| Revision as of 03:04, 24 February 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by 65.13.71.158 - "links - should be "neutral" if we even keep them"← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 24 February 2008 edit undoRedthoreau (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,540 edits →Che Guevara: trimmed external linksNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| *I think Matisse should delete all the external links if him or Sandy finds that best, and in compliance with not having them in a FA. ] (] TR 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | *I think Matisse should delete all the external links if him or Sandy finds that best, and in compliance with not having them in a FA. ] (] TR 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **Editors should justify the presence of each link per ]. An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. ] (]) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | **Editors should justify the presence of each link per ]. An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. ] (]) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *** Thanks Sandy, I see that states that only "neutral" material should be linked. Thus I believe that at minimum all the opnion analysis should be removed. |
*** Thanks Sandy, I see that states that only "neutral" material should be linked. Thus I believe that at minimum all the opnion analysis should be removed. ] (] TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ****I went ahead and trimmed the external links with the intention of removing non-neutral sources, and non-established media links. I feel that the remaining ones all derive from fairly credible and neutral sources and thus may be able to remain if others agree. Your thoughts will be appreciated. ] (] TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:27, 24 February 2008
Che Guevara
- Notified: User:Jmabel, User:Polaris999, User:Redthoreau, User:Zleitzen, User:FayssalF, User:205.240.227.15 (blocked since 2006)
This article reached FA status in the spring of 2006. Concerns now include WP:LEAD, WP:SS, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#LINK. In short, the article may no longer met Misplaced Pages:WIAFA. Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mattisse 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: long-standing concerns on the talk page about NPOV are more serious than the other issues raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:
- File size: 143 kB
- Prose size (HTML): 61 kB
- References (HTML): 24 kB
- Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)
- References (text only): 7 kB
- Images: 122 kB
Current version (Feb 23)
- File size: 385 kB
- Prose size (HTML): 113 kB
- References (HTML): 108 kB
- Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11599 words)
- References (text only): 42 kB
- Images: 348 kB
The article is better than 50% larger than the article that was promoted in 2006; it's not unlikely that POV has crept in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted. There are WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet crit. 2. In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose WP:LEAD (example: Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed. to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.) This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question - Since there is an independent article called The Motorcycle Diaries, and since there was no independent section on The Motorcycle Diaries in the original Feature Article as there is now, could the large section that is now devoted to The Motorcycle Diaries be moved there? Mattisse 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand the contention that the current article must mirror one from 2 years ago. Articles are fluid and increase with more information with time. As for the Motorcycle diaries I would be ok with moving it if others thought that would be best, but I could also make a case for it staying put as it could be seen as the "watershed" moment in his life. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is that as the article grows, you move information into subarticles. The main article is to be in summary style. Mattisse 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good candidate for summary style; a book/movie about him need not occupy a good chunk of his bio, especially when there's already a separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is that as the article grows, you move information into subarticles. The main article is to be in summary style. Mattisse 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand the contention that the current article must mirror one from 2 years ago. Articles are fluid and increase with more information with time. As for the Motorcycle diaries I would be ok with moving it if others thought that would be best, but I could also make a case for it staying put as it could be seen as the "watershed" moment in his life. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think Matisse should delete all the external links if him or Sandy finds that best, and in compliance with not having them in a FA. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Editors should justify the presence of each link per WP:EL. An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy, I see that What Should be Linked states that only "neutral" material should be linked. Thus I believe that at minimum all the opnion analysis should be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and trimmed the external links with the intention of removing non-neutral sources, and non-established media links. I feel that the remaining ones all derive from fairly credible and neutral sources and thus may be able to remain if others agree. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy, I see that What Should be Linked states that only "neutral" material should be linked. Thus I believe that at minimum all the opnion analysis should be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Editors should justify the presence of each link per WP:EL. An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)