Wikipedia:Featured article review.html



Featured article reviews

Vowel

Notified Phonetics and Spoken Wikipedia This article contains very few inline citations, and we promoted way back (in Wikipedia terms) in 2004. It might also need a copyedit, but the main thing it needs is more references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

previous FAR (13:51, 24 July 2007)

Notified: SandyGeorgia, SIrubenstein, ZayZayEM, Cla68, Amatulic, RoyBoy, Filll, CSTAR, DLH, Raul654, Odd nature, JoshuaZ, Guettarda, ScienceApologist, Tznkai, Dave souza, Kenosis, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, Ed Poor, Ec5618.

I am nominating this article for FAR based on the following FA criteria:

1. (a) Well written. Some of the language, especially in the lead is very difficult to read. In addition, there are embedded wiki-code in numerous locations that make it nearly impossible to edit the article. I've edited numerous FA articles, and have rarely seen such stuff.
2. (c) Factually accurate--there are constant disputes on the factual accuracy of certain statements in the article. Edit-warring has continued on these points.
3. (d) Neutral--edit warring appears to shift the neutrality of the article. Several issues include the Kitzmiller decision, the applicability of DI strategies, etc.
4. (e) Stable--subject to regular edit warring.
5. Lead--no longer summarizes the article accurately.
6. Citations--inconsistent and not up-to-date.

I think this article is very hard to read, using language and logic that are often difficult to follow. It is a constant tug of war between opposing POV's that need consensus. At this time, the article is not worthy of the FA tag. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment The wiki-code issue isn't a reason to remove from FA. If edit warring by POV pushers makes an article not stable then by that definition no highly controversial article will ever be "stable" enough. As long as there is a general consensus on what it should look like stability is not an issue. As of yet, no strong opinions on the other issues. Will need to take a look in more detail when I get a chance, but it would be nice to have more expansion on what is at issue precisely in regard to the lead and citations. 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)JoshuaZ (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, it's not a reason to delist it. It's just one of many reasons to delist this article. The whole reason for the wiki-code is inappropriate, because so many explanations are required to make sense of the logic. The problem is that the article requires difficult logic, so it has to be explained underneath the article's surface. That makes no sense to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep FA What JoshuaZ said. The article has been surprisingly stable for years when you exclude the attempts at pro-ID POV-pushing. Odd nature (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• ON, I don't think we're at the point of Keep vs. delist. It's still the comment stage, and it's not stable, it lacks neutrality, the citations aren't even close to FA level, the lead is difficult to read. I refuse to allow this FAR to be a POV vs. NPOV discussion. It is what makes a quality FA discussion. And I contend this article is no longer FA quality. My opinion on ID is well-known, so apparently I'm truly looking at what is right now not an FA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• ON, please seeWikipedia:Featured article review. We aren't at the stage of Keeping vs. delisting. There are issues with the article that make it not of FA quality. Not to repeat myself, but I'm shepherding this through the process. Comment on the quality not on whether there is POV pushing, which I know exists. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment I'm surprised to see this is FARC'd. The lede, "difficult to read" or no, is virtually identical to the FA version as it appeared on the wikipedia Main Page in Oct 2007. The nature of the topic itself is controversial, a fact that determines from the outset there will always be a heightened level of edit disputes, and no version of it will ever be solidly stable in the forseeable future. It appears there's more a general uneasiness that "anyone can edit" that particular article. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Again, as I said above, this isn't about the POV of the article, and I can't even begin to respond to your other comment about who or who cannot edit it. It's about quality, and does it meet FA standards. Based on FA standards, it does not. Do we fix it? Yes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I speak of a general uneasiness toward editors rather than the edits because I'm seeing edits which were already included in the original FA version reverted now because they're perceived to have come only recently from editors newly editing the article.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• None of the four (!) images of non-free cover art meet the NFCC requirements for the use of non-free images. Even if one of them met the requirement individually (an argument that has never gained consensus), the ratio of four non-free images to two free images is quite bad, especially for a pseudo-scientific topic for which numerous on-topic illustrations (a mousetrap, an eyeball) could be created. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Perfectly valid and good faith nomination for FARC. This article definitely needs it. However. I do still feel it meets suitability for FA-status. I do not find readability a problem, and coding issues are not a reason for delisting. Other issues such as factuality and NPOV are not substantiated. Edit-warring never goes unnoticed on this page, and the page normally returns to original form relatively quickly. Delisting high-profile edit-war/vandal targets that have a dedicated watch-base is letting terrorists win.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Objection: Keep vote aside I have one comment relevant to FARC (and three more that will be going to talk page, and I do not feel are sufficient cause for FA interference - Accurate portrayal of ID polls, possible minor NPOV violation, Given props where props are due).

Non-free image use rationale. This was brought up before and was very controversial at the time. However, the egregarious use of non-free images of book covers on this page is an issue. WP:FA Requires all non-free images to be used appropriately according to the Non-free content criteria. All 10 criteria MUST be met. These book covers continue to not meet criteria 8 "Suitability":

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding

At issue is that the presence of these pictures does not serve to "significantly increase readers' understanding", nor would their removal be "detrimental to that understanding". Indeed the only Image I see greatly increasing the readers' understanding in a way that only an image can is the representation of The Creation of Adam at Intelligent_design#Movement. This clearly illustrates the CSC's use of religious iconography in a way that would be difficult to effectively express in prose. None of the book covers actually present material in pictorial form that contributes to knowledge of this article.

To comply with FA standards these images must be removed (unless some editors can explain how the images -not their captions- supply necessary information that can only be conveyed in pictorial form). Removal of these images however would mean intelligent design would be poorly illustrated, and therfore bland and no longer eligible for FA status.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

USER:CBM notes that alternative free image illustrations that remain on-topic could easily be created.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh Gesh or, if "Gesh" is too religion, I'll vote Charlie Brown - "Oh brother". I don't like the See also or the further reading. I believe that some of the sources are blogs and the rest. I also see the second paragraph of "Origins of the concept" lacking a citation at the end as with the third paragraph of "Overview" and the first of "Specified complexity" and the first and last paragraph of "Fine-tuned Universe". Third paragraph of "Movement" along with weird use of italics in that paragraph. The end of "Defining science" lacks a citation and the end of the second paragraph of "Peer review". Missing from the end of the first paragraph of "Arguments from ignorance" also. The end of the first two paragraphs of "Kitzmiller trial" and the quote are not cited. Quote in "Reaction" is not cited. But yeah, this is a huge bag of worms, and the submitter should be flogged. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am being flogged. No one is happy about this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Very brief MoS flyover: I spotted WP:ACCESS issues in "Movement" wrt image layout and templates. I see quotes in WP:ITALICS (wrong) everywhere, including the citations. WP:PUNC logical quotation issues here and there that will be irritating to locate and fix (probably just ctrl-f on ". and ." and ," and ", to check them all). What looks like a quote, but in italics not quotes, after: As a reaction on this situation in Holland, in Belgium the President ... Can any of that lengthy See also be worked in to the article, per WP:LAYOUT? There's a mish-mash-mess of date formats in the citations, but with all the citation templates in flux due to the recent date delinking, it might be premature to work on that, and better to wait, fingers crossed, for a bot or script. But setting aside the date formatting, the citations need other cleanup (I saw strange bolding, missing italics on periodicals, and missing info at least.) That's actually the longest external link farm I can ever recall seeing on an FA. But my general impression is that, in terms of MoS, the article is much cleaner than it was at its last FAR; cleanup will not be too hard, except that there are so many citations that need work (using Dr pda's edit references script will help). The dab and external link checkers in the toolbox indicate a few links and dabs need repair. A random check of the citations at the bottom of the article revealed a missing publisher and a completely wrong citation, where the URL didn't point to the source indicated, and formatting issues, so citations need review and cleanup.[1] It is very hard to work around all the HTML in the article, but Dr pda's edit references script helps avoid all of that for ref cleanup work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I found about 20 dead links in citations. I'm not touching them, because the embedded wiki-code is nearly impossible for me to decipher. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Repeat :-) Go to Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s user page, get the edit references script. It's really helpful for working on ref cleanup on large articles, and it only shows the text within the ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Much of the style of the article has been improved since the last FAR. For instance, the "Overview" section is no longer fully one-third of the article, as it was at that time. From a stylistic point of view, the article is in much better shape than it was then. For comparison, here is a version around the time of the FAR. --FOo (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - no article should have an overview section, as that is what the lead is. If the overview is a section, what subsection of material does it cover? What is missed out? If the subject matter is theoretical underpinnings, history, development, definition, or whatever, the name of the heading should reflect it. I haven't looked closer yet. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp

Notified USer:Noren, User:Serendipodous, WikiProjects Astronomy and Solar System. Marskell (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldtraveller's FAs are now far and away the largest group on the few/no citations list and they need to be gone through. The successful FAR of SL9 is what I'd like to shoot for, though help is needed. I've contacted a couple of astronomy editors.

Most obvious concern is referencing. I have formatted a couple of refs and dropped some dubious ones. Also concerned about some of the prose ("For almost everyone who saw it, Hale-Bopp was simply a beautiful and spectacular sight in the evening skies.") Finally, I would like some feedback on due weight wrt the Heaven's Gate and Art Bell stuff. Marskell (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Demote: Tim, I don't think this article would pass muster at an FAC; Much of the information could probably be easily referenced, and there should be at least one ref per paragraph. The two ^{citation needed} tags are going to have to be addressed; they read like the apologetic writings of Ufologists. I've given the article a copyedit, but much more needs to be done. Serendi^podous 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note, Serendip, that we wait a full two weeks before declaring keep or remove. There are no rapid demotions here. Even if it's just a copyedit, any improvement is good improvement. Marskell (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. Obviously it's not FA material, it'll be pretty tough to get it back up to FA status. —Ceran [speak] 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercantilism

Notified: WP:BUSINESS, WP:HISTORY, SimonP.

I just want to see if this article is still Featured article material. Right off the bat, I can see that the lead has more than four paragraphs, which I believe exceeds the limit, according to WP:LEAD. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on other things about the article, but I personally wouldn't consider a long lead to be a reason to bring it to FAR. That can be rewritten fairly painlessly; the lead just needs to be summarized further. It probably would have been more productive to bring this issue to the article's talk page or a related WikiProject before bringing it here. Issues like referencing and such require much more time so I'd consider those to be better reasons to bring the article to FAR—that may very well be the case here. Gary King (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That too. :D -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for a lot of people. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely is an issue, its a very big article to have 24 citations and that's it, so there are a horde of statements without citation in this article that need addressing, so this should stay here, for long lead and very small number of citations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. So that's fine. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian–Circassian War

Notified: Hurmata, Grey Fox-9589, SGGH, WP Caucasia and WP Russia

Numerous unreferenced statements are in this article. A larger range of additional sources are needed throughout as it is currently very poorly referenced. "Citation needed" tags remain present consistently throughout this article.

It is also currently being neutrally disputed, and I myself found that the language of it is rather inappropriate for FA criteria. There is also a bad use of layout. The lead is too short, and some images squash up a lot of the text. Domiy (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly didn't pass FAC with that number of problems with image layout; there are some other minor MoS issues as well, if the citation tags and other major issues can be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I support to remove this from the featured article list. The title of the war is disputed, and there's a large amount of books and academic works written about it so the article could be expanded and backed up by many more sources. Innitially the article looked pretty good because it had a lot of nice images, but that of course should not be enough to have it as a featured article. I would like to work on this article myself too once I have some books ready, and will work towards making it featured again if it loses it now. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the WP:FAR instructions: declarations to delist or not are not made during the review phase. The purpose of review is to hopefully identify and address deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as only my second major article, I was inexperienced in the writing and souce gathering processes and thus the possible issues of neutrality were not as obvious to me at the time of writing. The title issue was a problem at the time if I recall, and I think it was discussed that the article topic was one conflict in a history of hostilities covered by another article. I am unable to get a hold of many new sources, unfortunately, so any new help I give to improve this article will have to be more in the wp:mos area. Committed to improving it, though, when my regular connection returns. SGGH ^speak! 12:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And now having had a good read, I certainly didn't write some of this stuff, the article appears to have had some significant changes since I last saw it, so it may take me a bit longer to work out what is going on. SGGH ^speak! 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

H.D.

Notified Paul August, Hoary. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A Filiocht from 2004. I'm nominating the article as it is listed on Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and will have to undergo the re-review process at some stage, and I want that to happen at a time when I am available to respond. I worked on this this time last year, and been meaning to get back to it since. Comments and suggestions welcome; and yes the lead needs to be expanded. I'll notify Paul August and Hoary, I might leave Filiocht's talk in peace. Ottava might be helpful here in a providing a detailed review (hint hint). Ceoil ^sláinte 22:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is, erm, not so close to any of my areas of interest or knowledge; several kilometres removed, indeed. (Anything beyond a mere mention of Pound or Freud tends to make me nod off.) I've read it and made a number of little changes of the kind that are particularly easy to make, but somebody is going to have to print it out, look at the whole picture, and red-ballpoint some shunting around of paragraphs. And some chunks need a lot of (well-informed) work, e.g. the stuff about which work is based on which classical work. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images Image:Aldington.jpg: no proof that the image was published prior to 1923; missing author details. If it's anonymous and published after 1923 with copyright, then it will still be in copyright until 95 years after first publication. Similar problems with Image:Hdpoet.jpg (which I have already raised at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Modernist poetry in English): source appears to have been taken down, and the domain name lapsed. No evidence that it is public domain. Appears to have been scanned from a book, as the lines of text are visible through the image; no detail on publication date (likely to be after 1923, since H.D. did not become famous until after then) or on photographer's date of death. DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

William Nelson Page

Notifications to Vaoverland, WP Trains, WP Virginia, WP Bio, WP West Virginia.

A 2004 promotion, this article needs a tuneup. The WP:LEAD is in need of some serious trimming (as long as many articles), there is an External link farm, there are one-sentence sections, citations are unformatted and lacking, image layout needs attention to comply with WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images, and there is a lot of WP:MOS basic cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will begin working immediately on each of these items. Collaboration and/or constructive suggestions would be welcomed. Vaoverland (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this while using the reflinks tool. I made some changes that I think address some of the MOS/Layout issues as well as fixing refs. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Augustan drama

Users notified: Geogre, NicholasTurnbull; also notified WP Theatre.

This article fails 1c and 2c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

• Criteria 1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

Although there is a list of References at the bottom of the article, they are not specific to statements claimed. I do not want to add fact tags, but I can if that would be helpful, as for me some of the statements seem to be personal opinion or the opinion of a particular group, but not necessarily representative of various opinions given their due weight as in NPOV. The article can be seen as a scholarly essay representing a particular view or evaluation of the subject of the article. There are no critical or alternative views or evaluations available?

• Criteria 2c: :consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes^[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

Although there are a couple of inline citations (e.g. (IV 55–60), (Pasquin IV i.)), it fails the specific 2c criteria. In FAC these days, full referencing is consistently required by reviewers to allow readers to check sources for themselves for accuracy and POV. This prevents "common knowledge" of a particular point in time from being accepted as scholarly fact in later years. Further, all quotations should be specifically referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I gather from some of the comments below that this article is WP:OWN and that other editors agree to protect the ownership of this article. If this is the case, my request will not be taken seriously and will be ridiculed and ignored (as seems to be the case from some of the comments below.) Still, I am surprised that a single editor can control an article, my surprise proving that I am not as cynical about Wikipedia as I thought I was. To say "I don't want to turn the article into something Geogre did not intend it to be" suggests that articles are not allowed to evolve from a single editor's point of view because of article ownership. This seems to me against the ethos of Wikipedia, but hey, I now know Wikipedia does not uphold its own values. I still have time to grow more cynical. —Mattisse (Talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There are different flavours of WP:OWN. This is one of the milder ones, in my view, but I wouldn't disagree with you that there are such issues. The problem is where does the line get drawn? If Ceoil and Ottava come up with an article acceptable to all, would that address your WP:OWN concerns? Or would it move the concerns from one person to three? Also, FA-status is sometimes used to justify reverting to an earlier version of an article. Sometimes that is fully justified, but at other times that attitude (another form of WP:OWN) can hinder progress. In either case, a permalink to the current version of the article can always be used for people wanting to refer to that. Maybe not ideal, but if I ever built up a stable of articles that I wanted to keep a permanent record of, I would take a snapshot of what they looked like at their "best" moment (i.e. the permalink - though remember that changes to templates can ruin the appearance of older versions of an article) and then allow a "different" version to evolve (keeping NPOV and article quality in mind - the article quality and balance mustn't deteriorate, even if the style of presentation might change). Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I can't see that either of the claims made above are accurate. Firstly, criterion 1c indicates that inline citations are only necessary "where appropriate"; following that link reveals that the requirement applies to "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; I can see nothing in the article that is controversial in the slightest. No indication is given above as to which "statement claimed" is meant. The criteria 2c turns on the evaluation of appropriateness in 1c, which I do not believe has been established. The references offer both primary and secondary sources and the article is well-written, detailed and scholarly. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The topic is broad enough that it could easily be cited by a non-expert (as apposed to A Tale of a Tub, which required very specific knowledge). A couple of editors could bring this to the current standard in a week or two, if anybody is interested in helping rather than shooting. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No infobox. Also various incorrect commas, and missing dashes. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Wetman. In addition I would like the lead to cover its effect on popular culture; I'm thinking here of the many video games, Simpsons edisodes and death metal songs that mention the legacy of Maffei tragedy. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, I rely on you for so much and thus hate to ask, but...are you up for this one? You know the game: one week or three months, FAR doesn't mind. Ya, we could just sit here shooting but it gets awful dull two years on. Marskell (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to turn the article into something Geogre did not intend it to be; so i'll sandox a cited vesrion on my user space, ask Geogre to vet, and we'll take it from there. Its likely to be a long one though Marskel; warning you up front; but I think is worth it. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - if someone wants to put together a list of specific lines that should have citations, please give it to me and I will address them after discussing it with Geogre. Ceoil, I have quite a few of the books that can be relied on. I never added them before out of respect towards Geogre. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Ottava would lend a hand, I take this on. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - some of the quotes are not clearly referenced:
  • "Addison, damning opera's heterogeny, wrote, "Our Countrymen could not forbear laughing when they heard a Lover chanting out a Billet-doux, and even the Superscription of a Letter set to a Tune."" - this might be pinned down from the earlier sentence: "In The Spectator, both in number 18 and the 3 April 1711 number, and many places elsewhere, Joseph Addison fretted that foreign opera would drive English drama from the stage altogether.", but whether the quote in question is from one of the 1711 Spectators or one of the "many places elsewhere" is not clear.
    • Ceoil has given a ref here, but the date given is 1853, by which time both Steele and Addison were dead. So I'm still unclear as to what this is - a republication of something in or by the Spectator? Or someone (who?) quoting Steele and Addison? Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

      Carcharoth, I'm not familiar with the topic, and the ref was from Google books. This is why it might be better if we sandbox, and, although Ottava has more knowledge, ask for Geogre to review before we taking to mainspace. You input aswell in this would be very much appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • There is also: "John Gay wrote to Jonathan Swift on 3 February 1723, "There's nobody allow'd to say I sing but an Eunuch or an Italian Woman. Every body is grown now as great a judge of Musick as they were in your time of Poetry & folks that could not distinguish one tune from another now daily dispute over different Styles of Handel, Bononcini, and Aitillio. People have now forgot Homer, and Virgil & Caesar...." ". Here, it would be nice to be able to follow this up in (presumably) a collection of the Letters of John Gay (or of Swift). But to do that, we need to know where the quote and letter has been published.
  • The "Spectator" link in the References section is broken. New link should be http://meta.montclair.edu/spectator/. Would be nice if a specific page from there was located for the Addison quote above. I initially thought it was an archive for Spectator issues, but I now see it is a single article.
• That's what I spotted when checking the referencing of the quotes. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Currently, the references in the bibliography cannot possibly cover the claims made in the article - most of the references are primary sources. Sadly, the bibliography does not even reference the most important scholarly works on Augustan drama. I see that Ottava has agreed to do some referencing for this article - that is excellent and I look forward to its improvement. Awadewit (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Patently OR. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtuti Militari

Users notified: Angr, Warren, Logologist, zscout370, Piotrus and Halibutt.

WikiProjects notified: Military history Polish task force, Military history, Numismatics, Orders, Decorations, and Medals, and Poland

previous review

References and citations: fails 1c and 2c. It was previously nominated back in November 2006 but appeared to go through no process. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean nominated for removal, or review—not deletion. Pagrashtak 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. (blush) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The logs show that it was deleted, when it was on the Main Page. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That was to remove anti-Semitic vandalism revisions—a separate matter. Pagrashtak 15:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

• Image:Jozef Poniatowski na koniu.jpg: no source, ideally name of artist should be included

• Can be replaced with commons:Image:Ksiaze Jozef.jpg --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Jozef baron chlopicki.jpg: personally, if I was writing this article, I wouldn't use this image because it has no artist listed.

• Color version at commons:Image:Józef Chłopicki 1.JPG states: "on anonymous portrait before 1854"

• That is a different image (although similar), and looks like it has an incorrect license tag. It could replace the current image if desired, if the tag is corrected. Pagrashtak 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed tag on commons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Jozef Haller.jpg: tag needs updating, exact source would be preferable
• Image:Jozef Pilsudski1.jpg: no information showing that the image was published prior to 1994

• It was, it's a pretty famous photo... I will look for proof.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:VirMilPoland.gif: pd tag is invalid as the image contains text which is not released under the Polish Copyright Law Act 1994

• If we cut the text, would this be a safe PD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Sikorski Zumbach.jpg: websource asserts copyright © 2003-2008 Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud

• Typical ridiculous assertion copyrighting PD content.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that the copyright notice can be safely ignored here, but we still need to know the publication date. It looks like this might be PD in Poland but not in the US. Pagrashtak 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was certainly published in US after 1923. But Polish PD makes it PD worldwide, usually (I haven't seen an exception to this yet...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Style

I've reorganized the lead section.

The layout is a mess and that is due to the images and the boxes. I don't see the need of using pictures of all kings who had a relationship with the award. I've found difficulties on how to approach this problem. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883

Notified WT:CRIC, jguk, Robertson-Glasgow

Lack of citations is the main concern and I would question the article's accuracy too, although I haven't had time to check that yet. I'm not happy about the tone as the overall read puts me in mind of a magazine article. To be honest, I think that a review of this article against the WP:CRIC B-class criteria would fail and it would be rated C-class. It certainly is well short of current FA standards. Most of the work was done a few years ago and it illustrates how standards have been raised since it was promoted. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on nominating this myself in the near-future. I see a lack of inline citations, problems with the first two images and prose and MoS flaws all over the place. For example, Genesis of Test cricket is filled with proseline: four consecutive paragraphs start with In 1852, 1859, 1861, In 1868. Not FA-level today. Also, I see a few repeat links in the lead, just to give one problem out of many. The lack of references is the biggest issue, but the rest of this needs a lot of help as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having, at BlackJack's bidding, skimmed through the introductory section, I think a few hitherto-unmentioned points worthy of notice:

1. The voyage between England and Australia was not invariably a 48-day affair. In 1882, for example, the SS Assam took 49 days to convey Murdoch's men from Melbourne to Plymouth, while Ivo's winter wag, delayed by a Sympleglades-like collision with the Glenroy, took as many as 57.
2. It is also untrue that the term "Test Match" did not enter the cricketing patois until 1885: Hammersley employed it in Sands & Kenny's Cricketers' Guide to denote five important matches on Stephenson's 1861/62 tour.
3. Whether the Ashes were presented to Bligh after he had secured them (as the article suggests) or beforehand at Sunbury (as is far more likely the case) has not yet been established.
4. It is also not universally agreed that the 1882/83 rubber ought to be seen as comprising only three games. A fourth (which, significantly, England lost, thereby drawing the series level) has been granted Test-Match status.

Best, Crusoe (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway

WP Trains, WP Ohio, PedanticallySpeaking, WP Cincinnati notified.

Featured article criteria 1(c) - lacks inline citations, in fact it has only one. Tom B (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it; it may take a few weeks but it should be expanded and improved. --NE2 23:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Waterfall Gully, South Australia

Notified WP AUSTRALIA, WP CITIES, Beneaththelandslide, WP ADEL

Fails factually accurate criterion in particular, numerous statements that have not been citated. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the FAR by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Waterfall Gully, South Australia}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If it became an FA without them, then it is usually fine. But per SandyGeorgia above. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article is certainly in need of citations. On the plus side, it looks like the structure is ok - I'll see what I can do with it. (It is also listed for 0.7, so the work would be useful either way). - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree structure is fine, just applying the very high standards of a FA! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This was approved when standards for FA were quite different a few years ago. Some work will be required to bring it up to current standards, but it helps that it is very well written to start with. (Note this is simply a reply to Michelle, not a review comment.) Orderinchaos 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm already getting Playford flashbacks... Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That was, however, a more recent featured article which met the standards of a later time. Some of the comments in that link (re number of sources) are just lame. :P Broadly speaking anything late 2006 or later has been assessed fairly consistently on the new rules. Orderinchaos 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delist The article is in need of a great many citations and there are numerous MoS problems: non-breaking spaces; image locations, captions, and sizes; article is littered with vague terminology when better figures or at least estimates could be found (e.g. "attracted many miners and young men from all over Australia", "Many residents are high-income earners"). Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm..."In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status". Daniel (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The remedy is simple, that citations be added. However, other editors have commented on other areas of improvement. Overall, this does not make it a FA quality article in its current state. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Delist are not declared in the review phase; the purpose of review is to identify and hopefully address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake about the declaration, but I think my comments still stand. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to correct the licenses on the incorrectly tagged images, but ideally Image:Waterfall Gully 1866.jpg and Image:Wgully 1872.jpg should have sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are from the National Library of Australia collection. The first is here, and the second here. While both predate 1955, and therefore are out of copyright under Australian law, I'm not sure how that fits the standard library claims of ownership. (I have a replacement for the first image from my own collection, and should be able to replace the second, if this is deemed necessary). - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great! I think that clears up any issue over images. I'll add the sources to the image pages tomorrow. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to keep this side of the process informed, I've found enough sources to reference everything, and I'm slowly working down the article, extending it where the sources suggest that more weight should be given to an issue, and either referencing or rewriting claims to meet the sources. Hopefully it won't take too long to finish the process so I can start addressing any other concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What would we do without Bilby? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

El Lissitzky

WP Visual Arts, WP Soviet Union, WP Russia, WP Hist of photography, WP Architecture, WP Bio, Jmabel (talk · contribs), Clngre (talk · contribs) notified

This article is no longer anywhere near WP:FA standards. The most glaring problem is the citation issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please specify the deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See comment below at 03:18, 5 October 2008. The article is deficient on citations although it seems in better shape than when nominated. In its current state I would not have nominated it, but I can not vote to keep due to citation deficiencies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, but I'm really not notably knowledgable on the topic. I believe most of my contributions were on the level of copyedits. If there is something in particular I can do to help, though, let me know. In particular, if there is anything someone tries to source & has difficulty, feel free to ping me, I'm often very good at that sort of thing. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that this needs a lot more sourcing (assertion A is from X, B is from Y, etc). Unfortunately I know little and am busy, and "my" library is not likely to be of great help. I did also notice some lumpiness of prose but have already gone through it once. Considering how much I found in such a short time, there's likely to be more. So what are the other less glaring problems? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through it a second time, and also notified WP Jewish history. What this article needs most acutely is a couple of patient people with time and access to a good library, for specific sourcing. (And a word from the de-nominator on what the non-glaring problems are wouldn't hurt.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I pinged two very good editors who may be able to help. I'm going to try to find time this weekend to add some refs. This is a wonderful article and imo it would be unfortunate to see it delisted. dvdrw 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with DVD on this one - great article. Tony, would you list what you think is of most immediate concern from a ref point of view and I'll see what I can dig up? Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to confess, that I rarely take as close a look at these things as I should. I generally just use the rule that every paragraph should have at least one citation since each is suppose to be a separate topic in a well layed out FA. I think I counted more than a half dozen without. Start with those.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of us don't take as close a look as we should, but then most of us also don't nominate featured articles for review. It seems to me that nomination should follow a close look, and that if there was no close look then the nomination should quickly be followed by either that close look or a retraction. ¶ As I understand it, the three articles most recently promoted to FA are Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, The Greencards and Stonewall riots. I'd never even heard of the subjects of the first two of those articles, know little about the third, and have been utterly unrelated to the editing of any of the three. Each does indeed have an average of well over one note per (not so long) paragraph; let's compare their subjects with El Lissitzky. ¶ No offense to those who appreciate feats of civil engineering, railway history, or the Sublime, but that railway bridge is (perhaps unfairly) not widely known. Give me twenty minutes in a good library and I'm sure I will not be able to find an encyclopedia article on it that's half as good as this one. ¶ The Greencards is a name that doesn't seem slightly familiar even after I look at the article; they may be an excellent band, but (until I look at the list of references of that article, of course) I wouldn't know where in the library to start looking them up. ¶ Clearly the Stonewall riots are significant, but they also belong to the area of US social/political history that still seems to be fought over, at least when the consultants of certain US politicians are looking for a "wedge issue". So particular claims are particularly likely to be challenged and to need backup. ¶ Contrast these with El Lissitzky. His degree of cooperation with the Soviet regime in its most trigger-happy period may be a matter of dispute, but his early and mid career seem free of any major controversy and it's likely that virtually everything in an article about him of a length such as this could be sourced from the multivolume Grove encyclopedia Dictionary of Art and one or two books about Constructivism and/or the Soviet avant garde. Indeed, I'd hardly look askance at the article if its first paragraph were footnoted "This and all the following information comes from [single specified source] except where noted to the contrary." Problems would come when ignorant or careless editors added information without specifying its (other) source, thereby bringing the implication that it came from that source. ¶ So I'd urge you, or anyone, to take a close look at sourcing before citing its awfulness as reason for FAR. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your lengthy discourse suggests that the original FAR may not have been in good faith or undeserved. The article was in bad shape before this FAR. It has improved greatly through the process. My one ref per paragraph standard has not failed me. I have never had anyone say that anything I nominated was unduly nominated and don't think that if you considered the FARed version you would have any doubt that this was well below FA standard. Much of your discourse points to notability instead of quality. I am not contesting notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts from the editors here on whether the table should be kept or not? There is the beginning of a discussion on the talk page. I'm unsure and would appreciate more feedback. dvdrw 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I deleted it, since the information was contained in the links. If anyone disagrees please say so. dvdrw 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple image problems The tags on the images even say: "the current status of this image is unknown". DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do? dvdrw 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored them on en: and added fair use. dvdrw 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How many fair use images are there now? These need to be kept to a minimum.

Sourcing seems OK, except for Legacy. Note the second sentence of the second paragraph appears to have an unsourced direct quote. Marskell (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen

Notified: Tombseye, Erik, WP Comics, WP Alternate History (did not notify DCAnderson; has not edited for a long time)

A lot of the article is unreferenced, including "Structure", second half of "Themes", and all of "Allusions to iconography, art, and history". This article will certainly get a lot more attention once the film based on this book is released in March 2009. Gary King (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember User:Erik was working on a rewrite of the article a while back. I know he had concern over some of the sources used (very few of the available academic and mainstream press references available were used). I suggest notifying him. I'm willing to help out. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did plan to work on it a while ago, but it was one of those projects that I couldn't get around to. You can see my resource breakdown at User:Erik/Watchmen as well as my revision at User:Erik/Watchmen/Revision. This article has never been in that good shape, and I had hoped to improve. I'm busy with school these days, but feel free to utilize any resource in my user pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I just hash out a better version of the article using your user pages? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, I'll be using Erik's temp page at User:Erik/Watchmen/Revision to work on the article. All changes to the article should be made there. We'll copy and paste when everyone is satisfied. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "structure" section is straightforward enough to use the primary source for. The only slightly dodgy part is the symmetry as theme claim, which should actually probably be removed (with, ideally, a reference to the one really obvious structural symmetry bit, the Fearful Symmetry issue, which can be primary sourced.) The latter section could use some cleanup, however. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I started some work in the temp page, and I hope to get into the full swing of it sometime this week. Does anyone own the Absolute Edition of the book, and if so, is there any useful source material in it? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a temp version, so I attacked Watchmen itself. Symmetry is definitely a noted 'theme,' as stated by Moore, Gibbons and Bhob Stewart. (Although 'theme' may not be the best term.) Rorschach's mask, the Rum Runner logo, #5. Stretching the definition of 'symmetry' slightly, the 'mirroring' of events in the plot and the Freighter, the mirroring of the micro- and macrocosm generally, the foreshadowing and shadows evoking other images and happenings... symmetry, mirroring an images as a whole are definitely integral to the whole.

Incidentally, as well as Absolute (which basically reprints Graphitti), Dave Gibbons' new book will shortly become THE best source for this article. ntnon (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Move your edits to the temp page, since when this wraps up it'll be a simple matter of cutting and pasting. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Comics Journal articles used as references online. They are both from The Comics Journal #116, published in July 1987. Would anyone happen to have a copy of these? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I now see that Ntnon added those cites. That makes things much easier. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly irrelevant comment Do any of the characters deserve their own articles? I think all of their real-world significance can be captured in this article itself... indopug (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. Aside from maybe Rorsharch and Dr. Manhattan, I'd say no. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I've attempted a plot summary. It's damn hard though. I can do a one paragraph precis in five minutes, but it took me nearly three hours to crank it to four, it's trying to establish the main characters I found hardest. I think it is descriptive, I've tried to avoid anything too outlandish or getting bogged down in too much detail. I think it covers the main thrust of the storyline without duplicating other areas of plot summation within the article. It's hardest avoiding OR. Arguably the last sentence is, but... it reads better than which sees them confronting both each other and their own principles or something like. There's a good paper somewhere that argues that we as the reader watch the watchmen and that the work operates on a meta-textual level. Has that been used in the article? Hiding T 10:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't overly wikified the plot summary deliberately. I think a lot of the stuff is self-explanatory, we don;t really need links to Mars and teleport, do we? And of teh stuff that I'd like to wikify, I'm unsure that that isn;t better presented in the article. For instance, linking Ozymandias seems redundant to a paragraph later in the article which discusses the allusion. Likewise the link I have added to the Doomsday Clock, I'm not sure that is making itself redundant? Re-reading Watchmen you get staggered at the depth of it. Veidt, in his moment of victory standing before a picture of Alexander the Great having just cut the Gordian Knot. Ah well. They say there is a film on the way too. Hiding T 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, four paragraphs. That's pretty impressive. I think that it's definitely allowed to be a bit longer. I copyedited it a bit. It was really good, but still read like a "story" in some parts, where it seems to foreshadow something, when in fact it should just tell the events like it is. Overall it's pretty good and it surprisingly summarizes such a complex story pretty well. The only thing I'd like to see is the end of the plot should mention how the story ends (I don't actually have my copy of Watchmen with me right now and I'd rather not want to draw it from memory!) Right now, the end of the plot section reads very speculative and much like the end of a film; it should just tell the end like it is. Gary King (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll read the specific summary (and maybe comment on it) later, but I mildly disagree. The ending should not be revealed unless absolutely necessary - and it is not absolutely necessary to reveal it.

N.B. On character articles, I think their major benefit is lightening the load of the main page somewhat. It's lengthy, but mostly rightly so. There's a wealth of information which really ought to be made available, so sectioning off even a small couple of parts helps ease the burden (as it were). ntnon (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to censor information. The ending is part of the plot. Please have a look at existing FA articles for films, video games, etc. with plot sections. Gary King (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite. But precis isn't censorship. ;o) Hiding's severe pruning of the plot summary isn't censorship (although having now read it through, I think it's a condesation too far, myself), and the ending I was thinkinf of was the precise method of Veidt's destruction of New York. That's not necessary. 'He executes his plan' would do... maybe.

However, I do think that Hiding's current plot summary is too extremely short (sorry, Hiding) at the moment. The current 'summary' at Watchmen is overly lengthy, true. But then I feel that the Black Freighter sections are now better (well, I would!), but they clearly shouldn't dwarf the plot summary! (Even if that's not a true comparative exercise, since the Freighter/alt-EC bits would be analogous to themes & background, too. But on the face of it, it would look odd if the plot summary weren't around twice the length of the current temporary version.) Plus, that will give a little more scope for understanding and breathing space - particularly with all the "Juspeczyk"s! Is it completely anti-guidelines to call refer to Veidt, Manhattan, Rorschach, Dan and Laurie, or must they all be surnames..? Because Manhattan and Rorschach would be very confusing if standardized either way, but Juspeczyk is very awkward. Even doubled from the temporary version, the summary would be 2/3 or less than it is at the moment. ntnon (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "Veidt's plan was to cause chaos and confusion in the world by destroying half of New York City."? Gary King (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a little bit more to the plot summary. That should take care of most of the story. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with ntnon that we don't have to reveal the story; much of it is revealed later in the article and just because we aren't censored doesn't mean we add profanity everywhere. It's about finding a balance. I tend to agree with Wesley that the Black Freighter stuff is superfluous to the plot; that's actually more essential to the structure than the plot, a point I think Moore has also acknowledged. When you look at the plot you can see the truth in his statement that it is only really enough for six issues. I'd contend it may not even have stretched that far. Amazing to think the depth the work has was achieved through padding. How do you summarise the Black Frieghter stuff. "Meanwhile, a boy reads a comic book whose story parallels some aspects of the central plot...? Hard to do. I think the plot summary in the temp version now isn't half bad, to be honest. Hiding T 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress The plot summary is more or less set (could always use some tweaking) and Nton has be loading some essential reference material from Comics Journal articles and the like into the temp page. Once Ntnon is done, I'll be doing (from my estimate) a week's worth of rewriting using the raw material provided. We'll most likely be able to keep this article featured; however, the final result will look drastically different from the version currently in the main article today. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great – it's starting to look better than the actual article already! And there's no better time for the article to get a major overhaul, what with the upcoming film and all. The article will definitely get a lot of edits once that comes out. Gary King (