Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swastika/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 19:53, 13 September 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left for Paul Barlow (top contributor), Dbachmann (second-biggest contributor), and Sam Korn (original nominator), along with at the Hindusim and Jainism WikiProjects.

This article, which became an FA approximately 28 months ago, is problem-filled. There are missing citations everywhere- though there are only four citation needed tags, tons of paragraphs have zero citations (including two in the Overview, the complete list of alternative names, and the entirety of the History section- and that's just the first quarter of the article!); additionally, there are switches between footnote citations and external jumps throughout the article. The prose is far from brilliant, both in spots of less-than-stellar writing and in the frequency of one-sentence paragraphs (and in a few cases, one-sentence subsections). The majority of the footnotes, including every footnote that's not for a book, are formatted improperly. There's a big linkfarm at the end of the article. -- Kicking222 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has much improved since it was featured (diff). It is easily the best single reference on the topic found online, and runs circles around any 'real' encyclopedia entry. The Britannica one is pathetically brief, and even contains errors that our article is debunking. If that doesn't make it FA-worthy,  I suppose WP has somehow moved on beyond my horizon. If there are problems with less-than-stellar prose, sofixit. I may not get the FA and GA related bureaucracy these days, but whatever has happened to actually working on articles if you spot a problem with them? dab (𒁳) 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that this isn't a great article; I'm claiming that it shouldn't be a Wikipedia Featured Article. What does the quality of another encyclopedia's article have to do with the status of an article on this encyclopedia? -- Kicking222 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FA means "we think this is a great article". Other encyclopedias' coverage of a topic is of crucial relevance, and is often our main beacon in finding consensus how to arrangeme material, what is notable, and what is not. The Britannica in particular has traditionally been our benchmark, and articles that are clearly better than Britannica should be considered FA candidates by default. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have specific criteria for determining FA status. Subjectively comparing the article to another encyclopedia does not appear on that list. Jay32183 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * this is nonsense. WP:FA? calls for prose that is "professional standard" (such as that found in other, professional, encyclopedias. It requests the article be "comprehensive" (as, for example, you'd expect article's in the world's great encyclopedias to be). It should be "verifiable against reliable sources" (again, such as professional encyclopedias). etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, our benchmarks have always been other encyclopedias. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Question Why is there an section called "overview"? The lead is supposed to summarize the article, which would provide the general overview of the topic. IS the section redundant or inappropriately named? Jay32183 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * true, that section was a tad superfluous. I've refactored the material to get rid of it. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A paragraph without a citation isn't evidence of a missing citation. What statements do you believe are likely to be challenged that lack sources? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. WP:DASH fixes needed, mixed reference styles, templates belong at top of sections, unformatted citations, external link farm, one- and two-sentence sections and paragraphs, poor image layout throughout creating large white spaces, besides the citation issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), MoS issues (2), and prose (1a). Marskell 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see dab is willing to work. Moving to see how people feel. Marskell 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment dab hasn't touched the article in over two weeks. Little work has been done in general. All of the problems still persist. I continue to see no reason to keep this article featured, despite protests that it should be featured simply because it's 1) better than the corresponding Encyclopedia Britannica article, and 2) the article has improved since it was featured 2 1/2 years ago (has any article that's been around for that long not improved in the past 2 1/2 years?). In short, people have already had more than three weeks to make improvements, and they simply haven't been made. As if it needed to be said, I still urge delisting. -- Kicking222 03:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove unless lots of work is done on the prose. Tony 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS breach: no hyphen after "ly".
 * "swastika shaped ornaments"—hyphen the double adjective.
 * Pity to have a huge bulleted list at the top. The last item doesn't fit the lead grammatically.
 * "The swastika has an extensive history. The motif seems to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia. The symbol has an ancient history in Europe, ...". Extensive, then ancient history; neither item is quite right, and "extensively" appears again in the subsequent sentence.
 * Spaced en dashes (acceptable) or spaced em dashes?
 * 1 billion: MOS breach.
 * Caption for Greek helmet: MOS breach in the hyphen, and since it's not a proper sentence, it should not end with a period. Check the others for this, too. One caption starts with a lower-case letter.
 * Stubby, disjointed paragraphs.


 * fine, delist it. Another reason to ignore the FA/GA bureaucracy and write good articles for the sake of writing good articles. I agree, of course, that there are minor issues with prose and the dashes. Nothing that you couldn't fix investing the time spent conducting this formal review. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony actually reviews lots of articles, and if he spent his time fixing all the articles he wouldn't have a life. To be honest, if you dislike being edited and reviewed by others there's no point in you editing Wikipedia - you've had some negative feedback, and so what? Get on with it like everyone else does. LuciferMorgan 14:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

203.213.99.31 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)I'm surprised there is no mention of the Swastika in Zoroastrian religion in this article. The Swastika is found on pottery from the Archaemid dynasty as it was seen as representing the elements of creation. There should be at least some reference to this in the article. -AuPaul


 * Remove, most of the issues I listed during review are still present, little progress. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:35, 12 September 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.