| Revision as of 03:43, 2 March 2011 editNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users231,682 edits rm material - discussion is now on talk, please continue there if so desired← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:39, 2 March 2011 edit undoRuhrfisch (talk | contribs)Administrators52,118 edits Dab/ EL check - OKNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :* I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to ], I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --] ] 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | :* I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to ], I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --] ] 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Dab / EL check''' no disambiguation links and all external links (ELs) check out. There are six ELs which need access dates added, and the "Denying Shakespeare" article needs a "subscription required" tag. Note this is not a review of the sources themselves, just using the tools. Image review to follow, ] ''']''' 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:39, 2 March 2011
Shakespeare authorship question
Shakespeare authorship question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Over the past 14 months this article has received an extensive makeover that at one time involved probably half of Misplaced Pages's administrators (not really, but it sure seemed that way sometimes). It is probably the most accurate and balanced short treatment of the topic that can be found on the Internet. POV issues were wrung out of the article (often painfully) during an intensive editing process by many excellent editors over the past few months. Once the scene of many POV battles, the article and talk page have achieved a high degree of stability over the past several months and has been edited with a high degree of collegiality. All references used in the article are from scholarly and reliable sources, an achievement in itself given the nature of the topic. Thanks to a lot of extremely talented editors, this article can serve as a model for other related Misplaced Pages articles. My hope is that this group of editors continues to work on those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year, and there has recently been a nice collaboration going with several editors involved in the preparations for FAC. I am happy to certify this nomination. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This article does not meet the listed criteria. The prose is pedestrian. It is certainly not 'engaging, even brilliant'. The article is not 'comprehensive'. It neglects major facts concerning the reasons why certain individuals have been proposed as authorship candidates. It is not particularly well-researched, for the same reason that it is not comprehensive. It is decidedly not neutral, and if it is accepted for featured article status it will be a triumph for outright censorship on Misplaced Pages since all editors other than those supporting the orthodox view of the authorship controversy were either discouraged from contributing to the article or outright banned by Misplaced Pages. It has been the subject of ongoing edit wars for four years, and is only recently 'stable' because editors who did not support the orthodox view were banned from editing. It is an overly lengthy treatment of the topic with an abundance of unnecessary footnotes, and its structure is illogical, as the historical section is in the middle of the article.72.234.212.189 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note that this topic area has been the subject of a recent ArbCom case and that standard discretionary sanctions have been authorized. The IP-edit above amply illustrates why that was necessary, and I would urge everyone to not needlessly engage with the various drive-by commenters that have been an issue whenever this topic has been the subject of a community process in the past. --Xover (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wish to make clear right off the bat that FAC delegates will remove commentary by users or socks of users who were banned from this topic area. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to WP:WIAFA, I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dab / EL check no disambiguation links and all external links (ELs) check out. There are six ELs which need access dates added, and the "Denying Shakespeare" article needs a "subscription required" tag. Note this is not a review of the sources themselves, just using the tools. Image review to follow, Ruhrfisch ><>° 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)