Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 30 January 2013

	Foundation for Economic Education has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 21, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed January 30, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WPLibertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Presidents

Need help with the logic puzzle that is the history of FEE presidents. With citations would be great, but even without citations would be helpful.Abel (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• 1946-1983 = Leonard Read
• 1983-1983 = Perry E. Gresham
• 1983-1984 = John Sparks Sr.
• 1984-1985 = Bob Love
• 1985-1988 = Acting presidents
• 1988-1992 = Bruce Evans
• 1992-1997 = Hans Sennholz
• 1997-2001 = Don Boudreaux
• 2001-2002= Mark Skousen
• 2003-2008 = Richard Ebeling
• 2008-today = Lawrence Reed

1. ^ Sennholz, Mary (1993-05-01). Leonard E. Read, Philosopher of Freedom. Foundation for Economic Education, Incorporated. ISBN 9780910614856.
2. Phillips-Fein, Kim (2009). Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 356. ISBN 978-0-393-05930-4.
3. Olson, Wayne (Sep 28, 2009). "An Inside Look at the Foundation for Economic Education FEE" (Interview). Interviewed by Pete Eyre. {{cite interview}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)
4. Williams, Robert H; Miner, H Craig (1996). Joyful Trek: A Texan's Times and Travels. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-89672-356-6.
5. ^ Reed, Lawrence (October 07, 2012), RE: The FEE presidents {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. Wilcox, Derk Arend (2000). The Right Guide: A Guide to Conservative, Free-Market, and Right-of-Center Organizations. Ann Arbor, MI: Economics America, Inc. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-914169-06-2.
7. Boudreaux, Donald (October 13, 2011). "A Devalued Renminbi Makes Wealthier Americans". Debate Club. New York: U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
8. Huebert, J. H. (2002-07-09). "A Great Institution in Freefall". Jacob Huebert. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
9. Huebert, J. H. (2002-07-22). "A Great Institution in Freefall Seeks Quantity, Not Quality". Jacob Huebert. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
10. Skousen, Mark (2002-07-09), Re J. H. Huebert's diatribe on FEE.
11. Shierman, Eric (October 6, 2011). "Keynesian failure: Stimulus package a national tragedy". Oregon Catalyst. Tigard, Oregon. Retrieved November 2, 2011. {{cite news}}: More than one of |work= and |newspaper= specified (help)
12. Hursh, David (2004). "Undermining Democratic Education in the USA: the consequences of global capitalism and neo-liberal policies for education policies at the local, state and federal levels". Policy Futures in Education. 2 (3 & 4): 607–620. doi:10.2304/pfie.2004.2.3.13. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
13. Ebeling, Richard (2009-07-12). "Dr. Richard Ebeling Explains Free-Market Economics, Why to Bet Against the Dollar and Own Gold" (Interview).
14. Foley, Ridgway K. (December 1971). "Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law". Willamette Law Journal. 7 (3): 396–418. Retrieved 2 November 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Removing all commons licensed images

Deleting every commons licensed image from this article depicting what the organization does, taken not by the organization but by an event participant, and not used on their copyright protected website but given freely, because the photos are supposedly "inconsistent with other articles--this looks like something you'd find on the organization's website to promote their seminars" is the thinest of excuses and completely disrespectful to the goals of Misplaced Pages. Abel (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the point was poorly made, but images do need to add something to the article. Two of the four pictures currently present are at least reasonable: a guest speaker with a wikilinked article, and a depiction of the interior of the foundation's physical space. The images of people sitting and playing ball don't contribute much information and do give the sense of a promotional brochure, in part because they're being used to pad some overlong prose. - toh (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The faculty panel image illustrates the interactive academic nature of the seminars while the seminar leisure activity photograph shows how the seminars are not completely made up of only academic activities. Some people are visual learners and get more out of a picture than those who prefer text, to each their own. Good articles are illustrated by images that are tagged with their copyright status, are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All of the commons licensed images currently included in the article meet all of those criteria. --Abel (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I have seen in wikipedia

1. It has extensive footnotes and references, none of which have anything to do with the sentence being footnoted.

2. The article is nothing more than a brochure of the company that it is about.

--H.E. Hall (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest editing the article. Misplaced Pages works, and is constantly improving, because of editors like yourself who notice areas for improvement and dig in and fix them. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A big thank you to S. Rich for tagging the citations without URLs. Apparently the tool that I used to reformat citations into Misplaced Pages code cuts URLs from certain types of citations. Thanks to those vague tags I was able to easily find the citations with the missing URLs and manually paste in those links. --Abel (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article?

I'd rather not engage in the GA review for 2 reasons: 1. I've done some of the editing on it; and 2. I need to readup on the GA process and figure out how it works. That said, I do not think it meets GA standards. I must agree with H.E. Hall on one point, the footnotes don't directly support the material in the article. Take, for example, the "Evenings at FEE" section. There are footnotes for the various authors, but those footnotes pertain to the authors themselves, not about the fact that the lectures are about the authors. (I saw a similar problem with the "Seminars" section and have attempted a fix.) So I recommend that Abel withdraw the GAN and re-work the article. --S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If I withdraw the nomination, how will I find out where all the flaws that need fixing are? "The article is nothing more than a brochure of the company that it is about" did not tell me anything useful, the article isn't even about a company. A good article review would give me specifics that I could do something with. --Abel (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Off topic

This is a big section in the article, but goes into details that have nothing to do with FEE. One of the GA criteria is that the article remained focused. To illustrate, Human Rights Foundation has an office in the Empire State Building -- but the article about HRF does not and should not include a history about the ESB. --S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be because the Empire State Building already has its own article? At some point this isn't going to matter as I understand that the headquarters will eventually move away from this property as it is just too expensive to maintain. --Abel (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The main point is regarding the off-topic nature of the section. The ESB is notable enough to have its own article. The FEE HQ building may be notable in its own regard. Whether or not the FEE HQ building is notable or non-notable is not the issue. The focus of the article is the important question.--S. Rich (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll just move it, with some editing, into Irvington village's points of interest article and cut it from this article.--Abel (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving, and thereby saving, your hard work in this regard is an excellent idea! --S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Fee.seminar.leisure.activity.jpg

The image Fee.seminar.leisure.activity.jpg shows how the seminars are not completely made up of only academic activities. Some people are visual learners and get more out of a picture than those who prefer text, to each their own. Good articles are illustrated by images that are tagged with their copyright status, are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. This commons licensed image meets all of that criteria.--Abel (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foundation for Economic Education/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is GA review #1

I have selected this article to review because it is the one waiting the longest for a GA review, and because I have a small amount of expertise in the area which is the focus of the foundation. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Two of the images (non-free, the foundation logo and the cover of the Freeman) need fair use rationales for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

How would an editor add such a thing, and where should it be added? --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though it relates to this article, it is done at the image file itself. Here's an example . BTW, of the 5 images in the article, 3 are considered "free" images and do not need this. So I only noted the other 2 which are "non-free". North8000 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Both images have a "Non-free media information and use rationale."Abel (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One of my first impressions is that while, at first glance, it appears to be heavily referenced, after spending about 15 minutes attempting to follow references in about 5 places, I wasn't able to find specific verification of anything. For example, after the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead, there are 7 cites. The first 3 of them point to 3 references that list 35 page numbers and then to next 4 go to either entire website sections or entire documents. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Must an editor repeat an entire reference and change the page number for each reference or is there a way to use different page numbers with ref names --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a way to to do what you say, but that is not where I'd suggest starting on the issue which I noted. The intent of cites / sourcing is to make it so a reader can verify the material which cited it. I'd recommend, for each location where there is a string of cite marks to pick one source which clearly confirms what was just said, and get rid of the rest of the cites in that string. In some places you can keep 2 or 3 (particularly when that will avoid eliminating a reference, which you don't want to do) but I would never go beyond three, and certainly not 7. Also, when you are doing this, if you find a specific page number which specifically supports something which cited it, write that down for yourself as it may come in handy later. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Example on references

While I changed it a little to start the fix, lets take the first sentence as an example. Before I tweaked it it said: "Established in 1946 to study and advance classical liberalism, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-market organization in the United States". This contains three main statements

1. Established in 1946
2. to study and advance classical liberalism
3. is the oldest free-market organization in the United States The only one of the three which is a strong claim that might be challenged.

Now lets say somebody wants to look at the cites to confirm this. An analogy I use is if you ask the question "can you give me them name of a good barber" and instead of answering you, they unload a dump truck load of phone books onto your front lawn and say "it's all there" . While it may look like they gave you more "information" than you asked for, defining "information" being an answer to your question, they have given you zero information. The same situation is sort of present with the cites/references in this article. For the above sentence the article gives SEVEN references; let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is trying to follow the cites to verify the statements (using the numbers as of today, 11/28/12)

• #2 This points to one place. Has some other problems (indirect, goes to wayback machine which goes to a previous listing of them in a directory which just quoted their mission statement, and regarding the mission it conflicts with rather than confirming the original mission- which I subsequently fixed) but with respect to the "overload" issue, it is OK

• #3 This says to go look at 15 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 14 of those will be dead ends.

• #10 This says to go look at 6 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 5 of those will be dead ends.

• #11 This just says to go look at an entire book

• #4 This says to go look at 7 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 6 of those will be dead ends.

• #12 This just says to go look at an entire book

• #5 This says to go look at 14 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 13 of those will be dead ends.

No one thing above (including the multi-page references) is absolutely wrong, but the overall "sum" of all of things is not so good. And there is no one "right" solution. But if you would just find 1 or 2 specific places that support what is in that sentence, and cite those, and get rid of the rest I think that would be a good simple way forward. I suspect that if this practice is used in the article, cutting down those large chains of cite numbers, that the issue of having a large amount of pages on each reference will also automatically get reduced. But, if not, or if you prefer a different approach, there IS a way to cite individual pages without having to repeat all of the reference information. An example of doing this on a large scale is at SS Edmund Fitzgerald. An example of doing this on a small scale / "mixed" basis (just on one reference, the Donaldson reference) is at Folk music. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If I understand it, I need to collect copies of all the existing refences as a bulleted list between ==References== {{Refbegin|30em}} and {{refend}} with ==Notes== {{reflist|20em}} just above that. Then change all the existing citations to {{sfn|author|date|p=???}}. Yes? This will allow people to cite a specific page for a specific claim without duplicating entire citations then changing only page numbers. Do I have the syntax right? Abel (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First to clarify, as a reviewer, I'm just saying that we need a little more focus (vs. the non-specific "truckload") on sourcing that actually verifies what cited it. Beyond that everything is just ideas and suggestions. I not fluent enough to just give the quick definitive answers on syntax etc, but I am fluent enough to help / and work through it with you and would be happy to do so. But I don't have all of those sources in order to know which page supports which statement/cite. Are you able to help in that area? If so, I'd say let's start and I'd be happy to take the first step. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make those changes. I guarantee that if they are not quite right, someone will very soon chime in with a disparaging comment. Abel (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The article started out with exact page references, but with reusable ref links having the limitation of not allowing anything other than just adding page numbers to the one reference as new pages of the same source were needed, those original references are now drowning in page numbers. Now that the massive work of changing from cite to sfn is complete, each use of the same reference can involve a different page number for the same source. I put page=000 in the code so anyone can easily just change the page numbers for each sfn citation. If you look in the references first, the pages are all there. Just need to find which pages go with which claims. --Abel (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fluent enough to critique the "2-stage" referencing details....I thought that there would be only one cite to each of the ones in the first section, but again, I have just done a few and am not fluent on it or the norms. I think that one thing that will simplify this task is in many places there are way too many cites. (too many cites, not too many references) In places where one sentence has like 8 cites after it once we find one or two specific ones we can delete the other 6 or 7 (as long as that doesn't delete or orphan a reference. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Review item

I find the coverage of the topic to be rather spotty. A look at the outline for the article is a good indicator:

1 History

2 Programs

2.1 Seminars

2.2 Evenings at FEE

2.3 Publications

And "History" really doesn't cover the history....just a bit on the founding and and going through who key subsequent people are. (That's just a very inaccurate summary of mine)

There is a good reason for this. Almost all sources that talk about the organization focus on the early years. Probably because of the fame of the founders. Current activities are covered some. Hopefully, the middle years are buried somewhere that I just have not yet been able to find. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So one thought is "where are the other missing sections?"

The first paragraph of the lead seems like a brief summary of a missing section.

Sorry about that. Moved the section about the headquarters to Hillside (1889) on the advice of another editor, then forgot to remove that from the lead. --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I was indirect / unclear. I was actually implying that it would be good to add a section on what is summarized in the lead, not deleting what is in the lead. This is not hard-and-fast, just a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the lead was supposed to be a summary of everything else. Maybe just add some of the lead stuff into history? Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. If you have something that is in the lead which is not in the article, "copying" that material to somewhere in the body is a good start on a fix. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Take us a bit more through its history and evolution. Also, it is a facility? One can't tell from reading the article.

It is an organization. This organization has a long history at a historic location, but that is about to change. The change has been in the works for quite some time, but this will still be emotional for supporters when it becomes final. Think that it is mostly a done deal, but expect more stir once it actually becomes fact and not just a plan pending approval. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, now you have told ME those things, but you still haven't told the readers those things. Should be in the article, at lease the wp:verifiable stuff should be in the article. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I'll see what I can find. --Abel (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There used to be an entire section on the historic location of the organization's headquarters, Hillside. Someone said that having it here would violate the Good Article criteria that the article "remain focused." So I moved it, after editing, to Hillside, a point of interest within Irvington, New York, where the structure is located. Abel (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the talk page comments but didn't go back to analyze what was in the article then. Possibly it went too deep in? But getting some basics in there (saying that they are at a facility, and what happens there (are the seminars there etc.?) is not too far afield. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that this article is going to need a lot of work to become a Good Article. It's a great topic and I'd be happy to help some. If there are folks actively involved I'd be happy to make some more specific suggestions and also help implement them, at least the type of help that doesn't take a lot of outside research. Maybe we could get through all of that work during this GA review cycle. Are there involved folks who are up for this effort. ? Again, I'd be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Reviewer.

That was exactly the thinking behind the Good Article nomination. To find the specifics that I am unaware of so that I and others can help improve the article beyond just what little I currently know. --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'd be happy to work with you on this. There's a lot to answer......some answers will be brief at first and then I'll expand them later. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Any and all help is greatly appreciated. You should see what it used to look like . :) Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I may be a bit more experienced but I'm not perfect. When I edit, I'm working as an editor, not a reviewer. Feel free to revert, disagree, etc.. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Will be happy to disagree with you at some point. So far, I cannot find any reason to disagree. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Update

As indicated, I'd be happy to help on the article to a certain extent. Based on that "extent" this is going to need the involvement of a person who is willing and able to access and dig into those sources which have been cited a large number of times. I think that me and that person together could untangle the sourcing issues here. But without that I don't seeing this getting to where I could pass it. Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources? North8000 (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Going once on this open question.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article started out with exact page references, but with reusable ref links having the limitation of not allowing anything other than just adding page numbers to the one reference as new pages of the same source were needed, those original references are now drowning in page numbers. Now that the massive work of changing from cite to sfn is complete, each use of the same reference can involve a different page number for the same source. I put page=000 in the code so anyone can easily just change the page numbers for each sfn citation. If you look in the references first, the pages are all there. Just need to find which pages go with which claims.Abel (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I don't have access to the sources, but I'll look in history..if I can find which page number they added for which cite and see if I can help. Just reiterating, this is more than I asked for for GA but this harder route there I think will help the article more in the long run. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just info to keep organized, I am reviewing a block of edits (August 2012) to look for this type of information. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree. All that work was not remotely required for a good article, but will likely make a future featured article status far easier so better in the long run. Wish I had known about sfn in the beginning, would have used that from the start. Like I said, all the pages are in the history. Anyone can go through and find where new claims were added and new page numbers were added to the existing citations to support the new claims. Or just look in the sources themselves. Either way, it will take some doing, but it is now possible thanks to the sfn conversion. When all this is complete, the citations will be bulletproof so it will be worth the effort. I've started on some and you have found others so it is really now just a matter of time before they are all exact. Abel (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Could meet this criteria now. Has 5 images, and the two non-free ones now have rationales. But it would be nice to have a picture of their facility/hq. Is that feasible? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many, but every one that I have seen was not freely available. Abel (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Found a freely available image. --Abel (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to put it in? Need any help? North8000 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I will definitely find a way to bring back everything that I removed to accommodate the comments of another editor. The conversion to {{sfn}} citations turned out to be a ridiculous amount of work. Abel (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. My comment was respect to addition of the image. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As was my comment. The image alone would just get deleted as something that is out of place. Abel (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Either way, lack of the image would certainly not keep the article from passing. But I'm not sure what would lead you to say that. An image of their building would not be out of place. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not seen how many times people have attempted to wholesale delete every image in the article. There were times when people deleted images and left edit comments that made it sound like they were just correcting a typographical error. Abel (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What they did doesn't sound right. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

It has been two weeks since there has been any action on this review, either here or editing on the article. Is work going to resume soon? If the article still has a significant amount of work remaining to achieve a GA level, perhaps it should be concluded; the review is over seven weeks old at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer. IMHO the work needed to get this to the point of passing is of a type that immensely slow/difficult/inefficient (e.g. like mowing a lawn with scissors) unless it is handled by a person with the references in hand. I had planned to try but as someone not having the references in hand now I'm thinking not. There doesn't appear to be a person with the references in hand to do this. If so, please say so soon. Otherwise I think that I'll need to non-pass this. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The writer hasn't edited in two weeks so that may be best. Wizardman 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Collected the exact page references of each citation, and added the references to each citation as I went. Was later told that I had to split them all apart using sfn citations, so I did. Now all that work is pointless because I am not fast enough at finishing off the mountains of work required? Maybe I can crank out a little blood along with the sweat and tears. --Abel (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend reading carefully what I wrote as I think that you misunderstood in several areas. But if you could just answer my one question that I asked: "Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources?" I think that that is the most important "next step question" at this point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is someone willing. Me. However, I need time to do all this. --Abel (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have access to some of the sources...particularly the heavily used ones? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the pages numbers were added with each new claim so it is all in the article history. It might be faster to go to the sources, which is what I did the first time, and can certainly do again.Abel (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's take an example. This is regarding what is now the first large strings of cites, which are those which follow "or feature one prominent speaker for the Evenings at FEE series...." Could you find a one page in one of those references which supports that sentence, and put it in? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that I need to clarify the situation here; whether or not we have a route forward that could move this forward quickly enough to be handled while the current review is open. I think that I will use the question that I just asked to clarify that. So, in short, if we can't get that ONE item handled quickly, I'm going to close this as "non-pass" after which the article could get fixed up at a more comfortable pace and re-submitted later. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Edited North8000 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sadly forced to non-pass this article at this time. I say "sadly" for a multitude of reasons. Able has done a lot of work on it, albeit while "missing the point" on what I have been asking for since November 28th. This is a very interesting and worthwhile topic; I was willing to substantially help here as well, but was stymied by the fact that nobody was doing the part that I am not able to do, which is finding specific support for "cited" statements in the off-line references used (and the heavily used ones are all off-line). I have been asking for this many times since November 28th, and not a single one has been produced. This means that I see no route to getting this fixed within the time frame of a GA review, doubly so for one which I started the review on last November. Abel, you are to be congratulated and thanked for your efforts here. If there is a way that I can help at the article via working on it or providing feedback, or an expedited review after it's fixed up, please ping me....I'd be happy to. I'd love to see this article get fixed up and then be resubmitted for and pass as a Misplaced Pages Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to make the changes that you asked for. In fact, I was in the middle of doing just that when someone deleted the citations that I was about to add the page numbers that you asked for. I had set up the article to have page=000 for all the instances that you wanted a specific page number to support that specific citation. This way I could just change 000 to the actual page number, problem solved. Then someone up and deleted most of them. Kind of had to make the changes you asked for with people removing the code that was about to become just the thing you requested. Abel (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is much confusion here. I believe that the edit that you are referring to (deleting cites) was by me, which was a baby step towards resolving the problems. To skip the long story and simplify, I have just reversed/reverted/undid that edit of mine, which restores the cites. I would recomment that further discussion occur at the article talk page rathr than the review page. This can be confusing, since the review page is transcluded onto the talk page. I will add a new "Additional discussion" section to the article talk page to clarify/provide a place for this. Let me know how I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

All 15 Phillips-Fein citations now have page numbers.--Abel (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Plehwe 2006 citations now have page numbers. Abel (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

End of Good Article Review #1

Deleted Citations

By deleting citations that do not yet have page numbers due to the conversion to sfn code (which are in the history because of the limitations of the cite code hence the arduous conversion to sfn code) you have deleted a host of prefectly valid citations. Webpages and such do not have page numbers. --Abel (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to anything that I did, please feel VERY free to revert me; in fact I encourage you to do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed Good Article Review

Place additional discussion here. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unclear on what this section means. Additional discussion to old topics ought to go into original section. Do you mean new topics? If so, please feel free to retitle this sections and remove my query.--S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was a followup to a note on the review page where I recommended that further discussion be done on the article's talk page, not the closed review page. And I recognized that the transclusion could make less-familiar folks accidentally edit on the review page while thinking that they were editing on the article talk page. So I just added the section to help clarify.....feel free to delete. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Have completed some of the page number adding that you wanted. I guess now I add the page numbers for the last eight of the 59 citations then wait another year for the next good article nomination to get a review? --Abel (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Make that six citations. Two of the citations had page numbers already sitting in the reference for each. Didn't even have to look anything up. --Abel (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you renominate it I'd be happy to pick up for review quickly, but I wouldn't want to do that if it looked like I'd have to non-pass it again. So one idea is to have me give it a look when you think it's done. If it looks good, then you'd renominate it and tell me and I'd pick it up quickly for a review. That's just one idea, if you like it. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I will finish off the pages numbers and message you before I nominate it again. --Abel (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ready for review?

IMHO I don't seen anything that should prevent GA passage. There is one thing that is very unusual...the very large number of cites for certain sentences. My advice would be to reduce those a bit, but IMHO this should not prevent passage. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked through good article criteria and found where it says that good articles needs in-line citations for statements that are likely to be challenged. I do keep running into editors with an obsession for deleting citations for "readability." In academic writing there is no such thing as too much support for a claim. Maybe I just do not understand. Found an essay about citation overkill, but it explicitly states that it is purely opinion and not a policy or guideline.--Abel (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "readability" was a vague term for the issues that you just fixed. And yes, that essay which said

"A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should be avoided as clutter."

is ONLY an opinion. This article has strings of up to 7 cites, and several 6's. Maybe a "middle of the road" idea of reducing larger bundles to 4? Again, I don't consider this to be a GA passage issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated. Please start the review process. --Abel (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Their facility?

What do you think about putting a few sentence in about their location/ facility and their association with it? (even thou I know that you said that that may change) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Am now working on this very tall order. Not much written about Irvington, New York outside of how Tarrytown stole Washington Irving's Sunnyside estate by changing a border, making the name Irvington ironic. --Abel (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of something very simple / brief / simple like 2 sentences, something like this. " Their headquarters has been located at the xxxxx building on xxxx avenue in xxxx since 19XX. Some of their classroom and xxxx type programs are run at that facility." North8000 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Easier said than done. Well, easy to do, but would instantly get deleted without a citation, which is the difficult part. --Abel (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are seeing ghosts with the "instantly deleted" stuff.  :-) But I would think that a couple of basic sentences (not necessarily along the lines of what I wrote) should be not be tough to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If finding a reliable source for that was easy, someone would have done it already. --Abel (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive.--Abel (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! A bit more detail than I had in mind but that's cool. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This is GA review #2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foundation for Economic Education/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review on this article. I non-passed it on its first nomination; primary editor is agreeable to this. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Review comments

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. Is well written. IMHO has a minor case of overlinking, but that is arguable, and not a significant issue either way. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed links per WP:OVERLINK.--Abel (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Confirming, minor case of overlinking is resolved. North8000 (talk)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. IMHO strings of 6 or 7 cites can actually detract from this and are unusual, but this is either a minor issue or a non-issue here. I think that Abel deserves an award for the immense amount of difficult work that they did untangling and repairing the previous citation / reference issues.North8000 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bundling citations per citation content guideline solved that problem. --Abel (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not really address the main reasons behind my comment, but again, it is not necessary to do so. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria based on reasonably-available sources. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A note on "reasonably-available sources" since I have run into this before. From the identifying reliable sources content guideline:

Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Abel (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Is stable.North8000 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Passes this criteria. Has 6 images; the 2 non-free ones have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This article passes as a Misplaced Pages Good Article. On behalf of Wikipedians, a big THANK YOU to Abel for the IMMENSE amount of difficult work they did and perseverance that they exhibited to get this article into shape. Congratulations! I will implement the details shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Links to president, vice-president, and chair

Just because you and I have a good idea about what non-profit president, vice-president, and chair positions involve, does not mean that everyone reading this article will share that same priviledge of knowledge. The entire point of wikilinks are to allow readers to easily follow what they are interested in reading. By removing links we are taking away easy to follow for some choices, yet keeping easy to follow for others. Incredibly mild censorship, but it is still censorship that Misplaced Pages policy does not support. --Abel (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I took them out as being borderline overlinking, asking anyone who disagrees to revert, which you did. So that's cool. I don't agree with the "mild censorship" characterization but that is sidebar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to take a few more out but now have dropped that idea, now knowing your thoughts on that. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

After finding the should not section of the linking guideline, I took out many more. --Abel (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many citations

Found a solution that can make everyone happy. Instead of sfn, can use sfnm. This has far more complex code, but will keep the sfn benefits of exact page number and non-duplicative citations while adding bundling of multiple citations into one single numbered footnote. People who argue that many footnotes in a row make reading difficult will get a single footnote. People who argue that many footnotes are safer as one or two might one day need to be removed get to keep all the valid citations. Everyone wins. --Abel (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The "problem" if there is one is minor. And most of the common concerns regarding "too many cites" would not be addressed by what you describing. I'd recommend either leaving it be, or just trimming a couple just from the longest strings. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you also trimmed them while changing formatting. Cool. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

History

Still needs work. Here's one: "John Sparks Sr. served as president of the Foundation from 1983 to 1984. Bob Love followed Sparks as president. Love served from 1984 to 1985. From 1985 to 1988 a series of acting presidents presided over FEE. In 1988 and continuing until 1992 Bruce Evans served as the president of the organization." Same citation used 5 times in 5 sentences. Could such info be bulletized, with a single cite for the introductory sentence? "Presidents of the foundation have included the following:" While prose is often preferred over lists, such bits of connected info deserve better layout. Consider – you have 2 sentences telling us Love served. And all of the paragraph is devoted to the presidents, so there's no need to repeat the fact that they "served as president", "served", "presided over", "served as president of the organization". Yes, I could WP:DIY, but I pass on this comment with an encouragement to look at this, and other sections, with an eye towards effective presentation. Keep up the great work.--S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Finding the names and years was painful. Probably because the early days were chocked full of famous names and ground breaking events. The more recent years have plentiful newspaper and magazine mentions. I could find squat for those middle years. Threw in those very poorly written sentences because the gaping hole in chronology created by not having them was bothering the heck out of me. Would love to write "Sparks implemented this" and "Love created that" but right now all I have are names and dates. I'll try to come up with something creative that works these in better.--Abel (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Better?--Abel (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My rationale for adding "New York"

In the sentence "Originally based in Manhattan, FEE moved the headquarters just outside the city" I was thinking that since no city was named (Manhattan is a part of New York City) that adding "New York" might be useful. Also I don't think that Manhattan is on the AP list. (of course, New York is) Either way is cool with me, but I wanted you to know my reasoning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I must have mixed Manhattan and NYC together in my head. How about this?--Abel (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has passed as a Misplaced Pages Good Article

(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

This article passes as a Misplaced Pages Good Article. On behalf of Wikipedians, a big THANK YOU to Abel for the IMMENSE amount of difficult work they did and perseverance that they exhibited to get this article into shape. Congratulations! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Where to put citations

While I do not know what "ce" means, I can explain the locations of the citations. I used to place all citations outside the sentences. Just as you would for academic writing. Then some editor lost it over how they insisted that all citations had to be right next to specific claims within the sentence. As usual, Misplaced Pages is all kinds of contradictory on this issue.

How to place an inline citation using ref tags says, "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph." However, Punctuation and footnotes says, "ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation (see exceptions below), with no intervening space." With Punctuation and footnotes being more explicit, I went with the immediately next to guidance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Id4abel (talk • contribs) 05:07, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

You will often find shorthand in editor comments. "ce" is copyedit. The WP:G (glossary) has a lot of them. Perhaps the complaining editor has not read the guidance you quoted. In fact the two are compatible – "follow the text" does not mean the particular word or phrase (why does it add the comment about after punctuation?) And WP does follow the academic writing MOS. Looks like a bit of miscommunication has occurred. Thank you for explaining. If you don't make the changes, I shall. (But not for a few days or so.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles