- 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
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by
Joelr31 23:06, 24 May 2009
[1].
- Notified
MDM,
Sbryce858,
WikiProject Australia, and
WikiProject Rugby league.
Main problem with this one is a lack of citations, particularly in the Rivalries, Statistics and records, and Coach sections; the latter two are completely uncited. It also needs some prose and style cleaning. Photos need checking as well; the newspaper headline has got to go, and I have doubts about the PD status of the Sydney Sports Ground photo.
Giants2008 (
17-14) 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The rivalries section on that, and other NRL team articles, will be almost impossible to reference because it's just original "research" of some fan.--
Jeff79 (
talk) 09:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- If the rivalry/derby is large enough to be notable, then it would be noted in the media. For instance,
Manchester United's rivalries, or for a rugby league example, the Wigan-St Helens derby.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] The term "derby", even "rival" in one case, is consistently used.
GW(
talk) 10:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Alot of this will be referenceable. Will see what I can dig up.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
For the moment and to aid preservation of FA status I have moved the 3 x lists of record crowd attendance to
List of Sydney Roosters records. Notwithstanding my own view that a list of crowd #s is tedious, let's move it back if it can have adequate citations. Statistics and Records section now looks as it did on day article was promoted. -
Sticks
66 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The uncited references to rivalries that read like OR have been moved to the end of
Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs rivalry. Yes if it can be referenced lets bring it back. The rivalry with StGeorge is very unconvincing and if it did start in 2001 then it is hardly a "traditional rivalry". This section now looks as it did at promotion-
Sticks
66 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'd still prefer it what it was the day it was promoted than removing the other unreferenced rivalries, as this is still currently no good, in my opinion.
The Windler
talk 02:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Joel, if you mean getting rid of that stuff on the page currently which names famous fans then go for it. But I'm for leaving out the last paragraph about the Bulldogs even though it was there the day the article was promoted - a 7 year old rivalry in a 70 yr history since CB started doesn't seem much of rivalry to me; the 2nd sentence about the points-stripped has no relevance to the Roosters; and the final sentence says that in 2003 Bulldogs won 2 match-ups while Easts won the 3rd - big deal that's no particular rivalry. -
Sticks
66 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
I have changed the PD rationale on the Sports Ground photo to an Australian pre-1955 PD rationale, please see image page. There is a strong liklihood that the shot was taken pre-1955. -
Sticks
66 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've updated the rationale, as I can confirm that the image was from 1937, and is thus PD in both the source country (Australia) and the US. There was also an associated 1937 PD image showing the other half of the ground, so I've replaced the image with a derived work combining the two. -
Bilby (
talk) 10:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Added a pile of refs for history up to 2002.
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, prose and image copyrights. Also note the recent change to
WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Delist - per FA criteria concerns, especially referencing issues throughout.
Cirt (
talk) 10:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I have completely sourced the Crest, Colours, Stadium, Supporters, Stats and Records. I and other project members of
WP:RL will do the History and Squad section within the next day. The main concern as noted by the nominator is sources, The Coaches and Rivalries section have been removed and Stats & Records has been completly sourced. As I just stated, the rest of the article will be done in the next day. Hopefully other more better people in prose and English, are able to help with the final concern. Thus I object to the delisting by one nominator.
The Windler
talk 23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- No need to panic (I won't be closing it anyway).
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I generally reevaluate my positions on these things after work has been completed to bring the articles up to speed, so feel free to drop a note by my talk page when y'all are done addressing the above concerns.
Cirt (
talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
It should be saved no problem, I thought that as no other sources were being added apart from by me about three weeks ago that nobody was interested. Anyway, I think the references need to be checked to consistent formatting - templates make that easy, and also, SFS, SCG, SSG is used over and over when an abbreviation should be used I think. Also, if possible, subbing out some of the Roosters self-refs would be good.
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 06:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- There's still one tag in Statistics and records and an unsourced paragraph in Colours, but the level of sourcing is much better than when I started the review. Hopefully these rugby sites are all reliable; I don't know much about them as an American. For the 1931 Three Blues photo, would it be possible to link to a page showing that image, instead of just a search engine? In the Stadium section, the Sydney Football Stadium photo is pushing the next heading to the right. Would be nice to get a copy-edit, as I found one typo and a faulty hyphen in a quick scan of the prose. Overall, though, it looks much improved.
Giants2008 (
17-14) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Made the refs consistently formatted.
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, I see referencing improvements throughout.
Cirt (
talk) 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Didn't notice this until now, but what is up with the enormous photo in History? It's taking up more than three-quarters of my widescreen. Otherwise, I'm satisfied enough with the changes, assuming that the sources are okay. I'll make a couple simple formatting fixes after finishing up here to help this along.
Giants2008 (
17-14) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Originally, the image wasn't uploaded in the highest resolution avaliable. I uploaded the highest resolution image, but presumed it was at a set size on the article. Fixed now.
The Windler
talk 05:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Not the best prose in "History" ("the club", "the club", "the club"), but such repetitions are maybe inevitably in sports' history sections. Besides that, it reads fine, and it is well-referenced. Keep.--
Yannismarou (
talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- copyedited teh history section and the lead. There were some oddities in there
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment I've made a pass for MOS and prose, and the article's pretty close. Some of the inline comments need to be resolved, for example the internet forum info in the "Supporters" section.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments I've made a few minor prose and MOS tweaks. Some remaining issues:
- It appears that "St George" should be "St. George" throughout, regardless of EngVar, as the article is at
St. George Dragons, the category agrees, and even the team's logo uses the period.
- The Honours section would benefit from presentation in a table. The bolding is unnecessary.
- There are too many lengthy navboxes at the bottom of the article. Most of these should be true navboxes, and default collapsed here. Of what use is the group "Former...clubs", as the Roosters are not one of them, and the ones relevant to the article are already linked in the text?
- Overall this is in pretty good shape.
Maralia (
talk) 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- 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
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by
Joelr31 01:52, 18 May 2009
[9].
- Notified
WP Video games,
WP Square Enix ,
WP Final Fantasy,
Guyinblack25,
Tedius Zanarukando,
WP103,
Hibana,
Kariteh,
Seancdaug,
Deckiller,
Nimrand,
Bluerfn,
Mythsearcher
I am nominating this article for featured article review because I do not feel it meets the current FAC. In particular, it fails criteria 1c (factually accurate) as it contains large amounts of unsourced text. I would not say that it is "well-written", failing 1a. I'd also say it fails 1b as there appears to be no information on the series' overall legacy, just a minor note that the various games are referenced in pop culture.
It also fails criteria 2 regarding style guides. The lead is not a summary of the overall article and contains multiple new statements that should be sourced within the article proper instead, so it goes against
WP:LEAD. I do not feel it has an appropriate structure, with the development and history placed low in the articles, some sections seeming out of place (why isn't music under development?), an overview section seems odd, etc. It seems cluttered and not very well organized. It seems like the game list should be lower down, after being first summarized in the development/history. For criteria 3, there seems to be no real need for an image of the composer.
File:Ff6 magitek.jpg is included in the image, but its caption doesn't indicate its significance. The splits of the gameplay and common elements seem odd, as if it was just a way to get excessive details out of the main article rather than fully addressing them. In either case, those sections do not appear to be summarizing their current parent articles well.
I believe the article needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FAC standards. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I am new to the FACR, so I may not be good help in bringing this to standard. It seems like your points are correct and I agree that it would take much work to solve.
MythSearcher
talk 08:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- On the images, I see nothing wrong with a free image of the composer who became notable due to his work in the series as long as we're not wrecking the format of the article. The non-free artwork image probably needs a better rationale; the caption itself doesn't need to convey this (though it probably is better stated as "an example of the artwork by whats-his-name" to generalize it. --
MASEM (
t) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- His image is in his own article. I see no valid reason to have it in an article on the series, even if it is free. It seems more decorative than anything else. Is it necessary to "see" the composer to know he made his career on the series? Film articles don't include images of the directors, producers, etc, why should a game article include a fairly random image of its musical composer? --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Some film articles do include pictures of the production staff, and some literature articles include images of the authors as well. I don't really see how the image is random, it's of the chief composer for a large chunk of the games. (
Guyinblack25
talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Do some FA film articles, or just some in general? I really don't see how a biographical picture adds to the value of the article (and it also throws off that section which is only a paragraph). --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Literature
- Film
- All FAs. (
Guyinblack25
talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
reply
- To add another,
Joseph Staten is in the background section of
Halo: Contact Harvest, and
Hiro Narita, shows up in
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I'm not saying that it's always proper to throw a free image in when its available, but people like having images, especially when it helps give the reader a mental image to associate with a name (generally that aids with comprehension.) --
Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (
talk) 21:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'd argue for keeping the picture if it broke up an unsightly wall of pure text (as in
Chrono Trigger#Development_history), but there are already some other images around that part of the article. Unless the music section is beefed up with more text, I think removing the picture is fine. But really, the only rule we have to be mindful of is the "living / recently deceased" thing, and I doubt Uematsu doesn't want to be connected with Final Fantasy.
ZeaLitY [
DREAM -
REFLECT ] 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- In regard to the style concerns:
- I agree the article should be restructured. I'll see about rearranging the content some.
- To clarify, are the "new statements" in the lead you mentioned the lead: "...branched out into other genres and platforms..." and "...bested by Mario, Pokémon..."? Everything else I found in the article.
- The main articles for the "Gameplay" and "Common elements" sections do not match what's in this article because those two articles are in poor condition and not really representative of their topics. The content in this article was written from the sources listed in "References", rather than summarized from those articles.
- In regard to legacy:
- The content is in the article, it just isn't labeled as "Legacy". "Merchandise and other media" touches on this some by illustrating that several titles in the series have been adapted and spun-off into other media. The Reception also mentions the series "...introducing and popularizing many concepts and features that are widely used in console RPGs", though it doesn't go into specifics.
- Admittedly, I agree some more info would be a good idea.
- While, I admit the article is not in its optimal shape, I feel that some of the issues are being exaggerated. Still, the article does require extensive work. (
Guyinblack25
talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
reply
- There are nine sourced statements in the lead, some of which may be repeated in the article (though also repeated almost word for word, which also is obviously not summary). If the sections are not actually representative of the topics, that doesn't seem to meet the qualifications for their being summary splits, rather just shifting off bad content from the article to make the main look better. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that the lead and whole article need prose revisions.
- In regard to the split, the sections are representative and the split off articles cover their intended topics, just not comprehensively. The split occurred before this article was improved for FA, and the separate articles have been slowly worked on. (
Guyinblack25
talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
reply
What's the view on this at the moment?
YellowMonkey (
cricket calendar poll!) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I believe everyone is in agreement that the article is not up to FA standards. I've been going through sources and organizing notes offline. I plan on making changes to address the concerns this week. (
Guyinblack25
talk 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
reply
- It's not. The article has degraded significantly since the FAC, primarily because of shifts in style and content. If I recall, the prose was quite good as of promotion; what happened? —
Deckill
er 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Same thing that always happens. An innocent tweak here, a well-meaning tweak there, random vandalism here and there, and even a merge of content a while back. A year and half of that will degrade any article.
- I'm still going through sources and making notes offline, but finding a good chunk of time to sit down and make real headway is difficult for me right now. Any help would be appreciated. (
Guyinblack25
talk 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- I've also been fairly busy as of late; it was one of the reasons I left for a year in the first place. Great progress has been made, though. —
Deckill
er 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I tried to help out with the plot section. The
Gameplay of Final Fantasy and
Character design of Final Fantasy sections will let us punt on some of the excess detail in this article. I'd advise scrapping these sections as they're currently written, and merging a summarized version from both these articles to the extent that information can be verified. That will resolve most of the research issues.
Randomran (
talk) 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Great job! It looks like the focus is now copy-editing and references. —
Deckill
er 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Honestly, I'm still not very keen on the bullet list in the "main series" section. Could we somehow convert it to paragraphs, maybe one for each system? —
Deckill
er 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I remember
switching it to prose a long time ago, but most editors felt the large chunk of text was too difficult to read. I kind of agree with them now; it was rather repetitive. You're welcome to try your hand at prose-ifying it. Maybe you can come up with something more engaging. (
Guyinblack25
talk 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I took a crack at it. —
Deckill
er 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Nice job. Overall, I like it and think it's an improvement. Still a bit repetitive, but there's only so much that can be done with that content. (
Guyinblack25
talk 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Anything outstanding in the "common elements" section? I feel like most of the outstanding issues could be fixed by summarizing the existing information and going into less detail. But curious if there's anything there that you would really like to have references for.
Randomran (
talk) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I think the biggest issue is the gameplay section. Everything up to that section is sourced, but the sources you used in
Gameplay of Final Fantasy should fix that. I hope to have some free time this weekend to go through the gameplay article and summarize it for this one. Of course, others are more than welcome to give it a crack as well. (
Guyinblack25
talk 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Update- Finished up the Common elements section. Feel free to copy edit, add, and remove content.
I think the main issues left are sourcing and copy editing the rest of the article. (
Guyinblack25
talk 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- I went ahead and condensed that wall of text in the "main titles" section by gutting the plot blurbs; it seems better now. —
Deckill
er 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Tasklist
Here's what remains, as far as I can tell:
- extensive copy-edit by three people, one of which should be independent of our work;
- sentence-by-sentence audit of claims and statements to ensure we're getting the correct point across, and trimming/expanding where necessary;
- a few more references, as noted by "citation needed" tags; and
- pruning excessive wikilinks.
—
Deckill
er 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Agree with the list. Personally, I think our (the fixers) main focus should be on everything past the "Origin" section, including the lead. All in all, I think the article has made tremendous progress. (
Guyinblack25
talk 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- I'm poking around this article from time to time. If someone actually flagged statements in the article with a "citation needed", I'd be happy to fill in a few. I don't have a lot of time, but Wikipedia is my way of taking a break, and I'm pretty solid with the research stuff.
Randomran (
talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Sourcing-wise, I think the weakest sections are the last three paragraphs of "Graphics and technology" and the middle paragraph of "Legacy". I think the GameTrailers retrospectives cover some of it, but extra sources would be good to fill in blanks. Like the legacy paragraph, I wrote it from the current sources and my own memory. I meant to dig up more sources for the content based on what I remembered reading, but got bogged down with other stuff.
- Once those are done, we can rewrite the lead and focus on general copy editing. (
Guyinblack25
talk 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- I guess it's not clear to me what hasn't been referenced. It looks like it's all referenced. I take it you want some references to be improved for specific statements?
Randomran (
talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah. Sorry for being too vague. The middle section in "Legacy" about Square's switch to the PlayStation and lack of third-party N64 titles needs a few more sources to back it up.
- I'll keep working on the "Graphics and technology" section. I think the GT Retrospectives should provide the necessary citations, I just need to go through them again. Thanks. (
Guyinblack25
talk 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
-
This is a great source on what the (lack of) Final Fantasy series did to Nintendo. If that's not enough, there's a few other sources that can fill in the gaps.
This one talks about the cartridge/CD distinction, as well as
this one, in the context of how it helped the playstation's dominance.
This one goes so far as to describe an aborted FF7 for the N64. Fascinating stuff. I think those will be more than enough!
Randomran (
talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, and
this one goes into more detail about the aborted FF7 for the N64. It's not reliable. But it does refer to some sources that *would* be considered reliable. This is more than enough information for the main series article, and starts to get into information that would only be suitable for the FF7 article, or the article about the console wars.
Randomran (
talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Awesome, I'll integrate them into the article. That Lost Levels source use to be in the article, but I removed it because I couldn't find anything to establish the site's credibility. Once this's done I think the only thing left to do is to get someone to copy edit the prose and audit the sources. (
Guyinblack25
talk 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Finished up the Legacy section and lead. The article is as good as I can make. A fresh pair of eyes to scrutinize the prose and references would take it that extra mile. (
Guyinblack25
talk 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and citations.
Joelito (
talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep—article is far better than it was before; all that's left is copy-editing. —
Deckill
er 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, nice positive improvements, good work.
Cirt (
talk) 07:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: I'm more than a little biased in this case, but I'd say the improvements address the concerns. (
Guyinblack25
talk 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Remove. The article definitely needs copy-editing, so I don't know why Deckiller voted "keep"; it's FA criteria 1.a. The prose needs to be better written. Some sentences are poorly worded in a way that leads to confusion, inaccuracies, or apparent original research. For instance:
- "Games section"
- "unique story" -> All video games in the world have unique story, unless they're remakes. This should be reworded.
- "compilation" is
Engrish; the real word doesn't mean what Square Enix think it means. "
Metaseries" should be used here.
- "Main series" section
- The re-releases of the NES installments are mentioned but those of the SNES installments are curiously missing.
- It does, it says they were all released on multiple platforms, same as it does for FF1 and FF2 - only three gets a specific mention, as it only had one port 16 years later.
- "Final Fantasy IX, released in 2000, returned to the series' roots by revisiting a more traditional Final Fantasy setting." -> The article didn't mention that the series started using non-traditional settings at one point, so this sentence can be unclear (non-fans could think traditional = 2D for all we know).
- The third paragraph has too many "released in". The third and fourth have too many "the first". Use synonyms or other syntaxes.
- There's also way too many repetitions of "Final Fantasy [#]". The "Games" section's lead already said that the main games are numbered, so no need to be so repetitive (except for pre-FFVII titles due to the FFII and III renaming). Why not use "The [#]th installment" and things like that.
- "large, interconnected areas" -> Unclear.
- Final Fantasy XIII in 2010 -> Any better source for that statement? IGN's "April 1, 2010" seems like another of their random placeholders.
- "Sequels and spin-offs" section
- Too many redundant statements. "Final Fantasy Adventure is a spin-off to the Final Fantasy series"--obvious, considering the name of the section.
- The paragraph also keeps saying that this one and that one have Final Fantasy elements in them... Just say it once in the first sentence.
- "Other direct sequels" -> Not the appropriate term. Only two games in the Ivalice Alliance are direct sequels and Fabula Nova Crystallis has no direct sequel at all.
- "Other media" section
- "based on the common elements of the Final Fantasy series" -> Redundant; already stated in the second sentence of the paragraph.
- "directed by Tetsuya Nomura" and "directed by Morio Asaka." -> How is that important? None of the other designers are mentioned in this section.
- The Case of Denzel OVA is not mentioned. It was released in Advent Children Complete.
- "The past decade has seen an increase in the number of adaptations and spin-offs." -> This is either original research or a pointless statement (or both).
- "was partially continued in novels and a manga after the anime series had ended" -> Source?
- "Common elements" section
- "Holy, Meteor, and Ultima" -> Why Meteor? It's neither Japanese, Hebrew nor Latin and I don't think it's a reference to a particular culture.
- "and an emblem designed by manga artist Yoshitaka Amano" -> Not always. The Compilation of FFVII logos come to mind.
- "a character or object central to the story" -> "Central" is not in the source and not neutral.
- "a kingdom in rebellion" -> What? That only happens in FFII and VI.
- "the main antagonist introduced at the beginning of the game is not the final enemy" -> Garland is arguably the final enemy of FFI since Chaos is him. The Emperor in FFII clearly appears as the main antagonist in the intro and is the final enemy. Exdeath is also the obvious main antagonist in FFV (before his first appearance, there just wasn't any individual antagonist at all).
- "Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters" -> Only after FFI.
- "In recent years, the series has featured several males with androgynous or effeminate characteristics.[47][48][49]" -> Biased sourcing? Amano's males were very androgynous and effeminate too. There are probably sources noting that.
- Dissidia Final Fantasy should be mentioned in this section as it notably made a story connecting all the main installments.
- "Gameplay" section
- It should be noted that this section deals with the main series and that the other games have differing gameplay systems.
- The explanation of the ATB is long but unclear, while that of the CTB is a short non-informative filler ("but added more challenging nuances." :/ ).
- No mention of the fact that you can move around in FFXI and XII, and use Gambits (AIs for the characters) in FFXII?
- "Like most RPGs, the Final Fantasy installments use an experience level system" -> FFII doesn't.
- ""Summons", have been inspired by mythologies from Arabic, Hindu, Norse, and Greek cultures" -> Not exclusively.
- "Following Final Fantasy VII, vehicles adapted more modern and futuristic designs." -> They're not futuristic in FFIX and XI.
- I haven't read the other half of the article yet so I'll probably add more points later. This list is already too much issues though. The article is clearly not FA-quality.
Kariteh (
talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, my keep vote was with the assumption that the copy-editing would get done. Unfortunately, I have more pressing matters than Wikipedia at the moment, but it seemed as if several others were getting ready to go through the article. I guess not? As a member of WikiProject Final Fantasy yourself, you are more than welcome to help work on this article. Since you're a member of this WikiProject, why didn't you make those prose tweaks yourself? —
Deckill
er 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm going to mark the ones fixed already- GuyinBlack has started on it and I'll try to do a few. --
Pres
N 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- (EC) Kariteh- I've implemented some of your above suggestions. However, I don't believe all are real issues.
- Main series
- In regard to the NES re-release, those particular re-releases are just more notable.
- The first game is the most ported RPG in the series.
- The second game is rarely rereleased on its own.
- The third game's remake was the last previous title to get an official Western release.
- Each main title had some notable information included about it. The later titles had more notable information than re-releases.
- Other media
- Not every "other media" is mentioned just like not every video game "spin-off" is mentioned. I feel enough information is there to convey that franchise has branched into animation.
- The statement about the increase of spin-offs/adaptations is not a controversial statement, and is supported by the sources used in the rest of the section. Admittedly, it does border on synthesis. If it really think it should go, then I'll remove it.
- Common elements
- Meteor was added in simply as a recurring spell name, not as an example of a culture word. However, the word is derived from the Greek word "meteōros" and I believe Greek is has traces to Classic Latin.
- I removed the "central" part about the logos, but I'd argue that this is such a non-controversial statement would not need exact sourcing.
- In regard to FFI's lack of character development, I realize not ever installment fits into a formula. So there will be generalized statements that do not apply to every title, but are still representative of the series.
- The sources for the androgynous statement are all recent articles. Do you have sources for Amano's designs?
- Having not played Dissidia, I'd say such info is probably excess detail. But what did you have in mind for its inclusion.
- Gameplay
- Though it applies directly to the main series, it was written in a way to be inclusive for most of the games, especially the last two paragraphs. I will, however, add a note to the first paragraph about the difference.
- What part of the ATB content is unclear? Can you please be more specific.
- That content about FFXI and FFXII seemed like excess detail to me. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the content to be added for the first point.
- FFII does use an experience level system. The individual attributes level up from participating in combat. It's just not the traditional one used in games.
- I don't believe that sentence states that summons are exclusively inspired by the listed cultures. Though I could be wrong in my interpretation.
- Comments about the rest of the article would be welcome as it's needed a fresh pair of eyes. Please feel free to make corrections as you proof read as well. Thanks for the comments. (
Guyinblack25
talk 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
reply
- Keep - the prose issue have been corrected to my satisfaction; the remaining problems Kariteh sees are largely not issues in my eyes. --
Pres
N 01:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- 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
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by
YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:55, 12 May 2009
[10].
The lead falls down on a number of points:
I think this part of the article fits the
"May contain nuts" description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria
- professional standards of presentation
- well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text
- briefly summarize the most important points covered
- stand on its own as a concise version of the article
- more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
- avoid ... and over-specific descriptions
The first paragraph reads like the ingredients from a
Walmart microwave meal:
- Solar System
Ingredients:eight planets, five dwarf planets, 173 moons, billions of small bodies (asteroids, icy Kuiper belt objects, comets, meteoroids, interplanetary dust).
This is not; of a professional standard; brilliant; or even engaging.
This would be better:
The Solar System is the
astronomical name for the
Sun, the
Earth and the
Moon, and the rest of the
planetary system.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
The second paragraph is the same style, it just lists the categories of orbiting objects - dead boring.
The bullet list of planets and the other of dwarf planets looks a mess with all the trailing 000, 0000s, of distance in kilometres, and not in neat
Astronomical Units. I would say that even including AU measurements is an over-burdening with detail in the lead.
The numbering of the planets I think is unique in any text, and it looks messy.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with your points, but since your only problem is with the lead, wouldn't it be easier to voice your concerns on the article talk page? FAR is a fairly lengthy process and the lead problems can easily be resolved in a matter of a few days.
Nishkid64 (
Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- As Ckatz has refered to bellow, I've described these problems before, but the Ckatz Cabal simply wouldn't listen. The lead is a terrible piece of writing - end of story.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Oh yes. Always blame the omnipotent cabal. The issue was never that the lead was good enough; it was that none of the solutions you offered were any good either, and that they in fact made the lead worse.
Serendi
pod
ous 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- There. I've had a go at rewriting it. No doubt you'll hate it.
Serendi
pod
ous 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes you have had a go. It's a first draft, but you cannot say, "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", nor can you claim that it does "avoid over-specific descriptions". My understanding of the Lead Guide is that the solar system as a whole should be introduced, not details of the intrinsic components. Something like this is much better.
- Example lead
The Solar System is the
astronomical name for the
Sun, the
Earth and the
Moon, and other
orbiting bodies which make up the rest of the
planetary system. It is most notable for the
planet Earth as the only place in the
Universe known to
evolve and harbour
life.
The Sun determines the solar system, it makes up 98.6 percent of the
mass of the system, and the gravity of this mass dominates the rest. As well as generating
heat and
light from the
nuclear fusion of
hydrogen into
helium at the
core of the Sun, a continual but fluctuating, low
density emission of charged particles called the
solar wind "blows a bubble" called the
heliosphere in the
interstellar medium. This medium between the stars, most commonly thought of as
outer space, is a very high
vacuum but still has enough matter occupying it to interact with the high velocity (750 km/s) solar wind.
The
Earth's orbit around the Sun is nearly a perfect circle, but it is more accurately described as an oval shaped, or
elliptical orbit. Everything in the Solar System has an elliptical orbit, with some more elliptical than others. All of the planets orbit the Sun at different distances but on roughly the same plane as the Earth - the
plane of the ecliptic. If you could look at the solar system "edge on" then all the planets would roughly be in this horizontal plane around the Sun.
- I've introduced life, evolution and the uniqueness of it in the solar system. I have named only 3 components of the solar system, but have used them to explain or introduce significant structural aspects of the solar system: the gravitational influence of the Sun; the Heliosphere; elliptical orbits & their difference from perfect circles; and the plane of the ecliptic. In passing I've explained how the Heliosphere is created, and introduced the Sun's core, nuclear fusion of hydrogen, heat, light, the solar wind and that interstellar space equals outer space. All in only three, short, engagingly written paragraphs of prose, without overburdening the reader with extensive details.
- Current lead
The Solar System
[a] consists of the
Sun and those
celestial objects bound to it by
gravity, all of which formed from the collapse of a
giant molecular cloud approximately 4.5 billion years ago. The Sun's retinue of objects circle it in a nearly flat disc, most of the mass of which is contained within eight relatively solitary
planets whose orbits are nearly circular. The four smaller inner planets;
Mercury,
Venus,
Earth and
Mars, also called the
terrestrial planets, are primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets,
Jupiter,
Saturn,
Uranus and
Neptune, also called the
gas giants, are composed largely of hydrogen and helium and are far more massive then the terrestrials.
Two main belts of
small bodies exist. The
asteroid belt, which lies between Mars and Jupiter, has commonality with the terrestrial planets as it is composed mainly of rock and metal. The
Kuiper belt (and its subpopulation, the
Scattered disc), which lies beyond Neptune's orbit, is composed mostly of ices such as water, ammonia and methane. Within these belts, five individual objects,
Ceres,
Pluto,
Haumea,
Makemake and
Eris, are recognised to be large enough to have been rounded by their own gravity, and are thus termed
dwarf planets. The hypothetical
Oort cloud, which acts as the source for
long-period comets, may also exist at a distance roughly a thousand times beyond these regions.
Within the Solar System, various populations of small bodies, such as
comets,
centaurs and
interplanetary dust, freely travel between these regions, while the
solar wind, a flow of
plasma from the Sun, creates a
bubble in the
interstellar medium known as the
heliosphere, which extends out to the middle of the scattered disc.
Six of the planets and three of the dwarf planets are orbited by
natural satellites, usually termed "moons" after Earth's
Moon. Each of the outer planets is encircled by
planetary rings of dust and other particles.
- Your re-written version mentions: gravity (although not the Sun's); hints at the plane of the ecliptic; nearly circular orbits (but fails to name them as ellipses); the Heliosphere; the solar wind; and the interstellar medium. Note I said your version mentions..., and not explains... . Your version took three long, overly detailed paragraphs (and an orphaned paragraph/sentence) to fail to mention quite a lot of important stuff about the solar system as an entity, while listing many objects and listing some of their attributes. You also manage to throw in the age and formation from a giant molecular cloud - wrong place for that. The lead should stick to what the solar system is, not what it used to be - that's for later. I don't hate your re-write, I just think it's no good as a lead.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Note re: previous discussions: For previous discussions relating to these issues, please see:
(and in fact most of Archive Three from
"List In Order From Sun" on down.) --
Ckatz
chat
spy 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - While I agree that the lead is problematic, the remainder of the article serves as an excellently NPOV and stable account of the solar system, and is extremely concise.
Ceran
llama chat post 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
I've re-written the lead on
Solar System, with an expanded version of the one above. It is far better than anything there before I hope you agree.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It's wrong in a few places; most notably that outer space begins at the heliopause. Outer space begins outside the atmosphere. The lead is also far too Earth-centric. Earth is mentioned three times in the lead, but the largest objects in the Solar System other than the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, are only mentioned in the lists. The lead fails to adequately explain what a dwarf planet is and why Pluto was demoted. You also forgot the note you removed.
Serendi
pod
ous 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- As usual, you are not worth argueing with, you misrepresent what my lead says, then you use that misrepresentation to critisise what I actually wrote. Shame on you.
- The "too Earth-centric" criticism" {lacks intellectual rigour}.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Administrator note: I strongly advise you to choose the words carefully. I also advise you to refactor or retract the last comment.
Ruslik (
talk) 16:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (OK - HarryAlffa)
reply
Comment First, per the observations of several other editors, we should centralize this discussion at
Talk:Solar System. Second, I have restored yesterday's version, and would ask that any changes to the lead be hashed out on a talk page first, and only applied after consensus is reached.
Solar System is a core article, one of the most important ones in the "Astronomy" section, and we cannot have the lead going back-and-forth. Fair enough? (I was going to post a copy of the revised version here, but instead thought you could decide which revised version you wanted to start from.) --
Ckatz
chat
spy 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- No not fair at all. You and your Cabal will simply dig your heals in and call consensus when the Cabal says it's consensus. I simply do not trust you to operate in good faith. You implicitly acknowledge that the lead is a failure by asking for changes to be hashed out, unless this is just a ruse. All the changes
User:Serendipodous has made simply make it fit my original criticisms! My version does not fail by the standards I listed, which you implicitly acknowledge, so I will restore that version as it MUST be a better starting point. Fair enough? Cheers. Just as I was writing this look what
User:Serendipodous wrote below! Big surprise - he agrees with Ckatz!
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
I think we can close this now.
Serendi
pod
ous 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Is this closed? There seem to be ongoing discussions.
76.66.196.218 (
talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Ckatz Cabal: Serendipodous & ASHill
These two or three users have been responsible for the terrible state of the lead here
[11], from at least as far back as last September, and even much earlier
[12].
None of these meets
Wikipedia:Lead_section, which begs the question why it was EVER a FA.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Ckatz & Serendipodous should stand back
They have demonstrated an inability to write a lead which conforms to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section
Including Serendipodous
[13] latest re-write.
They should therefore stand back and allow someone who clearly CAN write, to write. I'd written a
lead which does conform, but it was reverted. I've tried, I really have, but the Solar System article really should be removed as a Featured Article.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Harry, your lead doesn't conform to
WP:LEDE either. What's the need for the large text size of "Terrestrial planet" and "Gas giant" and why are the planets still written in a list-like manner? Also, why does your version present the Solar System in a geocentric manner? Why is it overly simplistic?
Nishkid64 (
Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ok. Ignore my version of the lead. Concentrate on the current version. That fails the
WP:Lead.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Other Problems
If you were going to write an article about St Pauls Cathedreal, you would not simply list and describe, in detail, the different types of building blocks it used. You would give an
overall descriptive view of the structure, then get down to details. The solar system article simply lists and describes the building blocks of the solar system, it does not give an overall view of the entity which is the solar system.
It must therefore fail the Featured Article test.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Moved
Nishkid64 (
Make articles, not wikidrama) comment to Ckatz & Serendipodous should stand back
Continued
I do not agree with HarryAlffa's lead, it does not conform to
WP:LEAD because it is not an introduction to the Solar System, it is instead an introduction to Earth's location in space.
76.66.196.218 (
talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Nonsense. The Earth provides context for the reader. Read the
WP:Lead.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Stop being dismissive, if you can't accept criticism, you should stop providing it. You need to read
WP:LEAD, since your lead doesn't conform to it. The article your lead introduces is not Solar System, it is Earth's location in space. You don't provide context, you bias the article.
76.66.202.139 (
talk) 05:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I must be some sort of genius! How else could I manage, Earth's location in space but, don't provide context, then bias the whole article with this amazing, 4 paragraph or so lead? I'll be dismissive if I think it appropriate. I've looked at your comments on my lead, given them careful thought, had a chuckle, and have dismissed them. We must agree to disagree. Anyway, it is the current lead which is the real concern. I think it is very poor, and does not conform with the points the
WP:Lead asks a lead to, which I've elucidated on.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The version of the lead I just read in the article does appear to meet
WP:LEAD. It unambiguously defines the topic then briefly describes its major characteristics with the appropriate relative emphasis (focusing on the Sun rather than Earth).
Jay32183 (
talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Have you actually read the
WP:LEAD where it says
* briefly summarize the most important points covered
* more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
* avoid ... and over-specific descriptions
It does not say
* briefly summarize every single constituent
* more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be as
densely packed with detail as possible
* aim for ... and over-specific descriptions
The current version
[14] has pretty much taken;
Solar System
Ingredients:Sun, terrestrial planets(Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars),
gas giants(Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), asteroid belt,
Kuiper belt(scattered disc, water, ammonia, methane), dwarf planets(Ceres,
Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris), Oort cloud, comets, centaurs,
interplanetary dust, moons, planetary rings of dust.
- which at least has the virtue of brevity, it has then been inflated with poor prose, with no differentiation of importance (Jupiter has as much prominence as comets), unless you count order of position in the text, in which case why is the ecliptic mentioned before the planets when it's such a small part (one sentence defines it) of the article?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 21:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I have read
WP:LEAD, which is why I feel this article does meet the criteria. The text is accessible, any 10 year old in public school from an English speaking country can read and understand the lead. It does briefly summarize the most important points covered in the rest of the article. Your third point doesn't make any sense as written. The Solar System is defined by the objects within it. Your cathedral comparison doesn't make sense because the cathedral is not defined by its building blocks; the ideas are not parallel. The lead reflects the way the rest of the article is written. It seems every attempt you've made to modify the lead as resulted in an inappropriate geocentric focus, over-simplification, and a lack of meaningful content. If that's what you're looking for you will never be satisfied with this article, because it will fail
WP:LEAD that way.
Jay32183 (
talk) 06:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- My third point doesn't make any sense? The third point is lifted directly from
WP:Lead! "Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
Look up
summary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
- You clearly don't understand what a
summary is: "A summary or recap is a shortened version of the original. The main purpose of such a simplification is to highlight the major points from the genuine (much longer) subject, e.g. a text, a film or an event. The target is to help the audience get the gist in a short period of time."
- A summary is not listing, and describing (no matter how briefly) every component. This is exactly what the current lead does. It therefore fails.
- You have misunderstood what is meant by accessible in
WP:Lead; "It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
- You've misunderstood "defined" here. The solar system can be described in terms of its components, but if you take away a few grains of orbiting dust, you do not change the "definition" of solar system, which "consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". Even removing a planet doesn't change this definition.
- Now that you understand what a definition is, you can forget about it while you remember that the aim is description. Now re-read the next, cathedral-paragraph, and understand why it is a good analogy. Also remember that this is a criticism of the whole article - which fails as a whole, and must be restructured.
- If you were going to write an article about St Pauls Cathedreal, you would not simply list and describe, in detail, the different types of building blocks it used. You would give an
overall descriptive view of the structure, then get down to details. The solar system article simply lists and describes the building blocks of the solar system, it does not give an overall view of the entity which is the solar system.
- The geo-centric description of
my own lead completely misrepresents it. Shame on you.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I fully understand
WP:LEAD. This article meets it. And why did you repeat the cathedral example after I pointed out how meaningless it is. The Solar System is in fact defined by the celestial bodies that compose it, it is not a region of space that happens to contain stuff, it is not an individual entity. The lead summarizes the article. The only thing I don't understand is the problem you have with this article. Every attempt you've made to change it has made things worse. You're version is geocentric, listy, overly simplified, lacking detail, and boring. You're attempting a lot of small paragraphs rather than a couple meaty ones. If you don't get it after hearing the review from so many others, then I'll just have to come out and say it. You are a bad writer.
Jay32183 (
talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Definition: "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". If all you want is a definition then you can stop. The Solar System is an entity. How else could we prefix it with the
definite article? If you don't understand this, then it is not my problem.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The Solar System is not an entity, it is a collection of stuff. Astronomers intentionally use a fuzzy definition because it is not an entity. It certainly is your problem, as you are the only one getting this wrong. The definition in the opening sentence is correct. Listing the celestial bodies isn't like listing the bricks in a building, it's like listing the members of a band.
Jay32183 (
talk) 06:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- A collection of stuff is a
Set. A set is an entity. How else could we prefix it with the
definite article? What fuzzy definition do astronomers use? Is it different from the exact one we use in the article? You are saying both that: "The definition in the opening sentence is correct", and : "Astronomers use a fuzzy definition". Which one should we use in the article? It's sounding like you have a problem. A band analogy? OK, I'll run with that. If the drummer leaves the band, next day you can say the drummer has left the band, because the band still exists. The drummer isn't part of the definition of the band, just a member of it. Get it?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- A set is not an entity; an entity is one thing. The fuzzy definition astronomers use is the exact one that appears in the article. The drummer leaving the band is analogous to a comet leaving the solar system. A comet with a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit is only part of the solar system temporarily. However, not including it while it is in the solar system is incorrect, as it is bound to the Sun by gravity. The Sun is the core entity of the set that is the Solar System. Your version of the article mentions not only the Earth, but the Moon, by name in the opening sentence as if they are more important than other objects. Your "synopsis" continues to with the bad example you've set in your lead, being overly simplified, listy, and stubby. It was already deleted at AFD and your userspace isn't addressing the problems brought up there. It's time for you to give up. I know you think you're the only one who gets it, but really you're the only one who doesn't.
Jay32183 (
talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- From
Set (mathematics), A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. There is no fuzzy definition (if there is quote it for us), there is an exact
intensional definition, "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". If you don't accept this then you'd better go and "correct" the
Set (mathematics) and
Intensional definition pages. Get back to me when you have.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
HarryAlffa only started this FAR to make a statement. The statement is made. The issue he raised has been resolved. Now all we're doing is arguing about semantics. Can we please close this FAR and move this discussion to the Solar System talk page where it belongs?
Serendi
pod
ous 08:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
I also support the motion to close this FAR.
Ruslik (
talk) 11:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
The point I'm making is that this article is (no longer) up to standard as far as FAR is concerned. I hold it to be self evident that the article doesn't pass muster as far as the
WP:Lead is concerned.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Serendipodous, none of the issues I raised have been resolved. In fact before the FAR you, Ckatz & ASHill could, even would, not be persuaded that there was anything wrong with the lead as it was
[15] before I raised this FAR. So you have just admitted: the lead before was "wrong"; by extension that my reasoning was sound. The same reasoning raises the same issues with the current lead, ipso facto the current lead is also "wrong". Unless your line about issues being resolved was put there so it looks like you're being reasonable.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Solar System, August 2008. The lead which inspired
"May contain nuts"
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Solar_System&oldid=229261833
Ckatz, ASHill & Serendipodous wouldn't be persuaded there was anything wrong with it.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
What about Ruslik0, Kheider or Jay32183? They've all made exactly the same points I did when we first "met". Or are they part of the cabal too?
Serendi
pod
ous 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Could you respond to the logical reasoning above please?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
I'd support closing this review, especially considering that the only person who has endorsed it is the one who opened it. Any issues that have been raised can be addressed on the article talk page, and no-one who has posted here (again, except for Harry) has supported the idea of delisting it. --
Ckatz
chat
spy 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so you were never going to agree that an article you spent so much time on fails
WP:Lead.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Nice spin, "no-one has supported delisting it". The FAR is to bring it up to scratch, this was my only option to improve it. A couple of people have agreed with my points on the lead, do you interpret them as supporting a de-listing, or is my view that they are trying to improve the article the correct one?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Agreed. It is time to close this review. --
Kheider (
talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Nishkid64
Said Of this version
[16]
- I agree with your points, ... the lead problems can easily be resolved ... - 20:16, 22 April 2009
And of this version
[17]
- Harry, your lead doesn't conform to WP:LEDE either. - 02:30, 27 April 2009
The problems with the lead weren't resolved and remain the same.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Ceranthor
Said of this version
[18]
While I agree that the lead is problematic, ... 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead remains problematic.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Headings
A reader can't find
dwarf planets from the TOC.
- Structure
Fails to convey the importance of the plane of the ecliptic to the solar system structure. A good image of this is wasted in the Terminology section below it.
- Terminology
Why is there a section called Terminology at all? Why is it a sub-heading of Structure when much of the terminology has nothing to do with the solar system structure?
This section is a mis-mash. It defines the various regions of the system (which surely should be in the Structure section above it) then lists the components of different regions; planets, dwarf planets, small solar system bodies.
Then it gives the IAU definitions of planet and dwarf planet, and it totals and names them all.
It explains why pluto isn't a planet, and speculates about objects which may become dwarf planets.
It introduces the terms "small Solar System bodies" & "planetesimals", but doesn't define them, and only wikilinks "planetesimals".
Then it defines rock, gas, ice & volatiles while mixing melting points (wrong) and boiling points (correct) in doing so. It lists various ices and where they might be found.
This must surely be an example of how NOT to write for a FA.
-
HarryAlffa (
talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Umm... Harry, you introduced the "Terminology" section last September because you wanted to define gas, ice and rock, and you then argued over the contents for some time (including adding such lines as "Here we define those possibly confusing terms used in the rest of the article"). --
Ckatz
chat
spy 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- False. My first contribution to Terminology was in August 2008 when I put some sub-headings in
[19] to help navigate the mish-mash it was. This was rejected and it remains a mish-mash. I did define ices
[20] 10 August 2008, then your Cabal unreasoningly removed ices, then rewrote it less beautifully, then included rock and gas. I think ASHill removed Terminology entirely, then in September I re-introduced it, and ... whatever.
- Boring history over.
- Having learned a little more about writing for Wikipedia, a section kind-of-like a Misc section is undesirable. I know how to re-write it without the Terminology section, and without loosing information, but the Cabal are completely unreceptive, so I'm having to simply point out the failings.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- All the time you spent trawling through past versions so you could take a swipe at me would have been better spent answering even one of the points I've raised.
- Or was the swipe at me because you can find no logic to refute them?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Galactic context
Just so it's not all negative!
This
section and the following Formation and evolution section are much more like it!
A pleasure to read!
HarryAlffa (
talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
User:HarryAlffa, you have several times in this review accused others of being part of a "cabal" and made personal attacks on other editors (
sample), about which you've been warned. You also don't appear to be willing to respect consensus. I also suggest it's time to close this review. And there's the matter of the
fork which was deleted. Please refrain from using FAR as a battleground.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- What has the
fork which was deleted got to do with it? I put reasons why it should not be considered a fork, but didn't really expect it would survive. You seem to have thrown that in purely as a swipe at me. What was that about this not being a battleground? It seemed to me that three users (Ckatz, Sorendipodus, ASHill) acted as a cabal ... now it seems only in the past. One of whom was less than courteous at our first meeting, and things have not improved between us since. So you saw my lack of patience with him - and MUST also have seen that I withdrew the description of imbecilic of one of his opinions, but you chose to omit that. Is that exemplary - to pick out a withdrawn comment made in impatience, to vilify another?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm a little unsure what you mean by, "You don't appear to be willing to respect consensus". There were a couple of people who agreed with my original critique of the lead. I totally respect the right of anyone to hold an opinion. It does not mean that those opinions themselves must be respected - like extreme right-wing, left-wing and religious opinion. Are you saying because I am in disagreement with "the concensus" I don't respect it?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'll agree with Sandy. I think it is time to close this FAR.--
Yannismarou (
talk) 08:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Sandy, Yannismarou. Could either of you offer any counter arguments to any of the criticisms I've made? For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text
# more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
# avoid ... over-specific descriptions
1. The first sentence of the lead, "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity,". I like that beginning, it's an excellent definition. But it has to go, maybe somewhere else in the article, but it has to go because it is not accessible, as defined in the
WP:Lead - you really only understand it clearly if you know the subject already, which is why those who know will find it pleasing - as I do.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
2. Just about every sentence gives over-specific descriptions, eg, "The four smaller inner planets; Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, also called the terrestrial planets, are primarily composed of rock and metal".
HarryAlffa (
talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Since no edits are taking place to improve the article with regard to any of the points I've made, I propose now listing the
Solar System article as a Featured article removal candidate.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
From
WP:CONS
Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.
- Featured article removal candidate No improvement.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:CONS seems to be the most widely misunderstood policy. Consensus is only possible if editors are civil to each other. Screaming "nonsense" and labeling other's comments "imbecilic" will not produce any new consensus. The comments of such editors are excluded from any discussion and have a zero weight. In my opinion, there is a consensus here that the article generally satisfies
FA Criteria, and your insults mean nothing. What you are doing is called
WP:forum shopping: when you failed to obtain what you wanted in the discussion on the talk page, you are moved it to another place. The quote above is actually from the paragraph that is specifically written to discourage forum shopping: Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is exactly what you trying to do now by actively canvassing other editors. Yes, you are violating
WP:CANVASS by posting on the talk pages of many users, articles and projects. This disruption must stop.
Ruslik (
talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That's a lot of
invective in response to "No improvement"!
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Not misunderstood by me! Vigorous debate, and robust self-expression is not incivility.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've always understood screaming to be SCREAMING, you know this is not what I did. Please withdraw this accusation.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You chided my use of "imbecilic" of one of Serindipodus' comments, and asked me to withdraw it, which I did. Yet you now bring up that withdrawn comment, made in impatience, to a man who was less than courteous when I first met him, then you use that, and false characterisation of another comment, to vilify me - not exemplary behaviour on your part. I think you must acknowledge this.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:forum shopping: You seem to think that initiating a FAR is in itself forum shopping - "you are moved it to another place". Please withdraw this accusation.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:CANVASS: You seem to think that following the procedures for FAR, by notifying past-editors of Solar System, using the RECOMMENDED TEMPLATEsorry, there was a bit of a loud noise at my end there. Are you still there? Hello? is canvassing. Please withdraw this accusation.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:forum shopping Editing Solar System brought up a MoS issue. I went there. This in no way has an effect on FAR either way. Please withdraw the accusation.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Disruption: This claim is based on the faulty reasoning I've elucidated above. Please withdraw this accusation.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've shown great (my normal) patience with
User:Jay32183, you must concede.
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Now - any counter reasons to my system of good reasons?
HarryAlffa (
talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Close The current lead is certainly an improvement on the old one.
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Could you perhaps point a couple of them out? Och, go on! :)
HarryAlffa (
talk) 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I really like this article, but on an objective note, it is pretty clear that the article could receive some more attention with regards to referencing; there are multiple paragraphs that lack any sort of referencing, although the information in them appears to be disputable (including those terms are defined).
Nergaal (
talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've added a citation for the tag you listed and clarified the paragraph. It would help if you placed citation tags on any other claims you felt needed referencing.
Serendi
pod
ous 09:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.