 4.

FA version: Keats relies heavily on monosyllabic words and consonantal sounds – especially bilabial consonants – along with an emphasis on long vowels to control the flow of the poem. His syntax lacks hiatus and there is only a single instance medial inversion of an accent within the poem. However, he does incorporate the Augustan inversion (a reversal of an accent at the beginning of a line) approximately 4.2% of the time. Within his measure, Keats incorporates spondees in approximately 13.9% of his verses.

Editted version: Like the other odes, "To Autumn" is written in iambic pentameter (but greatly modified from the very beginning) with five stressed syllables to a line, each usually preceded by an unstressed syllable.[28] Keats varies this form by the employment of Augustan inversion, sometimes using a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable at the beginning of a line, including the first: "Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness"; and employing spondees in which two stressed syllables are placed together at the beginnings of both the following stanzas, adding emphasis to the questions that are asked: "Who hath not seen thee...", "Where are the songs...?"

NOTE: 1. The editted paragraph orders the discussion of structure, defining first the Rhythm. The Rhythm is iambic pentameter, and this poem is cited in various sources as an example. It is the first thing that should be to be mentioned, after the number and length of stanzas.

2. The editted version states, within the same sentence, that there are variations on this rhythm pattern, and spends the rest of the paragraph defining precisely what those variations are, and where they are significantly used in the poem. Difficult terms that a reader might otherwise have to look up are defined, with examples.

3. The FA version is a list of features with some percentages thrown in for good measure. While I have no doubt the book from which they come from is interesting, if the FA editor, let alone the reader, fails to comprehend that the cited work means that there are 13.9% spondees within a poem that is otherwise composed of iambics, then the percentage is absolutely meaningless! Moreover, spondees are something that is very much in the reading; some reciters will emphasise them and others will treat all but the most obvious as iambics.

4. The vowel and consonant sounds mentioned in the first sentence of the FA version are dealt with in a separate paragraph.

5. The poem doesn't lack hiatus. There are at least three examples of it.

• Paragraph 5

FA version: The rhyme follows a pattern of starting with a Shakespearian ABAB pattern which is followed by CDEDCCE rhyme scheme however in his second and third stanza it changes to CDECDDE. The verse differentiates itself from his previous odes through use of 11 line stanzas, instead of 10, with a couplet placed before the concluding line of each stanza.[12]

Editted version: The rhyme of "To Autumn" follows a pattern of starting each stanza with an ABAB pattern which is followed by rhyme scheme of CDEDCCE in the first verse and CDECDDE in the second and third stanzas.[29] In each case, there is a couplet before the final line. Some of the language of "To Autumn" resembles phrases found in earlier poems with similarities to Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[30] Keats characteristically uses monosyllabic words such as "...how to load and bless with fruit the vines that round the thatch-eaves run." The words are weighted by the emphasis of bilabial consonants (b, m, p), with lines like "...for Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells." There is also an emphasis on long vowels which control the flow of the poem, giving it a slow measured pace: "...while barred clouds bloom the soft dying day". Despite the emphasis on long vowels, there is almost an absence of hiatus where two adjacent vowels occur without a separating consonant.[29]

NOTE: 1. This is an expansion.

2.This sentence is from another FA paragraph. "In each case, there is a couplet before the final line. Some of the language of "To Autumn" resembles phrases found in earlier poems with similarities to Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore."

Critical reception

The FA version remains without significant change.

Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut'npaste of comment

Will you all please start using the FAR page correctly? Most of this belongs on talk, not on FAR. Which person opining to keep this article, co-nominated by an ItsLassieTime sock, has checked all of the sources for copyvio and plagirism? Arguing over the prose and which version to keep without checking sources is somewhat pointless. Doing it via proxy even more so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

• I am presuming that since the article got to FA, that there were no copyvios and that the references were sound. Editors who play a part in raising articles to FA generally question these things.

What I questioned, when I editted, was the great gaps in essential information, the odd construction of the article, and the apparent lack of real comprehension of the ideas that had been included.

• I can't find anything that is obvious plagiarism within the article as it stood when it was on "main page" because all the solid ideas are referenced, as they should be.
• None of the additional information that I have introduced is plagiarism- it mainly comprises reordering, padding out, explaining and illustrating points that had already been made, as well as removing erroneous, confusing and contradictory material.

Suggesting that the article should be returned to its previous state is ridiculous. I suppose that it is equally ridiculous to feel obliged to put a long summary of changes, to that effect.

Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment and Complaint

• Comment: As I said previously, I don't have any problem with Ottava's sources. My only problem is that in editting material from these sources, Ottava seems to have somehow missed many of the most significant points that neede to be made about the poems. It isn't the sources that are problematic; it's the poor editors apparent comprehension of the material they contain and the poor arrangement of it into an article that are the problems.
• Complaint: I don't really think that Elen of the Roads, while acting by proxy for Ottava is the right person to be chopping large sections of other people's Comment off the archive page, particularly when the comments being chopped are those that refute Ottava's complaints.

I was confused and looked for the material on the articles talk page, but it was on the talk page of the archival review, which seems like an odd place for it. Never mind. It's back in the review archive, which is the appropriate place. Amandajm (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, people are free to move items either back here or to another place more appropriate. All I was doing was clearing this page. Ottava doesn't actually have the right to complain about changes, so there is no real need for a refutation of his complaints. Except insofar as analysis of the changes forms part of the FAR, there is no need for that either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, it surprises me if you are not aware that all this questioning of the changes and the attempts to have edits by Alan W and me (and others) reversed was instigated by the banned Ottava, and has continued to be pushed by the banned Ottava, regardless of whether the said person has "rights to complain" or not! I do not intend to offend by shouting but if you miss this point, then you don't really understand why we are talking on this page at all, and why you are at present acting by proxy for this banned editor.

Let me make this absolutely clear: It all began with what appears to be a lie, from the banned Ottava

• Ottava, who is still pushing his case, initially complained that the article needed to be reverted because some vandal had inserted the word "cunnilingus" into the text. Because of this, on October 10 2010, User:Ipatrol reverted the whole article without checking to find the rude words. and left this edit summary: revert vandalism (per Ottava's good-faith suggestion on IRC
• I took Ipatrol to task for reverting a whole lot of edits, just to catch one rude word. I then searched diligently for the "vandalism" and could not find any trace of it, in any of the versions since the article appeared on the main page. In other words, Ottava had got Ipatrol going with a lie!
• Ottava is still trying to razz people up. One of the latest pieces of information to appear on this page is that Ottava (in the words of another editor who has suddenly appeared out of the blue with complaints) is an expert who is writing a dissertation on Keats.
• I have no idea who Ottava is, but I can tell you this, regardless of the fact that there is no problems with sources or plagiarism (as we keep assuring you), Ottava can hardly be writing a learned paper of any sort on this subject that will be of any standing. The reason that I know this is that this person shows no comprehension of the poetic forms that were named but not discussed in the FA version of the article.

Ottava actually argued with me over the inclusion of the terms personification and iambic pentameter, had omitted to use the word metaphor, and plainly did not understand the implications of the material quoted from Bate. The personification of Autumn is a key feature of this poem, which is widely used as an example in texts. Here's a list of the first page of numerous sites, learned and otherwise, that refer to "To Autumn" as an example of personification:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

I suggest that we simply dismiss this entire discussion as being promoted by what on other pages is know as a Troll, someone who causes dissent for the sheer pleasure of annoying people! Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comment

I think it might be worth adding my observation to Amandajm's (I can be long-winded, so I'll try to keep it brief) that not only do I see no copyvio/plagiarism from Bate 1963 (as I mentioned on the talk page here), I have never seen a trace of it in anything that Ottava Rima has contributed anywhere. In the case of one article that he started and I have now reworked and added to, I read every word of nearly all of the sources myself (it's a specialty of mine, so I wanted to know it all). And, whatever might be said for and against other aspects of the writing, there was never a whiff of copyvio in anything he wrote. Kathyrncelestewright, whatever she (I am assuming "she") did to get herself banned as a sockpuppet, does not seem to have done more than editing here—very good editing, in my opinion, but nothing that even hints at pasting in plagiarized text (I have just carefully examined the history). So, I think that spending any significant time on copyvio here is just chasing a red herring. --Alan W (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology Ottava Rima has located my talk page on Wikimedia Commons and expressed some criticism about a number of matters, most of which are dealt with but two apologies ought to be made here.

• I stated in the above that "Metaphor" had not been mentioned in the FA Version. It has been pointed out to me by Ottava Rima that metaphor had indeed been mentioned in this sentence:

Within the second stanza, autumn is described through metaphor as an exhausted labourer in lines 14–15. My apologies for this error.

• I must also apologise for suggesting that this person might be a troll, merely trying to cause dissent. I am assured that Ottava Rima is offended by that suggestion and is acting in good faith.

The question remains as to why Ottava Rima "in good faith" would claim that the word "cunnilingus" (which I looked up and now know how to spell) had been inserted into the text of the article, in order to get it reverted to his/her own preferred state. Perhaps that is one for the ArbCom?

All this is taking up a ridiculous amount of time and energy that would be better spent on other articles. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

This comment was left earlier on my talk page:

(begin quote)I don't understand that on the To Autumn page at FAR, that it was pointed out that the source for this reference clearly says that there is no Hiatus as verified here but Amandajm's change saying that there is hiatus is allowed to exist. Also, why is this claim that Bewell's text verifies that the poem is connected to British artworks is allowed to exist when the source was shown to not have anything to do with anything besides a poem by Leigh Hunt and no artwork? The user has been demonstrated to have inserted blatant misstruths and uses references that do not say what she claims. Aren't FARs supposed to remove problematic content like that and people found doing such things admonished for doing them? Here is a link for more background. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)(end quote)

Amanda, would you please respond to these criticisms? Dana boomer (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

• Hiatus occurs at "o'/er", "who/ever" and "dy/ing". While "o'er" might be regarded as a diphthong and even pronounced "or", the other two may not be so contracted and are examples of hiatus.

I have no idea why Bate says there is no hiatus. The word "hiatus" is a textbook example of "hi/atus". And so is "who/ever", which occurs in the poem. How/ever, one loses the hi/atus if one sticks another sound in the middle and says "die/ying" and "Who/wever".

I just rewrote the following sentence, because I checked a photocopy that Ottava uploaded (most of which is covered up, but I presume it is pertinent and actually refers to the poem in question). In the sentence Bate states "hiatus is non-existent" which is one point that Ottava Rima keeps accusing me of lying over. The point is that Bate is apparently in error, unless his understanding of "hiatus" differs a great deal from mine.

Bate's statement that hiatus is "non-existent" is a very odd claim, regardless of the authority on which he apparently makes it. I don't think that "hiatus" is a terribly significant point anyway, nowhere near as significant as the missing out of the notion of "Personification". The reference to "hiatus" could be entirely omitted, and the article would stand to lose nothing!

• With regards to Bewell and landscape, that reference is not to the book that Ottava Rima cited. It is a later book and the details of the book were added to the Reference section of the article when the reference was found. It can be accessed online.

The book is: Bewell, Alan. Romanticism and Colonial Disease. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8018-6225-6 top of page 176. [12]

Here is the quotation from Bewell:

"To Autumn" is a veritable catalog of national imagery - the vines, apples, gourds, and hazelnuts, and the "thatch-eves"' "moss'd cottage-trees", "cyderpress[es]", "stubble-plains", and "garden-croft[s]" of English lanscape painting. [my bold]

NOTE: Ottava says he/she owns a copy and cannot find it on that page. Perhaps it is a reprint. The reference is in lines 2-7 or there abouts, on page 176. Just click on the arrow above. Amandajm (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation I have just had a message from Ottava Rima pointing out that I have made yet another error- (minor but confusing) The reason why Ottava Rima could not find the info in Bewell (in a hard copy rather than following the online link) was that I wrote "p.176" for "p.179". It is correct in the article but wrong in the above comment. Well, at least that's sorted out.....No apology for calling me a "liar" but that is obviously too much to expect! Amandajm (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked. You were right the first time, Amanda: your Bewell citation, based on the passage you quoted above, should be to page 176. I am going to change it in the article. --Alan W (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Out of interest) I have just been doing a bit of my own OR into this hiatus thing, with regards to Keats great contemporaries, Shelley and Byron. Shelley uses "Who art..." and similar questioning or personal forms fairly frequently, but his poetry appears to have rare occurences of hiatus, other than those instances. In the brief check I did on Byron's shorter poems, it also occurs rarely. I didn't look at Childe Harold or Don Juan. It would seem that the occasional occurence in Keats may be the norm (within the works of these three). Amandajm (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC) editted again Amandajm (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quick question: Why have my acknowledgement of error (over "metaphor") and my apology (over questioning whether Ottava was a troll) been ignored, while the complaining and accusing continues?
• Personification The penultimate question for Ottava Rima is: Why was it not mentioned in the FA version of the article?
• Cunnilingus....and why was Ipatrol informed that this word had been written into the subsequent changes, so the he/she reverted all the edits?

These are the questions that need answering, satisfactorily, before Ottava Rima gains any credibility.

Amandajm (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiatus again. I fixed the problem, pointed out by Ottava, of the conflict between the statement that there were "few" and the reference which states there are none by removing the mention of "hiatus" altogether. It's an insignificant point, and it's better not to drop the Bate reference which is ggod for the rest of the paragraph. Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

More on Hiatus, thinking about this a bit more.... It is possible that Bate was looking for the most obvious (and common) examples of hiatus: "I am", "You are", "Thou art" "S/he is", "They are". In all these cases the two vowels between which the hiatus occurs are in different words. It is possible that Bate simply failed to notice the couple of examples mentioned above, "Whoever" and "dying", because the pairs of vowels are in the same word, and not so obvious. Perhaps this explains the error on the part of Bate. Amandajm (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have found time to get to a library that has some of these sources, and I have now investigated further. One thing of some interest in this context, I think, is the discovery that the book in which Bate puzzlingly declares the absence of hiatus in "To Autumn", The Stylistic Development of Keats, was actually a very early work. Rather than being published in 1962, as the original listing in the References would suggest, it is a reprint in that year of a book Bate wrote when he was about 27 years old. Not that this fact makes it juvenilia or something to be dismissed; but I think that this early study may include some careless or hasty readings that Bate might well have regretted in his later years. We may never know, as Bate died eleven years ago. But I thought it worth mentioning. --Alan W (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional closing note - Most of the outstanding issues seem to have been resolved in the voluminous discussion above. I would suggest that Amanda seek out any remaining comments and make sure they are addressed. I realize there is some dissent to the way the article has been edited, and if any editors still have serious concerns about this article FA status it may be brought back to FAR in no less than three months. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (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 00:49, 29 November 2010 [13].

---

The Notorious B.I.G.

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Hip hop

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been three years since it's promotion and it haven't been reviewed since, the promotion itsself didn't give criticism about the article, mainly ILIKE IT the citations are a mess at times, lots of stubby paragraphs, there are unsourced statements "The article written by Philips was found out to be completely false and the paper later published a front page retraction" and dead links, several unreliable sources Rap Reviews About.com and Court TV Crime Library for example, and a little outdated "Los Angeles Judge Florence-Marie Cooper reinstated the lawsuit on May 9, 2008" and what?. Nominator is inactive. Secret ^account 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The retraction of the Philips article is easily verifiable. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, structure, formatting YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist nothing's happening at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Nominator has not responded. Insufficient details provided. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I responded, but there's still other concerns that the article has that weren't fixed Delist with a chance to work on it later. Secret ^account 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You made no edits to this page between September 28 and Octdober 14, nor any edits to the talk page that I can find - ever - except placing the FAR template. Please specify specific details to fix, otherwise complaints are not really actionable. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I meant I responded to you now, my fault. There's other concerns especially with the sourcing that doesn't make it FA standards. If I could fix it I would but it would take alot of research. Secret ^account 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Secret, if you want your "delist" to be actionable, you need to give specifics. We're not asking you to do all of the work yourself - Gimmetoo is obviously willing to work on the article - but he needs specifics before he can do so. Please provide these. Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Keep Secret ^account 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per TenPoundHammer, none of those issues addressed. This article is not up to FA standard. JJ98 (Talk) 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist, there are unaddressed issues of concern, including sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Default keep at this point. The sourcing "issues" brought up by the nominator are nothing to fuss about. The supposedly "unsourced" statement is self-sourcing and easily verifiable. The one "about.com" reference followed two other references to a statement, so it was redundant and hardly worth considering an "issue". Removed now, in any event. Likewise, "Rap Review" was used once, and was easy to remove. But why, specifically, would CourtTV not be a WP:RS? As for the so-called "outdated" info on the lawsuit, if there is no news update, then there is nothing else to say. I would have addressed other "concerns", but without anything specific or further justification, there is nothing actionable. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• The article is much better now I admit. With Court TV I remembered I tried to use Court TV as a source once for a topic that I wanted to work on, but when I went to the article, there was some facts there that I couldn't find in my sources, and after further research on google books and the NYT I still couldn't find nothing that supported some of the facts in the article. I wanted to make sure if it was still a reliable source and not a one time exception, so I read other articles by Court TV Library and it was mostly original research, or used unreliable sources, etc, though a couple I have to admit was well-researched. I think it depends on the writer. But its too unstable to use as an independent source. The information used by Court TV source can be found in other sources, so it's better to replace it with a more reliable source. The dead links are still there, its better to use cite news than web, as it's NYT, couple of citations need fixing, citation 6, and 29 for example. Other sources I can't find, even after researching MTV archives http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1425834/19970311/notorious_big.jhtml is the closest I could find to source number 12, but it doesn't support the information. Source number 26 I couldn't load, I don't know if it's my computer or it's the website themselves because I did saw the lettering Notorious B.I.G. I did found a source regarding what happened to the lawsuit http://new.music.yahoo.com/notorious-b-i-g/news/biggie-smalls-wrongful-death-lawsuit-dismissed--62001100 so that's taken care of. I'll add more comments later, once sourcing is taken care off. But I'm leaning towards keep. Secret ^account 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I will get to this as soon as I can, but there is currently a MOS discussion relevant to the style/format of the citations in this article, and I would like that resolved before I work on the style/format issues. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Source 12 did support the weight info. Source 26 has invisible text, but it's a transcript of an interview and does include the two quotes it's used for. (The interview was his last; the quotes are also in Cathy Scott's The Murder of Biggie Smalls.) Source 29 did work, though intermittently for some reason. The actual info was in the bio link anyway. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:, I have stricken my "delist", per Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), above. I echo what was said by Secret (talk · contribs), here's hoping for some additional sourcing improvement. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I have also stricken my "delist". Per Cirt, Gimmetoo and Secret, I also agreed that the article needs little improvements. So I decided to vote Keep after the the article is improved. JJ98 (Talk) 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Can we get an update on this please? How is the source improvement work going? Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Picky favour to ask. Can refs like Edwards, Paul, 2009, How to Rap: The Art & Science of the Hip-Hop MC, Chicago Review Press, p. 53. be shortened to Edwards, 53, and the full description moved to biblo. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just that book, or all paper sources? Why? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Update, anyone? Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think everything that people mentioned has been handled. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Excellent efforts by Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), well done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (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 14:13, 24 November 2010 [14].

---

Premier League

Review commentary

Notified: PeeJay2K3, HonorTheKing, Woody, Oldelpaso, CambridgeBayWeather, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is almost three years since its last review and I feel that it needs one to ensure that it is still of a suitably high standard. There are a number of issues with the article that I believe may compromise its FA status:

• The Establishment section is off-topic. It discusses the first season but then drifts off into a discussion of potential changes to the number of teams in the league (I raised this on the article talk page but no one has responded);
• The information on the European Club Forum is out of date (again, I raised this on the talk page but it wasn't addressed);
• There are many unreferenced statements in the article, such as "The Premier League's gross revenue is the fourth highest of any sports league worldwide", which could really do with sources. Others, such as "the average revenues of the 20 Premier League teams are thought to be close to those of the 30-team NBA" beg the question "thought by whom?";
• There are two "citation needed" tags in the article text;
• There are a number of stylistic problems, such as use of the % symbol instead of "per cent" in the prose. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The European Club Forum issue has now been resolved thanks to Woody. That said, it could still be improved by specifying the actual number of clubs that represent the Premier League at the European Club Association. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added that in now with a ref (and fixed our page which was incorrect). Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, could you take another look and add any citation needed tags to sentences you think need supporting? I think the vast majority of any remaining unsourced statements would not be reasonably contested. Could you expand on the specific stylistic problems please (and any links to MOSNUM as appropriate if possible?) Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Cordless Larry

I've now tagged facts that I think need references. There are quite a few, so if you disagree with any of them, please feel free to object! I've replaced "%" with "per cent", as per WP:MOSNUM. I've also noticed that there is a dead link in the references and that a number of references are either incomplete or poorly/inconsistently formatted. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is that the Influence on the global game section only seems to cover Nigeria! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it completely, the article said that the link was not fully supported and it was only one article that suggested it. I couldn't actually see where it says that in MOSNUM but I'm not really bothered either way. I will take a look at the refs now. Woody (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM states: "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, I didn't see MOSNUM mandates you to use percent in the article text. As I said earlier, not really bothered either way. Woody (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't, no, but it suggests that it's a convention and I think it looks better in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So, I have tackled all of the citation needed tags that were in the article. I also had a bit of a run through the references and tackled the uniformity issues. Any outstanding issues? Woody (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. Generally, I think we're getting there, although I still think there are problems with the references. There's still one dead link, and there seems to be inconsistency about when the "publisher" and "work" fields are used. We have BBC as both publisher and work in different references, and newspapers seem to mainly be listed using publisher, not work. I'm also not sure if it was a good idea to reduce "BBC Sport" and "BBC News" to simply "BBC". I think the former looks better and more clearly differentiates between sports and general-interest news items. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that dead link yesterday. Arbero 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure why, but it still had a dead link tag next to it for me, but it seems to be fixed now. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One dead link appeared a day after I had used it, I think they are all archived adequately now. I really don't think there needs to be a differentiation between the BBC items but I have had a run through the article anyway to clear up the work/publisher issue. Does that assuage your concerns? Woody (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few more edits to the references and I think they look much better now. I wouldn't mind someone with more expertise with FARs looking into the article though. We also still need to find a solution for the establishment section. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Renamed to Development and some text moved. Woody (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Some further issues that need be be dealt with:

• I've just spotted that the Worldwide section of the article does not discuss the 2009 Barclays Asia Trophy, despite listing previous years' events. I was going to add a short description but then I wondered whether a description of this event actually belongs in a section that is supposed to be about media coverage.

• Stripped it down to a simple summary of the trophy. Woody (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Qualification for European competitions section includes the lines: "The Premier League was recently promoted to the top of the UEFA rankings of European leagues based on their performances in European competitions over a five-year period. This broke the eight-year dominance of the Spanish league, La Liga". It's not clear when "recently" is in this context, and the access date for the reference is 17 May 2008. The reference also doesn't seem to verify the eight-year statement about La Liga. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tweaked to become future-proof, added new ref. Woody (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Corporate structure section could perhaps also do with more detail. It mentions a chairman and chief executive, for instance, but does not state who currently holds these positions or how many people have held them since the foundation of the league. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've added details of the current chairman and chief executive. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Media coverage section states: "The Premier League sells its television rights on a collective basis. This is in contrast to some European Leagues, including Serie A and La Liga, in which each club sells its rights individually, leading to a much higher share of the total income going to the top few clubs". This could probably do with a reference. In looking for one, I found this source, which says that Serie A has returned to a collective television rights system, so I'm going to remove it as an example. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reference for comparison with La Liga now found and added. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The edit conflict regarding Owen Coyle also needs to be resolved. I've started a discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that I'm not sure about the use of the "work" field in citations to list a government department. Following this discussion, I'm happy to go with whatever other editors agree on, but I find it odd that Home Office, for instance, is italicised in the references as if it were a book. I think a better solution would be to list Home Office as the publisher. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

<--Copied discussion With regards to this diff and the many others I think you are wrong. Those work fields are perfectly acceptable and provide further information that would be of use to readers. I had gone through the refs as a result of reading through this discussion. Where is the discussion that says they are wrong? or could you explain your reasoning to me? I am now just getting rather frustrated with the endless tweaking of refs which are clogging up the edit history. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite web states that use of the "work" field is for the following: "If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work". I don't see how "HM Government" or something along those lines counts as a work by this definition. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From my edit, you'll also see that the fields were being used inconsistently. For example, one reference included "publisher=HM Courts Service|work=HM Government", while another used "work=Office of Fair Trading|publisher=HM Government". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Make it consistent then, don't remove it, or tell me and I will fix it. If we take the example from the aforementioned discussion: *{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty |title=Han Dynasty|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation, Inc}} This scales particularly well to Government publications from smaller Government departments. The work is OFT, the publisher is the Government. Woody (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider the OFT, for instance, to be the publisher, and the OFT to be part of HM Government. I don't really see the need to list the latter as the publisher, and I don't accept that a government department is a "work". But feel free to revert my edits. It's up to whoever completes the FAR to decide whether the fields are being used correctly, at the end of the day. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was confused as well although reading that discussion clarified things for me. I have reinstated them now in a consistent manner. It is not for whoever completes (do you mean the FAR directors?) the FAR to decide MOS or stylistic issues, they don't have a better understanding than anyone else. They are simply there to determine consensus amongst reviewers/editors. Good point actually, I will copy this over to the FAR now. Woody (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that they go on consensus. What I was trying to say was that I didn't want to impose my view of how the references should be formatted, but wanted to leave it to consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I think that there might be a problem with one of your links above, which is displaying as {{cite web }} but which I think you might have intended as a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the link. Fair enough on the closure, I must have misinterpreted your understanding. It was your referrals to the "whoever completes," I took that to be the FAR director, my mistake. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it was my fault for not being clear. I'm just not that experienced with FAR discussions and would like to get input from those with more experience rather than trying to suggest that whatever I say is correct on this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

-->End of copied discussion.

The issue as it stands is that I have now reinstated the work field into Governmental references. They now have work=Home Office |publisher=HM Government instead of the Home Office in the publisher field. Due to my interpretation of the guidelines and simply for the sake of completeness I think it is the correct form. That said, this is the tiniest of stylistics differences, the content seems to have left discussion so that seems to be pretty sorted now. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think I have fixed the remainder of your new issues. Could we possibly use a hide template to hide the resolved issues? The little issues are beginning to clog up the page? Thanks, Woody (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've employed a hide template. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved a few bits around to make clear the different contributors and issues. Feel free to revert me if you feel I have misrepresented anything. In terms of your initial issues, do they still remain, MOS for example? Thanks, Woody (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that my initial concerns have now been dealt with. My remaining concerns are about coverage issues. I would prefer input from other editors on this issue, but I think that the article could do with a general expansion. Take the Criticisms section, for example. The article only really discusses two broad criticisms: the dominance of the "big four" and the gap with lower leagues. I'm sure that more can be said here. What about allegations of refereeing bias, or claims about the impact of the Premier League on the England national team for starters? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you strike those that are resolved please (or hide them?) Makes it clearer what is left to do. In terms of the article, my opinion is that it covers the issues as much as it can in an article of this size per WP:SUMMARY. It is already a large article that covers everything succintly. Allegations of refereeing bias are nothing new and are in every aspect of pretty much every sport. If you can find a good source, not pub chat between newspaper columnists that does a detailed study of decisions then so be it. The same could be said for the England national team, there aren't studies that look into the effect of the Premier League on the fortunes of the three lions. The issues you mention would be equally applicable to all top-flight football across Europe and not specific to the Premier League. Simply put, I disagree on the importance and relevance for this article. Woody (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've struck out my initial concerns, which have now been resolved. Refereeing bias has indeed been addressed in a detailed study, which received coverage in, amongst other sources, The Times and The Guardian. That said, the current contents of the criticism section don't seem to be based on statistical studies, so I don't see how the existence of the latter is a condition of inclusion. That the criticisms have been made by a significant number of people is surely enough to note that they exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Lede/intro seems a bit short with regards to comprehensiveness - per WP:LEAD, should fully be able to function as a stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents, should probably be expanded upon a bit more. Unsourced chunks throughout article body text, and multiple sourcing issues. Concerns over short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs, as well as a few ultra-short-subsections - these should probably be expanded upon, or merged. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have thought this needed a bit of a routine check-up for a while now, this review was probably needed about now. I have done quite a bit of work on it in the past couple of hours, mainly trimming and fixing some sourcing issues which should remedy Cirt's structural objections. Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Relegate the Premier League, if only so that the Americans can go back to uncontroversially claiming that they have the biggest sports league in the world ;) Seriously though, in terms of structure, comprehensiveness of the body, and the quality of sourcing that is actually there, the article isn't in bad shape, but I agree with the issues raised above. Should be save-able. --WFC-- 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text for the images in the article needs to be set. Please see this report on the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• ALT text is no longer required for featured articles. The editors may add it if they wish, but it is not necessary for the article to retain featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for letting me know. Last I knew, it was a requirement so I'm obviously behind! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sources and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yellowmonkey, where are the sources issues above, they all seem resolved to me, and what are the specific comprehensiveness issues, what can be added to the article? Woody (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Woody, YM (and I, when I move articles here) just list any and all issues that were brought up during the FAR. This does not mean that the issues are still present or that we agree they were a problem in the first place. The best thing to do would probably be to ping anyone who commented above and ask them to return and either list more comments or state that they think the article is ready to be kept as an FA. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• To perhaps anticipate such a question, I stand by my comments on coverage (particularly regarding criticisms of the Premier League) but would like other people to comment on this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Where else but your opinion on criticism do you have concerns on coverage? This is a large article that covers all the salient points in my opinion. We could not possibly list every criticism of the Premier League nor could we have a list of every positive thing about the premier league. If you have a list of anything you thing is missing, please add it here and we could discuss it. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've outlined two criticisms that aren't mentioned in the article above. Perhaps the refereeing bias one is the more marginal of the two, but I think the impact of the Premier League on the England national team merits mention. There are plenty of sources, such as this and this. Again, I'd welcome input from other editors on this because I don't want to be the one alone who effectively determines whether the article is delisted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• You say you have concerns on coverage, particularly suggesting that you have further concerns: do you? I stand by my opinion that it covers everything it could be reasonably expected to in this article. The academic article says that referees can be biased towards home teams, that is something that is not unique to the Premier League, it is a football-wide issue that uses the Premier League as a sample. It is not a criticism of the Premier League as an entity. In terms of the England team, I will look into getting some sources and writing a little bit on it. Woody (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see. In the context of the impact on the England team issue, I was going to suggest adding material on the number of foreign players in the league, but I see that this is covered under Squad and transfer regulations. The statistics could do with updating if more recent ones are available, and perhaps that section is not the most obvious place for this material. In fact, the section only seems to cover issues relating to foreign players, whereas the heading "Squad and transfer regulations" suggests it should cover other regulations. Other than that, I don't really have any other concerns about coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I have changed the section name to Premier League#Foreign players and transfer regulations. The only transfer regulations on the Premier League is the transfer window and the new cap. I have added a few sentences about the national side with newer statistics as well. Woody (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per criterion three issues:
  • File:English-fa-premier-league.png identical purpose as File:Premier League.svg (identification of critical commentary), thus redundant (NFCC#3A). No discussion of historic logo; no apparent significant contribution to reader understanding (NFCC#8).
  • File:Premiership trophy.jpg - Derivative work. Cannot be freely licensed without consent of trophy creator. Эlcobbola _talk 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the English-fa-premier-league image as redundant and added Fair Use rationales for the trophy image. I suggest you nominate it for deletion on commons if you think the trophy does not meet the threshold of originality. Woody (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have replaced the trophy image with a different one. Both elcobbola's points have thus been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Asked for a revisit here, Woody (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, thanks. Эlcobbola _talk 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Notification that I left a note for more input here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#FAR for Premier League needs some input. Woody (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Few bits of suggested cleanup here and there...

• No need for two Football League links in the lead.
• The full version of UEFA should be given in the lead, with the abbreviated version in parentheses.
• Development: Another abbreviation needs a full version, this time FIFA.
• Qualification for European competitions: Remove the comma after Michel Platini or add another one before. The one is a bit awkward to read through, at least for me.
• Media coverage: Again multiple links to something in a section; Setanta Sports doesn't need the second one.
• A few of the seasons mentioned toward the end of the section have slashes. I'm pretty sure the MoS discourages these; en dashes would work well for those.
  • Still see these in United Kingdom and Ireland. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Done now. Woody (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Worldwide: "In Australia, Fox Sports (Australia)". Can you pipe the link so the second Australia (quite redundant) doesn't show up in the text?
• Criticisms: "The benefits of qualification ... is believed to have widened the gap between the Big Four clubs and the rest of the Premier League." "is" → "are".
• Remove excess period after reference 68. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• All done thanks though I do think the UEFA/FIFA expansions are awkward, particularly as they are both known by their acronyms than by their full titles. The wikilinks serve as the ability to acquire the full titles in my opinion but I have done them anyway. See what you think. Woody (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Asked for a revisit here, Woody (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

• The prose at the start of the managers section is a little brief. I'm not necessarily saying all of these things are good ideas, but they might help expand the paragraph:
  • It's probably starting with a sentence or two on what a manager actually does. In certain parts of the world "manager" would be understood as the general manager, i.e. someone who has very little to do with the day-to-day running of the team.
  • Perhaps something on caretakers?
  • Longest serving and most recently appointed?
  • I would say average length of service, but given the difficulty in sourcing and Alex Ferguson's longevity that probably won't be possible.
• The note below the managers table shouldn't really be plain text, as it's not part of the article prose.
• Also, maybe there's scope for an image or two alongside the table?
• File:Champions 2004-5.jpg is probably a better depiction of the trophy.

Nice work in bringing this article towards 2010 standards. Regards, —WFC— 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have written a bit of a blurb for the managers, added what they do, what licenses they need, added caretakers and longest serving (already there)/recent appointment. Average length of service is constantly changing and there aren't any sources for average length throughout the history of the league. The flags and note were only added today, I have tidied it up, indented and used italics. Image of Ferguson added and swapped the trophy image. Thanks for your review. Woody (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Asked to revisit here. Woody (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Further comments:

• Why are combined club revenues measured in Euros? Sterling doesn't appear to be a problem elsewhere in the article.
• The table says that Wenger was appointed in 1996, the prose 1997.
• The 10 seasons awards should make clearer that the statistics are only correct as of the end of the 2002–03 season.
• On that note, supplimentary prose should be provided where the July 2010 figure is different to the July 2003 figure. For instance, David James had the most clean sheets as of the end of the 2009–10 season (and the most appearances), Shearer scored another 50 or so goals before retiring, and Ferguson has another seven seasons' worth of games in charge. I see a couple of follow-on sentences as preferable to a dedicated records and statistics section, because the Premier League themselves have decided which milestones are truly significant with these awards.

Once these small things are dealt with, I'll be close to feeling that the article to be kept. Regards, —WFC— 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think Euros are better for those figures as the figures are used to show the comparison with world football leagues, the vast majority of the competing leagues are in the Eurozone and the source figure was in Euros. Fixed the Arsene contradiction. I have added a note about the stats being accurate for the 10 seasons award and not for current data. All of the updated figures are reflected in the prose or in tables, and either way, I don't think our readers will expect the figures to be up to date. I think the fact that these awards are for "10 seasons" and in a 10 seasons section would suggest they don't reflect current stats. Woody (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• A source that uses Sterling would be easy to obtain. Given that the article doesn't make a figure-to-figure comparison with any other league at any point, internal consistency is surely the order of the day. As for the ten seasons award, you make a valid point on the statistics. But in the absence of a dedicated records section I think it's important to at the very least make explicit when record holders have changed. It is misleading to denote Seaman as the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets, with no further qualification. —WFC— 22:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it is misleading to say that Seaman was awarded the 10 season award for clean sheets, which is what the article says. I think we are doing a disservice to our readers if we think they see that to mean that Seaman is still the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets. It is a finite statistic, relevant only at the time of the awards and not relevant to any current statistics. As such, in my opinion, it doesn't need to be made explicit. Woody (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• But given that it's not a relevant statistic, it should either be accompanied by the relevant one, or alternatively not be expressed in statistical form at all. —WFC— 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is relevant, relevant for those awards, which recognised a milestone in the history of the Premier League. As I stated earlier and Mick seems to be stating, I really don't see anyone being confused, at all. Woody (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary to add a note about the 10 seasons stats, the context is clear as day for anyone who reads the section from the start, which is a perfectly normal expectation in a serious encyclopoedia. No reader has ever brought up any confusion they had with it, or tried to change the figure, since the section was added,nearly a year ago now. MickMacNee (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• The flags next to the managers' names are back, and with them the Owen Coyle nationality issue, as discussed here. As I've stated before, I don't think we should be using the FIFA eligibility rules (which apply to players) to decide on managers' nationalities. Coyle identifies as Scottish, even if he played for Ireland. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. There is a distinction between players and managers in this regard. —WFC— 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • What recognised system would you use then? The FIFA recognisation is a universal one which is why it is used, either we have another system or remove them. I don't mind which one of those you choose, frankly I don't care about them. Woody (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • How about just plain old nationality? Coyle is verifiably a Scotsman by any means you care to use, except this sort of absolute Wiki-wonkery. To call him Irish without concrete proof of such, and in contradiction to all other sources, is a clear BLP violation. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The point is how do you define plain old nationality: Where they live now, where they were born, the country they play football for? (The same person could have three different answers) As I said, if you feel strongly about it, then be bold and change the system used, or bring it up on the talkpage. I am incredibly ambivalent about it, and speaking of wiki-wonkery, citing BLP is a bit disingenuous. Woody (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Please don't be dense. Nationality is nationality, and BLP is more than relevant in a case like this, where umpteen reliable sources are being shit all over for the purposes of wiki-wonkery. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
            • How is asking you how you define nationality being dense? My main interest on Wikipedia is Milhist where the issue of nationality is an incredibly complex one, with entirely different notions of nationality depending ont he context. You are the one being annoyingly dense in that you aren't responding to my reasonable question and replying with some wiki-wonkery... Woody (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
              • There is no wiki-wonkery in my answer. Nationality is nationality. Nobody at the Passport Office gives a flying toss about the Wikipedia MilHist project. No relibable source gives a flying toss about the Wikipedia MilHist project infact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
                • I think the problem here is that MickMacNee understands nationality to be equivalent to citizenship, whereas Woody is using a wider definition. Citizenship is obviously a more objective criteria, although it gets complicated with dual citizenship, but if we have a reliable source (which we do in Coyle's case) I don't see why we can't rely a person's self-identification. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • • As I said, do what you want with it as long as it is consistent. Woody (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)amended Woody (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A further issue that might need to be addressed is that of the Premier League's TV audience in China, as raised here. Whatever people think of that discussion, the age of the source currently being used is a problem if you ask me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I don't really see the issue with that one, someone has stated that from their personal experience speaking to people in a certain area of China, that the sourced figure we use is not congruous with his experience. It would be helpful if we had a new source, but as it is, it is not inaccurate. Woody (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's not inaccurate in and of itself, but perhaps we could state in the text when it refers to because using the present tense is inaccurate. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Apologies, I seem to have completely missed your reply somehow. I have amended the sentence now to add in "data from 2003 suggests..." Woody (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How is work on this going? Dana boomer (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• If Cordless Larry is happy with my latest edit I don't see anything outstanding. The flag issue seems to have settled down again and the main agitators seem to be content therefore so am I. Woody (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the addition of a date to the Chinese TV market statistics, although if anyone can find a more up-to-date source, that would be even better. Looking through my earlier comments, the only one that still stands out is the use of the "work" field in references to denote government departments. Unfortunely only Woody and I have commented on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's a minor stylistic difference and a personal preference, not something that should hold up this FAR in my opinion. Woody (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• MOS review needed, see my sample edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy, can I query this edit? Changing "2007-present" to "2007-2010" makes it sound as if the sponsorship agreement ends this year, when it doesn't. Is there a better way we can present this? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• MOSDATE doesn't actually deal with this situation. As it is now, 2007-2010, we wil have to do more updating to that text than we would with 2007-present. Every New Year's Day we will have to update it to the next year. The contract runs to the end of 2012-13 so we could put 2013, that would be more accurate though we don't know what might happen in the meantime. (In other words, not actually sure what should go there, but prefer what was there originally.) Woody (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy, I had a run-through and couldn't actually find many repeats throughout the text of the issues you highlighted. Most of yours happened in the Sponsorship section, there was an edit made a few weeks ago that I didn't notice that reintroduced some errors I had already fixed. That said, I have always had a somewhat different opinion of "overlinking" than some of my peers. Woody (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Trust you all to work out the date situation, revert me as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shall we revert to the "present" wording? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Go ahead, it seems the least worst option to me. Woody (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, done. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Could somebody review the overlinking? I see clubs like Manchester United linked several times, especially in the "Premier League champions" table.

• Fair comment, I have gone through and had a bit of a rationalisation of linking of team names, I have left them in most tables though for uniformity within those tables. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see why the list of current managers is necessary. I removed the table, but was reverted.

• Open up a discussion on the talkpage about that if you want, or see the previous ones. I have come around to that table and I do think it is a useful aid that adds information, rather than being superfluous, though I accept there is another, albeit slightly less accessible, table over at Premier League managers article. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• The "10 Seasons Awards" sub-section seems overly detailed, considering that it has its own article. Also this is only one of many awards conferred to PL players and clubs, so why the emphasis?

• No answer to that one, I would be happy removing it. I suspect another editor might disagree. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll start talk-page threads on the managers table and the awards section some time.—indopug (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• In the infobox, why is Champions League and Europa League listed under League cup(s)?

• Don't know, so removed. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I missed it in the article, but nowhere is it discussed how (and when and why) the Premier League cut down from 22 teams in its first few seasons to the 20 teams it is today. This is AFAIK the only glaring ommission in the article.

• I think you missed it in Premier_League#Development: Due to insistence by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the international governing body of football, that domestic leagues reduce the number of games clubs played, the number of clubs was reduced to 20 in 1995 when four teams were relegated from the league and only two teams promoted. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• D'oh! "when four teams were relegated from the league and only two teams promoted."—but there's been no mention till then that normally three teams are relegated, and three promoted.—indopug (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, I have added a note about this into the foundation section where it talks about retaining the same rules as the previous 1st division. Woody (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Lead: "Of the 44 clubs to have competed since the inception of the Premier League in 1992". Body: "A total of 43 clubs have played in the Premier League from its inception in 1992 and the end of the 2009–10 season.".—indopug (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Tricky one. We tend to leave updating statistics until the end of the season, which is why it has the qualifier "the end of the 2009-10 season". In the 2010-11 season (current one) we have Blackpool playing in the league but it hasn't finished yet, so saying "the end of the 2010-11 season" would be a bit odd given we are not there yet. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could reword it "up to and including the 2010-11 season"? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• That works, done. Woody (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep—this is good enough to remain FA.—indopug (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2010 (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 04:12, 13 November 2010 [15].

---

Taiwanese aborigines

Review commentary

Notified: Maowang, Ling.Nut, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Taiwan

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several dead links, including red links, and 1c issues. This article was promoted to FA status in 2007 and it hasn't been review since. JJ98 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Fixing dead links is a trivial task.
2. 1C issues? What does that mean? I don't think a better-researched document on this topic exists outside of Wikipedia. Even among FAs, this one is more than normally well-cited. I am perplexed. • Ling.Nut 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1C? It's very well researched, and well cited. I don't think there are any referencing concerns at all with this article. I'm reviewing redlinks and dead links to see what needs to be done on that score. Taiwantaffy (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed most of the dead links already. I'm kinda shocked the Formosan Language Archive is a dead link. I wanna leave it alone for a couple days, to see if it is a temporary problem... I'm having problems finding Ho-hi-yan radio station info; does it still exist? I updated the population info to 2009 (was 2006). • Ling.Nut 08:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding these issues:

• I am seeing a citation needed tag in the section "Plains, Mountains and Tribal definitions".
• This image File:Taiwan aborigine en.jpg appears to have tagged with an inappropriate JPEG compression. The image needs to be a PNG or SVG format.
• There are two red links in the article:

• Luilang - redlinked.
• Trobiawan - also redlinked.

• I am also seeing dead links in the article:

• [16] - dead link.
• [17] - also a dead link.
• http://formosan.sinica.edu.tw/formosan/en/archive_contents.htm - a dead link as with the external link. JJ98 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Formosan language archives links. They must have moved things very recently. • Ling.Nut 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• First, redlinks are not always evil. There's a balance involved – if people redlink a lot of terms that will never be notable enough to warrant a separate article, then it uglifies the current article. However, redlinks also encourage the creation of new articles or new redirects, both of which are useful... In the present case, I removed several redlinks that looked hopelessly non-notable to me, but I also created one or two redirects or repaired links (e.g., I fixed redlinks to Corvée and Tongji (spirit medium)). The two redlinks you list above are extinct tribes. Some day someone may find enough material to write a short article on them. This is not a FAR-worthy complaint; it really wasn't one before I fixed/removed the six or so troublesome redlinks. The appropriate response would be for you to {{sofixit}}, not call FAR. And remember, redlinks are not always evil.
• Second, did you read the comments (above) about the dead external links? They have already been discussed. Reading others' comments is often useful.
• Third, did I miss the rule about .png or .svg being mandatory? I know image-geeks prefer them, but is there a rule about this somewhere? Moreover, one image formatting problem (if it is a problem, which I doubt) is not enough to call FAR. It's yet another case of {{sofixit}}.
• Fourth, one citation needed is not a crisis; it is certainly not enough to call FAR. That particular passage has been the subject of two or three politically-motivated (but brief and minor) edit wars over the past couple years. The {{fact}} tag will be removed and inserted again a couple times in the next couple years... But I fixed it. • Ling.Nut 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've left notes on the talk pages of Malleus and Elcobbola for an image and prose check. Ling.Nut, I noted your comment on Jj98's page, and wanted to clarify that if an article is deemed "keep-worthy" in a short period of time, it doesn't have to be here for a month. That is only in the case of articles likely to be delisted, to give editors a long period of time to jump in and start fixing! If a good prose, reference and image check are done by a couple of uninvolved, experienced editors and they state here that the article should be kept then it can be off the page immediately. Dana boomer (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • File:Rukai chief.jpg - No date or author in image summary or at source. How can we verify the license?
    • Source: "Source[1] Rukai Chief visiting Department of Anthropology in Tokyo Imperial University during the Japanese rule. 日本四國德島縣出身ㄝ鳥居龍藏1896年開始攝ㄝ原住民全紀錄 東京帝国大学人類学教室を訪れたルカイ族・マンタウラン社の頭目（正面）". Is it in the wrong place? • Ling.Nut 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I haven't said it doesn't have a source. Please read critically. Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Taiwanese aborigines(1895).jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
    • Image removed, replaced with File:Femme Pepohan de Formose et son enfant.jpg. PMA data provided. • Ling.Nut 03:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Taiwan aborigine en.jpg - Needs a source for the underlying distribution data.
    • What is underlying distribution data? I see this: "This page was GFDL licensed by its creator, Mababa (talk · contribs) on 07:53, 23 January 2005. --Ling.Nut 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)" • Ling.Nut 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • This is a map of tribe distribution. From what source did the data used to create (underlying) the image come? Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Image replaced with File:Formosan Distribution en.png, which seems to have better provenance. • Ling.Nut 08:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
          • The image is derived in part from File:Tw-administration.jpg, which doesn't have source information. I'm not bothered, as I think this image is sufficiently original, but note that long-term stability maybe be jeopardized without that sourcing. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:PepoWomanChild S.jpg - US does not consider PMA for published works; needs supplementary license for US status.
    • What is PMA? What is a supplementary license? You do everyone a disservice by lapsing into jargon. This image was published in 1877... if it isn't PD, then PD does not exist.• Ling.Nut 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Only to those who can't be bothered to research its meaning. PMA is Post Mortem Auctoris (after the author's death). Supplementary is an adjective form of supplement. You'll find it in the dictionary. I've not said it isn't PD. Please read critically. Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • This image as created by Paul (Pavel Ivanovich) Ibis (1852–77). See here for bio; see here for source info of image. • Ling.Nut 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
          • The US does not consider PMA for published works; it doesn't matter who the author was or when they died if the work was published, as this was. It just needs a supplemental license (i.e. in addition to the present one) indicating this. Adding {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}} would resolve this issue. Alternatively, replace the current license with {{PD-old-70-1923|1877}}. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the clarification. I added {{PD-US}} as per your request. • Ling.Nut 01:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Formosans.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (Gedenkwaarding bedriff der Nederlandsche Oost-Indische Maetschappye op de Kuste en in het keizerrijk van Taising of Sina is not a source).
    • Image removed, replaced with File:Xingang Writing 2.jpg. Thanks for your time and trouble. • Ling.Nut 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Plain Aborigines Taipei.jpg - Summary only addresses status in Japan. What is copyright status in US?
  • File:Atayal.jpg - No author attributed at the source. What is the basis then for claiming s/he has been dead 70 years?
    • Perhaps the fact that the pictures were taken in 1897 might be a tip-off? The uploaders etc. provided source info in Japanese. They are Chinese-speakers on the Chinese Wikipedia. • Ling.Nut 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Consider a photographer aged 27 (i.e. born 1870) who lived to age 81 (i.e. died 1941). They could have created a work in 1897 and not yet have been dead 70 years. Creation date has nothing to do with date of author death, and this wasn't created at a time (e.g. 1797) at which no author could possibly have been dead less than 70 years. Who is the author? When did s/he die? Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • See MOS:CAPTION for when and when not to use periods. Эlcobbola _talk 15:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I don't really see very much wrong with this article, and certainly nothing sufficiently serious to warrant an FAR as opposed to a discussion its talk page. I don't understand the 1c) objection at all, apart from a few dead links which ought to be easy to sort out. Nothing is perfect however, and if I was being hypercritical I might say that the prose is a little awkward in a few places, such as "Japanese rule ended the practice by 1930, but some elder Taiwanese can recall the practice" at the end of the Headhunting section. One thing I really do think needs to be sorted out though is the inconsistent capitalisation of "aborigines" and "aboriginal". The article title is clearly Taiwanese aborigines, which is how the lead starts off, but towards the end it's been transmogrified into "Taiwanese Aboriginese", and capitalisation appears rather random thereafter. But again, this isn't sufficient to justify and FAR in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I also don't see any problems that would merit a delisting. All of the concerns could have been adressed within ten minutes of editing or talk page discussion (image rights problems could have been adrssed by simply removing the images untill the status is clear).·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • There are a bunch of 2c issues which need fixing for consistency, given style, and academic correctness.
  • Richard Wilson (1970) is miscited as being published by MIT when it was published by MIT Press. Suggest a thorough refcheck. Library of Congress isn't the best bibliographic authority, I found Wilson's correct publisher by searching for academic reviews.
  • Similar problems with: Tsuchida, Shigeru (1983).
  • Bibliography needs a check for terminal full-stops (ie: Suenari, Michio (2006).)
  • Not acceptable, "Shepherd, John Robert (1995). Marriage and Mandatory Abortion among the 17th Century Siraya." location and publisher please.
  • Bibliographic items cited out of style for that kind of work (lacking quotes around title), ie (Rolett, Barry V., Jiao, Tianlong & Lin, Gongwu (2002). Early seafaring in the Taiwan Strait and the search for Austronesian origins. Journal of Early Modern History 4.1:307–319.)
    • There shouldn't be quotes around the title of a journal. That is why there are none. • Ling.Nut 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The issue is about article titles, journal titles, consistency (the articles apparent standard is Article Journal Title, except for some conference proceedings):
        1. Italicised both article and journal title, quoted article title: Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Yu (2005). "The Formosan Language Archive: Linguistic Analysis and Language Processing. (PDF)". Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 10.2:167–200.
        2. Italicised journal title, no quotes: Tsao, Feng-fu (1999). The Language Planning Situation in Taiwan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20.4,5:328–48.
        3. Just woah Premier apologizes to Tao tribe. (2002, May 24). Taipei Times. Pg. 3. Accessed March 17, 2007.
        4. Just woah Gao, Pat (2001). Minority, Not Minor. "Taiwan Review". Website of Government Information Office, Republic of China. Accessed August 22, 2010.
        5. Conference papers also flip around in style: Shih, Cheng-Feng (1999). Legal Status of the Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan. Paper presented at the June, 1999 International Aboriginal Rights Conference in Taipei. Accessed March 24, 2007.
        • The other conference papers (several) were published in a bound volume; I treated them as chapters in a book. The Shih, Cheng-Feng paper (at the time I added it, anyhow) was not published in a volume. I believe it follows APA style. Just FYI, the fmt here is LSA, which is a flavor of APA.• Ling.Nut 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • What: "The sia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus."?
  • Consistency Newspaper Names not italicised, newspaper articles italicised.
  • Correct spacing required, "Taipei:SMC Publishing."
  • Page numbers (common error)? (ie: Hsiau, A-chin (1997). Language Ideology in Taiwan: The KMT’s language policy, the Tai-yü language movement, and ethnic politics. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18.4.)
  • Capitalisation? (ie: journal title positions)
    • That is the way it is spelled. I suppose they want to be cool. • Ling.Nut 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Double check publisher, appears to be published by the institute on its own authority as part of a monograph series (Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan).
  • There's a whole bunch of spacing errors in the bibliography.
  • Incorrectly cited, wrong style used, dissertations have their own style generally, and aren't "published" by the University: "Chou, Hui-Min (2005). Educating urban indigenous students in Taiwan: Six teachers’ perspectives. University of Maryland: Doctoral dissertation."
  • Incorrectly placed as a footnote (out of style): "^ Davidson, James Wheeler (1903). The Island of Formosa, Past and Present. Macmillan & Co.. p. 255.
    • An editor has reinserted this cite, which I consider to be immensely suspect (almost ridiculous, in fact). However, I need to play fair and give the editor one week two days to back up his assertion that it is a reliable source. I have asked the editor to wash his own dishes by correcting the cite format. Waiting. • Ling.Nut 02:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So fix it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd put a time estimate for the job at something between 4 and 8 hours, due to extensive repeated bibliographic look-ups. I'd be happy to sort the style issues, but I'm not touching the correctness issues, in part due to the article's reliance on Taiwanese republications of overseas material. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I hardly think that altering "MIT" to "MIT Press" would take more than a few seconds, but let me remind you that the purpose here is to consider whether FAs justify their status, not whether they can be improved. Anything can be improved. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The article currently fails 2c on style and requires a sub-edit for style consistency to meet 2c. Fixing the 2c style problems has to wait until the 1c/2c quality of reference issues to do with publisher and page runs is fixed by someone with access to the Taiwanese national deposit library's bibliographic catalogue. As such the article doesn't meet FA requirements at 2c, and in some minor ways 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • In your opinon, not mine. Please don't state your opinions as fact. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • This is why all commentary is given over a signature is it not? Please feel free to use my talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, nailing the cites on publishers is a bit iffy. Books often change publishers; publishers often change names, etc. The publishers (or at least, the vast majority of them) were accurate at the time of writing, and they are still accurate in that sense. I will try to clean up the few remaining problems, wherever I see them. Thank you for you careful review. • Ling.Nut 04:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • In a number of cases, a University as a publisher is far less reputable than the associated University Press as a publisher (Universities publish with the reputation of the Chancellor / President / Vice Chancellor, University Presses publish with the reputation of their Editor-in-Chief). If you nail the missing bibliographic data (one publication data item, a bunch of pages of journal articles, two probable incorrect publishers on University Presses), I'll sub-edit the style issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • (ec) Hey, when you point out the Suenari ref and say the period after the year in parentheses is unacceptable, are you saying there are inconsistencies somewhere, or simply that it is unacceptable to place a period there at any time? If it is the latter, then I am afraid that I must Decline your suggestion. FAC rules, MOS rules, etc. state that articles can use any <adjective redacted> format they want for refs, (as I know, much to my chagrin as a reviewer), so long as they are consistent. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do them. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • There are inconsistencies, some sources ( Eyton, Laurence (2004, March 3). ) have terminal full-stops in the bibliographic lines. Other sources ( Faure, David (2001). ) lack these. The complaint about the "Articles" in Containing work or "Articles" Newspaper title is also about consistency. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • OK thanks. I dunno if I'll copy that section into user pace and work there, or if I may need to put off working for a day or two.. but either way, I'll get on it. Thanks... • Ling.Nut 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Actually, this article seems rather quite good, especially with regards to sourcing/referencing. :) However, might I make a teensy-tiny suggestion to just consider changing the cite format to in-line-citations? The current citation style works just fine, as it is meticulously done throughout the article and not simply sporadic, in this particular case, just might make things more uniform throughout and a bit easier for the reader and for future research. Just a thought and suggestion, is all, feel free to take it or leave it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The refs are inline. By "inline refs" do you mean footnote style with <ref></rf> tags? That would be a huge, huge change. It would take a couple days' off and on work. Moreover, the current ref style is the style I always saw in uni.• Ling.Nut 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is what I meant. But, okay okay okay, understood, no worries, it was just a suggestion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving down for a conclusion YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, copyright, MOS YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as an nominator. Agreed, the article has no 1c issues. I seeing good improvements so far. JJ98 (Talk) 04:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I think we're just waiting on image clearance at this point. LingNut, if you could make sure all concerns are addressed and then ping Elcobbola, it would be much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist: Several criterion three concerns remain outstanding. Эlcobbola _talk 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment These photo standards strongly reinforce the tendency toward systemic bias (and recentism as well, though to a considerably lesser degree), by placing undue burden on editors who wish to edit in topic areas other than those coming from the United States, Australia and England. To wit, these photos are PD. They were published before 1923 in another country (Japan). However, this kind of metadata is not considered valuable enough to store anywhere, at least not anywhere easily accessible. There is no source that says, "oh by the way, these photos were published in 1901 by the University's anthropology department, or as a part of a French-language monograph by Torii Ryūzō". If I were to pay to board an airplane, fly to the University of Tokyo (where the photos are held), and find someone to translate for me as I spoke to a librarian who would dig through boxes in their basement to find the relevant publication, I might be able to find written documentation of this fact. Otherwise, however, there is no hope. Score one for systemic bias on Wikipedia; only recent English-language articles can pass the Procrustean photos standards.. • Ling.Nut 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – This article should have been kept and removed from this review process long ago. Lambanog (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lambanog, the reason this article hasn't been removed a long time ago is outstanding image concerns. Per Elcobbola's comments, it doesn't meet criteria 3 of the featured article criteria, hence it does not meet the standards needed for a featured article. The delegates do not write the criteria, we simply enforce them as they were written by the community - if you wish to change the standards, please go to the criteria page and start a discussion. Otherwise, the best way to get this article passed would either be to help Ling.Nut find verification on the images or find new images for the article. I do agree with Ling that this criteria makes it hard on writers who work on non-English, non-recent topics, but delegates cannot simply ignore the criteria because they don't like them in a certain situation. Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• you could have just removed the problematic pictures instead of all this nonsense. The image concerns mentioned are ridiculous nitpickery anyway, which as ling.nut has menioned poses impossible requirement for a lot of articles on non-American subjects. One thing is trying to enforce a standard another is being reasonable about it, and a third thing is being reasonable about AND conducting reviews in away that respects the contributors who spend their time writing material for this encyclopedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Or alternatively, you could act like an adult and recognize that the images are PD, but that the metadata which establishes that fact, if it exists anywhere, exists in Japanese in some box in a basement of the University of Tokyo. And yes, I did use the word "adult" in the first sentence. Reviewers cannot simply ignore real-world shortcomings in data display. That would be throwing your arms wide open to WP:Systemic bias, and welcoming it to Wikipedia with a wide, warm smile. • Ling.Nut 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Go ahead, go look at the images in Commons. If we use those images, the article will look like a poop smear. No one benefits. Moreover, we will not (in reality) have moved from non-compliance to compliance with copyright laws, since the images are now and will continue to be PD. • Ling.Nut 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, the article has now been rendered completely, ludicrously ugly. Someone ping ElC. • Ling.Nut 12:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • An editor from Commons has deleted the photo I put in the sidebar. Try again. • Ling.Nut 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • All issues resolved except for the image in the sidebar; waiting on the reviewer who !voted "Delist" to ... review. • Ling.Nut 10:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • asked Jappalang to come along as Elcob is AWOL YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Disclaimer: I just passed a GA for Jappalang. I didn't know anything about his img reviews at FAR; just now saw on ElC's talk that he was mentioned as an alternate reviewer. I went to ElC's talk just now only to see why he was AWOL. I reviewed Jappalang's article because it was ahead of mine in the GA queue (selfish reasons), but passed it because it looks GA to me. [I had previously Failed another article that I reviewed for the same reason, and am now reviewing a third from the same queue... for the same reason].• Ling.Nut 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Image comments: I do not see the unstricken images above in the article, so I think those are resolved (by removal from article). However, I do have the following queries to make (not knowing if they had been reviewed previously).

• File:Tsou youth of Taiwan (pre-1945).jpg

  One of the most wide-spread misconceptions I see on Wikipedia is thinking that creation is publication. The latter term involves making several copies of the work and distributing (either giving or selling) them to the public. Hence, I am hesitant about "collection of old photographs published before 1945 (author of photo unknown)". Publication claims should be backed by a source, or naming and giving details about the specific publication. The publication date thus becomes an issue; if the photograph was published in Taiwan before 1945, it falls under Japanese copyright law, which would make it public domain. However, if published later, it falls under the Chinese copyright law that gives 50 years of post-publication protection. Hence, if a pre-1945 photograph is first published in 1970, the protection is until 2021. That said, the image should be using a US tag (to denote copyright status in the US) and a country of origin tag (either PD-Japan-oldphoto or PD-China).

  I don't actually believe I can dance well enough to make this image acceptable. I didn't even believe it at the time that I added it to the template. Quite frankly, I do not believe there are any images at all in Commons that would meet even the loosest criteria of minimum acceptability to be placed atop this page which also happen to be in possession of the full array of metadata which would verify the (patently true) fact that it is PD. If you can see an image that works, then by all means throw it up on the board. • Ling.Nut 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Formosan Distribution en.png

  The base map (File:Tw-administration.jpg) of this chart is unsourced. We need to know whether that map is created from (or of) public domain material or sets of data (reference: commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images). I recommend using File:Taiwan location map.svg as a base map (NordNordWest is exemplary in making good-looking maps, which are compliant with policies and guidelines). There is also File:Map of Taiwan 1901.jpg available for use.

  Close inspection suggests that the base map of File:Tw-administration.jpg is in fact File:Taiwan location map.svg, which you recommended we use. • Ling.Nut 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  No, it is not. The JPG (which is of unknown origin) has more details to the coast line than the SVG (which is constructed from mapping data). Jappalang (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  I can cobble up a new map based on the SVG, but what are the specifics for the distribution? "SA (Scientific American) Traditional Chinese version "Diversity of Taiwan" (科學人《多樣性台灣》)" is no help when no issue, article name, or page number is given. Jappalang (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  I have replaced this map with File:General distribution of indigenous people in Taiwan.svg, which uses a compliant base map and has verifiable sources for the distribution. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Beijing-NiuJie-Hani-Gaoshan-Ewenki-3656.jpg

  This photograph would have unquestionably qualified for China's freedom of panorama if the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned (应当指明作者姓名、作品名称). Who is the author and what is the (official) title of this work?

  I took that photo of the poster. The title is "The great united family of peoples" (民族团结大家庭, Minzu tuanjie da jiating), as the image's description indicate. I did not see the name of the author anywhere on the poster, and assume that s/he was an employee of [an agency of] China's People's Government, or an artist commissioned by the government. As to the licensing, I leave any possible improvements to those with better knowledge of such things. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• It would be best to ask Jeremy Kemp to go back to the images he had uploaded and use the {{own work}} template on them (using {{Information}} template for a tidier look would do good as well). The current image pages give no trail (broken by the way they had been transferred) for re-users (who are not administrators of both servers) to verify the author and public domain tag.

  I'll see what I can do. • Ling.Nut 09:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  Based on File:Taiwan nun.jpg, I am inclined to believe the PD tags for those photographs are correct. Although stricken, an administrator's help in chronicling the transfers (stating to the effect of what the original statements made on Wikipedia were) on those Commons pages would be better for the project in the long term. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of these should be easy to resolve to keep their use in the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Images okay. Jappalang (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I'm in a busy stretch of the week. Will probably have time to look at these tomorrow... • Ling.Nut 09:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead is not a faithful summary of the article (criterion 2a). It contains a lot of information not mentioned in the main text (about Austronesian languages, for instance). Ruslik_Zero 17:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment and for your time. Problem resolved. • Ling.Nut 00:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • • I have been working with Jappalang on the image issues; I appreciate his help.
      • I am still very unhappy with FAC/FAR/FARC's ivory tower, procrustean views on image issues; I believe that a more reasonable, sensible and realistic approach would save editors a boatload of pointless trouble and hours of time, and would close this FAR/FARC immediately. But what's to be done? Absolutely nothing, it seems. • Ling.Nut 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• I have engaged in some positive email dialog with a person who uploaded some images that Jappalang found on Flickr. This should create some progress. Thanks to Jappalang and NordNordWest for the map. • Ling.Nut 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note, there are quite a few niggling MOS issues to be worked through still-- page number formatting, italics and bold, image captions. I also wonder if so much linking of well known countries is needed? Also, FAs should be comprehensive-- why can't some of the "See also" be worked into the article? Are all of those External links needed? None of this is significant, but it should be addressed before closing the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• New image uploaded to sidebar. I believe it should be OK (have discussed with Jappalang).... I am sick of looking for images; is this a sufficient number?
• New tables; I think they are too large and unsourced. Any opinions from reviewers? • Ling.Nut (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like the table thing has been taken care of - good. Do you have image clearance from Jappalang? The number of images looks fine, there's no definite number and too many is worse than too few. Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think the images have been OK'd. This edit by Jappalang has edit summary "images OK in my view". • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2010 (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 16:43, 8 November 2010 [18].

---

Mário de Andrade

Notified: Chick Bowen, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Biography, Arts and Entertainment Work Group, WikiProject LGBT studies

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to FA standards. For example, the article has falling into section 1c and 3, including unsourced statements and paragraphs. This article was promoted to FA status in 2005 and it hasn't been review since. JJ98 (Talk) 07:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Citations that need improving (they lack where to find the work, or lack a proper citation of the work cited in (ie Foo, Bar "Introduction" to /Work/)

• Biography from www.releituras.com (see External links).
• Hallucinated City (see English translations) xv.
• www.releituras.com.
• See Popson.
• See Gabara for an extensive treatment of these photographs and their artistic, political, and anthropological context.
• See Green.
• www.prodam.sp.gov.br (see External links).

Additionally a number of works need to be added explicitly to the list of references. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to. You need to be more specific. You object to footnote 12, for example--why? The entire article is about the photographs, so it would not make sense to cite a specific page number. The same thing is true of Green--the whole article is about the complexity of Andrade's sexuality, and I do not want to pin down his complex thesis to a single, possibly simplistic statement. In general I cited a page number if there was something specific, and the whole work if my comment applied to the whole work. If you would rather the list of references were incorporated into the footnotes I can do that, but otherwise this article seems to me to be pretty well-cited. Chick Bowen 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• If the whole work applies, then the introduction will contain a succinct thesis statement. Your citations do not allow for verification of the claims made as they do not indicate the place supporting the claim within the work cited. If you are making interpretations on the basis of a sequence of photographs this is OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have summed up her argument in a lengthy footnote. Is that better? I don't mind, but the other seemed more succinct to me. Chick Bowen 15:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is clearly one of the old featured articles when the standard wasn't that high. It has a lot of paragraphs without source. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Having been invited to review my comments, let me say that the standard of citation presentation, and the quality of citations, meet my expectations for a current FAC. Well done to the editor who put that work in! I SOFIXITed stuff I might have complained about (a missing trailing period, n-dashes, a missing comma) because there was so little to fix and they were obvious typographic issues. 2c now looks great and in my humble opinion from merely glancing over the citations, 1c is looking pretty good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment and request. I have looked over this article carefully. As you can see, it has had virtually no significant edits since its FAC in the Fall of 2005. Other than minor edits and vandalism, about 90% of the edits in its entire history, maybe more, are by me. Here's my thought: first of all, it's better cited than it looks--many individual points are ascribed within the prose rather than in footnotes, which is fine. However, it would be better if the biographical material were ascribed to English-language sources rather than the Portuguese site from which I originally drew most of it. Here is what I propose to do: I will rewrite the biographical material to cite English-language sources. I will clarify some of the footnotes for the interpretive material. However, I would like to keep the material cited to primary sources; though he never wrote a formal autobiography, Andrade is his own best biographer in his prefaces and even in his poems themselves--also (and I think this is important), these works are available in translation, whereas full-length biographies of him are only in Portuguese. If those changes will be satisfactory, I'd ask you to reserve judgment until I complete them, which I won't have time to do at least for a week or so. If you have more things you'd like me to address at that time, please be as specific as possible. Comments about how "the standards weren't high" in 2005 are not as helpful as those about what you'd like to article to look like now. Thank you. Chick Bowen 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be far better for all of us if you could avoid ironic remarks. I wrote: "It has a lot of paragraphs without source". Can't be more clear than that. --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've done a lot of work on this article, including introducing seven new sources and clarifying references to the existing sources (and shifting references from two online sources to scholarly ones--except for a few minor points, the entire article is now sourced to peer-reviewed scholarly publications). I've also worked on the image captions, and clarified the status of the bill with MdA's picture on it (though more clarification is still needed, as noted on the image description page). I don't think anything has been discussed except those two issues. I'd like to know if there's anything else people would like to see done. I will be away from Friday to Monday but can address other issues next week. Chick Bowen 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • File:Cândido Portinari, Antônio Bento, Mário de Andrade e Rodrigo Melo Franco 1936.jpg - Source is a deadlink and appears to have been directy to the image itself. Where can we verify the date? Needs a license indicating US copyright status.
  • File:Lake Ararí, Marajó.jpg - PD-Brazil-media addresses only Brazil status. What is US status?
  • File:Andrade self-portrait.jpg - Same as above.
  • File:500000cruzeiros.jpg - Purely decorative. (NFCC#8) That Andrade was important enough to appear on a banknote is clearly communicated with prose (NFCC#1). Seeing the banknote does nothing to further our understanding of that concept.
  • See MOS:CAPTION regarding period usage. Эlcobbola _talk 15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • All of these images have been replaced by Lecen since you wrote this. For right now I will leave them as they are. But various items:
      • The images taken by Andrade himself fall into the category described at Commons:Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a contentious issue at Commons. They are in the public domain in Brazil, and their copyright is effectively unenforceable in the US since there is no designated copyright holder. Their copyright was not registered in the US, which means only the URAA makes them not public domain there. This leaves a very thin thread on which to make a copyright claim. They will undisputedly enter the public domain worldwide in 2015, but in the meantime many Commons users would probably make the argument that they do not belong there. I find that argument unconvincing. In any case, I do think a photograph by Andrade belongs in the article, given that he was an influential photographer whose work is much discussed in the text. I would upload one here and make a fair use claim, but that would mean conceding that they are under copyright, which I'm reluctant to do. So I'm in a bind.
      • The currency is not a big deal. I have inquired about the copyright status at Commons but I suspect it will be difficult to sort out, and unlikely to be definitive. Thus, a fair use claim has to be made. To me, the image packs considerable punch as a visual representation of the state's embrace of Andrade, not that long after it regarded him with extreme suspicion, so I'm not sure it's fair to call it "decorative." But as I say, it's not a big deal.
      • Other than the 1922 images which are clearly public domain, the only images the article truly needs are a recognizable picture of the man and an example of his work as a photographer. Chick Bowen 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • What is the status on this? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
          • The status is that all complaints have been addressed, and those making them haven't commented on the changes. I have significantly revised the citations, as detailed above, and Lecen has replaced the photographs. I am willing to live with the current photographs for the time being; I am waiting for Commons to make a decision about the URAA images, but that could be quite a long time. So it's stable, and if there are no further comments, than I don't think there's anything pending. Chick Bowen 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If you believe the issues to be resolved, please ping the editors who have commented, asking them to return and check to make sure their concerns have been resolved. If enough editors agree that the article has been brought back to FA status, we don't need to go to FARC. I know that User:Elcobbola is travelling at the moment, so User:Jappalang would probably be a good one to re-check images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done so. Chick Bowen 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed as an nominator, the article is really good actually. No comments needed. All concerns have been addressed so far. Good improvements. It doesn't need go to FARC. JJ98 (Talk) 00:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Second image review:

I note that the images mentioned by Elcobbola above are no longer in the article. However,

• File:Mario de andrade 1916.jpg, File:Mario de Andrade 1927.jpg, File:Mario de andrade 1931.jpg, File:Mario de andrade exile in rio.jpg

Please refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/archive1 and read about the discussion on Brazillian photographs, the need for US and country of origin copyright status, and the terms "creation", "disclosure", "publication". {{PD-old}} are wrong for these photographs as there are no information about the lifespan of the photographer(s) (the copyright owners unless a contract was signed to transfer the rights) who might have lived into the 1970s or later. No information about first "disclosure" are given; the family photographs might have remained in their collection until 1960s, which mean Brazilian copyright is till the 2030s (the source Grandes Personagens da Nossa História might be the earliest disclosure, which means copyrighted in Brazil until 2040; and if the copyright owner of the photographs consented to their printing in the book, that means first publishing is in 1969). In any event, unless these photographs are proven to be published (several copies sold or given to the public, or printed in a newspaper or book) before 1923; published during 1923–78 and the author died earlier than 1926; or are unpublished before 1978 and the author died more than 70 years ago, they are not public domain in the US. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is basically correct, and I can only point out that I didn't put them there. This is why my preference would be for the photographs taken by Andrade, which were published in the 30s and are definitely PD-Brazil. But that gets into the URAA issue. For now I've simply removed them all. Chick Bowen 02:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No image issues remain with the removal of the photographs mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks a bit better. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. Please note also Fifelfoo's update above (and thanks too for your edits, Fifelfoo). Chick Bowen 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've got no issues to report. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any possibility of this being resolved? It has been open for 7 weeks, and those who have expressed concerns have since stated that their concerns are satisfied. Chick Bowen 02:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I was about to close this, but then saw several things on a quick run-through. The above general reviewers (i.e., not those just looking at sourcing or images) should really have caught this...

• The lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, three paragraphs would be about right for an article of 35 KB. The lead should be a summary of the information found in the body, without including new information. For example, the lead says "He has had an enormous influence on Brazilian literature in the 20th and 21st centuries," but I see little to no discussion of his influence on Brazilian literature during the 21st century in the body of the article. The 20th century, yes, but not the 21st.
• There are several areas where references are needed. For example, in the Week of Modern Art section, the end of the first paragraph, block quote and next paragraph are all unreferenced, and contain quotes, which must be referenced. Please check to make sure that everything that is required to be referenced by the featured article criteria actually is referenced.
• In the Late life and musical research section, "The word, and Andrade's use of it, helped define Brazilian music, which was simultaneously a scholarly and nationalist category." is unreferenced. Who says it helped definte Brazilian music?

I wish that other reviewers had picked up on these issues, so that I could have closed this review. However, the article does look fairly good, and so once these things are taken care of, the review should be able to be closed fairly quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified the citations of the Week section (they were there, just implied), and expanded the lead. My JStor proxy is currently not working, but I'll address the "popularesque" issue as soon as it is. Chick Bowen 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I reworked that "popularesque" sentence a bit and added a citation. If it still seems iffy just remove it; it's not essential to the overall point, I don't think. Chick Bowen 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Thank you for your quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2010 (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 20:21, 6 November 2010 [19].

---

British Empire

Review commentary

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

• A few weeks back I noticed discrepancies in the article and some inapprorpitate language which I removed without too many objections. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
• Further problems with the article were pointed out by several different editors (User:John K, User:Yogesh Khandke and User:Zuggernaut) recently - these relate to gross discrepancies in two maps and some POV issues. I attempted to improve the article by removing the maps but they were quickly added back.[25] [26][27] The discrepancies were dismissed as minor on the talk page. [28] A user even suggested that the editors working to improve the articles be ignored and their comments deleted. [29]
• POV issues [30] have been dismissed in a similar manner without providing any explanation on the talk page.[31]
• A review will help identify problems or inappropriate language that might not directly be seen by individual editors specializing in or having knowledge of one particular area.
• Detailed discussions can be found on the talk page.

These users have been notified:

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
User:Wiki-Ed
User:Derek Ross
User:Snowded
User:Yogesh Khandke
User:John K
Wikipedia:Empire
WP:IN

Zuggernaut (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This Review is being requested by a user whos edit history clearly shows he has a political agenda on wikipedia. The guy has violated canvass rules in order to help his position in a debate, hes added POV material that has had to be undone or caused sections of articles to need neutrality tags, hes created pointless categories related to the British Empire and now he seeks to undermine the status of an article because he dislikes the subject. It is now almost impossible to assume good faith in Zuggernauts actions. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He also has obviously not familiarized himself with Wikipedia policies yet. Zuggernaut's "problems" with the article can be resolved on the article talk page - most of the problems he raises are not problems at all, just him misunderstanding policies or him not liking that he can't have his POV injected into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A review is not necessary. This seems like a peevish attempt to disrupt following successive failures to make POV/OR changes to a very-well sourced article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, no review is necessary --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Review is necessary. Reason (1) Graphics - maps are user created and not peer-reviewed. (2) Article is one sided - see sub-section below. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Image issues: I have tidied up the images as much as I could, but the following require further action.

• File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg: pretty sure Zscout370 did not design the Union Jack or did it in 1801... filed a request to change it.[32]

• File:Location of the BOTs.svg, File:The British Empire.png, File:BritishEmpire1815.png, File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png, File:BritishEmpire1919.png: Maps can be copyrighted (see commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images). Unless the maps in those books were not copyrighted (either using public domain maps or creation from data sets), retracing them would be a copyright violation. Use maps such as File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg, File:CIA Political World Map 2002.jpg or other well-sourced maps as the base map (geographical features) and fill in the areas with the data from the listed sources.

The map used appears to be File:BlankMap-World3.svg again. The information from it has been copied on from an older version - which I shall track down shortly! Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The older version is File:World map model.png. This blank map was used to create the BOT map which was then used to create the current map on a File:BlankMap-World3.svg base. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• File:British Colonies in North America c1750 v2.png: Source, "from Wikipedia", is not okay (be precise), where did the base map come from (similar issue to above)? Is Y.B The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick?

• File:British colonies 1763-76 shepherd1923.PNG: The map was printed in 1923, so this is more likely have to be checked on whether copyright was not renewed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Clive.jpg: Per WP:CITE#IMAGE, link to the page that displays the image, not to the image itself. Where comes the information of authorship and date then?

• File:Yorktown80.JPG, File:Captainjamescookportrait.jpg, File:Grand fleet jutland.jpg: Needs a source per WP:IUP and WP:CITE#IMAGE

• File:British Empire 1897.jpg: Link does not show or help to verify this map was created or published in 1897. Neither does it help to verify {{PD-old}} since the cartographer might have created this map at the age of 25 and lived till he was 80 (1952), which would not be 70 years ago.

• File:British empire 1886.jpg: The PD-old tag is wrong here (without knowledge of the author, who does 1915 apply to?). McClure & Co (the map's publisher) or its current owner should be contacted to ascertain the author (if they have no knowledge, then the map can be left on Commons with {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}). Since no page number is supplied, I presume the uploader found the scan from a website, which should be given per WP:CITE#IMAGE. Regardless, the Boston Public Library has supplied the same image at http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/4404528478/ in a larger resolution even. Unless the author is identified (or inquiry made with McClure), please upload it to Wikipedia with {{PD-1923-abroad}} (my current machine is blocked from downloading flickr images, otherwise I would have done it myself...). Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Author name wasn't showing up due to a formatting issue - the author is known and died in 1915. I've uploaded the larger-resolution image. The scan is not from a website - the image is a supplement from The Graphic, and simply doesn't have a page number. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just curious about one thing, where does it state Walter Crane was the author? Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The archival description for the map was fairly thorough: "Created by Walter Crane, The Graphic July 1886, 'Imperial Federation', - map of the world showing the extent of the British Empire in 1886. Statistical information furnished by Captain J.C.R. Colomb, M.P. formerly R.M.A. - British territories coloured in red. Insert, smaller map of the world showing the extent of the British Territories in 1786 (image 13)". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the "archival description"? It would be more helpful to have the links or instructions to access these information on the image page. Regardless, it seems moot since I located an even bigger version of the map... (16MB, more than 9,876 × 7,346 pixels...) and Crane's signature is evident on the bottom left. Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found an online version of that description; the one cited here is from a physical archival collection. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:ImperialConference.jpg: What is the copyright status of this file in the US (relevant for storage on either Wikipedia or Commons)?

• File:Imperialwarcabinet-bordonhu.jpg: The source does not state that this was published in 1917. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Added link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That link vouches more for the creation date than publication, since it does not state when the work was published but rather when the photograph was taken. Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. According to this, copyright is expired. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, that is referring to Canadian copyrights. The publishing date is required to ascertain the image's US copyrights, which is mainly based on first publishing date (if published before 2003). Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Jinnah Gandhi.jpg: Copyright status in the US? {{PD-India}} specifically states "enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published" (emphasis in italics), where comes the information this was published (distributed to the public in several copies) in September 1944? Why are there two separate Indian copyright templates? Which is the correct one?

  Seems to have been removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:AREden.jpg: "Access: unrestricted" does not mean that there is no copyright. The IWM is like the Library of Congress, collecting material from government and private sources, and also advises on the existence of copyrighted items in its collection and for users to conduct their own research (and request for licensing from private copyright holders).[33][34] It specifically states that this photograph is "Commercial photograph, Portrait photograph (studio)", which means that this is not a Crown Copyright item.

• File:P history.png: The figure of the horse and its rider is taken from the cover of this book (1974), which is copyrighted for 95 years since publishing per http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm.

  Seems to have been finally removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Masters of the Seas.jpg: What is this painting's copyright status in the United States, considering that it is still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the cut-off date for URAA copyright restoration in the US)? Jappalang (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Seems to have been removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There are serious image issues that should not be encountered in an FA. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To address the map issue: I did not "trace" any maps. They all used maps that can be found at Wikipedia:Blank_maps as a starting point, and the references cited in the map descriptions were then simply used to ensure that we were not colouring in a territory as British Empire that cannot be verified in a reliable source. Please let me know how I can update the description pages of these maps to make that clear. Regarding this map [35] whoever transferred it from Wikipedia to the commons just put in "Wikipedia" as the source instead of copying the source that I had put in there - I'll fix. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The maps would have to state exactly which map or set of data (giving links if taken from the web) was used as the base. For example, if I took File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg and coloured a few nations in red (say the communist bloc during the Cold War), I would put in the Source field: "base map: File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg". This will help other editors to verify the underlying work (File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg is in the public domain because it is a CIA creation). Several maps in Wikipedia:Blank_maps fail to state their sources and as such fail WP:IUP and WP:CITE#IMAGE. Their non-compliance will extend to derivative works, so please do not use them (or have their creators reveal the sources used). Off hand, I would say that File:World98.svg is safe to use as a base for future maps, and so are File:BlankMap-World6.svg and File:BlankMap-World6-Equirectangular.svg, which are derivatives of File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg. Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Clive is fixed, Yorktown has been replaced, Jutland has been replaced, AREden has been replaced, P history has been removed. I think ImperialConference now has the correct tag, but would appreciate a check. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

P history is still there (it is a portal image). Jappalang (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Maps drawn by editors

Wikipedia has a clear policy: Verifiablity and not truth. What has been done has been confessed as research based on reliable sources, I will not contest whether the maps are accurate or not. But they are original research. British Empire is an ancient subject. There are sure to be maps circa early 20th century, which are bound to be copyright free. If contributors draw their own maps, such maps should not be included in a FA. Please take the maps off.

Please we need to improve the standard of Wikipedia. My suggestions are to be considered with the fact that we are dealing with a FA. Which is the best of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone gets into this further, read over Talk:British Empire#Is the map Original research, unreliable source, synthesis? where these points have already been raised and others have countered those points (effectively or not, up to reader to decide). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be right to suggest that any map or table created by an editor from reliable sources is OR or synthesis per se. It is simply a way of presenting a substantial amount of verifiable information in an easily digestable or illustrative form. It is no more automatically synthesis or OR than any written summary of information.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke has now three times (make it four) been pointed towards WP:OI. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Negative impact of BE

The negative impact of BE is not dealt with. This article is completely one sided and does not address the negative impact of imperialism - slavery, exploitation of resources, racism, brutality, cultural and religious aggression. Very one sided article. Should not be a FA. FA is a showcase for Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The effects of the British Empire are concentrated in the Legacy section, which covers everything in what I feel is a neutral manner. It doesn't praise whatever the British Empire did, and it does mention negatives, such as conflicts in Kashmir and Ireland that resulted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Deceit, slavery, exploitation, racism, brutality, cultural and religious aggression, where is it? The near extermination of the inhabitants of North America, Australia, New-Zealand where is it? Slavery and indentured labourers where is it? Apartheid where is it. Signs like Indians and dogs not allowed where is it? Wonder how a puerile apologist article got through to FA, a serious flaw in the system?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have thought all these types of things are endemic to human societies in general, historically speaking, and probably all of the many empires there have been and still are, big and small, to varying degrees. An article on such a big topic can't cover all the details but other articles certainly can and do.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for god sake. There is only so much that can be written in an article. I am sure you could write a long rant about your hatred of the British Empire, an equally long list of the benefits of Empire could be provided to counter your hatred, but we do not have enough room to include that either in a single article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, does this article go on about the positive impact of the Empire? I can't find anywhere where it praises the wonderful thing it's done, but I guess if the negative is added that can be too! You know, for neutrality ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is neutral. It does infact mention things like slavery, deaths from famine in India and Ireland, areas of conflict today such as Kashmir and Palestine and tensions between white settler populations and indigenous populations and the religious divide in Ireland. The reception minorities were granted when they arrived in Britain has nothing to do with the British Empire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We periodically get editors crop up who argue we need to discuss the negative impacts and who want to right WP:GREATWRONGS. Every time, we ask, please quote where the article is portraying the Empire in a positive light, and we never get anything from them, unsurprisingly because nowhere does the article do this. It states the facts and lets the reader decide whether it was good or bad to, say, transport slaves or take land from the Maoris. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ps for the record, Yogesh Khandke made an unsourced edit to the article with the edit comment that 9/11 was Britain's fault.

• Comment. I don't see very much wrong with this. It appears to me to a balanced, neutral, and fairly well written account of the British Empire. There's one request for citation that needs to be dealt with, and the first paragraph of the Cape to Cairo section needs to be cited, but they're small things easily dealt with. I see no justification for this FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Allright, thanks Malleus. At this point I think we're just waiting on the image issues being fixed, and then this can be kept without a FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment refers to what was written in the edit summary. Is 9-11 a holy cow. Please see talk page of BE. Where I have given references for appeasements of Muslim fanatics by British. and Rev. Wright. British Empire had effect as mentioned above by me for those over which it ruled and fantastic for the ruling class in Britain, why should I bother about the impact of other empires here. There is so much fuss about how big it was and all that irrelevant information. The events in India to the Queens proclaimation and later, and the Company's time earlier are covered in a very POV fashion. Kashmir is brought up in a POV fashion, the source being a map. Article looks like it was written by an apologist in the fashion of 18th century bards masquerading as scholars. As Zaggaurnauts has commented on talk page regarding choice of archaic scholars. Editors ought to address these issues to arrive at a consensus, or the FA status should be withdrawn which was in my o, rushed through (not in terms of time), but in terms of quality checks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor drawn maps not kosher for FA The original reasearch consession for images is just that a consession imo. Should not be allowed for a FA, which should be of the highest standard. No need to count how many times explanations are made, if what I wish to convey does not get across. User drawn maps are not kosher imo for a FA, unless the user/editor is a {{WP:RS}} Is my point clear gentlemen?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Malleus's comment The article is well written in terms of language, presentation and produces a good account of the British Empire in many respects. Offensive language was introduced in the article by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick on October 28, 2007. After that, the article passed multiple reviews, became an FA and made the front page on June 13, 2009. It got 76,100 hits on that day alone. I have not been able to count the number of views it received in the three years between October 28, 2007 and today. School children of a tender age have been laying more trust in FA, A and GA class articles and they come back and ask questions about what they read. The account this article gives differs significantly (by excluding criticism of BE) from what mainstream historians will attest to. My recent well-sourced edit[36] was quickly undone and it illustrates this (the sources provided are two very reputable newspapers). It is difficult to get any neutrally worded criticism of the BE in the article because the same set of vocal editors will vote it down as is illustrated by the responses to this FA review. I also discovered that the article is highly prone to vandalism when I undid this edit [37] Unless criticism is allowed in the article, it should be considered a biased article and be given a B-class rating. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...and sorry for airing my dirty laundry here but the same set of editors have followed me to the Famine in India article, added {{POV}} tags, just because I was being assertive in including well sourced material about 37 million deaths of Indians due to starvation under British rule. I've had to spend my time on non-content related edits and peripheral things like taking the matter to OR and NPOV noticeboards to get outside opinions before the {{POV}} tag was taken off. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you're a man on a mission, but I think it is you who is displaying a very definite bias, particularly when it comes to Indian issues. Just above you call this edit "offensive", but in your edit summary you merely said that the word "native" was redundant, which it probably is. But were the sepoys not native to India? Of course they were, so how is it offensive? I have no intention of being dragged into either side of your crusade, so I'll simply end by observing that it's my perception that unless this article reflects your own prejudices and biases then you want to see its FA status removed, which is unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 12:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Violation of 1(c) of WP:FA criteria Another example of a subtly worded construct that makes India look bad: "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India."

Source used: Olson, James (1996). Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 031329366X. Retrieved 22 July 2009.

The source's meaning is twisted to meet The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's POV. The war of Indian independence was over religion not over efforts to Westernize India. Infact Indian social reformers such as Ram Mohan Roy were trying to westernize India themselves, having realized the advantages. These alternative and highly reliable sources were pretty easy for me to find:

• BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' "In the rebels' own papers, they refer over and again to their uprising being a war of religion. There were no doubt a multitude of private grievances, but it is now unambiguously clear that the rebels saw themselves as fighting a war to preserve their religion, and articulated it as such."
• BBC - This Sceptred Isle: EMPIRE "The reasons for the rebellion were long standing and included: attempts by British missionaries to convert all India to Christianity; ineffectual command of the army in Bengal; insensitive recruiting policy and "Europeanization" of the sepoy regiments and sepoy objections to serving outside their homeland and traditional areas."
• Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny "More sophisticated historical readings find a range of causes for the bubbling discontent that led to open rebellion - the punitive tax collection system, a succession of British territorial seizures and the rise of aggressive Christian evangelism among them."

The yet-unsuccessful discussion on the talk page to rectify the content can be found here Talk:British_Empire#.22Westernisation_of_India.22

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Violation of 1(d) of WP:FA criteria Non-neutral statement - "India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect."

Note the subtly with which the British East India Company is made to take the blame instead of the British government. I took this up a few weeks back at the WP:SYN noticeboard [38]

The responses on that board follow the same pattern - the initial responses were by the same set of editors who obviously rejected what I was saying. But other neutral editors are do notice the ambiguity and confusion. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The right places to discuss this are at the article talk page, and on the relevant noticeboards if you want to include outside opinion. You already took the famine wording to the OR noticeboard [39] and nobody agreed with you that it was either synthesis or POV. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is in fact an article on famine in India which cites the source (Bose) put forward. Also a section in British Raj. An article on the entire British Empire can't possibly cover all the arguments. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick look gives me the impression the article is well-written and of FA caliber. I would say, however, that there is a faint but detectable tendency to give a slightly rosier view of the empire in a couple of spots. Aside from the examples already given the last line I think would be more neutral if rewritten and changed from "The makeup of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War due to immigration to Britain from the colonies to which it was granting independence" to "The makeup of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War due to immigration to Britain from its former colonies." If stronger criticism is avoided to make the article workable and not to serve as a lightning rod for acrimony, then a higher bar of neutrality is warranted for statements that can be perceived as favorable even if innocuous. Lambanog (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Olson an unreliable source not because of any specific bias, but this guy wrote a few books on the VN War and seems to go for quantity over quality and makes lots of random mix-ups everywhere. On a "dictionary of the VN War" there were blatant bloopers on every two or three pages, saying that the Tay Son Dynasty's surname was Tran, that most of the leadership of South Vietnam were descendants of the Nguyen Dynasty (presumably 40% of VN are descendants of the ruling family?) that Nguyen Cao Ky was a Nguyen dynasty prince, that Ngo Dinh Diem is a descendant of Ngo Quyen, that Nguyen Lords conquered Thailand, an randomly getting a lot of people's surnames, job titles and religions upside down. The guy is basically a joke and could have used a coin flip to determine content, really. Nothing related to claims to bias, he is just a clown, that's all YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson is co-editor not the author of these historical dictionaries. Individual authors write the entries. That you think you have found errata in a completely unrelated (subject-wise) dictionary authored by different people but edited by the same individual is neither here nor there with respect to the reliability of this source. By all standards set out at WP:RS it is a reliable source. If you have specific quibbles with specific claims made in the article for which this source was used then we can try to corroborate the source with other sources. You can't just wave your hand in the air and proclaim it unreliable like this though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of or poor editorial oversight with a dubious reputation of fact checking falls under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. Olson's claims do conflict with William Dalrymple (historian) as the BBC and Telegraph secondary or tertiary sources confirm. BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny Zuggernaut (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No that's not how it works. Do you have a reliable source that states specifically that the source we are using is questionable? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this dictionary is co-edited by James S. Olson resume and Robert Shadle resume. There are seven associate editors and, by my count from the list at the back of the book, ninety contributors, from various universities in the USA and Canada. So that's nearly 100 contributors from academia to this publication. I'm afraid I couldn't contain any longer my despair that this thread was even opened at an FA review and have started a discussion at WP:RSN here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

His VN War dictionary also had dozens of contributors with universities listed next to them. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson is not as clean as it seems at first glance. For example the New York times criticizes Olson while reviewing a different work. It shows Olson is unable to detach himself from the subject matter and write in a dis-interested way. Some excerpts:

• "THE book undermines its own theory -- that the man was interchangeable with the icon -- by being much more perceptive about his movies than about his life and politics."
• Mr. Roberts and Mr. Olson write about their man with the devotion and indulgence of the doting parents he never had." [40] Zuggernaut (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My goodness. Devastating newspaper criticism - conclusive proof. Must be. Or not. Anyway, assuming Olson is "not as clean", what about the other contributors? Apparently there are about 100 of them. Does the newspaper criticise them too? Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it really is very ironic, isn't it. Even if we grant these utterly preposterous (not to mention offensive) claims about Professor Olson - who has been an academic for over 4 decades and is Distinguished Professor and Chair in the Department of History at Sam Houston State University - the fact remains that he didn't even write this entry in the dictionary. We don't even know if he edited this specific entry, given that there are 9 co-editors. So quite why Zuggernaut is so obsessed with him is beyond me. Anyway, this all basically boils down to an Ad hominem attack, which is no way to go about things. We should be focusing on the specific claims made in the source and - gosh, look at this - it also uses the same term "evangelicalism" as Zuggernaut's beloved Telegraph article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson is the editor. He is responsible for checking his subordinates. I have read two other of his works, on a historical dictionary that he edited, another one he wrote directly on the Vietnam War. Both were strewn with mix-ups all over the place, none related to POV. Secondly Wikipedia is supposed to be based mainly on secondary sources, and FA is supposed to be more stringent, and I see that almost 30% is based on Olson, a tertiary source. Yes, it is a big blooper to preside over something that says that Nguyen Cao Ky is a Nguyen Dynasty prince as were large members of South Vietnamese leadership. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your argument boils down to this:

Premise 1: There are mistakes in two publications on Vietnam by Olson.

Premise 2: If a mistake can be found in one publication, it means there are also mistakes in any other publication involving the same individual(s).

Premise 3: A single mistake in a publication makes the entire publication unreliable.

Premise 4: Olson was co-editor of the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire.

Conclusion: The Historical Dictionary of the British Empire is unreliable.

We only have your word for premise 1; however the truth of it is irrelevant because premises 2 and 3 are patently false; therefore the conclusion is false. As to your other points - 2ary/3ary and the %age for which a source is used, those are valid discussion points, but you did not raise that at the beginning, and what worries me is that you might one day be arguing a similar case against a secondary source used two percent of the time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a potential solution be to replace its use where ever its used to back up something controversial or possibly problematic/specific, and just leave it for the obviously accurate ones? So for example: "Events in America influenced British policy in Canada, where between 40,000 and 100,000[50] defeated Loyalists had migrated from America following independence." That is fairly specific so we could try to find a second source for that. But "The elections were held the following year and won by Robert Mugabe, who became the Prime Minister of the newly independent state of Zimbabwe]'." Is obviously accurate anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dalrymple's original work that the BBC and Telegraph reports are related to was very well received. The Guardian calls it brilliant - - Zafar the ditherer: Geoffrey Moorhouse applauds William Dalrymple's brilliantly nuanced account of the Indian mutiny of 1857, The Last Mughal Zuggernaut (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, there is an argument for saying that inclusion of Dalrymple's thesis about the religious motivations for the uprising should be discussed but it's not a FAR point and hardly means that the article is POV. Anyway - surely you should be referring to the book, not newspaper reviews.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• 2c Quality of citations Olson and Olson are not differentiated, verification is therefore impossible. Olson (the Tertiary source) is incorrectly cited, individually authored articles ought to be cited, with their individual authors attributed. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• 1c Source unverifiability, reliance on a tertiary source Olson (the Tertiary) as currently cited in the article lacks any of the indications that it is an expert Tertiary source, as such it is unverifiable and the appreciation must lean towards non-expert Tertiary sources. In any case, an article like this ought not to be relying on tertiary sources, and ought to be relying on scholarly monographs. Given the subject matter, suitable secondary source scholarly monographs in academic presses should be in abundance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the references don't distinguish between Olsen (British Empire) and Olsen (European Empires) that does seem to be the case. But what do mean by "lacks any of the indications that it is an expert Tertiary source, as such it is unverifiable and the appreciation must lean towards non-expert Tertiary sources" ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for such an indication under the RS or FA rules, but since we rely upon the source relatively heavily (perhaps for very good reasons) and since some of the naysayers have focused on this it behoves us to prove it is in fact reliable. Unfortunately I'd never heard of it and I cannot find any reviews of the book in my country. Redhat... I believe it's your source. Can you make the case? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for high quality reliable sources, and fullness of coverage, covers the issue of reliance on a single tertiary source of undemonstrable quality. For a tertiary source demonstrated to be a scholarly compilation of original signed articles by experts, with articles of chapter / journal article length, each article would constitute a high quality reliable source. Each article would need to be cited individually for verifiability. A lesser tertiary work, signed short articles in themselves tertiary by experts, would be merely reliable. In either case, over reliance on a source is reason enough to question a work in the domain of history at FAC. The best way to make the case here would be full citation of all individually signed works, and of entries in unsigned tertiary source items. The spelling cited in the bibliography is Olson at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle, but could you provide a link to the relevant WP policy which lays this out? I suspect the chap who provided these references was not aware of it, and I have not been able to find it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c and 2c. Citing entries in a historical dictionary without indicating which entry is cited, and if that entry was individually authored doesn't allow for the verification of the material. In relation to 1c "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." High quality reliable sources is an interpretation depending on the topic. The HQRS for a comic book will vary from the HQRS for a historical article such as British Empire. In the case of British Empire, the expected core sourcing basis is the variety of literature (ie: including the major academic view points, even if they disagree, as long as they have not been excluded by the academic community itself) out of scholarly monographs, chapters in scholarly edited collections, journal articles in peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic, and refereed conference papers from appropriate conferences. In addition some further sources are generally acceptable, including monographs in the popular non-fiction commercial presses of note, where written by experts (ie: people holding research higher degrees, Doctorates or the equivalent, in a relevant area, or people with a long and consistent habit of publishing scholarly grade works in such presses), monographs in specialist non-fiction non commercial presses which hold themselves to a scholarly grade in that imprint, and signed articles by experts where the article is of journal article or conference paper length in scholarly tertiary sources where the articles themselves are of relevance (you don't source British Empire from the entry for "Mangroves" in the Historical Encyclopaedia of Trees). Other Reliable Sources may supplement this material, but the material itself should be produced and reliant upon the variety of scholarly literature. The HQRS standards themselves are evaluated by reviewers primarily at FAC and FAR/FARC, and occasionally by Reliable Sources/Noticeboard editors if you ask nicely. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well here's the list of contributors. The references are above this and the index in an appendix. Each entry is attributed to a contributor and each entry cites it's it's own references. As you can see the contributors vary from graduates to history lecturers to Emeritus professors. Olsen is described as the Chair of History at Sam Houston State University (or was then anyway).Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations need to be provided adequate to check verifiability. For example, [Staff], "Khartoum" in Historical dictionary of the British empire, Volume 2 James Stuart Olson and others (Eds.) Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1996: 625-625 is not a reliable source, it is trivium. Gregory C. Kozlowski, "Khilifat Agitation," in in Historical dictionary of the British empire, Volume 2 James Stuart Olson and others (Eds.) Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1996: 625-626 is not a high quality reliable source, it is too short to be a work of scholarship and cites one reference: it fails to review the literature, and cannot account for the object of study. Find the citations for each entry used in the article, and take them as a group to WP:RS/N giving the statements they're used to support in the article, and if possible a google link to the actual page in the Dictionary. Also ask WP:RS/N if each of them is a High Quality Reliable Source for the purposes of FAC/FAR/FARC. My impression from reading a set of articles, is that none of these are high quality reliable sources, as none of the articles I have read so far are scholarly works of original research. Some, like the one paragraph Staff article, aren't reliable at all. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any published reviews supporting your impressions? If not then my impression is that you are just asserting your POV and creatively interpreting the WP:FAC criteria. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The links from Olsen go to two different books, so they are differentiated, just not visibly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This does not meet the standard required at FAC. I look forward to the citations being correct so I can modify my opinion below. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are POV, original research and sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist Large amounts of tertiary sources (30%) and edited by a guy who makes loads of basic gaffes YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment It was established at WP:RSN that your objections to Olson are no grounds in and of themselves to deem a source "unreliable". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Luckily RSN isn't the final word, as once some Tamil Tiger supporters had a vote there to deem some LTTE sites reliable. promptly chucked out at FAC. The part about tertiary source flooding remains, per the chunks in the policy pages saying that secondary sources are favored and WP:WIAFA being stricter than everyday wikistandards, ie, rubbish YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Key word "favoured"; it does not say exclusively. Your judgement seems to be a little opinionated. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

as noted below the Olson source has now been completely removed to address the concerns about it and replaced with other sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• No opinion There are no 1c/2c issues at the moment. My lack of opinion is related to the summary style used which characterises the British Empire as an active subject worthy of our sympathy, and to the absence of an expected evalutations/criticisms/historiography section. These criticisms are a) difficult to address b) related to core disagreements about the writing of historical articles on wikipedia c) not related to the core purpose of this FAR. The article is adequate to remain a FA under wikipedia policy, but still lacking in some areas. Additionally, it is late in process and I don't have the capacity to present a detailed review in these terms. While Yogesh Khandke's criticism are perhaps problematic in some ways, conflicting with some ideas of summary style, article editors ought to inspect them in detail, and consider the addition of a Historiography / Evaluation / Criticisms section near the current Legacy section, dealing only with scholarly opinions (popular opinions wouldn't be relevant to such an article)... the idea of "Historiography and Evaluation of the British Empire" probably deserves a full article in its own right. I hope in light of this, editors understand my absence of opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Delist 1c/2c related. Quality of citations does not allow verification (Olson ed. (1996) and Olson ed. (1991). undifferentiated; actual works cited, contained documents inside Olson (1996), Olson (1991) unable to be verified from citations, lacking authors and article titles). Probably failure of verification as either reliable or high quality reliable sources for most works in Olson (1996) and Olson (1991). Quality of research: reliance on Tertiary sources. Quality of research: absence of expected scholarly secondary sources of recent derivation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If all of the Olson sources are removed from the article and other sources are found to back up the contents, would it change your mind about delisting the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would need to reread the sourcing in the article in terms of the other two elements I'm concerned about in relation to 1c: reliance on tertiary sources, and absence of expected recent scholarly monographs. Fixing the citation of Olson (1991) and Olson (1996) would fix the 2c concerns. If the article no longer causes me concern during the FARC process, of course I would strike my opinion to delist. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep listed - POV and OR were never demonstrated and nobody agreed with those claims other than the two editors who suddenly popped up and caused such trouble at the BE and who requested the FA re-review. We have people explicity disagreeing with tenuois claims of POV and OR above. Minor issues with sources can and will be fixed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist for violation of 1(c), 1(d) and 2(b) of WP:FA Criteria, issues with maps still unaddressed - anachronistic maps, errors showing Portuguese colonies as British, etc.

Justification for 2(b) - Colonies that were the largest part of the Empire, had the largest population and generated the highest revenue are not given proportionate coverage in the article. For example, India receives 1.8% (1.13 kilobytes of 61 kilobytes) of coverage in one section "Company rule in India" despite generating revenue surpassing the combined revenue of the "white colonies".

Justification for 1(d) - The article seems to have a British nationalist's POV. For example my attempts to add mainstream views in a nation of 1.2 billion have been futile:

• Poor legacy in India
• India's share of global income shrank from 22.6% to 3.8% under the British Empire Zuggernaut (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: No opinion - some problems have been fixed, many remain. But these stem from a wider systemic and known problem that has manifested itself in this article in the form of a strong pro-British POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist, serious sourcing concerns, poor quality of research, significant FA criteria concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep listed Am I missing something here? There only appear to be two issues: A user brought the FAR because he couln't gain concensus to insert his POV into this article, he also cannot gain consensus here to do that. Olsen is a tertiary source used in this longstanding FA article. No error of fact has been identified in this article based on Olsen. An error of fact has been identified in a work edited by Olsen but not used as a source in this article. Agree secondary sources may be "better" but with no error of fact identified we should delist - seriously? Outofsinc (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep listed' - No you're not missing anything. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep listed - Article contains many different sources, if one is a serious issue then time should be given to find alternatives. Nothing backed up by the Oslon source which is being rubbished by a couple of editors above based on his other work (not relating to the specific work sourced in the article) are outrageous claims, almost all can easily be backed up by an alternative if needed. Where on earth is the " POV, original research" issues? The main editor making such claims is busy engaged throughout wikipedia adding POV material based on his negative views of Empire. It is shocking he is able to cause such disruption by demanding a review an it has resulted in this. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help if those concerned with the Oslon source actually listed some of the sentences backed up by the source in the article they question. Many of the cites are to cover basic stuff that could easily be backed up by other sources, if they need backing up at all. Like "In 1869 the Suez Canal was opened under Napoleon III, linking the Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean. The Canal was at first opposed by the British" and "Under the terms of the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, Hong Kong Islanditself had been ceded to Britain "in perpetuity", but the vast majority of the colony was constituted by the New Territories, which had been acquired under a 99 year lease in 1898, due to expire in 1997." These are not issues that are hard to find dozens of sources backing up if needed and given time. It is a shame the sudden jump to this vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm pretty unimpressed by the "concerns" above - if Olson keeps making mistakes, let's have examples! But if the article were at FAC now, the sourcing and comprehensiveness should be improved. There is very little analysis indeed, just a chronology of military and political highlights. The empire included possessions acquired and run in very different ways, and with different motivations, and this side of the subject has little coverage, as does economics. Obviously the subject is huge, but I think more than this is needed. I don't think the text suffers from general pro-British POV; in places it seemed to lean the other way. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a POV can be expressed by omitting or excluding specific content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And often including content in the way you want also expresses a POV. The article mentions Famines, slavery, losses and the negative legacy of Empire including a number of conflicts ongoing in the world today. These issues are not swept under the carpet, but there is only so much that can be said on the main article about a subject spanning 100s of years and including a large share of the world. All the more detail is found on the many different articles that can cover specific issues and the Evolution of the British Empire article which details all the former possessions and their status. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep listed'. The article has extensive sourcing. It does rely slightly too much on Olson, but that can be (and now will be) fixed fairly easily. I don't trust the stated reasons for bringing this article to review in the first place and note that the editor who brought it here did not notify me, even though I have frequently contributed to it. On such a large subject as the BE, there will always be controversy, but that of itself is insufficient to challenge FA status. At the moment, if anything, the article is too anti-British in tone (as with many WP articles on related topics), so at least some of the stated objections here and on the BE talk page are rather short on objectivity. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep listed Article is very well sourced, and the small issues brought up with sources can be fixed, and some have been already. Editors are currently working on the slight overuse of Olson, and I don't think it's a reason for removal of FA status. Additionally, some issues with pictures initially brought up have also been dealt with. The points and criticisms raised have been dealt with, and as a whole the article is a concise but comprehensive overview, well wikilinked to supporting more specific articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As Britishwatcher points out above, the referencing issues are considerably mitigated by the lack of analysis that I complain about in my comment above. Most of the current article consists of pretty basic statements of historical fact - see for example the para entirely referenced to Olson by (currently) refs 37-39. If there were more analysis it would need a higher standard of referencing, but this is really Subject-specific common knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think much analysis should go into the article though. It shouldn't be a diatribe about whether the Empire was good or bad, the current "the empire was this, did this" allows the reader to make their own decisions. Analysis of specific events could go in those articles. If an analysis of the empire as a whole is wanted, then I suggest a new article for Legacy of the British Empire, which could contain that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an extremely narrow view of "analysis", and not what I mean at all! The article is currently mostly like a timeline in running prose, listing major events but containing little on why and how the Empire grew, and how it worked. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, that's true I guess. Do you agree with suggestions above that that information is better at Evolution of the British Empire or do you suggest it here, in maybe a shorter form, integrated into the current text? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here; the evolution article is essentially a list. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't mean the evolution article has better information, just that it might be better placed there. Anyway, does the lack of such analysis in your opinion have a great impact on this articles FA status? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist: I do not think this is one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. (1) The opening sentence presumes a level of knowledge - compare with Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, United States. (2) The article name purports to cover the whole subject but, comparing with say the Roman Empire content titles, I would say this is structured only to cover the history. (3) I do think there is over-emphasis on postive, as opposed to a neutral terminology: we have independent nations that arose from the British Empire; did no indepedent nations disappear? At least we are told that Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions - we are just not told "why not"? Even the redirect "Evolution of the British Empire" is value laden - "Evolution" is a natural process, Empire is a man-made construct. Finally Wikipedia itself is peppered with references to British Imperialism, the term is entirely absent from the article and I am not convinced that this aspect of the Empire has been covered. MacStep (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One query - this discussion now appears as an archive, so does that mean there is now really no further point discussing this? Bit confusing. On the above points by MacStep, there are some good points there. The question of imperialism and motives for Empire is not much discussed - but then again, it also isn't much discussed at for example Russian Empire. I suspect what you are seeing is the lack of depth in Historical Studies and Humanities that Wikipedia regularly exhibits. I found Roman Empire frustrating for similar lack of depth. There is a tendancy to merely cite the bare facts given the battles that inevitably ensue over different academic opinions on something like "imperialism" which is what it would boil down to - those are the sources on imperialism. That said, I think it compares well with other FA articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little embarassed - I've been shadowing Chipmunkdavis since we both edited Malaysia - actually I'm very embarassed. MacStep (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Jamesinderbyshire, no, the discussion hasn't been archived. All FAC/FAR pages are originally located at pages edning with "/archiven" to make botifying easier. When the discussion is actually closed, an archive template will be put at the top and bottom with a clear message that the discussion has been archived and what the final decision (keeping or delisting) was. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Listed Withdrawn Not convinced the problems are as bad as suggested concerning the author under concern - WP:RSN acknowledged it a reliable source did it not? But may I make a procedural query, if referencing is the main issue User:BritishWatcher proposed a fix for that. Does it not seem premature to delist whilst that work could be done relatively quickly? 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"WP:RSN acknowledged it a reliable source did it not?" No, WP:RS/N castigated editors for failing to supply adequate citations, and loudly indicated that the [multiple] works were unverifiable as cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It did nothing of the sort. Your creative interpretation of FAC and RSN is not helping your case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for explaining, I've withdrawn my comments. However, may I ask if User:BritishWatcher proposed fix, will address that? Justin talk 23:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has already replaced about a dozen Oslon cites with others. So progress is being made to remove its reliance on Oslon. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Delist

I would like editors to look at the article on the other large empire in history the Mongol empire and the adjectives used to describe it. This (BE) article is insulated from such scrutiny.

1. "...40 million died from Mongol conquest" why does BE not inform about the decimation of people in its colonies Australia, NZ, parts of USA, Africa and Asia?
2. "...It attributes plague deaths to the Mongols 75 million dead." BE article does not mention deaths due to famines, godowns were full but the administration did not rush help esp. in Bengal.
3. "...Mongols wiped out urban populations in times of conflict" What the British did in Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Khartoum, not mentioned in BE article.
4. "...After a 3 day-siege using heavy bombardment, the Mongols captured the city and massacred its inhabitants, then proceeding to destroy the army of the Grand principality of Vladimir at the Sit River." The British did that in Jhansi not mentioned in BE article.
5. "While some cities surrendered without resisting, others such as Mayafarriqin fought back; their populations were massacred and the cities were sacked...", the British did not even spare places of worship looting valuables like the Nassak Diamond not mentioned in the BE article.
6. "...The marauding Mongols burned down Tibetan monuments such as the Reting monastery and the Gyal temple in 1240..." The British in Nagpur raided and looted the personal property of the Bhosale queen, ripping carpets and silver, or that Kitchner desecrated the grave of the Mhadi in Omdurman, not mentioned in BE article.

Please do not raise the wp:OR flag, all that I have written can be easily referenced, but I believe that is not necessary here, I hope the gentlemen who have written this article could contemplate on what I have written to understand my point. This article comes across as one sided as is illustrated above does not deserve FA status. This is not only about technicalities but also that the BE was like Nazi Germany to the inhabitants of its so called colonies. This view does not come across from this article, which presents only one perspective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep listed. Any genuine problems are being worked on, and they seem relatively minor anyway. (And I have no idea what the above is trying to say) Quantpole (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple! The dark deeds of the British Empire should find mention in the article on it just as the dark deeds of the Mongol empire find mention find mention in its article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note - all Olson refs have been replaced by other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India.[81]" needs rephrasing since the source does not clearly attribute the events of 1857 to "attempts to Westernise India". As stated earlier, there isn't a consensus in academia and scholarly works about the causes of the rebellion/mutiny where as this article clearly seems to chose one particular POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source says, at various points, "Western legal reform" and "full scale Anglicisation" and "free trade, evangelism, western law and english education". It also mentions modern theories labelling it as "a rural revolt, a Muslim holy war, a Mughal restoration, a Hindu Maratha revival and an Indian national war". There were many grievances and many motives. It's difficult to summarise, but they would all be rooted in not wanting to have foreigners running your country and actively interfering with your culture. "Westernise" might be as good a summary as any though I think "Anglicise" might be better.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Its best to focus on sources, content, avoid making assumptions and stick to proper nouns/third person rather than using terms like "your country", "your culture", etc. Just my opinion. Anglicize sounds better. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be best if you focused on sources. 'We have pointed out several times that "Westernise" is used frequently in this context by RS. Whether you think "Anglicise" sounds better or not is immaterial if the sources prefer an alternative term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be best if you didn't make assumptions about what I meant Zuggernaut. I was using "your" in the generic sense because the more grammatically correct "ones" is somewhat archaic these days. I didn't mean "your" as in you personally. One can work this out from the fact that it is highly improbable that anybody commenting here was personally involved in the event in question. I neither know nor care where you are from. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Good to see we agree on keeping the focus on sources and content. Sorry for any misunderstanding. The cited source does not unambiguously say that 'Westernisation' was the cause of the mutiny. Like you mentioned, it provides several causes. Several other sources confirm that. Please check the following:

• Bandyopadhyay, Sekhara (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi: Orient Longman, ISBN 8125025960
• Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press,
• Dalrymple, William (2007), The Last Mughal, The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857
• David, Saul (2003), The Indian Mutiny: 1857, London: Penguin Books, ISBN 0141005548
• Fremont-Barnes, Gregory, Essential histories, The Indian Mutiny 1857-1858, Osprey 2007
• Mazumder, Rajit K. (2003), The Indian Army and the Making of the Punjab, Permanent Black, ISBN 8178240599
• Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521682258
• Metcalf, Thomas R. (1990), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857-1870, New Delhi: Manohar, ISBN 8185054991
• Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. The Indian War of Independence, 1857. New Delhi: Rajdhani Granthnagar, 1970; 1st ed., 1908.

Since there are several causes of the mutiny, it is the POV of the editors that is seeping through in the article when they choose the term 'Westernisation'. I have not yet examined the other replacements of the Olson source but several instances of re-wording or rephrasing would be required to keep the article in FA status IMO. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Zuggernaut why are you ignoring Savarkar who wrote that Indians fought for Swadharma and Swarajya (I have provided reference on talk page of BE) Swadharma = religion and culture; Swarajya = self rule. You are again being blind to the other side's perspective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No Zuggernaut. There were many many causes/motivations. "Westernisation" is a reasonable attempt to summarise rather than list them all - not a POV. What POV anyway? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of "Westernisation" is not a summary. Its a generalization and it conflicts directly with elements in Indian society at that time who were trying to use the same Western instruments to modernize India. It wasn't until Gandhi (who is reputed to have said "It would be a good idea" when asked by a reporter what he thought of the Western civilization) that there was resistance to Westernization. The POV which is underlying throughout the article assumes that the British Empire was good for those who got colonized. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point that "Westernisation" might not be the most accurate summary. This is one of the difficulties of trying to cover such a huge topic. The alternatives however, are either a list or a different summarising word which might have other failings. Don't at all agree about the POV though. That doesn't follow at all.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Savarkar has devoted a chapter to the causes of the events of 1857, perhaps with a qualifier like an Indian interpretation of the conflict is that it was caused by the desire for Swadharma and Swarajya (you can use original translations of these terms, or do your own. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dalrymple suggests it was a war/rebellion/mutiny over religion. Savarkar and several others claim it was about independence. Your words which I misinterpreted ("your country", "your culture") seem to indicate that you understand this had something to do with being independent or free of foreign interference. Westernization isn't the correct word and I am open to other proposals. Anglicize seemed like a good summary. If others cannot agree, an alternative is to provide the top 2-3 reasons. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Washbrook gives a complex analysis of the motivations behind the rebellion but he particularly mentions Dalhousies reforms, citing him as an "uncompromising Westernizer", the "Anglicization impulse" and the "pressures of Anglicization". He cites Dalhousie's revision of property rights, taxation, aristocratic and estate-holder privileges, caste, military privileges, mass western education and evangelical christianity. He also talks of the "beating down" of the agrarian order under Company rule prompting regular rebellions of which the agrarian side of the Mutiny and Civil Rebellion was the apogee. There was a military mutiny, a civil rebellion and a religious uprising. One underlying impuilse behind all this was a desire to tell foreign rulers to shove off. How about something like due in part to tensions caused by attempts to Anglicize India and a desire for autonomy. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Works for me but I'm not sure how long it will last since 100s of millions are taught in school that religion was one of primary causes. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather assumed that was naturally included in "Anglicize" and "autonomy". The trouble is, if it says "Anglicize, Christianise" + autonomy, then someone will say - well what about the military privilege aspect, or the educational aspect, or the ryot system, or the principalities reform, or or or. Tricky.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Had another idea. How about "a desire for autonomy and attempts to Anglicize India across civil, military and religious domains" ? I dare say this will be criticised though for getting longer and longer.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary meaning of 'anglicize' is "to make English in quality and characteristic". If Christianity is covered by the word, then we can stick to the previous, shorter version. If not, we can drop military from the second version to make it shorter? Zuggernaut (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. England is a pretty pagan place now but I suppose it wasn't then. Not officially anyway. Also - the Mutiny part of the rebellion was pretty crucial and there was a lot more to it than those greasy cartridges. It was one of Dalhousies reforms. I was thinking of proposing our ideas on the talkpage as this is getting rather beyond a mere FAR point. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep listed Comments

• Once again, kudos to the great work by Nikkimaria.
• I note quite a lot of factual information still uncited, particularly at the end of paras. Examples (there are more than these):

"In 1888 Rhodes with his privately owned British South Africa Company occupied and annexed territories subsequently named after him, Rhodesia."

"A third bill was passed by Parliament in 1914, but not implemented due to the outbreak of the First World War leading to the 1916 Easter Rising."

"The subsequent non-cooperation movement was called off in March 1922 following the Chauri Chaura incident, and discontent continued to simmer for the next 25 years."

"...from which Britain did not recover until the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982" (which also smacks of OR/POV - the notion that this event allowed Britain to "recover" from so-called "Suez syndrome")

"Britain maintained a presence in the Middle East for another decade, withdrawing from Aden in 1967, and Bahrain in 1971."

" Guyana achieved independence from the UK in 1966. Britain's last colony on the American mainland, British Honduras, became a self-governing colony in 1964 and was renamed Belize in 1973, achieving full independence in 1981. A dispute with Guatemala over claims to Belize was left unresolved."

Virtually the whole section "War with Napoleonic France" is uncited.

I can't imagine something getting through at FA with this degere of uncited material. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In general terms the simple answer is: because it does not need to be. WP:VER says: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. None of what you highlighted was controversial, but I see that someone has been busy adding references anyway. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But I'm also influenced by prevailing practice and guidance such as Wikipedia:When to cite (which is just an essay, not a guideline). Some of the points I listed above certainly would qualify as "Subject-specific common knowledge" and would not therefore routinely need to be cited. But the extent of them in this article probably concerned me a little. nevertheless, my main concerns were points that did not meet that description, including the one about Chauri Chaura, particularly the claim about simmering discontent. I see someone has put a 'cite needed' tag on the other sentence i particularly wanted to query: "This came into force in 1904 and made the Canal neutral territory, but de facto control was exercised by the British whose forces occupied the area until 1954" (I would want a cite for the argument of de facto British force control; I'm not worried about a cite for the specific dates). As you say, the article has overwhelmingly been improved, and I'm sure that it will be a 'keep' thanks to everyone's great work. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep listed --Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reaffirming delist vote above

1. Please address issue in delist vote above by this editor, comparing BE article with Mongol mpire, compare the tone of that article with this one.
2. Is this a FA or an Elegy with the lines in the lead regarding the sun and where it set. That gives it a bad start.
3. Another problem is with user created images, shouldnt the concession given for images not apply to images used in a FA, either the user created images be withdrawn or FA status withdrawn.
4. This article needs a 21st century treatment and not a 19th century one, that's what it looks like in its present form.
5. 1857 has been mis-represented
6. Information about units used is inaccurate and vague.
7. Reference to Kashmir in legacy is not sourced, editor Redhat confessed that it is based on a map, which belongs to an atlas, comes across as synthesis and OR, is there dearth of good sources?
8. This article is onesided consider these lines in the sixth standard textbook produced by Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbook Production and Curriculum Research, Pune (India): Before the British rule, our villages were self-sufficient. The affairs of the village - from collection of taxes to settlement of disputes - were managed by the villagers themselves. But all this changed during the British rule. The villages no longer remained self-sufficient. The British neglected our villages. They concentrated on the development of the cities for their own benefit. As a result, cities developed not the the villages. I am not saying that this text be incorporated in the article but without information like this the British Empire article is simply an article infected with strong POV undeserving FA status. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What was the point in voting twice. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I was not sure what title to give to my comments. Of-course count it as one. I wish to convey that the apprehension that I have raised has not been met. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there's some sockpuppetry going on here but I'm sure that wasn't Yogesh's intention. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of the points you have made there have been debated here or on the article talkpage. People have explained the reasons why certain changes you want to see should not be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would modify Yogesh's list to include:

• The impact of the British Empire on the economies it governed (India's share of global income fell from 22.6% or about equal to that of combined Europe in 1700 to 3.6% near the time of independence. Similar arguments for African nations can be sourced)
• About 30% of the capital for Britian's industrialization came from India alone. Revenue from other colonies was diverted to the industrialization of Britain as well - this can be sourced.
• Revenue from India alone exceeded combined revenue for the "white colonies".

Without appropriate summary coverage of the economics of the British Empire, the article fails criterion 1(d) of WP:FA criteria Zuggernaut (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, can I speak in support of Zuggernaut's comments on this particular point? I wasn't confident to raise it myself, but I thought the article was a little heavy on the politico-military-history side and light on the economic effects in the colonised states. If there are high quality sources in that area, I would certainly support the introduction of more material in this area. I'm not sure it should be a factor in the FARC though - I still think the article is good. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably "revenue" here means profits from selling Indian exports elsewhere in the world, those exports being the bulk of economic flows to/from India throughout the period. I have commented on the lack of economic information above, but these entirely one-sided and Indiacentric comments are getting us nowhere. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone - I attempted to add this to the article per WP:BRD, WP:RS, etc (see my 2nd proposal and 1st proposal) but it looks like the article and editors aren't ready for this yet. Johnbod - Revenue has the standard meaning. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find there is no such "standard meaning"! The word needs to be used with clear explanation of whether it is net or gross, and in particular who is the recipient. And that's just for starters. Ask any accountant. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, can you explain your above comment? Who are you suggesting is socking? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm AGF and not taking it to SPI but I suspect User:Outofsinc is a sock. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to SPI, It is outrageous that you can post that you suspect me of being a sock, without a shred of evidence and then have the sheer audacity to use the acronim AGF, that is a very cowardly thing to do. I have nothing what so ever to hide. I'm sorry but this is quite upsetting Outofsinc (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut I take it from the lack of reply both here and on your talk page that you no longer suspect me of being a Sock. An apology and an explanation would be nice. Outofsinc (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Outofsinc and Zuggernaut, please take this to your talks (or the talk page of this review). Unless sock/meat puppetry is proven, the discussion has no place on the main review page, and only serves to add more length to an already lengthy review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - If/when any of the editors feel that another editor's concerns have been resolved (i.e., the Olson cites have been removed, so YM's concerns are theoretically taken care of), feel free to drop a note on that editor's page asking them to drop by and check the article again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Kudos to Nikimaria for resolving the issue of quality of citations. The remaining points (for example "westernisation" as a cause of the 1857 affair) are not FA/FAR points and can be discussed on the talkpage. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note - There are still unresolved image issues from the FAR section. Please resolve these and ping Jappalang for a re-review. Also, please ping Fifeloo for an update on his sourcing concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted the site hosting the 1897 map, and Fainites is taking a look at the infobox map. Other image issues should hopefully be resolved, and we'll ping Jappalang as soon as the final two are dealt with. Fifelfoo has been pinged, awaiting his response. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang has now OK'd the infobox map after some provenance additions. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to respond. I've struck my delist, and detailed material which would help the article improve outside of a FAR process. (Editors should be aware in relation to my no opinion, that I regularly merely "comment" on the Featured Article Candidate process, and very rarely offer support opinions there.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

infobox map and Africa map now OKay'd by Jappalang. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note - both Jappalang and YellowMonkey have struck their concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I can not find any major defect, which would be incompatible with the article's status as featured. No requirement exists that images are original and not self made. I only want to point your attention to accessdates, which are not needed for books and other printed sources. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 6 November 2010 (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 14:26, 22 November 2010 [41].

---

Simon Byrne

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, User talk:Savidan, User talk:GiacomoReturned, User talk:ALoan, User talk:Bunchofgrapes.

FA from 2006, fails FA criteria and standards, 1c issues throughout, pov issues and unreferenced claims, most noticeably for example with very last paragraph, unsourced claim about something that has not yet happened, not being elected to a hall of fame. Article could use overall copyediting for flow and ease of readability. Images used in article currently number (11), these could all use FA standard image review. Various different formats of blockquoting are used multiple times in the article, these are not needed and should be removed, or at the very least, standardized to be uniform. Different citation styles are used for references, these should be formatted to be standardized for uniform style throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cirt, this article has some issues:

1. This image, File:Ward painting.jpg has no author and source information. Needs a source per WP:IUP. JJ98 (Talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
   • Try reading the "description" here, or even the page itself, where this is quite clearly explained. It says explicitly who the author is and he is long dead.  Giacomo  07:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Some of the unsourced statements like "which often led to further public inconvenience and disturbance." in the section Early 19th-century English boxing is unreferenced. JJ98 (Talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Undoubtedly this article fails the current citation density test, and for me there are too many images, but overall I don't see anything particularly difficult to fix; the blockquotes issue is already fixed for instance. I note that there has been no discussion on the article's talk page about any improvements felt necessary, which might have avoided the need for this FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, significant amounts of work is still needed. The article would not pass FAC in its current state. Nor would it pass GAN. -- Cirt (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, but it's better to do the work than to complain about it being undone. As I said, I would have preferred to see these issues brought up on the article's talk page without the necessity for an FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

One time I tried that. An admin who was also an "involved" significant contributor to that particular page, chose instead of responding, to utilize the WP:ROLLBACK tool to remove my entire subsection discussion posting from the talk page. That was an interesting experience. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well ideally such a situation would be resolved with the admin concerned or in some suitable admin place. Opening this FAR rather then discussion on the talk page, seems as be ill advised festering over a previous situation and likely to disrupt Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that problems would have been addressed if they were brought up on the talk page, specifically, significant source deficiencies with the article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional problems with the article

1. Most of the refs are dead.
2. Ref 1 only mentions Byrne once about the fatalities and doesn't work for the other stuff.
3. That cyberboxing website; not very reliable?
4. Cite 17 and 2 are used a lot and are broken.
5. Cite 25 appears to only back up the preceding sentence, and not the other 4-5 as well about death threats and riots.
6. Reliability of cite 25 appears in question.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Some initial replies

• I think there is only one dead link now, ref #17, which I'll get to soon.[42]
• Ref #1 is now used only twice, once to verify Byrne's fatalities and again to verify the real name of the fighter known as Brighton Bill.
• The link in ref #2 (The Andersen paper on Pugilistic Prosecutions) has been updated.
• Ref #25 is no longer needed and has been removed, as the material it was supporting was outside the focus of the article IMO.

Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More issues

1. At least one questionable source still used: www.cyberboxingzone.com Cirt (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've run that one by Ealdgyth and it's in hand. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

   Nope, the response by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) was not that clear. The source is disputed. Alternative reliable sourcing should with editorial review should be found, instead. -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

2. www.dulwichdynamo.homechoice.co.uk = dead link
3. www.measuringworth.com = questionable source, seems sorta like WP:NOR
4. www.ibhof.com = quotes an "excerpt" from a book, why not just cite the book?
5. www.ibhof.com = same thing with this one, just seems lazy not to cite the book itself.
6. www.mkheritage.co.uk = questionable source.
7. [43] = questionable source.

This raises lots of serious sourcing concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• What I tried to make clear, but clearly failed, was that my replies were initial, not the final deal; I am as well aware as you that work remains to be done, but unlike you I'm doing it, not complaining that it hasn't been done fast enough for my liking. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not complaining, just listing serious source problems with a purportedly "featured" quality article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing like a bit of encouragement, and your comments are nothing like a bit of encouragement. Might I encourage you to leave your problems with Giano at the door? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I encourage you to please keep your comments focused on content, something you have failed to do several times now. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I had intended to work on this article to allow it to keep its little bronze star, but in the face of Cirt's continued hostility and determination to see it delisted I've decided to throw in the towel. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have tried to keep my comments focused to content, and not repeated comments focused on individual contributors. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has done the opposite. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah right, "just seems lazy" couldn't conceivably be considered a personal comment could it, not from an administrator anyway. No doubt the article will now be delisted, just as you wanted it to be. I hope you get some scintilla of pleasure from the experience, because it's left a bad taste in my mouth. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I made zero mention of any particular user in this comment [44]. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the earnest request of the primary author (me) that no one respond to this FAR and the subseqent FARC. This whole process is not worth the trouble it causes. Pages are still good pages and/or bad pages regardless of what is decided by those who live in this area of Wikipedia. Pages don't need silly little stars and the editors who are hauled before this court to answer for their actions for having the audacity to write these FAs certainly don't need the treatment they get here. My advice is, forget this repulsive area of Wikipedia and just write good pages to the best of your ability and then never ever FA them.  Giacomo  09:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have stricken comments in two places, above, where I should have known better and could have conducted myself in a more polite and professional demeanor, [45] and [46] - I apologize for that. It is indeed correct that these comments were not necessary, and in the future I will try to avoid such statements. Once again, I am sorry, -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include prose, sourcing, POV and images. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns Dana boomer (talk · contribs) noted in this sect. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to be commenting on pages connected with me or Bishonen etc!  Giacomo  17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What? -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per Cirt. I see little improvements, still no progress. 1a, 1c, and 1d still exists throughout the article, and nobody hasn't updated recently. JJ98 (Talk) 04:56, 15 November 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:49, 11 November 2010 [47].

---

Kengir uprising

FARC commentary

Notified: Clngre, WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Politics

This article was promoted in 2006 and has not been reviewed since. My main concern that the article has 1c issues, including unsourced statements and paragraphs like "The women's camp was blocked off both from access and sight to the mens' camp." in the section The camp compound and "ordered the withdrawal of all guards from the compound." in the section Seizing of the camp is unreferenced. JJ98 (Talk) 06:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Issues of concern: Single sourcing, absence of high quality reliable sourcing, reliance on a low quality or unreliable source. Solzhenitsyn is quite simply not reliable for this. His work is admitted by the author to be as much literary criticism of an oral tradition, and, the recording of circulating rumour. While Solzhenitsyn may provide an adequate PRIMARY source for historians, wikipedia is not a historian. Article should rely upon secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Curiously, the article does not even mention works by Marta Craveri and Nikolay Formozov, the principal researcher of Kengir events. East of Borschov 10:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Solzhenitsyn's work has too many neutrality and reliability issues (political motive, little independent verification etc.) to meet the criteria of WP:RS. There may also be 1d issues throughout. "Sowing discord" is emotive language and should not be used as a heading, and sentences such as "to provide an ostensible justification for the massive armed intervention to begin with" do not seem neutral. The article does not really present the subject in a neutral manner, and this, as well as the poor sourcing, is a serious problem with the article. Jan 1922 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Review commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are citations, reliable sourcing, neturality YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist as nominator. I see little improvements to the article, but I don't see any concerns addressing above. JJ98 (Talk) 00:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist though happy to revisit if pinged if the 1c issues are resolved. I enjoy the promulgation of excellent quality discussions of revolt and collective anti-Soviet behaviour, particularly ones which make communist arguments, such as workers control. This article is not, however, an excellent quality discussion due to sourcing issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist Uneutral....... --TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist, agree with concerns that Jj98 (talk · contribs) has raised, above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:49, 11 November 2010 [48].

---

Radhanite

FARC commentary

Notified: Briangotts, WikiProject History

I feel that this article fails criteria 1b and 1c. Concerning 1b, the article is simply not long or detailed enough to cover five hundred years of trade history.

• It does not adequately explain the role which the Radhanites played in the development of trade in the early middle ages, and fails to give an overview of trade in this period.
• There are issues with the fact that the article does not sufficiently differentiate between c. 500 C.E and c. 1000 C.E. The first line of the "Historic Significance" section is "During the Early Middle Ages the Islamic polities of the Middle East and North Africa and the Christian kingdoms of Europe often banned each others' merchants from entering their ports". There were no "Islamic polities" of any significance to international trade until the 8th century AD, and no Islam before the 7th century.
• I feel that the placement of Ibn Khordadbeh's account essentially gives undue authority to a potentially unreliable primary source, while the secondary sources cited do not adequately represent modern scholarship.
• The article claims that it is unclear whether "Radhanite" "refers to a specific guild, or a clan, or is a generic term for Jewish merchants in the trans-Eurasian trade network". One significant theory, which is unmentioned in the article, is that "Radhanite" was a term for a follower of Rabbinic Judaism as opposed to one of Karaite Judaism. (see for instance, [49].
• Tertiary sources such as the "Encyclopaedia of World Trade" are used as references, while the "Activities" section is completely lacking in citations (unless the creator believed s/he could support it adequately with the primary source quoted in depth).

In short, the article simply does not meet Wikipedia's FA criteria because it lacks the breadth and depth of coverage, and it does not significantly represent modern scholarship on the issue. Jan 1922 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Review commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist – I'm not an expert on the topic matter, so I'm not the best judge as to whether this is comprehensive (although it seems problematic judging by the nominator's concerns). However, I do know something about whether an article is well-cited, and this is not sourced sufficiently to meet modern standards. In addition to the section mentioned earlier, significant portions of the body are lightly cited. Also, I agree that the primary account takes up way too much space, especially considering that this is a relatively short article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist, agree with concerns raised about referencing issues, and lack of thoroughness. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2010 (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 16:43, 8 November 2010 [50].

---

Kaziranga National Park

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProjects Assam, India, Protected Areas, World heritage sites. Main editors all inactive

This article has sourcing missing in many places, per the tags YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Multiple [citation needed]s in History
• Transport is entirely unsourced.
• Shankar's Award under "In Popular Culture" is redlinked. Is this a relevant award?
• Multiple dead links.
• Ref 27 (R Cuthbert, RE Green, S Ranade,…) has a malformatted link that shows up as a [1].

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern listed in the FAR section include sourcing and formatting. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. Agree with the FA criteria concerns cited above by YellowMonkey, TenPoundHammer, and Dana boomer. No issues has not been addressed recently. JJ98 (Talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• dElist per my statement YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Remove – Numerous sourcing issues, and no one has stepped up to fix any of them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 27 October 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:50, 1 November 2010 [51].

---

Down syndrome

Review commentary

Notified: Neurology task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, User:Fvasconcellos

• Choppy prose. Many sections have one-sentence paragraphs, such as the first section of "Signs and symptoms," "Congenital heart disease," "other complications," last paragraph of "Cognitive development," third and fourth paragraphs of "History."
• [Citation needed] under "Infertility" section.
• "Screening" section is mostly unsourced.
• "Examination at birth" section is mostly unsourced.
• Outdated statement ("Current research (as of 2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy.") in "Epidemiology" section.
• Many refs are missing authorship info.
• Notable individuals contains several unsourced entries and would probably be better as prose than list.
• "Portrayal in fiction" is also a big unsourced list.
• "Research" section is unsourced for first several paragraphs. We really should have a source to verify Arron et al's research.
• European Down Syndrome Association is a redlink — is it notable enough for inclusion here? The only source for it is primary.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

TPH, please see WP:RED for information. Red links are not parts of the FA criteria. JJ98 (Talk) 07:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this listed on WikiProject Disability. After I read the intro, my reaction was: Wow, they wrote all those intricate technicalities in the introduction, but failed to mention that it's the most common genetic cause of mental retardation? See [52] for a ref. It almost seems it was deliberately written in an impenetrable fashion. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Research section seems to start the article anew with another defintion etc.; rather weird. Also, the two different citation styles used in that section are a bit distracting, but TenPoundHammer errs when he writes that there are no references for the first part of that. They are given in the "Research bibliography" section, starting with Arron et al. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the amount of "against abortion" material in the article relative to the opposite POV. The abortion rates for this condition are over 90%, but 2/3 of the ethics section is dedicated to impeaching that option. Most of those arguments are repetitive in nature, and appear to have been selected for the shock value of their formulation. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole Research section should probably be removed. The Genetics section has more than enough high-level coverage, and it defers to a sub-article Genetic origins of Down syndrome for details. The Research of Down syndrome-related genes article should definitely be merged with that one. I appears to be "POV fork", although the "POV" here seems to be just that one article discusses strictly the causes for the syndrome, while the other also explores what else can go wrong if those genes get messed up, and makes some connections with other syndromes based on that. I don't see a good reason to keep these separate. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed re all of the above. The issues pointed out here should add up to a rejection of the proposal for featured article status for this article. It is nowhere near ready, and it would not be ready by the time wikipedia admins are apparently thinking of moving it there, so we should speak loudly against such an action. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, I'm a little confused by your comment. This is not a candidacy asking for featured article status. The article already is a featured article - this discussion is to decide whether it should retain that status. Also "would not be ready by the time wikipedia admins are apparently thinking of moving it there": Moving it where? And what admins? And what time frame? Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have confused the words of User:Otters Need Attention where s/he says that the article has been nominated for potential retention of featured-article status, to have meant that the article is being considered for the first time to gain featured-article status — which I now see from your clarification is not the case. That being said, I still definitely do not see any significant reason why Down Syndrome should retain its featured-articles status, nor do I think it ever should have had it to begin with, if the errors detailed by other users here have indeed been there the whole time (have they? or has someone been messing with it to make the article somehow worse than it was when it was definitively at 'featured' status?). Kikodawgzzz (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• The original editor is gone, and unless someone shows up to work on this, it may as well proceed through FARC, because it's in very bad shape. It was written before WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, so needs to be updated to rely on secondary reviews. It has taken on a lot of cruft since it was promoted in the Notable and Fiction sections. There is an abundance of uncited text, and MOS issues. There are numerous unformatted citations, and many more with missing publishers. I looked back in the history to see if there is a better version we can just revert to, but I don't think that will do the job-- the article is in pretty bad shape, as happens when the original editor moves on and no one maintains it. If anyone wants to attempt some improvement, even if it won't retain FA status, this is how it looked when promoted, but it still needs to be update to conform to MEDRS. Too much for me to fix, and Casliber, who might help, is already hard at work on two FARs here (unfortunate that Tasmanian Devil and Lion are here at the same time), while Colin is helping on a FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

FA criteria of concern include sourcing, POV and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, agree with FA criteria of concern identified in this sect by Dana boomer (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per my concerns and Dana's. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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