Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wade's Causeway/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC).

Wade's Causeway

 * Nominator(s): PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I nominate this article for FA consideration as its primary editor to date. I am happy to work with reviewers to make any improvements that are felt necessary. This is the first nomination for FA of this article. It has had a GA nomination (successful) and a peer review. PocklingtonDan

The article is about a stone structure of ambiguous origin, located in Yorkshire, United Kingdom. FA review of areas such as copy-editing are welcome, but specific value can be added by reviews additionally by those with domain knowledge in areas such as archaeology, history, and etymology. (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey
I haven't really read the article; maybe I will, maybe I won't. I just wanted to know what was going on with the mountains of "Explanatory notes", like "See Grimm[169] and Davidson.[135]", that just point to "Citations" without "explaining" anything? Is this a convoluted bundling method? Have you seen sfnm  ?
 * doing Thank you for taking the time to give the article a brief scan. I hope you will take the time to read and review it fully. I am looking at this particular item now, thanks for the helpful javascript tool - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are a ton of harv errors in the references. You can see them easily if you use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * done I have sorted the reference errors. However, the same javascript tool shows several refs that are not cited. I have resolved each of these now too - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Chris857
I'm noticing there seems to still be a ref issue, note ϸ, I see "See Knight (2011),[260]Powell (2012)CITEREFPowell2012 and NYNPA Minerals Technical Paper (2013).[261]" -- note the CITEREFPowell2012.Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * done Thanks for the heads up. This is now resolved - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are also two refs with "|url= missing title (help)" errors. Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * done Thanks for the heads up. This is now resolved - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from [unregistered user] user:Indopug
Oppose reference system is weird. For example, do a ctrl+F for "[79]". There are two hits. One goes to the citation "Hayes 1964, p. 11.", but the other goes to the explanatory note "Ϗ.^ See Lang[146] and Geake.[210]". This seems to be the case for all the citations. 122.172.27.199 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose rather than pointing out some problems that you can see and giving me an opporunity to fix? Why? The FAC guidelines suggest that reviewers and editors work together to improve articles, this unsightly brief comment stating oppose is hardly conducive to that end. I see that you are an unregistered user with 3 edits from 2009 and a dozen more in the last 24 hours. You may want to withdraw your oppose, which as an unregistered user is highly unusual, and familiarise yourself more closely with the FA review process. I would refer you specifically to the guideline that New reviewers are encouraged to leave only Comments until they are sure that they understand the criteria PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is (self-locked-out) User:Indopug, actually, and I have been reviewing FACs since January 2008. Thank you.122.172.27.199 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, so you claim, at least. The whole point of logins is to verify such claims. You are not logged in and unable to verify your user identity. I could claim to be any user I choose. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage
Oppose, urge withdrawal. FAC doesn't prescribe a specific referencing standard, but this isn't really acceptable. Numbered citations point to "explanatory notes" which aren't numbered, but are instead indexed with a (very) extended Greek alphabet? Then those notes in turn point to sfn-formatted citations with corresponding references? That's very confusing, and it's nonstandard to the point of uniqueness. Additionally, you've got unformatted external links (like in the lead). There are books missing ISBN numbers (I believe the Barker book is 978-0-7134-3189-6, for example), and books without issued ISBN numbers should ideally have OCLC numbers instead. The division of books into printed and electronic sections based, presumably, on how you accessed them, is very confusing to the reader and not at all a standard practice. Google Books is not a publisher per se; you're also very inconsistent how you refer to Google Books and whether it's italicized. Most of the printed journal entries lack page numbers, and I'm highly dubious of the way you've formatted the title of the Austen reference (if it doesn't have a title, don't make one up). Malformed templating abounds (Chadwick, Andrews, Strahan, Witcher, likely others). Several of the website references are insufficiently formatted ("North York Moors" is little more than a bare link), and several are not reliable sources (including MyHeritage, Wiktionary pages, and a Wikipedia image file!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose rather than pointing out some issues that you can see and giving me an opporunity to fix? Why? The FAC guidelines suggest that reviewers and editors work together to improve articles, this unsightly brief comment stating oppose is hardly conducive to that end. Additionally, offering a wall of text rather than cogent and well ordered points makes your comments difficult to respond to: nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. Most of your points were covered and explained at GA review, but I will revisit them here. I would urge you to change your oppose to a comment and allow us to work on addressing these minor issues that have raised. I have broken up your comments into bullet points in order to address them rationally and individually PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm usually pretty amenable to letting folks respond intra my comments (even though the header says not to), but please don't bulk-refactor my response like that. Also, from the header (and this one is taken rather seriously), "the use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged". As it stands, however, simply bringing the citation and referencing system into something compliant with criterion 2c will require changing hundreds of citations; that's error-prone work in a task that cannot afford errors. Regardless of what else is right or wrong with this article, I remain convinced that it's in the best interests of the article's development to close this nomination early and use the two week relisting lockout to rebuild the citation structure into something more standard, fix the broken reference templates, add the missing information, clean out the clearly unreliable sources, and then bring it back to FAC for a clean second look. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to withdraw the article nomination. You are of course entitled to your opinion on this matter, but it is a shame that you are not willing to work with me as a reviewer to fix any issues that you have with the citations within this review and work as a team as others above are willing to do. Your revert of your comments into an impenetrable wall of text is similarly unhelpful and makes responding to your points in a clear way very difficult. I had hoped not to encounter awkward reviewers such as yourself, but c'est la vie - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes ... Dan, insulting the reviewers ("awkward reviewers such as yourself") is not the best way to attract others to review your nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage is not new to reviewing FACs, and I doubt he'd recommend withdrawal lightly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a little inventive to read my characterisation of this reviewer as "awkward" as an insult given that this is a transparently accurate representation of his behaviour. He is deliberately making it awkward for me to respond to and action the points he raised. I'm not sure quite how else you would describe his behaviour in reverting my edit that broke his wall of text into actionable points that I could respond to and action in editing the article. You can check the edit of his. He also refuses to change his oppose to a comment and give me a chance to fix the points he raised as I am entitled to do and have offered to do. How would you yourself characterise this behaviour? It is certainly not a hepful and collaborative behaviour. I am interested in attracting helpful editors who are interested in raising constructive comments that are actionable and that I can respond to. Reviewers such as the one referenced here I, and wikipedia, can do without. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would characterize this response as exactly the kind that would encourage me to volunteer my feedback elsewhere. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So be it, don't let me stop you. Have a nice day - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do understand your frustration. The FAC environment, including my contributions, is characterized by a different level of intensity than many of the project's other processes. I'm certain it's unpleasant to have pushed an article through GAN and a peer review only to have a reviewer here tell you that it is facially incompatible with the featured article criteria in its current state. Some of what I listed above really should have been brought up in those earlier stages; I would not have passed this article at GAN. You are welcome to disagree with me, of course (ultimately, the delegates will weigh conflicting opinions here). You're even welcome, I suppose, to call me awkward and unhelpful, although I can't see how that improves the article or the project as a whole. You are not, however, welcome to use status graphics on this page (per the FAC instructions), nor to refactor my comments without my permission (per the talk page guidelines). If this article's citations and references were structured in any of the generally acceptable styles, I'd be happy to do a more detailed analysis intended to be replied to (and there's quite a bit of prose that needs work; for example: "The structure has, in some sections only, been reported by Codrington and archaeologist Frank Elgee to have been flanked by lateral ditches that ran parallel to its course, but Hayes is both doubtful whether such ditches have been proven to be extant, and also questions whether, even if their existence is proven, these represent part of the structure's original construction."). But unless and until that happens, there's no shortage of other places for me to spend my time and effort, the vast majority of which involve editors who don't feel it's necessary to insult me even should they disagree with me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the sentence you point out, Squeamish, that was about where I stopped in the peer review. Changed to: "The structure has been reported by Codrington and archaeologist Frank Elgee to have been flanked in a few sections by lateral ditches that ran parallel to its course. Hayes is doubtful whether such ditches would represent part of the structure's original construction, and if they even existed." - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dank
P-Dan, we'll be happy to help with referencing over at MilHist's A-class review, if this FAC fails (which seems likely at the moment). - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see I got down to Extant course in the peer review, I'll start from there.
 * "consists of [an x-mile] section of the structure on": FAC reviewers are generally looking for a tighter style. I'm not sure, but it looks like you could replace all that with "runs for x miles". Be on the lookout for nouns that don't really add information.
 * "the absence of much vegetation": Absence of a lot of something is a roundabout way of saying "not much". "the sparse vegetation" works.
 * "on the macro scale": raises the question for me of how big the macro scale is
 * "consisting on closer detail of several short, straight sections": consisting of several short, straight sections
 * "that pivot occasionally onto new alignments": that turn
 * "not clearly demanded by the landscape or surveying concerns": I admit I'm not clear whether we're talking about a roadway that was built 6,000 or 2,000 years ago, but either way, that's a long time ... what would their "surveying concerns" have been?
 * "near Morley Cross; east of Keys Beck; near Hazle houses; at July Park; and at Castle Hill.": Commas are better when none of the elements are complex (and often even when some of them are).
 * That's all in the following subsection from where I stopped before. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose by John
Oppose per strange referencing system and prose concerns. --John (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose by J3Mrs
Referencing and prose issues were raised at the GAN review. The editor unilaterally decided he was correct after I walked away. The article is very long and it is a compilation rather than a summary. It's much longer now and needs a serious copyedit. J3Mrs (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PocklingtonDan
I continue to find the article review process on wikipedia an incredibly frustrating process that adds little or no value to an article and causes maximum frustration to editors. Wikipedia editors give up their free time to make wikipedia better by adding content and the GA/FA process is combative and does little or nothing to improve articles. I find there is virtually no interest in actually ensuring the production of comprehensive, well researched articles but that instead there to be an unhealthy obsession with curt prose and formatting concerns and virtually zero effort expended in ensuring that content is correct and reflects accurately and in an unbiased manner the subject being written about. Where stylistic problems are observed, no opportunity is given for editors to respond to them and make edits to mitigate them before "oppose" is called. In short, the GA and FA review process is run by a bunch of grammar nazis who know nothing about the article subject and do not value useful contributions to Wikipedia.

The problem appears to be that the FA process is negative only. Ie it is a process of picking fault, not recognising quality. So you end up with a ridiculous situation where the more full and complete an article is (which should make it a useful article) in fact is marked down at GA/FA compared to a poor article with little or no content of worth, because there is less to criticise. That seems to be how articles for FA review such as How Brown Saw the Baseball Game attract no opposes, despite being brief and of little worth, whereas articles like this one, which has introduced a wealth of well-researched information to the encyclopaedia on a far more notable topic, attracts loads of opposes.

I can't help but feel that a more sane gauge of an article's worth might be to include some indication of *positive* merit of the article so that you have a score for both and can judge articles in a more even manner than at present.

I withdraw this nomination since I find the process itself fundamentally flawed. I will be performing no further work on this article, all you have succeeded in doing is making me have no further interest in editing wikipedia. I wonder how many editors you have burned out over the years with this ridiculous process? I'm betting quite a few. Knock yourselves out with the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As one of the FAC coordinators I'm sorry you feel that way, but prose and formatting are part of the criteria, and you are dealing here with several reviewers very experienced in those criteria. Content is of course also vital but ideally that should be largely sorted before getting to FAC, for instance through Peer Review, or A-Class Review if applicable. I hope that you may yet take up Dank's suggestion of a MilHist ACR, and take on board suggestions for improvement there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this experience has put me off bothering to contribute to wikipedia in future, on this or any other article - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.