Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:24, 3 August 2009

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Archives

• /to June 8 2006 (previous FAR process)
• /June 2006 (5 kept, 4 removed, combined old and new process)
• /July 2006 (7 kept, 16 removed)
• /August 2006 (11 kept, 21 removed)
• /September 2006 (10 kept, 24 removed)
• /October 2006 (9 kept, 21 removed)
• /November 2006 (5 kept, 30 removed)
• /December 2006 (6 kept, 17 removed)
• /January 2007 (13 kept, 24 removed)
• /February 2007 (11 kept, 18 removed)
• /March 2007 (12 kept, 17 removed)
• /April 2007 (10 kept, 17 removed)
• /May 2007 (11 kept, 23 removed)
• /June 2007 (6 kept, 9 removed)
• /July 2007 (11 kept, 17 removed)
• /August 2007 (10 kept, 14 removed)
• /September 2007 (9 kept, 15 removed)
• /October 2007 (7 kept, 13 removed)
• /November 2007 (7 kept, 12 removed)
• /December 2007 (8 kept, 13 removed)
• /January 2008 (14 kept, 9 removed)
• /February 2008 (11 kept, 10 removed)
• /March 2008 (8 kept, 16 removed)
• /April 2008 (12 kept, 10 removed)
• /May 2008 (4 kept, 16 removed)
• /June 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
• /July 2008 (10 kept, 8 removed)
• /August 2008 (9 kept, 12 removed)
• /September 2008 (17 kept, 18 removed)
• /October 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
• /November 2008 (4 kept, 8 removed)
• /December 2008 (7 kept, 8 removed)
• /January 2009 (5 kept, 7 removed)
• /February 2009 (6 kept, 6 removed)
• /March 2009 (6 kept, 13 removed)
• /April 2009 (6 kept, 21 removed)
• /May 2009 (6 kept, 14 removed)
• /June 2009 (2 kept, 18 removed)
• /July 2009 (1 kept, 15 removed)

Kept status

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 .

Names of the Greeks

Review commentary

Main editor User:Deucalionite has been blocked indefinitely. There seem to be no other main editors. I have notified Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greece,Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Etymology and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.

WP:CGR should be notified; they are likely to be the most helpful.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was promoted in 2005 and since then much text has been added to it. Currently the article has numerous citation needed tags, a POV tag, and an accuracy disputed tag. There do not seem to be editors actively interested in improving the article.

The original nominator of the article Colossus has not edited since Spring of 2008. However, one of his last edits addressed the problems with Names of the Greeks on the article talk page. He agrees that the article's quality has fallen sharply, despite having many references.

I feel that the article fails the following:

• 1a - there are questions about article quality. The article is hard to follow and varies in quality of prose. Editors appear to add and remove material without discussion on the talk page.
• lc - it has many {{citation needed}} tags. There are uncited quotations, eg 'Cicero delivered the coup de grace by coining the truly derogatory term, Graeculi, "contemptuous little Greeks".' Some sections are entirely uncited.
• 1d - questions about its neutrality per the {{disputed}} tag and {{pov}} tag.
• 1e - questions about its stability as there is adding and removing of tags and material without consensus or discussion.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeap, the article has great problems. And I am not sure I have the time or the material or even the appetite to work on it at this phase. I can promise I'll have a look at it during the weekend; and it is really unfortunate that both Kekrops and Deucalionite are blocked (both of them unfairly IMO). I don't promise anything, but if I do some cleaning, I suppose I can count on Mattisse's copy-editing skills!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, their absence offers some hope of making the article less like a Greek high-school textbook, of some thirty-five years ago. It is filled with nonsense and nationalist POV, and always has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will help in any way I can. I suggest that you remove material that is not well sourced. I am hesitant to do that myself as I am unfamiliar with the subject matter and do not know what is important and what can easily be referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattisse, in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual errors begin in the intro:

• virtually all Greeks were Roman citizens and therefore considered by name to have the right to be free and own property

  The two halves of this sentence have nothing to do with each other; one never needed to be a Roman citizen to be free or to own property.

Much more could follow; but it may be simpler to add a new layer of {{cn}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • In fact, I have done so; see my comments, and Macrakis', and Fut. Perfect's - not just in the last sections, but throughout Talk:Names of the Greeks; please leave me a message when this goes to FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What I would do, if I were Jimbo, is to remove all the non-linguistic assertions, including the claims about what the Aetolians did in the twelfth century BC (about which we have no reliable information at all), the point-scoring about Philip of Macedon, the assertion (above) that Cicero coined a perfectly normal Latin diminutive, the claims that the Greeks felt superior to other peoples (and who hasn't?); limit the linguistics to what is plainly consensus; and then consider whether what is left would be better on Wiktionary. Whether the result would deserve to be an FA is another question; but it would meet my standard: not being a public embarassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article is full of tags, added some more
• I noticed many WP:PRIMARY non-English sources are used. The author may have mis-interpreted the Greek source, at least citations to English translations needed or secondary sources. e.g.
  • Herodotus, "Histories", book II, 158
  • Saint Paul, "Epistle to the Romans", 1, 14
  • Aristotle, "Republic", I, 5
  • Homer, "Iliad", II, 498
  • Thucydides, "History", II, 68, 9 and II, 80, 5 and I, 47, 3 --Redtigerxyz 06:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Those do just as well as citations of translations; it's much easier to find Romans 1:14 in English than in Greek, and equally easy to find Iliad II, 498. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hieronymus wolf2.JPG: PD of course, but it's always nice to know the original source and artist. Otherwise, images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what a horrible mess. Even the title is misleading. I went there expecting an article about names of individual Greeks, but find instead one about names of the Greek nation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, POV, accuracy, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, as the original FA criteria concerns remain. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Someone would need to step forwards and put considerable effort into this article before it might reasonably be considered to meet the FA criteria, and there's no sign of that happening. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. I think I see how to improve this (as above), but the result would be a much shorter article, which should be considered for FA on its merits, when trimmed. (And the Romioi question may require Demotic sources, which would be difficult for me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Needs a lot of work to become an FA again. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. I don't have the time to work from scratch on the article right now.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 .

Rail transport in India

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject India, WikiProject Trains, Nichalp and Dwaipayanc.

This article was an FA promotion from 2005. It was previously at FAR, but closed early on a good faith assumption that improvements would continue to be made on the article. Although some improvements were made, the article still has a number of issues:

• More than 60% of the references are from Indian Railway Fan Club, which is quite clearly not a reliable source
• Other RS issues – reliance on Indian Railway sources, aboutpalaceonwheels.com, triptoindia.com, self-reference to Misplaced Pages (!)
• The article is not representative of the published body of work on Indian rail transport
• Inconsistent capitalization
• A number of unsourced paragraphs/sentences
• This article focuses too heavily on listcruft, rather than prose
• R&D section: What about private investment? What exactly has it done since 2003?
• Image issues: File:Budgam Station.jpg is tagged at Commons as missing permission, File:Bholu.png does not have a fair use rationale, and File:IR sample ticket.jpg might be a copyright violation.
• There are a number of areas where the article lacks info:
  • Freight railways in India
  • Costs? economy compared to road or water freight? pro/con of rail compared to road/water transport
  • Safety? People hanging off the trains without proper seats?
  • Train terrorism
  • Technology? Good or bad?
  • Complete lack of historical development
  • Technical specifications in lots of detail but other things are neglected

To summarize, there are numerous issues with FA criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. How is IRFCA not a reliable source? Their content is peer-reviewed on their mailing list, and can they not be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand ? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. There is no indication that there are site editors who review contributions by the fan club members to ensure accuracy, verifiability and neutrality. Some of the articles from other publications and reprinted on the site, authored by specific persons, might be all right as references. But the site is clear that it is not an "official site". —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliables sources, prose, comprehensiveness, balance, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per above; a rewrite would not be amiss. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Issues have not been addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist—this is a great pity, but there's nothing much we can do about it. Way below standard. Tony (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2009 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 .

Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Review commentary

Messages left at Biography, Lord Emsworth, Royalty and UK notice board. john k (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article, largely written by User:Lord Emsworth, who was, at the time, a very smart high school student, I think (he might have been in college, so don't quote me on that), is not a bad article. But when I was looking at it this morning it contained considerable factual errors. It is probably also not well-enough sourced, and lacks a certain degree of comprehensiveness. In particular, I found these paragraphs problematic. I have already changed them to make them better, but I present them to indicate the sort of problems that occurred in the article:

Anne's first ministry was primarily Tory; at its head was Sidney Godolphin, 1st Baron Godolphin. But the Whigs, who were, unlike the Tories, vigorous supporters of the War of the Spanish Succession, became much more influential after the Duke of Marlborough won a great victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. The Whigs rose to power on the strength of Marlborough's victory and almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley).

This paragraph seems to imply that Marlborough was a Whig, which was not the case - Marlborough was, in fact, a very close associate of Godolphin, and their political views were virtually identical - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes them, as moderate Tories, and Harley as a Country Whig, who together acted more as mediators between the Queen, the Junto Whigs, and the High Tories than as party politicians. The contention that Godolphin was only the nominal head of the ministry after 1704 is nonsense, and talking about Sunderland and Harley, who were great enemies, as leading the ministry together is also misleading.

Furthermore, it's not true that "almost all Tories were removed from the ministry" after 1704. The High Tories, most notably Nottingham and Buckingham, left in 1704-1705. But Godolphin and Marlborough, who led the ministry, were still seen as Tories. So was Lord Pembroke, the Lord President. While Harley himself was originally a Whig, he was at this time moving closer to the Tories, and several of his associates (notably Henry St John, the Secretary at War) were considered Tories. It was only in 1708 that the ministry became virtually entirely Whig.

The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin. Their power was, however, limited by Anne's insistence on carrying out the duties of Lord High Admiral herself, and not appointing a member of the government to take Prince George's place. Undeterred, the Whigs demanded the appointment of the Earl of Orford, one of Prince George's leading critics, as First Lord of the Admiralty. Anne flatly refused, and chose her own candidate, Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke on 29 November 1709. Pressure mounted on Pembroke, Godolphin and the Queen from the dissatisfied Junto Whigs, and Pembroke was forced to resign after just a month in office. Another month of arguments followed before the Queen finally consented to put the Admiralty in control of the Earl of Orford in November.

These paragraphs also were problematic. Anne only retained the Lord High Admiralship for a couple of months after her husband's death, then gave it to Pembroke in November 1708. It was after Pembroke's appointment that the pressure for putting Orford in occurred, and Orford came in in early November 1709. I'm not sure where these details came from, but they seem wrong.

As the expensive War of the Spanish Succession grew unpopular so too did the Whig administration. Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer was particularly skillful in using the issue (of the cost of the war) to motivate the electorate. In the general election of 1710, discontented voters returned a large Tory majority. The new ministry was headed by Robert Harley and began to seek peace in the War of the Spanish Succession. The Tories were ready to compromise by giving Spain to the grandson of the French King, but the Whigs could not bear to see a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne.

Firstly, a minor issue, that Harley was not yet earl of Oxford until 1711. But beyond that, the key issue is that this gets events reversed. The queen put Harley and the Tories into power before the 1710 general election, which the Tories won because they already controlled the government patronage. Sunderland was replaced in June 1710, Godolphin fell in August, Somers and Boyle were dismissed in September. The election did not commence until the beginning of October, and the remaining Junto Whigs, Wharton and Orford, were gotten rid of while it was occurring. The Tories got a majority in parliament because they came to power; they did not come to power because they got a majority in parliament.

As I said, I tried to correct these issues and clarify things, but I suspect there are similar issues relating to other parts of the article. I think it would be useful to look it over again - especially by people who actually know something about the subject matter. john k (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling this might come up. I agree with the above, but I'm up to the gills in Anna Anderson right now, so I probably won't have time to devote to this. DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on 1c: This article is based on a single biography of Anne in addition to books covering a much wider scope (history of Britain sort of things). I checked around and there are several biographies of Anne. An FA version of the article would not present just one biographer's view of Anne, but the views of all of the major biographers. Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, accuracy, comprehensiveness, breadth of research, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per at least 1b, 1c, and 3. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. The pictures are nice, at least. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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