Wikipedia:Featured article review/League of Nations/archive1


 * 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 User:Marskell 11:38, 27 June 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified at User talk:Formeruser-81, User talk:UW, User talk:ALoan, User talk:Sam Korn, User talk:MisfitToys, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations

An article on an important topic that has been a featured article for over 3 years and has not been reviewed formally in that time. It seems to be in pretty good shape, although there are few references and citations by modern FA standards (although there is a "Bibliography").

For instance, the lists of presidents and secretaries general are a bit distracting and would perhaps be better split off. -- Testing times (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep & Comment. Yet another fine, long-standing article on a topic of truly encyclopedic importance, about to be defeatured due to lack of notezorz. But that's ok, it will be replaced by ridiculously over-cited articles on game or Poke cruft. And that's ok because any topic can be featured so long as it is blandly written and chock full- o -inlines. For here in Wikiland, quality=verifiability=quantity of inlines. Surely there is someway out of this mediocracy madhouse, someway to grandfather in articles such as this one, which have been long featured and whose quality has not drastically declined. But I doubt the blind pedantics will find one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find people will be more inclined to read your arguments with an open mind if you use "Move to close" rather than "Keep". It's much the same as "Keep" but it doesn't garner the same sort of hostility. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problem; most here don't have open minds...at least not anymore. They see a lack of inline notzorz and they knee-jerk vote remove. Just see the bureaucratic-sounding comments below. Which begs the questions-With articles such as this defeatured and great contributors such as Aloan leaving in frustration and disgust, what makes Wikipedia NOT suck?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a lack of references. I've add a couple and plan to add some more over the next few days. The list of Presidents and Secretary Generals might be better split off especially if some commentary is added about their periods in office.  --Kaly99 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of work needed. Fundamentally, the the basic lack of citations, but also MoS issues.  Incorrect WP:DASHes everywhere, some of the section headings are very long (and those appear to be lists that could be moved out of the article), the WP:LEAD doesn't appear to be an adequate and compelling summary, WP:GTL (portals belong in See also), WP:MOS, WP:MOSBOLD, I stopped there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - if you can translate this alphabet soup into plain English for me, I could begin to help some of this "lots of work". I can't work out what WP:DASHes or WP:MOS - or indeed WP:MOSBOLD - are saying is wrong with this article.  Presumably a simple cut-and-paste could fix the "portals belong in See also" problem, no? -- Testing times (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

--U.S.A.... The United States never took part in the league of nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdow93 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an update of work that I've done on the article:
 * Removed obvious dashes, I still need to check which of the other shouldn't be there
 * The longest section headings have been removed (along with the lists)
 * Cleaned up the See also and External links sections (including portal) and removed bolding from the main text.
 * Tried to sort out the quotes in the mandate section but I need to re-read the guide lines on these as I'm not sure I've formatted them correctly. Once I have I'll sort out the rest of the article's quotes.
 * Added references, but it's a slow process to verify and correct the text and there are still a lot that need adding.

I'm sure there are other MoS issues as I'm not an expert on the guide lines. If I manage to reference the rest of the article in time I plan to sort out the lead and carefully go through the MoS and check it against the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kaly99 - that is the sort of thing I was suggesting above I could do, but I first wanted someone to explain clearly what would be necessary to resolve the various issues. I'm still prepared to help, if someone can tell me what is required. -- Testing times (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem is referencing as there's still a lot of the article that's missing references. Alternatively, you could have a look at the section of the Manual of Style (MoS) on quotations and format the quotes in the article to comply with it.  Also you could check through the rest of the Manual of Style and make any changes to the article needed to comply with it.  --Kaly99 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixes still needed. The main issue is lack of citation, but I'll list the minor MoS issues again in case anyone wants to work on them.  Incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of endashes in citations, example:   Glover Forster, The Esperanto Movement, pp. 171-176  Inconsistent date formatting and date linking in citations, see WP:MOSDATE, examples: Origins and history, International Labour organization, Retrieved on 25 April 2008  vs. "League of Nations Ends, Gives Way to New U.N.", Syracuse Herald-American, April 20, 1946, p12  (the dates need to be wikilinked).  Incorrect use of named refs on repeat refs, see WP:FN, example, 47 and 48 are the same ref and should use a named ref:  47. ^ "League of Nations Ends, Gives Way to New U.N.", Syracuse Herald-American, April 20, 1946, p12 and 48. ^ "League of Nations Ends, Gives Way to New U.N.", Syracuse Herald-American, April 20, 1946, p12.  Inconsistent page numbering convention in citations, some examples of p12, and some examples of p. 12.  No consistent style.  Incomplete references, example missing publisher at League of Nations chronology, Retrieved January 21, 2006.  (And notice that one does have a wikilinked date, while remaining citations don't, no consistent style.)  Inconsistent date linking in the article (see WP:MOSDATE), incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of endashes in the article, and missing WP:NBSPs throughout; here's a couple of sentences with a sample of each:  unlinked date, 33-0 should be 33–0, and a missing nbsp between 5:43 and pm.  The final meeting of the League of Nations was held in Geneva on April 18, 1946.  Delegates from 34 nations attended, and a motion was made to close the session, with the resolution that "The League of Nations shall cease to exist except for the purpose of the liquidation of its assets."  The vote was 33-0 in favor, with Egypt abstaining.  At 5:43 pm Geneva time, Secretary Carl J. Hambro of Norway stated, ... Incorrect use of, where  or  would be more correct.  Incorrect spacing on ellipses, see WP:MOS, example:  might call military sanctions... Incorrect logical punctuation on quotes, example:   "Generally it appears to me that any such scheme is dangerous to us, because it will create a sense of security which is wholly fictitious". Incorrect use of italics on quotes, see for example "General weaknesses" section, and WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS.  WP:ITALICS, why is Firestone in italics in "of forced labor on the massive Firestone rubber plantation in that country ... " ? WP:MOSNUM, don't start sentences with numbers, example:   90.3% of votes cast ... More incorrect WP:DASHes on date ranges, example:  Chaco War, 1932-1935.  That's scraping the surface for a start.  In other words, the MoS cleanup needs here are substantial, but I'll be glad to help if this article moves into Keep territory, which it won't until it's cited.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still wondering if anyone is working on this, because I can help with the MoS issues if it looks like it's warranted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to be the only one working on it but I won't be able to do any work on the article until after next Wednesday. I am still planning to finish adding references (and rewriting where necessary).  Any help would be great, but as the areas with the main MOS issues seem to be the ones that are going to need the most rewriting it might not be worth going ahead with some MOS corrections  until after this has happened.  --Kaly99 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll check in later, or ping me if my help is needed once everything else is set: I'll be glad to do MoS cleanup when all else is set.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some of his, Jbmurray did some, I struck some, but I'm not sure everything has been done. Also, the  template is used when summary style is employed; I think some of the main templates need to be changed to  or .  The entire article needs to be checked for MoS issues when done. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. I'd add that there are also plenty of 1(a) (prose) issues: awkward phrasing, grammar problems including comma splices, repetitious wording, short paragraphs and sections, and so on.  I'm surprised by the comment at review commentary that suggests this is a well-written article ("brilliant prose," as the terminology used to have it) that simply no longer accords with current referencing demands.  It's not a particularly well-written article at all.  I'm going to do some copy-editing (which should indicate some of the problems, so I don't have to list examples here), but don't have all that much time right now; in any case, it would need the concerted efforts of a whole number of editors.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Holding. Much recent work in the history. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, Kaly99 is doing some excellent work there.  I've helped out a bit with copy-editing and restructuring, but I'm sure that s/he would appreciate any other assistance anyone could provide.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It does need a serious ce. I'll give it a go. Marskell (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Update anyone? I'm not as concerned about the prose as I was. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold. Continued hold recommended, as Kaly99 continues the (rather solitary) work of improvement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment Concur on holding. I was going to try some copy-editing this afternoon but I was edit conflicting with Kaly99.  Will try again later. -- Laser brain   (talk)  22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I think it is a "keep", at least as prose is concerned.  There are a couple areas of concern, but it can be worked out without delisting.  I plan to keep this on my watchlist and work on it.  I don't have the sharp eye for MOS and other issues that Sandy does, however. -- Laser brain   (talk)  20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is now referenced, and I'll finish this and give the lead a bit of a rewrite in the next couple of days. I don't know what MOS issues are still outstanding.  --Kaly99 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is at the two month mark in FARC and needs to go. I'm going to keep it. There are still some fact requests hanging around and I expect people to get to them. I cited the quote in the lead. Good work here folks. Marskell (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.