Wikipedia:Featured article review/Charles Ives/archive1

Charles Ives

 * Article is still a featured article.

The article does not have references or inline citations (both required). There was a request for references on the talk page on Apr 22, 2005. Not a featured article review candidate (Featured article review) because it never had references (did not deteriorate). Hyacinth 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: This has been nominated only for its lack of references and inline citations. If that is the case. I think one needs to apply some common sense, it has a list of further reading, and a whole list of external links which seem to confirm the facts, and quite obviously were the references.  The article makes no outlandish or controversial statements.  I don't see any harm in it remaining a FA.  It was supported on it's FA by one of Wikipedia's most knowledgable editors who would have spotted a flaw instantly.  It also does something which wikipedia does best - gives a comprehensive amount of information on a subject often not often found in other encyclopedias.   The page has also survived the ordeal of being on the main page as recently as last May with no one making furious protestations of "rubbish" or "lies".  Just because the criteria for present FAs has changed since this was nominated is no reason to sweep away everything then went before. Giano | talk 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it where so easy we both would have added inline citations and ended this discussion. Hyacinth 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. No references. Even your basic college paper has references, otherwise it's considered plagerism.  Wikipedia has to have a higher standard than that.  Featured articles are supposed to represent that standard. Any article without proper references should not be in feature status.  If references are added and/or all none referenced  statements are removed, I would reconsider my vote. --Sketchee 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Lack of references. Comment It had ONE vote, the ONLY comment was "A really good introduction to Ives' life and work", and it was apparently added to FA by the lone voter. That doesn't seem to constitute a "review", then or now. That's the current standard for Good Articles. I'm all for being practical and reasonable and IAR and all that, but if the FAC process is to mean anything, all current FAs should have received a review somewhat approximating today's standards, else, why improve? Should the refs indeed be sufficient, and the article so good, it should pass a FAC renom no problem, and get up to speed in the process! --Tsavage 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Good Articles" is a daft process understood by no one especially those who seem to pronounce on it (so can be dismissed accordingly). FACs even today based on non mainstream composers or classical dead musicians seem to attract little if any attention, so are you surprised by the pages lone vote at that stage in Wikipedia's history? Of course this page in its present form would fail FAC today - but we are discussing the nomination made above not other non specified charges against it - so lets not digress.   I am quite sure had the original author been clairvoyant they would have labelled the external links and further reading as references which if you look at them, or read them,  is clearly what they were. Giano | talk 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FARC guidelines say nothing about strictly addressing only the word of the nomination. In any case, I guess this is back to the "references" issue. Isn't this a case of "yeah, it makes sense as long as you're there to explain it"? We require inlines when necessary, but limit the "necessity" in the case of existing FAs to whether voters decide if the article is otherwise good (when any reasonable request for inlines should be supported). Now we should do the same for articles without references? If all of this means so little in practice, why not just change "Further reading" to "References"? And why not perhaps add, in complete good faith, a list of general references to a great article with no "Further reading" section, to save it as an FA, or even to get it through a new FAC? I really think verifiability ought to meet a minimum standard of usability, which means cite.php refs (OR toss inlines entirely and just go with a bibliography)... --Tsavage 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment—It's well written; my only complaint is that it's a little short for such an important, multifaceted composer. Keep it, but please expand it. Tony 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. No references. Markyour words 20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added a whole bunch of inline citations from the very thorough Grove article. I think it's rather pedantic to say that the article has no references simply because they are labeled "Further reading", when some of them were clearly used as references. Mak emi 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate summary of his musical style and its place in the history of music, although there are a few descriptive fragments. I'm moving towards a Weak remove unless the contributors fix it. Tony 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as featured article, as it is well written, clear, a good intro to Ives' life and work, has many references, whether they're called that or not, and now has inline citations. (Plus J. Peter Burkholder is awesome and deserves an FA on his pet subject) Mak emi 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (again) If there are specific facts which people still think need to be cited, it's possible they were in the Grove article and I didn't think it necessary to give them an inline. Let me know if you there's something specific you want an inline for, and I'll see what I can do. Mak emi 23:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as improved. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, considering references and quality. Deltabeignet 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: A discussion on criteria has been moved to the talk page.