Wikipedia:Featured article review/Michel Foucault/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 removed by User:Marskell 15:07, 19 November 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified Mgekelly, Skoojal, Commodore Sloat, Panopticon, WP France, WP Biography, WP Philosophy, WP LGBT studies, and WP Sociology.

This article was nominated in February 2005; in my opinion, it no longer meets the FA criteria. Many key statements, such as the identification of his philosophy with structuralism, lack citations. The structure needs improvement as well: the sections on "changing viewpoints" and "terminology" could be expanded and merged into a larger discussion of his theories. Lesgles (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have quite a few books which rely on his Madness and Civilization and go into detail about his theory there if anyone wants to actually tackle this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I have very limited access to the Internet at present, I might be able to devote a half an hour or so to saving this if clear consensus on what needs to be done emerges. the skomorokh  10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and structure (2). Marskell (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I submit that the structural issues have been addressed and respectfully request fuller elaboration on the objections to the article's referencing and comprehensiveness. Sincerely, the skomorokh  16:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC) *Remove Citation needed tags need clearing. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Agree with above by Lesgles, in addition many referencing issues still remain, not to mention glaring citation needed issues. Cirt (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute. I've cleared all the citation needed tags; the information in the article checks out. This was featured at a time when FAC referencing standards were not so demanding, so can we have a little patience and give the article a chance please? the skomorokh  16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've done some great clean-up and referencing work, and I agree that we should see if it is still salvageable. I'm going to have a look soon to see what I think could be expanded, but in the meantime maybe people who know more about Foucault than I do could come up with some suggestions. Lesgles (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, a few suggestions:
 * I'd like to see more about Foucault's legacy, in other words, an expanded and referenced version of the "influences" section that was taken out.
 * We should work in more about criticism of Foucault, to justify the "controversial" label applied to him in the lead.
 * Although we shouldn't give it undue weight, I'd like to have a bit more about Foucault's relationship with Defert.
 * On a more superficial level, t would be nice to have a couple more images, if any can be found. Someone on the talk page mentioned wanting to have an actual photograph.
 * Lesgles (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Status: I just archived this and then changed my mind, considering Skomorokh's post. We're ever patient here. However, an update is needed soon from people who intend to work. Marskell (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove FA status. How this article can have Featured Article status with such a stupifying lack of citations is incredible. Sorry, but this article needs some work before it can be elevated to FA status again, in my opinion. It just doesn't meet the guidelines.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 01:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not actionable. Please tag any statements in the article you find questionable, and I'll check them out. the skomorokh  13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How this article can have Featured Article status with such a stupifying lack of citations is incredible --> 2005 rules did not require inline citations. Neither were the then existing citation templates popular or mandatory. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove 1c  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not actionable, please specify, as above. the skomorokh  13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the consideration, Marskell. I am prepared to work on any criterion 2, 3, 4 and 1 (a) and (c) objections. I haven't the time to add entirely new sections to the article, nor am I suffiently familiar with the subject to address weight issues. I am prepared to respond quickly to any specific objections. Regards, the skomorokh  13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to leave this so long. Skomorokh, if you're still around the most obvious deficiency is the almost total lack of references in the Works section. How much of those summaries is unlikely to be challenged and how much is interpretation? I dunno. But that's where work would need to begin again. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On it. Looks uncontroversial so far. the skomorokh  13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the comprehensiveness front, the article makes no mention of his being gay or of his impact on queer theory. Marskell (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of extra time was given to this one and I think it's time to close. Skomorokh, don't take the removal badly at all. It did improve, so your work was worthwhile. I think we probably need a content area expert to bring it back to FA. Marskell (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.