Wikipedia:Featured article review/League of Nations/archive2


 * 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 Raul654 20:58, 4 November 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Kaly99, UW, Jbmurray, Themightyquill, WP International relations, WP United Nations, WP Politics, WP Human rights

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has numerous cleanup tags and other issues, some in place since 2008, and no work has been completed in response to an April talk page notice. Some thoughts: This is a high-priority article, and has unfortunately slipped from FA quality - I hope that this FAR will provide the prod that is needed to bring it back up to that level. Overall, the article is not in horrible shape; however, the referencing in particular needs attention. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, referencing is the biggest issue, with over half a dozen fact tags and many other sections partially or completely missing references.
 * Reference formatting and completeness need work. I see bare urls, web cites without publishers or access dates, and books formatted in a multitude of ways (compare refs 23, 24 and 109)
 * Standardize English variation used - I see organize and organise, recognize and recognise, plenty of -ization/-isation, etc.
 * 5 dead links among the references and external links, see here for report.
 * The see also is rather long for a featured article. Can more of these links be worked into the article body?
 * The prose could use a go-over. For example, what does "This general regulation concerning unanimity was the recognition of national sovereignty." in the Principal organs section mean?
 * Should Franz Bernheim even be linked? It has no other inbound links and is currently a red link, so I doubt it's article-worthy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2b There is a very long and unnecessary ToC in this article. Some of the sub-sections consist of only one sparse paragraph and running into fourth level headers is excessive. ToC needs reconfiguring. Brad (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Media criteria 3
 * File:Plebiscyt plakat.jpg and File:Guerra peru2 1932 d.jpg are both using the life + 70 license. The trouble is that on one file the author is unknown and the other file has no author information. License is wrong without information on when the author died or who the author was. Both files need US copyright tags. Guerra peru2 1932 d.jpg needs an English translation. Always provide as much information as possible. Brad (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include images, prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * TPH, could you specify which concerns you feel have not been addressed and/or which criteria the article does not meet? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that back. Some stuff has happened. However, it still needs a copy edit; I'm seeing lots of consecutive sentences starting with "the". Ten Pound Hammer and company • (Otters want attention) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Nikkimaria did good work with the references and ToC. The criteria 3 problems were resolved by removing the two images from the article. I put in a copyedit request with GOCE but the prose isn't bad enough to warrant a delisting in its current state. Brad (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments There are clarification and citation needed tags to clear. File:IJA troops enter Mukden.jpg has no evidence of first publication, and File:Soldatietiopia.jpg has no evidence of permission. DrKiernan (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments addressed by Nikkimaria. DrKiernan (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further comments There's a mixture of -ize/-ization and -ise/-isation endings; I wasn't sure which to adopt. (There are 20 -isations and 23 -izations; 10 -iseds and 5 -izeds.) I'm confused by the status of Argentina: the text says Costa Rica was the first to withdraw in 1925, but the animation shows Argentina withdrawing in 1921 (and then rejoining). Perhaps this could be solved by saying "The first member to withdraw permanently from the League was Costa Rica"? Surely, "after its founding" can be removed? Hatay appears to become independent in both November 1937 and September 1938? I presume this is because of different events being recognis(z!)ed as the start of statehood. Can this be reconciled somehow? DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep coming up with new comments, but I'm still seeing problems. Bernheim is mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere in the article. The lead should be a summary rather than contain novel material. The lead also implies that Germany withdrew because of League interference in Upper Silesia, but in the body of the article German withdrawal is laid at the door of disarmament. DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Comments addressed. I couldn't see anything else of concern. DrKiernan (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Comments - my apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Leaning towards keep, but a few comments first: The article is in much better shape (thanks everyone!) then when I nominated it. Once the above issues are addressed I think this article will be headed for a "keep". Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why such general books in the Further reading section as Kelly & Lacey's Modern World History and Walsh's Modern World History? What do these general works tell readers that the article or other books in the References/Further reading section don't?
 * Not really in the purview of this FAR, but is it necessary for Covenant of the League of Nations and Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations to have their own articles? It seems that, at least with their existing content, they could easily be folded into the League of Nations article, as much of the information is already contained therein.
 * Still not completely sure which English this is in...it seems that most of the article has been changed to AmEng, but I caught a couple BrEng: centre, defence, organisation, etc.
 * Languages and symbols, link Esperanto?
 * Languages and symbols, "The League had a very active postal department." Why is this important? The company I work for has a very active postal department, too, but I don't think this would rate mention in its WP article... Perhaps if it was expanded upon, especially more on "In many cases, special envelopes or postage stamps were used."? Why were special postage stamps used? What was special about the envelopes?
 * Principal organs, link International Labour Organization? I see that it's linked later in the Other bodies section, but should probably be linked on first occurance instead.
 * Principal organs, "Minorities and Administration (Saar and Danzig)" I'm not sure what the purpose of the links to Saar and Danzig is. Were these the two things principally dealt with by the M&A branch?
 * Principal organs, "In 1931, the staff numbered 707." How were these staff paid? Where did the LoN get the money for operating expenses in general?
 * Other bodies, "there were two to three million ex-prisoners of war dispersed throughout Russia" Russian ex-POWs or people from other countries who had been held in Russian prisons?
 * Mosul, "a League of Nations A mandate over Iraq". When I first saw "a League of Nations A mandate", I thought it was a typo. On second look, I think you're saying that it was an A-classification mandate, but this could probably be made more clear.
 * Vilnius, "on 7 October 1920, the League negotiated the Suwałki Agreement.[99] On 9 October 1920, General Lucjan Żeligowski," Did the Suwalki Agreement give Zeligowski the right to take over this city, or did he do it in contravention of the agreement? I guess I'm wondering what exactly the Suwalki Agreement said/did...
 * Liberia, "The Liberian government outlawed forced labour and slavery and asked for American help, a move which generated anger within Liberia". Why did this generate anger within Liberia? From the population that was being used for slavery or the people that were promoting slavery?
 * Italian invasion, "United States endeavoured, with uncertain success," Why was the success uncertain?
 * Spanish Civil War, "In February 1937, the League did ban foreign volunteers." How much of an effect did this ban have? Did anyone listen to the LoN, or did volunteers continue to come to Spain?
 * Demise and legacy, quote, "Long live the United Nations" Should there be a period or some other sort of punctuation at the end of this quote?
 * It would be interesting to see if the links in the See also section could be woven into the narrative of the article.
 * Looking much better! As the pertinent comments above have been addressed, I have changed my "comments" above to "keep". Nice work everyone! Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.