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

Kept status[edit]

Race[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

I agree. --Rikurzhen 12:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Object to removal. Not sure it is turning into something better but it's not worse, and it originally belonged in FA. JDG 23:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Remove. It is good but it needs slight improvement, especially by ilinking many terms and incorporating terms from see also. I suggest removing it and adding to FAC, that should do the trick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Object to removal - The article could use a good refactor (some sections have gotten a bit small after content was moved to daughter articles while other sections are a bit large), but I still think it is still good enough to be FA. --mav 03:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support removal. Much of this article concerns the highly debated topic of whether human races are biologically valid/useful. Most of the arguments presented are unattributed, phrased in weasel terms, and repeated endlessly throughout the article. It's not as bad as it was before I started major edits, but it's still going to take quite some time to fix. -- Schaefer 11:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm I can see we are headed for some tussling here if I ever get back to really sitting down to this article again. I'm afraid I don't view your changes as improvements, overall. One man's "weasel terms" may be another's balance terms. You may be missing some of the subtle differences between the statements that struck you as endlessly repetitive. Above all, your shuffling off much of the best material to daughter articles sends the reader on an unecessary clickfest (this is a subset of the 32kb "limit" controversy)... When Race was promoted to FA there was still a fair amount wrong with it (especially some very clunky phrasing), but the Wikipedians who saw there was even more right with it carried the day. You kinda insult them all when you dismiss the FA version as such a stinker and maybe you would do well to acquire a little more respect for their judgment (and I'm not saying this because I was a contributor-- at least three others had much more to do with it). JDG 05:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Still FA standard. :ChrisG 13:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comment: I actually agree that it is FA standard now. It wasn't one or two months ago. dab (ᛏ) 16:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parthenon[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

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

Mixed-breed dog[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

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

Barack Obama[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

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

Poetry of the United States[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

There are clear links to both modernist poetry in English and surrealism. I'm sure the article could be improved in many ways. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know I have a vested interest, but I find most of the reasons for delisting given both vague and subjective. As for the 'jargon', these terms are linked for readers who want more info. This article is not the place to explain modernism or surrealism, for example. The major theme in American poetry is the emergence of an American poetic idiom and this is covered in the article. After that, there are as many themes as there are poets, or more even. Like any other article, this one could be improved, but FAs are not expected to be perfect. Filiocht 08:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This from the talk page leads me to believe that the objection is based on the fact that there are words in the article that the objector is not familiar with. The same would be true for me reading a maths article, but that would not make it an invalid use of those words. In this case, words like 'writerly' have a precise meaning that is the exact fit needed. This is what dictionaries are for. Filiocht 13:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

A featured article should be accessible to all. Certainly one on a broad subject with a title that sounds like an introduction to the subject of US poetry. Jargon in a general article like this, if used at all, should be explained. In short, the article should be standalone. I note you have not addressed my other comments. Is that because you agree with them? ;) jguk 20:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that a featured article should be "accessible to all". The purpose of a good article should be to inform the reader: part of that task is accomplished by using appropriate vocabulary. I agree that needless puffery should be trimmed from featured articles, but in articles where the words are difficult (and perhaps unfamiliar to many) yet necessary for the sake of precision, we can't remove them. There are many featured articles that contain words I do not know. I don't take that as a sign they shouldn't be featured. I may (if I like) take it as a sign I should consult my dictionary. As to the other complaints, I feel some of them are a bit vague, but I'll look at the article more closely and see if they can be addressed. Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After further discussion on the article talk page, I find little merit in this application for delisting. Sure, the article could be improved with more work — goes without saying (must be 1000 poets in its scope). But the standalone business is more like self-righteousness than a serious comment on how to write WP. Linking off a central page like this is only common sense, and trying to discuss all the implications on the page itself is really not the way forward. Charles Matthews 09:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Object to removal. Generally a very complete article. If it has jargon you don't understand bring it up on the talk page and see what you can help do to make the article easier to understand. But also, I'm sure there are a large number of good print references available on this subject. Filiocht, et al, can you guys put some together? I'll try to take care of properly formatting the external links used as references, thats my bugaboo. A little worse than I thought. Only the first site listed as a reference seems to be able to be reliably used as one. The others seem like standard external links. - Taxman 19:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Freemasonry[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

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

End Times[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

The article is reasonably explicit about the viewpoints it is supposed to be about: the adventist, dispensationalist, and Jehovah's Witness beliefs that various current events indicate an imminent apocalypse. Can somebody be more specific about what viewpoints are supposed to be neglected? Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because the article makes clear what its purpose is, doesn't mean that the article is NPOV. "End times" is clearly an end-of-the-world concept, but I see nothing here about non-Christian ends of the world, like the Norse Ragnarok. Are there similar concepts in Chinese, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Maori, or other cultures? One would not know from this article. The phrase "end times" may be, in English, most associated with Christianity (maybe even just U.S. fundamentalism), but can anyone say this authoritatively enough to justify the complete absence of any other scenarios? I think that's the issue here. Certainly the current article is robust enough to deserve to be a separate article, but perhaps it should be titled "End times in Christian fundamentalism" and be referenced in a more general overall article. — Jeff Q 20:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The article also focuses so heavily on the three viewpoints it wants to dicuss that it ignores the fact that all Christians that believe in the bible believe in this concept to some extent simply by Revelations being a book of the bible. Support removal. There is little chance this can be rectified quickly. - Taxman 01:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Object to removal from Featured Article status. To remove this article from Featured Article status merely because the Ragnarok and [[G%F6tterd%E4mmerung|Die Götterdämmerung]] stories are not included is ridiculous. This page is already too big! What is this? A witch hunt? :)) All you have to do is rename the page to End times (superstition) or End times (christian) which ever would score more points in your witch hunt. :)) No need to try to remove the names of the week from the dictionary just because the names of the week are named for God. She, it, they will not hurt you. You are letting your superstitious fears show in the sweat of your brow as you look furiously for some way to remove from Wikipedia pages what you fear. :(( This page is in no way POV defective in covering what it covers. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Whoa, Rednblu! Where did all that conspiracy theory stuff come from? You responded as if someone suggested that we murder someone. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted. The question is whether it should be a featured article, which is what this page, Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, is about. According to Wikipedia:Featured articles, this rare status is reserved for "Wikipedia articles we think are particularly well-written and complete". It may be very well written, but it's clearly not complete, unless the phrase "end times" is expected to represent only the eschatology covered in the current article. To use (or perhaps abuse) your own analogy about days of the week, one would not expect an article titled Days of the week to include only Sunday and Monday. One might hope to find detailed information on these days (including origins, connections to religion, interesting cultural connections, etc.) under appropriately titled articles, but one would expect Days of the week to include all seven in the calendar currently in greatest use around the globe. (Even these qualifications might reasonably lead to further discussion.) Wikipedia has a place for all information on properly-presented topics, and a thorough discussion of any and all Christian "end times" beliefs is completely appropriate. But it should go under a title that doesn't assume it is the be-all and end-all on the subject, which is no doubt what triggered the POV complaint. That's all I was saying. Taxman is quite right that the issues here are not likely to be fixed quickly. Just renaming it would leave a gap where an overall article should be, and it takes time and to create a solid encompassing article. Therefore, End times should be removed from featured status until these issues are resolved, at which time it may very well be featured again. Don't have a cow, dude. — Jeff Q 05:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for using my analogy quite well. :) This is an article only about weeks, so there is no reason to expect that it would also include explanations about time periods generally. No need to remove from Featured Article status a Featured Article quality article about weeks just because there is a missing article on time periods generally! This is how I read Filiocht's comment below. What you are implying is that there should be a disambiguation page Time period (disambiguation) which should contain links to weeks and months. So in this case there should be an End times (disambiguation) page that would link to this page renamed End times (Christian) and also having links to Ragnarok and [[G%F6tterd%E4mmerung|Die Götterdämmerung]]. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral - can we define its scope closely enough that it is comprehensive in its limited field? (Incidentally, I added a link to Ragnarok, but someone correctly changed that to eschatology; the article also refers to Christian eschatology, which is more general than the article and more specific than eschatology.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose removal. Doesn't need to include things it is clearly not about. Filiocht 11:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose removal. The term "End Times" is pretty closely connected to these particular opinions and I don't see any need to turn it into an article that is so long that it can't be featured for that reason (which it would be if it tried to cover all of eschatology). As ALoan says, all that is needed is to define the article's scope and link to the parallel articles representing other traditions about the end of the world. Mpolo 13:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Now oppose removal. Much improved. Neutral, close to remove. The new explanation header is helpful, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the article has no references and the lead section is way to long and not all that well written. - Taxman 18:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. Everyone seems to be going crazy about Ragnarok, what the point was with nominating it here was that it is simply not up to scratch for feature Article status. - I am now voting to REMOVE--ZayZayEM 02:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - This begins an attempt to retrospectively impose new FA standards on old articles. Refs were not required at the time this was featured, and much less stress was placed on lead sections. Filiocht 08:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    - All FA's should meet the same basic standards. If they don't, they should be removed. If not that, then what is the point of this page? This gives the page's author's a chance to improve the article to stay featured; if not it goes. At least one article was improved enough after listing here to stay featured. - Taxman 13:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
      - I have added a references/further reading section to the article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        Great. Thank you. But can you split the ones that were actually used to write or fact check the article into the proper references section, and put the ones that weren't as further reading? That's more valuable and correct policy also. Also can you have a go at reducing the lead section? I don't think I could do it without badly hacking it up. - Taxman 16:44, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
        It's getting hard to count the stars. AAR, I divided that section into references, Bible commentaries, and further reading, and added some more recent works to the further reading section. Smerdis of Tlön 20:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        Thanks, good work. - Taxman 13:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Baroque[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

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

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

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

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