Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature/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 14:55, 12 March 2007.

Review commentary

 * Original author et al aware. Messages left at UK notice board and Books.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacks inline citations. -- mattb


 * For a lot of the Eng. Lit. period articles and related, I think Harvard has been used. Could that be done here? Marskell 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think inline citations are better since they tell you what reference is citing which sentences, but I guess I can't dissuade others from using Harvard. LuciferMorgan 09:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Harvard does the same thing (Smith, pp. 1-3). Marskell 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has parenthetical references, and footnotes are not an FA requirement. Additionally, even inline citations in general are not required.  You're barking up an imaginary tree.  See the talk page to the article, as well, for some of how references to outside works were handled in the article.  It is an omnibus article.  Geogre 11:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So it has parenthetical references eh? If so, where are the page numbers? All it has is a list of books when I checked. LuciferMorgan 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See the thread where you lambast "the FAR fanatics"? He he.


 * The page has parenthetical references for the primary material, but none for any of the secondary sources listed as references. I wouldn't expect many are needed for an overview of a non-current topic, but there are places. "...that king's presence and personality permeated literary society to such an extent that, almost uniquely, literature reflects the court." Would a (see, for instance, Smith pp. 1-3) hurt here? Marskell 11:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings from Bishonen, your Guide to the World of Spirits, now channelling Geogre, who can't currently log on to Wikipedia. He has asked me to post this reply to Marskell:


 * Marskell has a valid question. However, Restoration literature,like Augustan literature and the other omnibus articles I wrote, was, I hoped, an example of what a good encyclopedia article should be.  It had a thesis and presented it honestly, with multiple discussions to back up that thesis.  In other words, like a good article, it set forward a proposition and proved that proposition through the discussion that followed.  Additionally, an author who leads on a massive article like that one and who has read all of the references (and, of course, between you and me, a great many more) is, by nature of such reading alone, if none other, an "expert" in terms of composition of the article.  He or she should take a position.  In other words, finding a single source to back up that statement would be difficult.  I cannot cite myself and any work I may have done along these lines, nor would, but, at the same time, it's one of those statements that distills what "everybody" notes, one way or another, from Christopher Hill to E. P. Thompson to Paul Fussell.  It's a statement that I think is a bit pithier than what most folks make but says what they say. Bishonen, speaking in the voice of Geogre (scary!), 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * This whole section of Wikipedia is becoming worrying, first rate pages such as this are being seized on and held to account for not being written in precisely the way someone who probably knows nothing about the subject would have written them. We are not all going to write our pages in the same way, with the same layout or reference in the same way.  Restoration literature has  a complete list of references and there are "inline citations" in the article, but they're parenthetical reference.  It is pointed out quite correctly on the talk page WP:REF only requires that articles be referenced and footnotes are not mandatory unless a source is quoted.   We should be judging articles on their quality not the number of footnotes they contain  -  This article is first rate. Giano 11:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see I have already missed my chance to be first off the block.


 * Let me say for starters that this is one of the most complete, best written - in short, most excellent - articles on the whole of Wikipedia. If an article like this is not featured, we may as well give up and reconcile ourselves to creating the best encyclopedia on Pokemon and internet slang that the slashdot has ever written.  At least this review will introduce it to a wider audience.


 * We recently had this very same complaint ("lacks inline citations") about the similarly excellent Palladian architecture (Featured article review/Palladian architecture), and it seems a bit pointless to plough the same ground a second time. But I suppose we must...


 * No, this article has no dinky footnotes (shock horror! call the police!) but it does have inline citations where appropriate by way of parenthetical references. That is sufficient.  Pace Giano, "footnotes are not even necessary where a source is quoted" (Smith 1999, p.1, emphasis added). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with ALoan, Giano, and Geogre's statements, but unfortunately the norm for FAR these days is to require extensive in-line citations in order to retain FA status. -- mattb


 * Oh, gee, late to the party. Is there anyone left to notify?  Mattb, without having looked at this article, I'll point out that disagreement over inline citations shouldn't be confused with sourcing an article to "oral history and tradition from groundskeepers";  the latter isn't about a lack of inline citations, rather a lack of reliable sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest this is removed from FAR unless there are any concrete objections to it keeping its FA status other than the lack of inline citations. From mattb's comments on the talk page this review looks decidedly pointy. Yomangani talk 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue, I'm merely trying to help hold FAs to the standards that I perceive to be norm now. I obviously don't agree with this norm, but I can accept it if there's no support for changing it.  Please don't assume that this is a result of my being upset about my own FARs (a ridiculous suggestion; I was the one who nominated them).  Am I wrong in saying that inline citations are a requirement for FAs now?  If so, by all means remove this FAR. -- mattb
 * Mattb, since your userpage says "he would have probably been better off as a history or English literature major", please give us specific examples of statements you want cited (note, I haven't yet read the article, but since you're the expert, your help would be appreciated). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Criterion 1. c. is concrete last time I checked WP:WIAFA. I 110% disagree with Yomangani on that point, and would heavily protest its FAR removal.


 * The Palladian architecture FAR was a pathetic farce, and one of the most unfunny jokes on Wikipedia. It's by no means excellent, nor is this. I'm frankly disgusted of the kind of joke that specific FAR was, and this one will seem to be. I hope Marskell isn't bullied this time into closing this one; by the way, and when people ask this time for specific statements that need citations I'm perfectly willing to give them - even though I'll be falsely accused of WP:POINT. 1. c. isn't met here, it's in black and white. Don't think I'll be bullied into keeping quiet like last time.


 * Oh, and before anyone goes on about Harvard citations, blah blah blah, there isn't any whatsoever in the article. The "References" section has just a list of books - no page numbers, no nothing, and even Harvard citations list page numbers. Finally, before anyone suggests I read WP:CIVIL (like is their two-faced, hypocritical trend), I recommend them look further into themselves before hypocritically accusing me. This is all I have to say on the subject - this isn't round two of the bullshit debate on inline citations, this is a review of whether this article meets criterion 1. c. This doesn't. LuciferMorgan 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is a lovely party you guys have going on here. I was going to contribute some two-faced bullshit or other, blah blah blah, but never mind, the to-do list is too long anyway. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Lucifer, I don't recommend adding fact tags; it's Mattb's nomination, and his userpage says he's proficient in the topic&mdash;let him do it. The problem with the Palladian FAR was that the nominator himself didn't back up the request for citations; let Mattb back it up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aye, and the last time with the Palladian FAR a bunch of people were bullied around, and Marskell ended up wrongly closing the FAR. It seems the same suspects from that FAR are now trying to get this one closed also, and if I have to point out specific statements that need citation to avoid that happening, I will. This article fails 1. c., and I don't see why this FAR should be closed when a ton of other articles have had to strive their backsides off to meet 1. c. LuciferMorgan 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:DICK has been mentioned; it would have been less of an issue if the original nominator had backed up the request for citations. Mattb wants citations, Mattb knows the topic; Mattb, please provide examples where citations are needed.  Thanks,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well long as this one doesn't end up being wrongly closed; I'll keep an eye on the page. I hope Mattb doesn't end up getting pushed around - it's something I disagree with and don't tolerate. LuciferMorgan 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucifer, I see no-one abusing you, hypocritically or otherwise. I see you arriving on this page full of hostility.  Please tone it down and try and argue your point with some logic. Regarding your allegations Marskell was not bullied, The Palladian architecture FAR was not a pathetic farce, it was merely an argument that you lost.  You say Palladian architecture and Restoration literature are " by no means excellent, nor is this" while I'm not going to comment on the quality of Palladian Arch in my view this is excellent.  I don't come down hear to the basement of Wikipedia very often, but when I do all I seem to see is you shouting.  Please try to improve your debating skills. Giano 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be untrue for me to claim significant proficiency in this area (my user page doesn't indicate WHY I would've been better off as an English lit major, and this isn't about me). However, per your reasonable request, here are a few that might be cited: I can continue if you wish, but I don't want to clutter up this page unless you really want me to find every statement that should be cited. Other than this citation issue, it's a most excellent, thorough, and well written article. A bit of citation work and I'm sure this can retain its FA status. Let's not villify me, I'm only trying to uphold the same standard that is being retroactively applied to many FAs. -- mattb
 * Lead: "In general, the term is used to denote roughly homogeneous styles of literature that centre on a celebration of or reaction to the restored court of Charles II." -- Says whom? I agree with this statement, but the unacquainted might not.
 * "Thus, the "Restoration" in drama may last until 1700, while in poetry it may last only until 1666 and the annus mirabilis; and in prose it might end in 1688, with the increasing tensions over succession and the corresponding rise in journalism and periodicals, or not until 1700, when those periodicals grew more stabilised." -- Need some citations for these very particular statements.
 * Under "The restoration and its initial reaction": "When Charles II came to the throne in 1660, the sense of novelty in all forms of literature was tempered by a sense of suddenly participating in European literature in a way that England had not before."
 * "Charles II was a man who prided himself on his wit and his worldliness." -- Should be easy to cite
 * "He was well known as a philanderer as well." -- Known by whom?
 * "The Restoration is an unusual historical period, as its literature is bounded by a specific political event: the restoration of the Stuart monarchy." -- A very important point; deserves a citation
 * "His Gondibert was of epic length, and it was admired by Hobbes." -- Provide a citation sourcing Hobbes' admiration
 * No villification intended, Matt - just pointing out that talk is cheap; reasoned action on difficult cases is harder. If you bring an article to FAR for lack of citation only, you should be prepared to back up the citation needs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I really need to help point out every statement that might be cited, I'll gladly do so.  However, I do think the other authors can extrapolate a bit in figuring out which factual statements should be verified in-line. -- mattb
 * Well, I hate English almost as much as I hate architecture (should be evident from my tortured prose); I'm happy to put cite tags on medical, engineering, math, political or bio articles for example, but not here. I suggest you see how those requests go, and then add more as work progresses.Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, the traffic in Dubai makes for a bad day. And I just knew I'd log back in and find a fucking mess on this review.


 * I very much hope matt didn't post this as an exercise in point, but I will AGF and not remove the review. Remember, it's four weeks—at the worst nothing happens to the content, at best it improves (there's no perfect article, after all).


 * And this is an excellent article.


 * "...written in precisely the way someone who probably knows nothing about the subject would have written them." Giano (and anybody and everybody), please shelve statements of this sort. It's insulting, obviously, and you'll only ever be able to say "probably" because this is the internet and you could be posting to the Pope or a trained dog. Further, that Wikipedia is maximized for readers over editors, and a general audience over specialists, is a long-standing principle; the people who know "nothing about the subject" matter as much as the people who know a great deal (an ideal review would have both types commenting). It's excellent that this was written by someone with expertise in the topic, but it's still fair for someone to ask "can you unpack and/or source this cause I don't get it". To that end:


 * I do think a group of a well-placed "see, for instance" notes would be good for an article covering this much ground at this level of generality. If everybody has said something, point to a spot that has said it well or at length. But perhaps discussing where to do that should wait until we get past the existential questioning of FAR that has (inevitably) come up.


 * Oh, and Lucifer, we've gone over this: FARs don't get closed because of bullying. Marskell 18:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Marskell, we've also gone over this; I think Palladian architecture getting closed was a joke, and no matter how many times you repeat your reasons for closing that one, I still think they happen to be rubbish. Many people didn't even comment because of people throwing their weight around on that FAR, and it was pathetic. Let's get one thing straight; this article currently fails criterion 1. c., and has time to improve it. If it doesn't end up meeting 1. c., it should get closed. I happen to think all the other closes you've ever made were correct, but that one definitely wasn't. And I clearly, 110% remember picking out specific statements that needed citation, only Giano point blank refused to cite them.


 * These are my opinions, and I apologize in advance to Marskell for my opinions regarding the Palladian FAR. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Giano saying for me arriving on this page full of hostility, perhaps he should remember the bullshit crap he pulled last time with Palladian architecture (but he does remember, only conveniently forgets) - oh, but silly me, I forgot, every time he gets in trouble he actually gets his admin friends to help him out of bother. Silly of me to forget that oversight. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't popped over already to fight his corner - this FAR is early though, so I expect an appearance. Improve my debating skills? That's a laugh - as for FAR being "the basement of Wikipedia", you and your circle throwing your weight around are the basement of Wikipedia. I've been told via different sources about you, your antics and your Wikipedia friends bailing you out of trouble all the time, and I won't let you push me around like you did last time. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are going to have a slanging match, might I suggest the talk page as a venue, rather than the FAR. The seats are much more comfortable and popcorn is on sale in the lobby. Yomangani talk 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * LuciferMorgan, so far I have seen you violate NPA and AGF to a degree I have rarely seen except with trolls. You state you "will not tolerate" mattb being "bullied" or "pushed around" - wth is your issue? Disagreement is not "bullying" or "pushing around." Further, your incredibly rude comment to Giano about "bullshit crap" is precisely that - trolling. Finally, you insult every admin who has ever viewed Giano in a positive light by your blanket assessment of "Giano's admin friends" - do you, in fact, have anything to do besides attempt to pee on people's toes here and start a fight? This is FAR, please confine your comments to addressing any concerns you have with the article, and attempt to restrain yourself from attempting to start a fight with your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would hope that nobody is intending to start an altercation here; it would be very unfortunate if anyone were to engage in any sort of inflammatory behavior in the course of this review. I strongly suggest that everyone here keep the fact that we're all working together to create a great encyclopedia in mind, and act in a courteous and dignified manner. Kirill Lokshin 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at Lucifer's eloquent comments perhaps it would be a good idea if he was prevented from editing this page for a while. I shall not be responding to Lucifer's baiting here or anywhere else on this occasion. I have made my valid point on this review, so there is nothing more for me to say on the subject. Giano 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing else to say on the subject either. Time and time again, the point I made above has been proved right. And if you felt sufficient cause for my blocking, you'd only inform your friend Bishonen to block me, who happens to also unblock you whenever another admin blocks you. I'm not falling for your bait either. LuciferMorgan 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan has apologised to Bishonen for the remark immediately above here. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ALoan, I find your implication quite misleading. LM has apologized to me, yes. Not AFAIK to Giano, the person he's principally attacking above. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I take your point and have amended my comment above (although I think the main thrust of that comment was to expand the range of his ire, from Giano and Marskell to include you). It would be nice for LuciferMorgan to actually retract the comment that he made about you here, like Paul August requested some time ago.


 * In case there is any doubt, I agree with Yomangani, KillerChihuahua and Kirill Lokshin that many of LM's comments above ("pathetic farce", "bullshit crap", "rubbish") fall far below the standard of debate that I would expect to see here. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I second Kirill's comments above. Negative comments about other editors have no place here. Paul August &#9742; 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1
I didn't open this FAR to ignite a powder keg. Can we get back to talking about the citation problem in this article rather than engaging in this arm waving contest? If I understand correctly, an objection to adding citations to this article is that there are several subsidary articles linked that contain additional references. While that's fine, there are still many statements in this article that should be cited in their own rite. As has been mentioned, there's no way to dodge the fact that FAs require in-line citations now. -- mattb
 * The article is referenced at the end...does every FA on wiki have to look like a college term paper? I don't accuse anyone of bad faith, and I almost universally use cited refs for all my work, but there is no policy demanding I do so, nor is there a policy saying that FA's must use footnotes or inline citations to my knowledge. I would like to see the policy that demands that FA's have inline cites.--MONGO 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "FAs require inline citations now" is true, but misses half the point; FAs require inline citations where appropriate, which is sufficiently vague as to admit a huge range of interpretations. This wording has been fairly consistent over time (the word "appropriate" was added two years ago today, incidentally). If you asked me to evaluate this article in terms of the requirements actually laid out in the featured article requirements, I would say it more or less meets them in its current state. At the same time, however, the standards on inline citation which are practically applied at FAC and FARC have become stricter, especially in the last 6-7 months. This article probably does not meet them simply due to its low density of specific citation.
 * Whether this increased strictness results in better featured articles, and whether it makes sense in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are two questions which don't have conclusive answers. The fact that the standards have historically evolved by creeping upward in the individual FAC rooms, rather than through a broad discussion at the criteria page and explicit amendment of the criteria, means there is no obvious consensus behind any particular interpretation. That "FAs require in-line citations" is evident, but the vagueness of that criterion means it is not obvious whether this article falls afoul of it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that an excellently written article that is referenced will either require the author(s) to have to retrieve all the sources and comb through them to find precise references if fact tags are peppered everywhere. I don't dispute that the cited refs are now "expected", only that since this isn't a scientific treatise with tons of facts and figures, it doesn't seem to me that not having cited refs is sufficent grounds for removing this from the FA ranks.--MONGO 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [after two conflicts] Indeed, WP:WIAFA says "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations ...; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." It previously required "extensive use of inline citations" - there is discussion in the early talk page archives (here and here).  Some of Filiocht's comments from two years ago are pithily relevant ("Is this an encyclopaedia or a set of academic papers? If the former, then inline references are inappropriate, if the latter, lets change the name." ... "Over-referencing gets in the way of most people who use an encyclopaedia").  It is also a perennial topic at WT:FAC (such as this from April 2005).


 * Nothing, as far as I am aware, tells you when it is "appropriate" to add inline citations. WP:V simply requires that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" but does not say how that should be done.  WP:IC does not help very much. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we workshop (perhaps off this page) specific places where inline citations are appropriate? Or is this article perfect? Marskell 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To add, as the last was terse: editors above aren't arguing for an academic paper or for an encyclopedia article, exactly. They're arguing for something equivalent to a section introduction in the Norton Anthology. Fair enough--but even the Norton Anthology has explanatory notes. There are specific spots in this article that could use them. Marskell 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Marskell asked earlier about a workpage, but no one responded; shall we clear the popcorn from the lobby on the talk page and use it? I don't want to type up my requests, comments, finds and questions about specific citations needed on this page, as it has already become quite long. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to participate in this if the article editors are. So far I'm not buying any of the arguments that this article is exempt from the need for citations, however. -- mattb


 * I've come up with a list of concerns/questions, and will type them up when work gets underway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would argue that it is exempt from the requirements, but it is certainly possible to argue that it meets them. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for Geogre to say more. Marskell 14:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I was very impressed with the quality of this article. As a literary scholar, I am often dismayed by the quality of the literature articles on wikipedia. When I began writing my own articles (I usually end up writing pages all by my lonesome), I was shocked by the citation requirements. In academic writing, one does not cite EVERY claim - certain claims are so well known or accepted that there is no need to cite them. I understand that wikipedia needs to establish its legitimacy in the world, though, and one way to do that is to prove that its articles are verifiable down to the last detail. So, I pushed up my sleeves, piled up my books and put in a staggeringly high number of references. Like many of the commentators above, I believe that this article should be retained as an FA because of its quality, but if wikepedia is going to succeed, it is going to have prove itself. It is still at that stage. Perhaps someday it won't have to anymore. One can only hope. In the meantime, whoever wrote the article (I take it, it is primarily one person), should indeed dust off his Christopher Hill and add in the references (tiresome as it may be). Awadewit 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone would say that having to add a lot of citations and references is a pleasant thing, but that's simply the benchmark for featuring an article nowadays. It's a good thing in some ways, even if it does make writing a bit more annoying. -- mattb


 * Move to FARC &mdash; the article still lacks inline citations; no work has been done on the article (despite the fact that there's been plenty of bickering here, which frankly, I couldn't care less about). There are also some very minor prose issues, such as vauge terms of size and perhaps some misplaced formality. Those parentheticals should be turned into notes, and two copy-editors should take this opportunity to give it a quick tune-up if needed. It's a very nice article, and a lot has gone into it, but it still needs to be modernized. I understand a lot of people prefer parenthetical references, and I was taught in high school that they were superior, but the overwhelming majority of articles do not use that system. If there is not going to be consensus to parentheticals, then at least give this article a quick fixing as aforementioned. Either way, let's face the fact that the citation system is not a big deal, and shouldn't have resulted in all this bickering. &mdash; Deckiller 11:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC per Deckiller's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove FA status. Sadly no work has been done to address the concerns. -- mattb
 * Unfotunate Remove &mdash; 1c. &mdash; Deckiller 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing wrong with this page whatsoever. Giano 13:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The concerns were rejected, but the article is a Featured Article.  Geogre 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove per criterion 1c, which is part of the featured article criteria the last time I checked. Standards have evolved and improved since this was nominated. As for the concerns being rejected, yes they were - nobody did the work and the concerns are still there. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A first rate article. Paul August &#9742; 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't an appropriate use of FAR as far as I'm concerned. To me me this is like chopping down entire forests because a few deviant (and rather insignificant) trees fail to please everyone. / Peter Isotalo 10:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is exaggeration. Honestly consider whether this article in its current state would pass through FAC again.  Without some kind of inline references to verify many of the factual statements, it would not receive support to pass.  It's not our practice to allow old articles to be grandfathered in to their FA status. -- mattb
 * How can you possibly know that? I would certainly vote for it, as would, I suspect, many others. Giano 13:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not sure this is the right question to ask. It assumes that the interpretation of standards applied at FAC is 100% correct, which might not be the case. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove - Yes, it is a first rate article, I like it when reading it, but unfortunately this article does not satisfy WP:WIAFA (1.c) to retain FA status, as has been concerned in the FAR review above. To be more specific, and just for examples, I like to know at least one pointer to the source of the Historical context and content section. It's a compeling story, but is it verifiable? In the Top-down history section, it sounds an observation asserted by the editor to me by reading the following sentences: "Therefore, a top-down view of the literary history of the Restoration has more validity than that of most literary epochs. "The Restoration" as a critical concept covers the duration of the effect of Charles and Charles's manner. This effect extended beyond his death, in some instances, and not as long as his life, in others.", if there are no inline citations. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining what I've been unable to say; inline citations improve verifiability, and FAs need to show Wikipedia's top quality in all aspects, including verifiability. &mdash; Deckiller 11:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And they also alienate non-academics and needlessly distract the reader from the text when applied gratuitously, which now almost has the status of hard policy thanks to all those general "not enough inlines"-objections in FAC:s and FAR:s. Usually by people who wouldn't be caught dead actually looking up any of those sources. How often does anyone really object on account of excessive use of footnotes? And don't tell us we don't have those kinds of articles all over the place. Those are prime examples of highly inappropriate use of footnotes. Peter Isotalo 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter, I don't ask editors to litter the article with footnotes for every statements. Am I "inappropriate" by asking only one pointer to the source of the History section? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you've noticed that this review has turned into a lot more than a discussion about a pointer to just one fact statement. (Or was that a rather logical summary which isn't the kind of thing you really need to cite?) What drives me absolutely bonkers about these debacles, is that if one attempts to object to an FAC on account of obvious abuse of footnotes, like in Vancouver, one generally gets pummeled by finger-waggers who stress that it already has a zillion footnotes and is therefore immaculate and free of any blame. If I were to submit the same article for FAR on account of the citation mess I'm sure I'd get a dozen people huffing and puffing about point-making and be considered a destructive crank. And still... Articles like Scotland in the High Middle Ages or Jaguar, even if informative and well-written, are not just meticulous in referencing, but overly pedantic, and not in the least considerate of readers who aren't savvy bibliomaniacs. Restoration literature actually attempts to present the subject as a summary, a ready-to-read treat of an article, not the reading assignment from Hell. But instead of being praised for this fairly unique feat, it gets dragged into FAR and treated like a deviant curiosity by editors like Morgan and Marskell. / Peter Isotalo 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, at FAR above the discussion was dragged far away, that's why I didn't make any comments there. So I hope you are not going to drag this FARC into that way. I never refered this debacle to Vancouver or any other articles you mentioned, and I believe not anybody else either. I don't WP:POINT and never will. Please read a thoughtful remarks by Deckiller below. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say or mean to say that the examples of pedantically referenced examples had to be dragged into this decision nor that you tried to disrupt to make a point. I did, however, wished to draw attention to a glaring inconsistency in the general reasoning applied here. Saying that this article isn't top notch and well-referenced and needs to be stricken from the list of the best articles on Wikipedia is disproportionate from the aims of the project, and the idea that almost anyone can demand pedantic citations of just about anything with only the motivation "yeah, well, I didn't know that" and a specification of a fact statement needs to be re-assessed. Questioning something based more or less entirely on ignorance is useful at times, but in a lot of instances it's really just a matter of not having done one's homework properly. / Peter Isotalo 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am wondering whether you really have read a thoughtful Deckiller's comment below. All my wish for you is to read that carefully, because nothing more I can say to your complaints. People are working with the article, so everybody here is just waiting for the final result. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say about Deckiller's post that hasn't already been said. And are you actually serious about doubting the outcome of the closing result? If this thing gets removed despite all the brouhaha, the FAR process is clearly broken. / Peter Isotalo 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I look up sources on some articles actually, and I echo what Deckiller and Indon feel. LuciferMorgan 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Some articles..."? I would think that a committed FA reviewer would take a self-assigned task a bit more seriously. Perhaps you should start focusing on articles that you actually have time to give fair reviews. If the authors took all that time researching and writing the article, what makes you think you have the right to demote them en masse with only a minimum of effort?
 * Peter Isotalo 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Re the two related threads above: not to bias the closure with many days left, but my opinion is that it should be removed if nothing happens to it and then immediately returned to FAC. This article fails the interpretation of 1c that has been imposed on apx. the last 200 FAR/C closures, and to keep it would mean a re-interpretation of the criteria through this process. If that is to happen, it should happen at FAC, the main FA page, not here. Marskell 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. If the criteria that we have been using for FAR needs to be revised, it should be tested on FAC per your comments. -- mattb
 * Comment This is not a support for keeping, but it's a strong oppose to the opposers. I love that passive voice!  It "has been applied" for 200 articles.  By whom?  Anyone ever heard of the appeal to tradition?  You might want to look in logical fallacies for it.  Facts are fact, and 1c doesn't say what you folks think it does.  However, FARC doesn't have the power to resubmit a FAC.  Some people think 1c means "footnotes," and some people read it and see that it doesn't mean "footnotes."  Seems like consensus would need to be determined in order to remove this article.  There isn't a consensus on "1c means footnotes," so this can't be removed from FA status.  Work on convincing people or going through the policy process, but don't try to proclaim by fiat.  Utgard Loki 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about, TBH. No one opposing has mentioned "footnotes". Marskell 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody here has tried to claim that 1c requires footnotes. That's just a straw man that has been brought up several times.  If you scroll up and read a bit, you'll see that parenthetical references (ala Harvard) are fine as well.  The issue is that this article lacks inline citations for many of its assertions, not that it lacks footnotes.  Please save your trivializing our concerns as a narrow interpretation until you've read what we're actually asking for. -- mattb
 * How would you characterize that interpretation of 1(c)? It would be useful, if we intend to implement that interpretation universally, to actually put it into the criteria and see if there is consensus for it as a general proposition. If there is, it would then be trivial to bring this article back to FARC and remove it. This would seem preferable to your suggested course of action. Contrary to your statement, IMO, a keep result here would not be redefining the criteria. On the contrary, a remove result would redefine the criteria since it would imply that the "appropriate" level of citation is subject to some particular external standard, above the discussion among the participants in the FAC/FARC. A keep result would simply affirm the existing notion that the appropriate level is subject to discussion. (Of course, this assumes that the sentiment here is indeed that the citation level is appropriate. I myself have not had the chance to take a very detailed read of the article.) Christopher Parham (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Frankly, I feel pity for such a high written-quality article to loose its FA status. If I can do it by myself, really, then I will add inline citations, as I've done with Kakapo & Comet Hyakutake. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 17:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that would be ideal and very much appreciated Indon. As we (should) all know "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." This page is, in large part, only descriptive and the primary works are cited in-line. But the analysis needs citing—forget FA, the content policies say so. The history section has been noted thrice, and there are other spots: "If "Restoration literature" is the literature that reflects and reflects upon the court of Charles II, Restoration drama arguably ends... " and subsequent, for instance. Marskell 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If those arguing against 1c feel I and others are wrong, I welcome them to resubmit this to FAC and see how it fares... LuciferMorgan 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You will be releived to know Lucifer, that there seems little chance of that happening . I think the chances of you being able to turn your attentions to pages of this calibre again are very slim indeed. Giano 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to this discussion? Loudly lamenting won't help anybody.  May I suggest you folks try my approach: don't worry about the FA process any more.  I no longer aim to write FAs because of the level of citation required, but that doesn't mean I can't still write good articles.  Don't think you're the only folks who have had FA badges removed from their hard work because the standards now include inline references. -- mattb


 * Keep inline citations are not a compulsory requirement for FA's, the article is one of wikipedias best. While we're here - who judged consensus from the FAR? Reading the above, it hardly seems that there was a significant majority in favour of moving this to FARC. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that decision, but if I had to venture a guess, it would be because the author of the article basically stated his intention to do nothing to address the concerns. -- mattb
 * Yes but the consensus was the concerns weren't valid - this FARC is out of process. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would respond to Mattb with, "So?" Is that what FAR is about?  I have to be contrite?  I have to please everyone who has anything to say?  I wasn't aware that that was part of things.  I disagree with the concerns.  I regard them as wholly invalid.  Those things that could be improved I probably will improve, but on the timetable that my work and volunteering allows.  Is the big, scary FAR going to make me bend a knee and wheedle?  Nah.  So, if all it takes is any unhappy person to de-list a featured article, I have some serious unhappiness with the FA's of the last "200."  I would happily object to useless footnotes, to clutter, to ungrammatical sentences passing by the "copyeditors" who live at FAC, etc.
 * Now, where things can be improved, I will improve them, but these do not include if/then causality statements that are simple matters of logic and not of citation. It's stunning to see people afraid of a conclusion, and I can only rejoice that I do not have to deal with such timorousness.  On the other hand, the people who are unhappy with this article are straining and struggling to come up with something/anything with which they can batter it.  Why?  Is it my "ego" or theirs?  Why should they care?  Do they know of any errors in the article (there is one)?  Do they know of any conclusions not widely reported in the secondary literature?  Do they have any reason to suspect that there are false claims being made?  Do we need to put a footnote up to prove that Ohm's Law is V/I/R?  Do we need a footnote to say that the Restoration is the reaction to Charles II's restoration to the British throne?  These are the same level of absurdity.
 * I do not object to having review by people who do not know the field, of course. I do object to being ordered about and told how I should write, how I should speak, and what I may say by people so unaware of the area that they do not even understand what is meant by top-down history, much less have the capacity to assess whether or not that is a controversial subject.  Why have I announced that I'm not interested in making wholesale changes in dressing on the article to keep them happy?  Guess.
 * When one does not know the score entirely, it's good to confer. Look at this article's translation history.  Has it been translated into other wiki's?  How have they responded to it?  Are we the only ones blessed and enlightened enough to know that this isn't an FA because there are no footnotes?  Are those other wiki's cursed with ignorance for honoring it?  Again, could the hubris perhaps, just perhaps, reside nearer to your home than all that?  Regardless of how you answer these questions for yourselves, my answer is unambiguous.  You don't like it.  So?  You don't like my response.  So?  No one has to like things.  We just have to act properly and dispassionately.  Geogre 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm really not out on a personal vendetta against you, I'm just trying to uphold what I (and others) perceive to be the standard for featured articles, namely, sufficient inline citations to allow any lay person to easily verify the information in the article. I do apologize for any undue duress I've caused you by asking that this article be held to the same standard we've been holding other articles to, and it's not as if I think these standards are perfect.
 * However, if I may respectfully say so, your response reeks of arrogance. Yes, you do have to please reviewers in the FA process.  You often have to bend over backwards to their every whim to get articles to pass (unless of course you have enough friends to snowball the vote, but let's ignore that nicety).  I don't find it to be particularly equanimous, but it's the same ordeal everyone has to put up with.  Myself and others did try to point out areas in this article that we feel merit inline citations, and I think (despite some of the shouting and distractions) that we tried to be reasonable about it.  You disagree that our concerns need to be addressed, and I fully respect that.  However, I don't think that the article as it currently stands meets up to FA standards for citations and by extension verifiability, and thus my vote to remove.  I have nothing against you or this finely written article, but neither you or your article are above being held to the same standards all other FAs are being held to.  Look at Enzyme, Germany, El Greco, California Gold Rush, Bacteria, and practically any other recently featured article.  Is all the work put into inline references in these articles for naught?  If the level of citation in Restoration literature is sufficient, why do all new FAs meet a much higher (only in the sense of detail of citations, not article quality per se) standard?  If the standards or our interpretation of them need to change, then maybe this issue should be discussed in the appropriate place, but I disagree that the view of inline references we are promoting here is out of line with the community's FA standards. -- mattb
 * Keep of course. "A featured article exemplifies our very best work..." - enough said. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; I am extremely offended, surprised, and worried by the lack of professionalism being displayed with some of our better article writers, some of whom I looked up to for inspiration when I started becoming interested in the FA process in January 2006. FAR reviewers have been called "moronic" and "lunatic", yet we have not name-called any of you; all we have done is provided peer review for the articles that you have worked on, among numerous others. Getting the work reviewed and compared with current standards is part of being a Wikipedia editor, and it should not detract from the article writing. Heck, if I had been like that, I would've stopped contributing in August 2005; I quickly learned that FA status does provide an incentive to get your name known, contribute to the project's creditbility as a whole, and get the right to brag on the userpage (which is in some way the driving force behind humanity), but that's where it stops. Do not hold back on this project if you are purposely holding back; it only pointlessly hurts the project, the community, and yourself. It only serves as a speedy defense mechanism for the ego. Heck, when I have time later in the year, I plan on putting several FAs I've worked on through the review process to give them the modernized treatment they deserve to prevent such arguments like these from happening at an inconvienent time.


 * The key is to suspend egos and work on the articles (note the absence of the word "my" or "your"). Approach all articles because they belong to the project and the community as a whole, not the individual. Please consider these words and realize that we are not intending to destroy "your" work; we are intending to bring up one of Wikipedia's articles to generally accepted standards (that is, standards outside just one group of established editors). If you want to write articles on personal standards alone, then you have picked the wrong project and medium, although I truly hope an awakening occurs in several editors that this project as a whole is worth more than the article ownership.


 * Wikipedia parallels business in many ways, and in business, one cannot dwell in the past. One has to move along with the currents and accept change as it comes; only then will someone realize the full benefits. Not a single edit was made to this article during this review (except one by Marskell). How will you know how much the article will be improved if you have not actually bothered to work on it? This review has not been used to improve the article; instead, it's turned into a political slugfest, and all of us should be ashamed with ourselves for letting it not only get this far, but nobody stepping up to the plate and at least making this article better even the slightest while on review. However, heads are in nostalgia or stubbornland, and efforts to take advantage of this review even in the slightest have not been seen. Several FARCers have offered a compromise; add more inlines, but not necessarily footnotes. It's a very reasonable request and something that should be taken with honor, knowing that people care enough about this work to want to see it be attributed properly!


 * You see, people get it wrong when they say that the "FARC lunatics" want to destroy Wikipedia's featured content. I've been on both sides of the fence; I know both perspectives. The reviewers have become able to put their egos aside when working on an article from a community accepted standard; this allows them to feel even better once the work is done, knowing that they have satisfied the whole, which may actually be better than satisfying the personal wishes. In essense, the reviewers in general know both sides (the writer and the reviewer), and so they might have reached such a level that they sound too harsh or rude, although it is not their intention (they just misjudge others reaching that level of ego suspension).


 * Wikipedia helps people realize that life is about making compromises and going with the accepted principles, or starting a large motion to change those. It is indeed a reflection of real life (or what used to be called real life; the internet is indeed real life now), and it is not just a distant outpost now. Perhaps Wikipedia has become too much of a wide community for some to handle, which is understandable and regrettable. I don't want to sound like a "conform of be cast out" kind of person, but in a sense, that is a true statement; we must learn to conform while injecting our ideas to forward the norm. Good norms change over time; they don't stay the same, as we've seen with Wikipedia referencing. So it is pointless to hold articles back when you may have to face the fact that if you've done that work, you might as well place it; then, the decision becomes to stay or not. Please think this through. &mdash; Deckiller 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you find unfounded accusations of egotism consistent with a professional atmosphere? I remark on this only because I think you are contributing significantly to the unnecessary personalization of this discussion.
 * To address the content of your statement, I think it takes for granted a number of things that are not widely agreed upon. For instance, you take as given that the standard employed at FAR, which would reject this article, is in fact "community accepted." I see little evidence of this. Certainly it is accepted by FAR and FAC regulars, but that is not the community -- to adopt your language, it is rather a particular group of established editors. Further, you assume that the recommendations made here would improve the article, and that therefore not working on them is offensive and unhelpful. I am even more suspicious of this assumption; many people are rejecting the suggested changes on the grounds that they contribute little or nothing to the quality of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that adding citations - whether they be footnotes or parentheticals, it doesn't matter - does not add "little" to the quality of the article; it is necessary for Attribution. I am echoing concerns that statements need to be cited, but the current inline format is not the problem; the problem is that more are needed to ensure attribution, such as quotes and other similar statements to avoid what may seem is original research. People are rejecting this simple request, without giving any reasons other than "footnotes are bad" (which is not even what we're asking for!) and "this is a good article". Heck, one of Marsekll's first comments was that this article uses Harvard referening and should expand on that referencing; Harvard referencing = parenthetical references. If I had the books, I'd add parentheticals myself during the review process to at least provide some sort of moderization. Elonka stated the time issue below; Featured Articles must represent the best we have, obviously, but that also means adhering to policy (if Ignore All Rules was so great, then why not even bother to reference at all? Brittannica doesn't!). It's not double the time, Elonka, it's taking half an hour to go through the books and find pages to make the material much more attributable. All we asked for this review was a polishing, and this has been blown out of proportion (myself included, methinks), resulting in many of us voting remove due to lack of work.&mdash; Deckiller 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From Attribution: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable. Can we please put our opinions aside and try to work on making what needs to be attributable...attrubutable? I'm tempted to go to the library today myself. &mdash; Deckiller 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a high quality article, and I think that if Wikipedia had more articles of exactly this level of quality, that would be A Good Thing. The level of referencing is appropriate for this type of academic, non-controversial topic. Where pop culture or a very controversial subject is involved, I think that a higher standard of referencing is a good idea, especially where living people are involved. But just because some articles require detailed referencing, doesn't mean that we should force that standard on all articles. Our workforce is not comprised of professional paid editors -- we're working with volunteer labor here, and there's a limit to how much time that volunteer hobbyists can put into a particular project. To further raise the minimum standards for a "great" article, to the point of ejecting perfectly good articles for minor reasons, is a bad idea. Do we have that much competition here for featured articles, that we can afford to be this picky?  Do our best editors and writers have that much free time, that rather than allowing them to go on to work on new articles, we are going to require that they double the time they need to spend on already-good articles? I think that their time would be much better spent elevating the status of other mediocre articles, rather than trying to polish up an already good article to some sort of Olympian standard.  As for whether this might weaken the definition of what a "Featureable" article is, well, would it really be a problem if every article on Wikipedia were "only" at the level of Restoration Literature?  I personally think that that would be a very fine problem to have. --Elonka 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Excellent article. An impressive feat to contain such different periods and movements in one short article.

On the question whether a consensus keep for this article would disrupt the "rules", I don't think that matters, since "Ignore All Rules" is one of the wisest policies on Wikipedia, especially where good-faith editors disagree. I have much respect for the people who regularly assess at FAR and FAC and am not polarised in that regard. qp10qp 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not yet read this article thoroughly, and so have no intelligent opinion on whether to keep or remove it. (I do hope those advocating removal above have all put in the prerequisite thorough reading....) In general, the referencing standards in articles ought to conform to the referencing standards of the academic discipline to which the article's topic belongs; as far as I understand, this article meets that standard. While a few notes might be helpful here, it's unfortunate that aggressive referencing inflation has taken a rare example of a well-written and well-organized overview article and turned it into the nth battle of the FA culture wars. It's very easy to demand more references, and very easy to think highly of those who do it as defenders of high quality and high standards, and much more difficult to think about whether your demands are reasonable, or well-informed, or applicable in context. Making this an adversarial situation in the first place - 'do what I say or I'll de-star your article!' - is lame, trying to pick fights is lame, and yes, stubbornly refusing to consider the possibility of a note or two because other people are being lame, is still lame. Opabinia regalis 06:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep having had a chance to read the article, it's quite nicely written and has no outstanding substantive issues that would merit delisting. (Yes, including the much-argued 'arguably'. IMO that sentence and the two that follow are flowery and overdramatic, but 'too many rhetorical flourishes' is not a reason for delisting an article. Currently, the most visible remaining issue is a phrase that appears in quotation marks without attribution, but is simple enough that it may not be a quotation, and at any rate is substantiated in the linked article.) Opabinia regalis 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ho-hum.
 * Re Mcginnly's query, they get moved down unless there's unanimity, which there wasn't.
 * Re "interpreting criteria", "community standards" etc.: I interpret WIAFA article in light of the content policies. For instance, quotations must attributed, and this article has a few that are not. This is not some radical innovation of people at FAR—it's a long-standing community consensus. If we could get past rhetoric, I think the referencing demands would appear quite reasonable. Marskell 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Just read it and it is excellent. No inline citations and I don't see how that matters. I use inline cites only because articles (well, almost all my work is a bunch of stubs) I write are filled with measurements and other numerical issues...but I see many advantages to not having inline citations:
 * The article looks better without a bunch of little numbers all over the place.
 * When one opens the editing window, they aren't confronted with a mass of crazy looking cite web formats that make it harder for newer editors to edit anyway.
 * The article looks like one that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia instead of one that is a undergrad college term paper.
 * Lastly...there is no policy that demands we use inline citations...only that an article be referenced...and this one is.--MONGO 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Random section break

 * Keep as soon as possible. This long since stopped being a discussion about whether this article is of superior standard (it is: a few missing citations do not detract from its overall excellence), or whether it needs a few citations (it does: a few, not littering with them). It is now, predictably, a forum for the advocates of inline citation to butt heads with those who oppose it. There are points well made on either side but it's all too heated and in all the discussion there are only a few lines concerned with the article itself. The lovely "where appropriate" has hung us out to dry, but this isn't the place to have the discussion of how to deal with it. Keep the article, let's have the discussion, and when we are all agreed (don't hold your breath) let's look at it again. Yomangani talk 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Spot on - this whole debate is about how many parenthetical citations are "appropriate", although the application of that test to this article has been rather lost in the argument. It is perhaps worth noting again that the "where appropriate" language in WP:WIAFA was deliberately chosen instead of "extensive" inline citations.  -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; we are taking matters into our own hands and improving this article, although like I said above, the footnote system is not necessary (but I am only one person). Gzkn and Marskell have started work on the references and have added citation needed tags, and I plan on initiating a copy-edit tonight. &mdash; Deckiller 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we"? Has this debate really polarised into "us" and "them"?  You know this is a wiki, right?  So any editor can edit pretty much any article?  You will be aware that this article is widely regarded as excellent, so I trust you will take all reasonable care in making your "improvements". -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "We" as in the group of (as of right now) three editors working on the article... The Wiki comment is not really necessary, because "we" refers to that group, and groups of people collaborate all the time (like with WikiProjects and collaborations of the week). But perhaps it is turning into "us" and them"; rather, the ones willing to give the article a tuneup versus the ones who are resistant to even editing the article. The article will be attributed and checked like any other. &mdash; Deckiller 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, it does, now. Last time I checked, Gkzn and Marskell are working on it. I will strike my vote into keep as soon as they finish the work. I am waiting for their updates. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here; I'm going to give the article a quick copy-edit with a couple other users later today. &mdash; Deckiller 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gzkn appears to be doing the heavy lifting, so we'll wait and see. There's some minor redundancies and typographical stuff being cleaned up. Don't worry, the Sturm und Drang shall pass and it will almost certainly be kept now that it's been engaged. Marskell 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been participating since I'm traveling, have limited internet access, and it didn't look like deficiencies would be addressed; since someone is working on it, I will find a high-speed connection and type up my notes later this week. From memory, there are problems with attributing opinions on the definition of the Restoration period (not all sources agree with the time frames put forward in this article, so the definitions should be attributed with inline citations&mdash;how are uninvolved editors going to find cites for the definitions used in the article? the sources I have differ, and by the way, why isn't some of that information discussed in the main Restoration article?), weasle words around the unsourced opinions, and some prose reorganization is needed&mdash;for example, I recall the "United Company" is named several paragraphs after it is first mentioned, and the patent holders are discussed in several different places that could be better tied together. I made some other notes which I'll type up if work is underway. Considering the article has unattributed and uncited opinion that is not backed by other sources, it's unfortunate that there was such intransigence in correcting the deficiencies; I'm relieved someone is willing to help. Unless citations can be provided for unattributed statements and definitions in the article, I'll be a Remove, since sources disagree on information put forward in this article. If the weasle word "arguably" is used for a basic definition, we need to know whose argument it is. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment A quick dab of 11 citations is welcomed, though I'm no shape or form changing my vote until the article 110% meets 1c. LuciferMorgan 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Sandy and Lucifer - there won't be concensus to demote it anyway. Giano 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question for Lucifer: is '110%' pure rhetoric, or do you really intend to try to hold this article to stricter-than-usual standards simply because you're peeved at the people involved? Opabinia regalis 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) You're right, that was a terrible idea; pretend I never said it. 'Tis past the fossil's bedtime. Opabinia regalis 07:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No one answer that! Marskell 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What a shame we had to go through an FAR and an FARC, with lots of arguing, before those who had some concerns about the article addressed them by actually editing it instead of expecting the people who were happy with it to change it. qp10qp 17:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles typically only start moving once the original nominator and/or main contributor does; a new editor to the page making large changes can create a different set of problems. With some FAs, such as Emsworth's, it's become understood that anyone who can help should just dig in. Marskell 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in the usual course, either the original nominator and/or main contributor will accept that some or all of the comments are well grounded and make changes, or someone else will take it upon themselves to deal with the comments, and, who ever make them, the changes will either adequately address the objections (so the article retains its featured status) or they don't (and it won't); or no (or few) changes will be made and the article will lose its featured status - and, either way, there will be broad consensus for whatever the result happens to be.


 * In this case, it has been clear from the start that the original nominator and/or main contributor and a whole host of other people don't agree with the comments. The "appropriate" level for inline citations has been debated for 2 years, and is not likely to be resolved any time soon (although the blight of reflexive footnotes seems to have taken full hold at FAC).  In the absence of a consensus to make changes to deal with the comments, nor any likelihood that people who disagree with them will do anything about them, surely it behoves the ones reqesting the changes to make them themselves.


 * I said it above, but perhaps it bears repeating: this is a wiki, and any editor can be bold and edit pretty much any article, while giving due consideration to the content that is already present and its creators, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Behooves them indeed; but if you don't have the sources, you have to wait for others. I can pick at prose redundancies all I like, but the Arabian desert doesn't have a Robarts library. And you can tell me that WIAFA has been widely debated again and again, but it's not that mystifying or debatable because the content policies are sitting there for all to see. Quotations and statements "challenged or likely to be challenged". You know how it works; you extensively footnote your own FAs. Marskell 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be far better - if you just left decent pages alone, and concentrated your efforts on the many thousands of stubs where you attentions would be welcome! Giano 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is some repetitive phrasing. I'm not sure who is required to welcome improvement in that regard. As for our stubs, I'd take a shotgun to half of them if I could. Marskell 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the prose could stand for some more work to make it more encyclopedic weed out any minor redundancies. Marskell and myself have given it quick passes, but it still needs work. &mdash; Deckiller 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in all the years I have known Wikipedia, I have never read such a vain arrogant comment - when you have written work yourself of that quality, then,and only then, may you even think of making such remarks - and even after that unlikely occasion I would strongly advise against it. Giano 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we try for just a moment to stop the mud slinging, please? -- mattb
 * Touche. Marskell 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You people down here have thought up this way to amuse yourselves, don't be so surprised when others do not think it so clever, or an admirable way of passing your lives. Giano 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Giano, we're all breathing easy here. I spend time on Wiki; I don't pass my life on it (I save that for vodka and what not). OK? There's no need for anger. The page does have some repetitious phrasing (much was edited out today). There isn't a long page on Wiki that doesn't, and there isn't an editor who doesn't introduce repeat phrases (unless Garcia Marquez is editing, but he wasn't last I checked) because the brain works that way. So, again, no worries. Marskell 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say so Marskell. Have you and your compatriots down here ever considered turning your attentions to the original works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky - I'm sure they too could benefeit from your opinions on their prose - However did they all earn a living without your opinions? Of course though we do have Sandy's "notes" to look forward to, they should be revealing. Giano 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Giano. Marskell 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, after a close read, I believe the citation standards are met. Everything that demands citation is satisfactorily supported. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The last statement by Christopher Parham above isn't a fact, but an opinion, although an opinion he has every right to have. It's an opinion I heavily disagree with though, and I don't feel everything that demands a citation is satisfactorily supported. Even after the work that's happened, the article still fails 1c in my opinion. LuciferMorgan 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've been restating your opinion all through this FARC, we get it. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so everyone else has restated their opinion Mcginnly, so remember that before singling me out. But then again, you wouldn't single them out because they agree with you that this is an alleged excellent article. LuciferMorgan 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is singling you out, just your comments on this page and here Featured article review/Richard O'Connor indicate that you seem to have learnt nothing from this FARC. Perhaps people do indeed just think (contrary to you much expressed opinion) that this is an excellent page. Giano 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He said, she said, mummy he called me a name... It is an excellent article, but there are a lot of excellent articles that could not (and can not) pass through FAC for lack of sufficient inline citation.  "Featured Article" means something more than simply "well written and composed" (which this article is).  This article cites its primary sources, but still makes plenty of assertions (and conclusions presumably from the secondary sources? I don't know) that should be cited.  However, this is being slowly improved, so perhaps I'll be willing to change my vote soon.  -- mattb


 * Keep, agree with Christopher Parham's comments    abarry   ✓ 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove Article is not properly cited, work is not being done to improve this. Jay32183 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Current standards, as written—not some people's de facto—leave much room for interpretation of issues related to citation.
 * The recent discourse on inline citation (at Talk:FAC etc.) makes the reasonable point that citations are used to respond to putative challenges to facts. A "challenge" is defined not as adding a tag, but as being able to say "I believe this may not be accurate because...". I have seen no challenge, in this sense, during this FAR or on the article's talk page. Nor can I provide a challenge.
 * A lot of policies are made based on hand-waving arguments about what people might do, probably do, would do, could do, etc.—Opabinia regalis' user page—the argument being that empirical data is nice. What data do we have that indicates that an article—especially an "omnibus" article, as the main author calls it—is found to be better by "the average reader" if it has many inline citations? Is the citation being done for readers, or more to cover up that hole in the wiki-editor's soul that will always exist because inaccuracy is only another edit away? We are blind; page 312 is far away. If I don't believe that a broad topic is represented properly here, I go read a book. I don't go searching, in this context especially, for page 312. I'll change my not-vote when the messenger comes charging in, out of breath, exclaiming, "Here's where it's wrong!" – Outriggr  § 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC) "Struck" (grayed out) text at 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC). My intent was not to question inline citation policy, but to offer an interpretation in the case of a broad-topic article. Probably came off as too general :). – Outriggr  §
 * That is not at all what inline citations are for. Inline citations are to say where a particular fact came from so that:
 * Credit may be given where credit is due
 * Claims of plagarism can be avoided
 * Everyone knows the work is not original research
 * Any user may verify the information
 * Edit wars over personal interpretation are prevented
 * Knowing that, a statent does not actually have to be challenged to require an inline citation. Basically, if you got something out of a book you must say you got it out of that book. There's nothing to interpret, it is very cut-and-dry. Jay32183 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Our policy states: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed." That is, everything in this article ought to be citable to a book (or academic paper, newspaper, or reliable website) but not everything must be cited. I may get from a book that Winston Churchill was English, but I don't need to cite it on Wikipedia; it would actually be unhealthy to do so, as the next editor down the shoot may waste time citing the fact that Voltaire was French.


 * So, you see, it's not cut-and-dry. We don't need to cite "Charles II was well known as a philanderer." (If he were alive we would.) At the same time, we should look for obscure or challengeable points, and I've also personally argued for citing general introductory ideas, such as periodization (though I don't think that's make it or break it). I thought the bit about the first newspapers was relatively obscure, and threw a weblink in (I would like one more cite for the Athenian Mercury). Is there anything else that's specifically being challenged? Marskell 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is way too much uncited. Large amounts of uncited text is unacceptable no matter how it is ratioanlized. Nothing in the serious drama section is cited. That much text cannot possibly be common knowledge. If you had to get it out of a book then you must present that. Are you actually suggesting that the article was written off the top of some one's head and it would be reasonable to think that anyone should arleady know it? That is completely ridiculous. As a rule in all academic writing, the only statments that do not require inline citations (Harvard citations have been around a long time) are common knowledge and your own ideas. We aren't allowed to put our own ideas in the text, we can pnly present those of others that have been published. No article should be featured without citing anything that can't be deemed common knowledge, and not much can be. Jay32183 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, I don't intend to be rude here, but your comment suggests a certain degree of inexperience. Your claims about 'academic writing' are certainly untrue, and depend on the field and context in any case. The idea that a footnote is used to indicate 'where you got the information from' is... well, it works as a 'starter understanding' of citation in academic writing, but that understanding will inherently be incomplete. Rarely if ever will an article of this level of generality, written by someone who knows the field well, have a series of discretely identifiable books from which the information was straightforwardly imported. You have yet to provide any specific examples of statements you believe are worth challenging. Opabinia regalis 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because generally people refuse to add citations when they present an attitude like this. If the response had been "I'll add citations, where would you like them?" I'd have made you a starter list. The fact that there are more sources than citations is a big clue that the article isn't cited properly. That means you're claiming things as sources without actually creditting any of the information to the source. Also, the more general the topic the more important citations are. General topics have lots of people writing about them and lots of different opinions. At that level it is near impossible for a non-expert to verify the content without citations. I'm also getting quite annoyed that I keep getting called inexperienced when I remind people that inline citations are not actually optional. Don't mistake my assertion of not enough inline citations for a request for a paricular number of citations. If an entire paragraph comes from one source then using one citation at the end of that paragraph is fine. But to have a section of text unattributed without an intuitive source (one where any reader will assume to be the place to check without looking at the list of references) I simply can't understand why people think it's acceptable for a general purpose encyclopedia. I will make a list or add fact tags (which ever you prefer if you'll be working on the article) if you admit to being willing to work on this, but recently I've been met with responces of any request for citations being shot down as inappropriate. Also, if you can't pinpoint a source then you may be putting more interpretation into the text than WP:NOR allows. If multiple sources agree then just pick one as appropriate (easiest to find, best known author, newest). Jay32183 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for those who have worked on the article, I do not intend to edit it; as I mentioned in my keep comment wayyy above, I know nothing about the topic. (And as such, am not qualified to make 'I want citations here and here' demands, except for the most obvious of omissions, which I don't see here.) I was responding to your above post, itself a response to Outriggr, and the apparent misconceptions it contains about the appropriate use of citations. Sorry, but your comment if you can't pinpoint a source... only reinforces my impression of inexperience (in academic writing, not necessarily in wikipedia writing). Opabinia regalis 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.