Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2011

Review commentary

Notified: Editor: The PNM (Inactive since May 2010), Projects: Christianity Architecture

Article was promoted in 2005 and suffers from not being kept up to standards. Talk page notice was given in December 2010.

• 1a A word to describe the prose is "narrative". The reader is being spoken to by the author. Vague wording is also prevalent throughout the article; with terms like "most likely" and "A more plausible theory".
• 1c There are citation needed tags and dead links. Citations are sparse overall. Some sources need page numbers.
• 2c Minor problems here with layout.
• 3 File:Iconostasis in Moscow.jpg. Need more information about the file. Author and source. Is this a photo of an artwork or of the actual church itself?
• Summary Needs rewriting; more citations and sourcing before working on the minor things. Brad (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is short & uses a limited range of sources by current FA standards, but "vague wording" comes with the territory in this area & should not be complained about. The tone only needs a few touches imo. The point about the image seems silly - it is a photo of a famous artwork inside a famous (but tiny) church in the Moscow Kremlin. What's the beef? Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The information needed is necessary for determining the correct license to use. You'll notice that the file uses life +70 years for a rationale but with no listed author this is an incorrect license. Life +70 also requires a US copyright tag of which there is none currently displayed. Brad (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

From Cathedral of the Annunciation, "The main vault of the cathedral has a large iconostasis, which includes icons of the 14th-17th centuries, including the ones painted by Andrei Rublev, Feofan Grek and Prokhor, and 19th century, as well, particular on the middle tiers. The fifth (lowest) row is pieced by a silver door, behind which is the old staircase to the Tsar’s personal chambers." Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delist 1a and 1c. Since nomination only three edits have been made to the article. Brad (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delist It seems short. In particular, the one sentence paragraphs should be expanded or integrated better. Currently, they are disconnected from the rest of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• DrKiernan, have you found sources or information that is missing from the article, or are you left with questions that lead you to believe that the article is not comprehensive? "...seems short" is not a valid FAC criteria, and the article is actually almost twice as long as the current shortest FA (source). Dana boomer (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm left with questions, particularly on the single sentence paragraphs. If you look at the first one: "Barriers called templons in Greek were also used on occasions when the Roman Emperors appeared in public, to segregate the Imperial retinue from the crowd." The Roman empire spans nearly 500 years of history: is the later or earlier empire meant? What were the barriers made of? What type of public appearances were they? How does this relate to the Christian use? Is it purely a linguistic similarity or does the templon in a church serve a segregational purpose? Did the practice continue in the East Roman Empire into Byzantine times? In the second paragraph: "Many fragments of a marble templon have been discovered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem." but there are no details of the building in which the templon might have stood. I need more information to relate these points to the rest of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Review commentary

Notified: Kavas, Namuslu, とある白い猫, Khoikhoi (these four are the only editors with over 100 edits who have been active in the past year and are not blocked), Turkey WP, Countries WP, Western Asia WP, Assyria WP

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a work needed notice last month, nothing has been done to improve the article. Some specifics:

• Many dead links (already tagged).
• Several book references needing page numbers (already tagged).
• Two citation needed tags.
• Some references missing information (publisher, accessdate) or having incorrect information (publisher for ref #144 is not "state.gov", it's the US Department of State).
• Several areas where statistics or opinions are given where references are needed. Examples include:
  • "The most powerful of Phrygia's successor..." in Antiquity.
  • Population numbers in Administrative divisions.
  • Precipitation numbers in Climate
• Why are some references given twice in full detail in the References and Bibliography section?
• Why are these reliable:
  • Ref #2, citypopulation.de?
  • Ref #104 doesn't link to the correct page, and I'm not sure why an investment firm (if that's what they are) would be a high-quality reliable source on shipbuilding.
  • Ref #132, FactArchive. At the bottom of the page, you can see that their information comes from Wikipedia - therefore is definitely not a reliable source.
  • Ref #138, Looklex. Looks like another user-contributed encyclopedia.
  • Ref #143, 156, 158. Allaboutturkey.
• Foreign language refs (such as #62 and 102) should note the language they are in. Check for others besides these examples.
• Check for WP:ENGVAR, I see meter/metre, program/programme, isation/ization, etc.
• Text is sandwiched between images in several sections.
• Prose needs a go-through. For example, one that just jumped out at me was "Arsacid Armenia, the first state to accept Christianity as official religion had lands in Anatolia." in Antiquity.

To summarize: the sourcing is probably the biggest issue, between dead links, unreliable references, spots missing sources, missing page numbers, etc. MOS compliance (ENGVAR, image placement) also needs work, as does prose. Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Opnion:I'd like to see the article as a featured article. But unfortunatelly it needs more work. I know here the emphsis is on style and form; but, I want to give examples of some problems I have seen in the text:

1. In ancient history section most of antiquity including Urartu, one of the important powers of the ancient age is missing.
2. In Ottoman History section massacre which is open to debate (and not a part of Modern Turkish history) is mentioned as an established fact
3. In Republic history section four coups are mentioned. In fact the number is two (1960 and 1980) the other two are crises based on memorandums
4. Politics section lacks the names of the major parties.
5. The Economy section lacks data about important agricultural products which are vital to rural population.
6. Also in Economy mining, energy production and transportation are almost missing .
7. In Urbanization section, some population figures are not up to date. Since the figures are given in a template I tried to reach the creator. So far I have no luck.
8. Culture section is too short to cover literature music and art etc.
9. The article also needs some sections about living hosing and cusine. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire article needs thorough copy-editing for style, grammar and readability, in my opinion. I am happy to help, but I think we have a hard road ahead of us, especially in terms of article stability. Kafka Liz (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The following comment was posted within my opinion and I moved it here.Nedim Ardoğa (talk)

Comment. I don't know the particulars, but if reliable sources report it as factual, we don't care if unreliable sources contest it. Jesanj (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the grammar is mostly OK (it would probably only take me a couple of hours to fix the grammar mistakes) but I agree with Kafka Liz above that the article is not very readable. Perhaps this is due to too many small details being included which ought to be either summarised (e.g. only the Izmir population figure is rounded - the rest are quoted to single digits) or moved to the linked articles or both. Also perhaps there should be a section on human resources (probably not titled that) to summarise education, knowledge and skills. By the way does anyone know when the recent census will be published? In my opinion the article should be demoted from "featured" status until it is improved. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Jzlcdh's comment on popoulation figures. Every year Turkish statistical Institute publishes the population figures of the preceding year. They are very reliable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Concerns mentioned in the FAR section include sourcing, prose, and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delist - Since nominating this article well over a month ago, very little has been done to address my comments above. Problems with sourcing are still the biggest issue for this article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Just a casual scroll through the article I see problems with 1c, 2c and Images. Brad (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per Dana and Nedim. Claims like "70% of Turkish citizens never read books" really do need solid sources. DrKiernan (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Review commentary

Notified: Top three editors by edit count: Irpen, Zscout370, Sashazlv. Projects: Numismatics, Orders, Decorations, and Medals, Ukraine.

Article was promoted in 2005 and needs work to meet the current criteria. Talk page notice was given during December 2010.

• 1a Article reads fine overall but the recipients section needs to be in a prose format.
• 1c Sections and paragraphs have no citations. There are eight dead links to sources. Sources should follow WP:NOENG.
• 2a Lead section is concise but consists of three one sentence paragraphs and is quite sparse.
• 2c Date formatting is not uniform. Brad (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not one of the top contributers to the article, but I took the liberty of changing the "recipients" section into prose format, and adding some more info. I also think fixing the dead links shouldn't be much of a problem (at least for me) if I have the time to do it. I just have a few concerns to the nominator. Some of the problems you listed, could have easily been fixed by yourself. For example, the "not uniform date formatting" and the "sparse lead section". I also did not find your name in the history section of the article. Why do you nominate an article to be delisted, when you are not willing to do anything to improve it? Isn't the point of wikipedia to collaborate and improve articles? If so, please show some kind of effort to improve an article, beforing deeming it no longer featured article material. If you are so good at identifying problems, please fix some of them instead of starting discussions about what the problems are, and if there is something you can't fix, there are many editors who are willing to help out.--BoguSlav 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

BoguSlav, please do not attack reviewers. Problems were listed on the talk page almost a year ago, and no editors appeared to help fix them. Brad has pointed out these problems here that they may be addressed, and criticizing him for not simply fixing them himself - especially given that many of his points are better addressed by major contributors or subject-matter experts - is unfair. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I understand not being able to find replacements to dead links because (in this case) he doesn't speak Russian or Ukrainian. I'm not an expert on date formatting. Actually, I know nothing about it. But Brad seems to. I have an idea. I'll also join the cause of Wikipedia (spreading information to the world) by finding problems with articles and writing about them. In fact, I think Brad and I should start a Wikiproject together. I'm sure plenty others would be willing to join. - Please excuse my sarcasm, but my point is, that before someone nominates to delist an article they should first make a legitimate attempt to improve the article. --BoguSlav 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I got most of the dates to a uniform Day Month Year format. Would an infobox be appropriate? Before I add it I wanted feedback so my effort is not in vain. On the dead links I tried by I am not an SME and I do not speak Russian or Ukrainian. I could use a little more feedback on the lead other than it is "sparse". I will agree it is short but seems to cover the bases. EricSerge (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think an infobox would be very appropriate. Order of Canada has one. My comments about the lead were more of a question than a critique. It's representative of the article body even though sparse. Brad (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delist – As long as the cite tags and dead link tags are still present and valid, the article doesn't meet FA criteria. I also saw a couple citations before punctuation, a hint of possible MoS problems, but that is secondary to the apparently uncited content and dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead links and "citation needed" tags have been addressed. Do you know a good copy editor? EricSerge (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I put in a copyedit request with the Guild of Copyeditors. Date formatting in the references needs to be standardized as there is currently a combination of dmy, mdy and ymd. Only use one format. External links used as references need to have retrieved on dates. I've done some cleaning to the article as well. Brad (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's still a cite tag in the Procedure section and a page needed tag in reference 2. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The last cite tag could be covered by the citation for the previous paragraph, other than the part about the Presidential Palace. Could someone who reads Ukrainian confirm that the crappy machine translation I read is correct? EricSerge (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm finding some bad things with original research and citations not backing up the text given. Using photographs to cite material is not high-quality or reliable and it's original research. With the machine translations we're running into problems with WP:NOENG. We really need a fluent Russian/English translator and better sourcing. Brad (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delist More serious 1c problems have arisen with source quality plus original research. Brad (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Cleanup tags need clearing. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Review commentary

Notified: DMacks, Looie496 WP:PHARM, WP:MED

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is much primary research present when there are many recent review articles we could be using instread, the references are not in a consistent format, many of the references are outdated. Will work on improving it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• 1a There are a lot of very small paragraphs; sometimes only one sentence in length. This is partially caused by 2b. A general copyedit never hurts.
• 2bThere are sub-sections with very short paragraphs. The Psychological section only has one short sentence. I believe the article needs to have its ToC rethought.
• MoS Follow MOS:Images when laying out infoboxes and photos together so that they don't crowd each other. Brad (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For clarity sake The above has been fixed and therefore struck. The other issues I mention below are still valid. Brad (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually really liked the article. I believe the small paragraphs would be easy for any reader to follow along. I am very aware of the "Tolerance and Withdrawal" affects. The sources are outdated, and I would think that there would be new and improved sources to be found. Kristen46 (talk)

• Note The article has undergone a pretty thorough tune-up over the past few days. It may still receive a little bit more work, chiefly relating to image placement, but it should be pretty stable from this point, so it would be reasonable for editors to look it over now. Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• There remains citation needed tags, paragraphs without citations and a dead link. Some of the sources will require page numbers to be cited rather than only a range of pages. Brad (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include references, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Delist Major issues are 1c and 2c. Brad (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dana was asking for updates. 1c and 2c are still issues. There are open maint tags. Brad (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• 1c I have added some additional "citation needed" rags to those that are already there. The article contains a number of medical claims that cannot be easily verified due to lack of references. This is of particular concern in an article of this nature, where people may be inclined to research medical problems on the wikipedia.

I have resolved most of them. I only needed to add one new ref, although I found better refs for a couple of items -- in all the other cases the supporting ref was located right nearby, but before the sentence instead of after it, so I resolved the problem either by moving the ref later or by adding a repeat citation. There is one remaining cn tag in the chemistry section that I won't touch because the paragraph is incomprehensible to me, and there are a couple of remaining cn's in the history section. Looie496 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1d The article is Americentric. It could be improved by cutting back on references to US laws and agencies.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you could be specific about which statements you think don't belong in the article. Looie496 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure.

1. In the lead it says: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists caffeine as a "multiple purpose generally recognized as safe food substance". This is footnoted to be sure; and it needs to be, because it does not appear anywhere in the article. But the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Recommend removing this sentence.
2. In the history, it says:

   In 1911, kola became the focus of one of the earliest documented health scares, when the US government seized 40 barrels and 20 kegs of Coca-Cola syrup in Chattanooga, Tennessee, alleging the caffeine in its drink was "injurious to health".[110] On March 13, 1911, the government initiated United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, hoping to force Coca-Cola to remove caffeine from its formula by making claims the product was adulterated and misbranded. The allegation of adulteration was, in substance, that the product contained an added poisonous or added deleterious ingredient: caffeine, which might render the product injurious to health. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name 'Coca Cola' was a representation of the presence of the substances coca and cola; that the product 'contained no coca and little if any cola' and thus was an 'imitation' of these substances and was offered for sale under their 'distinctive name.'[111] Although the judge ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, two bills were introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1912 to amend the Pure Food and Drug Act, adding caffeine to the list of "habit-forming" and "deleterious" substances, which must be listed on a product's label.[citation needed]

   This is a long digression, and largely off-topic. Suggest removing the whole middle (which I've italicized).

This would resolve 1d. If you can fill in the missing references, that will resolve 1c and I'll support the article retaining its FA status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's still a lot to begin listing-- I wouldn't even try to take on the MOS issues until the content is further along. The original version that passed FAC was poorly cited, but much more concise and better written than this version, which seems to have taken on a lot of cruft over the years. It reads like an article where lots of editors plopped in whatever news came across their daily screen about caffeine, so I suggest looking at the version that passed for structural ideas might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disregarding the order of sections, the structures are actually pretty similar. The current version has a section on chemistry (which I don't understand, being clueless about chemistry), a section on the discovery of caffeine, a section on religion, and a section on detection in biological fluids (which in my view ought to be a subsection of Pharmacology). I think it would be helpful if you would give an indication of some of the things you see as cruft. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looie, once you think the reviewers' concerns have been addressed, you are welcome to ping them and ask them to return for another look at the article. DocJames is another one you might want to ping, since he hasn't commented here since he initiated the review... Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am more or less happy with the summary of health effects. Have not really look at much else. Do not comment on style :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - How is work going here? I notice that there is still a dead link tagged plus eight citation needed tags. I also note web references missing publishers and access dates, and potentially unreliable references such as (examples!): #51 (Hotspot for Birds), #60 (Energy Fiend) and #61 (Guayaki). Please also ping the reviewers above (Hawkeye, Sandy, Brad, etc) when you feel that their objections have been resolved. Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. I'm looking at this version, independently of any commentary above, which I haven't read. "In other animals" contains three stubby sentences, each poorly written. The "Chemical properties and biosynthesis" section has clear problems (beginning with the first sentence, continuing with uncited and indeipherable text). Spaced emdashes. "Caffeine from coffee or other beverages is absorbed by the small intestine within ... " as opposed to what other kinds of caffeine? Citation needed tags are frequent. Is the History section "really" a summary of all of those other History articles? More choppy sentences in Discovery. I'm unclear why an entire section of Decaffeination is needed-- others may disagree. Choppy prose in "Sources and consumption", even a paragraph that begins with "These tablets are commonly used by students ... ". This is just not FA-level prose, and that's without even looking at the sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per 1c. I am not too keen about any of the sources in Religion section and the amount of caffeine in coffee is backed by sources that couldn't pass a GAN. (This looks like a trend through the whole article) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with the above two delists someone needs to take on the sourcing of the rest of the article. We have only really dealt with the medical aspects. The article is however close and it is such an important subject.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Review commentary

Notified: Wikidea, Blue-Haired Lawyer, WikiProject Law

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it fails the featured article criteria, specifically:

• 1(c) - well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

  The article, which is heavily biased towards common law jurisdictions (particularly England and Wales and the United States) uses low quality sources - in a lot of cases, primary ones - in many areas, and no sources in some. Of particularly good examples are "As the European Court of Justice said in the 1960s, European Union law constitutes "a new legal order of international law" for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.", which is referenced to a case transcript; the reader is expected to infer that European Union law is a new, fancy-dan system of legislation and case law based on a primary source quoting people employed by said system.

  The entire "further disciplines" system is unreferenced, as are many other sections; see the passage "The term "civil law" referring to a legal system should not be confused with "civil law" as a group of legal subjects distinct from criminal or public law. A third type of legal system—accepted by some countries without separation of church and state—is religious law, based on scriptures. The specific system that a country is ruled by is often determined by its history, connections with other countries, or its adherence to international standards. The sources that jurisdictions adopt as authoritatively binding are the defining features of any legal system. Yet classification is a matter of form rather than substance, since similar rules often prevail." for example. Other moments of headdesking are things like citing John Locke to prove a point about the purpose of law - something entirely dependent on legal theorists and practitioners accepting the Lockean perspective, which is not something the text or sources validate.

• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;

  As mentioned, the entire thing is skewed in an Anglo-American direction; the illustrations and examples used (and at no point is it shown that the examples themselves are valid) are overwhelmingly from English and American case law and jurisprudence, with little consideration for civil law jurisdictions.

• Quite frankly it reads like somebody wrote down their Anglocentric idea of how the law worked and then added in sources as an afterthought. That isn't appropriate for an article that needs to be highly referenced while presenting a worldwide perspective on the concept of law. That'd be fine in a dissertation, but it makes a poor article. Ironholds (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep in mind, the article's essentially the same as it was before when it was passed in the last FAR. Wikidea 22:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, it was promoted over multiple (at least five) opposes with three supports (one from the nominator, Wikidea), it shouldn't have passed its last FAR, it's VERY poorly written, inaccurate and not comprehensive, reads like it was written by a novice law student unaware of law practices throughout the world, issues in the last FAR were never addressed, and the article is as bad now as it was then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I think a review every now and then is good. Frankly, I'd write it differently today. These points have been raised before though.

• if there is a case report missing from the Van Gend en Loos citation, that can be put in. A case report is a secondary source, because the reporter of the case is giving an account of what the court has said, and summarising that in a head note. If you want an academic source, see Craig and de Burca, EU Law (3rd edn OUP 2003) 182-184, "The ECJ first articulated its doctrine of direct effect in 1963 in what is probably the most famous of all its rulings."
• the view was reached before that because this is an article in English, and most readers will be speaking English, topics which do spend time on the common law system are most appropriate. Of course, the early historical cases discussed, like Entick v Carrington are celebrated around the common law world, which includes India and South Africa, for instance. The article as a whole was part written with a Greek, Yannismarou, and I think that although I'd do it different today as I say, it's not just "like somebody wrote down their Anglocentric idea of how the law worked and then added in sources as an afterthought". Wikidea 19:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  You're missing the point; the article text makes the inference that European law is some new and awesome thing. If you want to state that, fine, but a judgment written by someone involved in EU law (or, in fact, several people) by way of being judges in the EU's highest court is not an appropriate independent source. The fact that most readers will be speaking English is irrelevant - the job of writers of an article as wide as "law" is to produce an article which covers things from a worldwide perspective, without bias. We do not produce articles designed to conform to our readers existing view of the world - we produce articles designed to conform to the world's view of the world. Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not missing the point, and I welcome a review. But you've just raised points that were already raised when it was twice approved before. Cheer up! Wikidea 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It wasn't twice approved before (read the files), and even if it was, consensus can change. This article is QUITE bad, and I hope you plan to address the issues this time, because I do plan to make sure they are addressed this time 'round. This article should not be an FA in this state and should not have been for years. Let's start addressing issues-- claiming the article is OK because it "twice passed before" isn't going to work, and is a waste of reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think calling this article "quite bad" is unfair, its an impressive initial attempt to address an incredibly broad subject area, if more of our "vital" articles were as "bad" as this I would be over the moon. That said, I essentially agree with the substantive criticisms that are being made here, the two impressions I got from reading the article agains are: First, that it is very anglo-centric (there is a big section on tort law for example, replete with obligatory mention of ginger beer bottles, while all of east asia must make do with "The eastern Asia legal tradition reflects a unique blend of secular and religious influences"). Second, sections are often too narrowly sourced and rely overly on primary sources (for a random example - the section on economics and law, which simply states that Coase is "The most prominent economic analyst of law" and then proceeds to cite coase as a primary source while discussing his ideas - ideas that are not mentioned or discussed in the main law & economics article and which don't provide any sort of overview of the relationship between law and economics or any explanation of why there ideas are the most prominent or important, yet there is more discussion of him than the entirety of islamic law). Ajbpearce (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Media criteria 3

• File:JMR-Memphis1.jpg The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture. The sculpture itself needs to be out of copyright. Date of creation needs to be determined.
• File:Declaration of Human Rights.jpg author and source of painting not listed. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Carbolic smoke ball co.jpg Life +70 tag used with no human author listed. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Court of Chancery edited.jpg Missing source
• File:Code Civil 1804.png Using life +70 tag with no author listed; PD-art license wrong. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Joao sem terra assina carta Magna.jpg Using life +70 tag with no author listed. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Milkau Oberer Teil der Stele mit dem Text von Hammurapis Gesetzescode 369-2.jpg Photo dated 1926; author died 1933?. Missing US copyright tag. Cannot May not be PD if published in US after 1923.
• File:Constitution of India.jpg Missing US copyright tag with confusing information about author and date.
• File:Max Weber 1917.jpg Missing author information. Brad (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include images, prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delist Major issues are 1c, 1d and 3. Since nomination the article has had only 11 edits. Brad (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikidea 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) So apparently, this is actually a review now. As I've said on my talk page, I'd like to get around to this - despite SandyGeorgia's peculiar method of "encouragement" above. I just can't for about a month. Some time like mid November. But what I would like to have from anyone who is really interested in helping, is a simple bullet point list of things we'd like to see. SPECIFICS are best. On technical stuff, like the pictures and copyrights, it'd be nice to see others do that. I do defend this article from the unhelpful and unconstructive comments that this is just a "bad" article or that somehow it wasn't passed twice. I didn't nominate it, and I'm not that fussed about FAs myself - but most people would agree it'd be a pity to see it delisted. I'll make a start with bullet points here, going with some of the good suggestions already made above. Please add yourself:

• rewriting the economic analysis of law section
• referencing for the list of legal subjects
• better references for the all the cases cited, with reports and/or textbooks
• greater reference to non-common law legal systems, eg, on contract/torts this would be useful

I would love to help, but i've made promises and commitments in the past to improving wiki articles that have subsequently been broken by real life, so I am not sure how far I can commit to helping you. That said, here are a few "bullet points" I can lay out . At the same time, when it come to meeting strict FA criterion - there are obviously problems of scale that don't afflict articles on battleships or simpsons episodes.Ajbpearce (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Legal Theory - I picked the economic analysis section last time as an example, but actually the whole legal theory section is fairly unsatisfactory.
  • The history and philosophy sections are hard to write, and do a good job of identifying the important influences on western legal tradition - but especially the philosophy section is very focused on the west, the history section on "east asian legal traditions" should be expanded, and there is no mention at all of South America or Africa.
  • The sociology of the law section needs rewriting - we are told that this is a "diverse field" but there is no real attempt to explain what the sociology of law actually is, or to set out its main interests, for a common reader - again we are left with a few disconnected sentences on academically important works without any understanding of the subject areas.
• Legal Systems - this section should come before "legal subjects" and needs to deal with other possibilities than civil, common or religious law (clearly for most of human history, most countries were not under a civil, common or overtly religious - system disputes were settled and people governed in other ways (custom, tribal elders, absolute government, whatever) these are still are "law" and need a paragraph. - the section on sharia law could also be fleshed out and expanded as the most important source of modern religious law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbpearce (talk • contribs) 08:18, October 9, 2011

• De-list. I'll make only a few comments now, and may add more later. This article seems like a good start, but it's way premature to be featured, IMHO.
  • For starters, the top image shows the symbol of the judiciary. Why trivialize the other branches of government, such as the branch that, y'know, makes laws? Compare the rule of law article, which uses an image representing both legislative and judicial. Taking a worldview includes not just more than one country, but also more than one branch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the definition of "law", I went to the first footnote, and found "words of Mel". What the heck is that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Aristotle is quoted as endorsing rule of "law", but this article says Athenians didn't have a single word for law, and instead used a three-way distinction, so which way was Aristotle using it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the United States, proponents of judicial power like to say that laws must by definition be fair and wise, so that judges can then ignore any enactment that they don't think is fair and wise. In contrast, advocates of judicial restraint and separation of powers support a more limited definition. For example, Chief Justice John Marshall took the limited approach, writing that "law" is simply defined as a "rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state". So, I would like to see more in this article about the definitional controversy. That's all for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Constitutional law should have its own subsection, instead of being lumped together with administrative law. In the United States, for example, each state has a written constitution that covers whatever types of matters that people feel sufficiently concerned about to put there. I also don't agree with this statement: "A constitution is simply those laws which constitute the body politic, from statute, case law, and convention." In the U.S., though, statutes and constitutions are quite distinct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the section on common law, I don't see any mention of the critical concept that a legislature can correct common law decisions with which it disagrees. Common law courts are subject to correction by parliament in England, and the same is true in the American states. Common law decisions, not based on any provision of a written constitution, are freely amended and changed by legislatures all the time; otherwise the judiciary would completely control the law (and the image at the top of this article would be 100% appropriate).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence says law is enforced to govern human behavior "wherever possible". The "wherever possible" seems kind of confusing; is it explained later in the article what that's about? Does it mean that some laws can't be enforced, or instead that some behavior can't be governed by law, or both? The lead sentence also says that the law includes not just rules but also guidelines, but do the sources support "guidelines"? I thought that a guideline is like a suggestion: never enforced, compliance voluntary, not legally binding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Anatole France quote in the lead, it's a good and famous quote, but it seems kind of odd to have a quote that's nowhere in the body of the article pop up in the lead. Perhaps this suggests the body of the article ought to have a new subsection where one would expect a quote like this to be relocated or replicated. Or maybe it belongs in the legal philosophy section. But in any event, it seems weird that a quote would only be in the lead. Same goes for the Aristotle quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead says, "In a typical democracy...." Seems like undue weight; all countries have laws, but many aren't democracies (e.g. China).Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:Summary style, this article needs to be revised to properly summarize the main points of the sub-articles. For example, regarding the section on criminal law, a key point missing here is any description of it's objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all for now. Replies are welcome after each comment above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Wikidea on this one - "It's bad" doesn't lend itself to a roadmap for fixing the article's issues. Clearly, there's much to do, but look also to that fact that this is (or should be) one of our core articles. Category:Law has over 3100 articles including its 49 subcategories, and that doesn't even include articles in the 475 subcategories (!) of those subcategories. I understand that it's early days yet, as far as this review goes, but still. I'll try to have a look at this one before long, but I'd really love it if we could stretch this out a bit until Wikidea has time to give this repair project a proper go. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • One item, to start off - Set aside the content, for the moment. Is the structure of the article satisfactory? Does it seem to lend itself to a good overview of what is clearly a very broad topic? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delist now The changes required to bring it up to FA standard would be sufficiently substantial to require a new FAC. To answer the good question above, the structure has many issues. The lead is inadequate, there is a glaring omission of sections on appeal processes, legal remedies and punishments. The "Bureaucracy" section could just be dropped, and there seems to be no mention of customary law and other pre-national systems, even in the blatently statist history section, which begins, pretty dubiously "The history of law is closely connected to the development of civilization" - that's lawyers you mean there. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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