Wikipedia:Featured article review

Jump to: navigation, search
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts:
WP:FAR
WP:FARC

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates Marskell and Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this second stage, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAR}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{articlehistory}}.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nominating an article for FAR

Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Place {{FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
    Note: if an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1
  2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FAR indicating who you have notified and that notifications have been completed.


Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics and User talk:Violetriga

The article fails the featured article criterion in several ways. It is largely uncited except for a few instances of up to 10 cites grouped together (1c), the are several short sections (2b) and it uses inconsistent citation style (2c).--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:WesleyDodds, User:Pomte, User:Faithlessthewonderboy, User:Giggy, User:Mad Hatter, WP:ALTROCK notified.

One year ago our article was promoted to featured. Late last year the text took a sharp turn with several contentious editors making large changes and attempting to delete or spin off major portions of the article. They were ultimately overruled on the largest changes, but through creeping edits the text today is beginning to diverge significantly from what it was one year ago. I just submitted this again for FAR, with the hope that the article will be removed from featured status until it can be sufficiently improved to again merit the distinction. Following are the criteria for featured articles, along with my personal highlighting of areas where I feel this article now falls short.

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit) Thanks for the suggestion. I have done that.

comment: Featured articles can't be delisted until they have gone through a review. You may want to consider listing the article at WP:FARC and briefly summarise the issues there. I guess your concern seems to be that it no longer meets criteria 1a (well-written) 1b (comprehensive) or 1e (stable). I agree that it has changed dramatically since we pushed it to FA, and it could probably use some more sets of eyes. Papa November (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't think the article has changed that much. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note to nominator: you need to notify the article's primary editors and the relevant WikiProjects. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I see a list of users notified, but they haven't been contacted on their talk pages yet, and neither have ay WikiProjects. Why don't we start the nomination all over (especially since it should be the editor who wants the article to undergo review who should nominate it)? It's really the nominator's responsibility to handle these things. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a diff between the version which passed as a FA and the current version. Actually, Wesley I think you're right - I've struck out my previous comment about the dramatic changes. I guess there has been a large number of edits recently, but I'm not sure that anything major has changed here. The nominator should really state (briefly) why the article now fails the criteria rather than just highlighting them. Are there any specific examples? The only substantial changes seem to be in the Style and influence section, but I don't think the cuts have been significant enough for the article to fail WP:FACR#1b. Papa November (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the status quo as it is. I support the changes which I made through the Style and Influences section as it was superfluous, overlong and ridiculous overkill. I don't think the article fails to meet the criteria for featured article, just because I cut some of the information, mentioned above. The article now is leaner, morce concise and stripped down than before. I support the article as it is and wouldn't want to see the all the superfluous information back on the article, because it just doesn't look good at all. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to go out and say that I prefer the old version. What we have now is their history and a short section on their influence. For a band of their prominence I find that a bit weak. However, I would suggest the best option would be to return the old, longer version as an separate article. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but it didn't pass out. I and number of other users including NSR77 and A Chain Of Flowers support this cut version. I also supported the bold edits I personally made when moving it into a seperate article, but it didn't pass out. I also think the best option is to move it to a seperate article, but it is up to the users, not only to me. I can make it right away. Just whistle :). Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the main objection at the time was having NOTHING in that section on the main article. Now there is something, so I don't think there would be any objection anymore. Zazaban (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a separate article is justified, but if you've seen other articles SUCCESSFULLY spun out this way and newly spun out section not being either rapidly filled with genuinely superflous fancruft material, or else rapidly deleted...or... both, in that case it might be a good option. It just seems that when this happens in Wikipedia it's always a prelude to that material being removed altogether, or else an invitation to edit and add way too freely to a pretty decent text which rapidly turns into an atrocity that would never be let back into the main article, or even allowed to stay in Wiki. It's also a dodge of the necessary edits which Mad Hatter talks about- which are necessary to ensure that a page remains concise- but which are also hard edits, something Mad Hatter does not seem to admit, because it's necessary also to make sure a page retains context and that EVEN if a decision is made that entire sections were "superfluous", the work of previous editors in choosing what to cover and finding good sources for it, is not carelessly discarded. To take one example, the influence (on Radiohead) section as it was before, went through and described the band's musical influences in each period of their career. If an editor found the section useless, he could cut the entire section, and if he found the section overlong he could cut down on the number of groups mentioned as influences for each period of their career. In contrast, one example of very bad, careless edits would be an editor who thought the section could be "leaner", and as a result simply chopped off one paragraph without paying too much attention to what was in it. In fact, this is what did happen with this section. It now describes, even in the same detail as always, the band's original influences, their influences in the mid '90s, and their influences on Hail to the Thief and on In Rainbows. Yet it conspicuously lacks ANY mention of their influences during KidA/Amnesiac- easily the most publicized musical influences the band has ever had (which are not mentioned in the history text either) and the real justification to even have that section on Radiohead's musical influences in the first place, since they kept mentioning the influences on those records since then, and their music since then sounds a lot different, doesn't it? At least, writers appear to think so. Anyway I say this not to say anything specific about what form I want the text of that section to take but to point out the careless edits that are infesting this page since late last year and which will go on infesting it unless changes in the article are brought to more people's notice than have been editing it lately. i.e. to the Wiki community which collectively designates a featured article as the best work possible. Re-evaluating the article is the best way to do that. I contacted all the main editors for this article who had done any edits in the past eight months. I attempted to follow the instructions to make a new FAR entry, but there was some complication and it seemed as if I would have to install some software or perhaps I wouldn't be able to do it anyway from an IP address. I understand if this is not the appropriate way to go about this, however, I really suggest the editors here take a closer look at WHAT changes have gone on in the article rather than how many changes, and see if you feel the level of quality has remained constant from September 2008 or more relevantly, from January of last year, when a big push was made to get the article up to featured quality.

I am not trying to single out any one editor such as Mad Hatter here for making bad edits. In fact my guess is Mad Hatter did not make the edit I mentioned, as it was extremely careless and was probably made by someone not familiar with the subject at all. Mad Hatter did however open the page up to "be bold" sort of edits, which frankly appear, sometimes, to be for their own sake, because people can't leave well enough alone. Mad Hatter's user page identifies him as a Darwikinist, and I agree that, over time, Wikipedia is supposed to evolve, and I don't believe that overall things necessarily get worse over time, time can improve many articles in the long run, and bad edits will be corrected, etc. etc. However, articles are always fluctuating in quality, and if you hit them at any moment and demand they justify their recent course of evolution, many of the articles are not changing for the better, and this I believe is one of them. There is no overall plan to the reductions in information, as there have been in some other pages where an allpowerful editor is exerting their vision and it takes a while for to play out in real improvements. I am just seeing information cut, not a lot so far, but in stupid ways. Why have even things like a PNG of Abingdon school (small, and free image, pretty sure) been removed, which gave character to that section of the text? Is it a good idea to cut large swathes of material without making sure citations in the other parts are not broken (as has happened here sometimes)? Is MORE context not actually required of this article than LESS context, even if the article could have said more with fewer words? Shouldn't this article maybe include the sorts of summarizing quotes from print sources that are found in individual album articles in under "response", as a way to characterize the band's musical style, themes, influence, etc.?

Disagree or skim all the above text, the #1 reason this needs to be up for a FAR is this: "does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." Even the relatively small (compared to initial demanded cut) edits by the exclusionists are already in violation of this principle. Even if this article truly was completely "superfluous", "overlong", "ridiculous", "overkill", and needed to be "leaner", "stripped down" (realize that all that is just RHETORIC? not examples!! the section cutters never justified themselves properly in the first place), the thing to do about it would have been to put the article up for FAR... except, see, it had just been up eight months prior, and the parts of it which these recent editors took offense to where actually the parts of the article that had changed the LEAST in 2008 and most resembled the sections at the time the article was resoundingly promoted to featured. But there was always the chance a different group of FAR reviewers would have seen the article differently and agreed that it needed massive cuts. In any case, the way to cut whole sections (however minor) out of a featured article is not just to "be bold" in doing it w/out consulting the featured article process. It would be to "be bold" in advocating a FAR review. IT IS NOT IN ANYONE'S INTEREST EXCEPT MAYBE A GLEEFUL EDITOR FOR ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO FEATURED, TO BE CHANGED IN STRUCTURE AND FOCUS WITHOUT WIDE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES BY A SIMILARLY REPRESENTATIVE GROUP AS THOSE WHO ORIGINALLY PROMOTED TO FEATURED.

Can anyone seriously say the article is "stable" today, even lacking any major edit wars? Whether or not I demand an FAR now no one here seems to agree on exactly what structure the article should be in, & there's no consensus on either the '08 text before the change in structure, or the current version. Anyone can see the article is in a state of flux and can go any way, up or down, very soon. And few people seem to have paid attention to the edits or commented on them. Personally I feel that, even with no knowledge of the subject I would not see the article as well written today; it's no longer at featured quality.

70.21.58.96 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew... OK, I'll try to address some of these points:
  • Mad Hatter has now restored the style/influences text about Kid A/Amnesiac and I have replaced the lost images. Hopefully this addresses your concerns about criteria 1(b) and 2.
  • I still don't see the issue you have with criterion 1(a). As you can see from the difference between the featured and current versions, little has changed between then and now in most of the article. The sections that have altered still seem to be well written. It seems that you are arguing that the quality of the text might degrade over time, but that's an issue common to all featured articles and I don't think it's happened here yet. If there are any specific sections that you see as being poorly written, (i.e. poor quality of prose, not poor content) then we can address those issues very easily.
  • Finally, I agree that the stability criterion 1e is possibly an issue. However, I think the current version of the style/influences section is a nice compromise between the two camps and I hope that's the end of this saga! If people really aren't happy with it, then I guess we could temporarily delist the article while we sort it out, but that would be a great shame and hopefully it won't be necessary. Papa November (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, yeah I was being unnecessarily ranty there, and thanks very much to you and Mad Hatter for fixing those areas, especially the Kid A issue (with the images, maybe there is some legitimate reason they had to be removed, I guess we will find out soon enough. seems there are just certain people in Wikipedia who hate the presence of images, sometimes). I could have fixed it myself but I thought it might turn into another edit war. I've been re-reading the history section (and I made a couple of improvements- I hope- to the intro in particular). I guess I do think in general the article probably IS better than it was a year ago- overall. So I suppose item 1(a) isn't an issue at all- in fact I thought some of the sections removed lately could have been better written, even if I do feel some of that information should be in here, so in a way that did fix the writing, if we can prevent more lazy deletions. I still have a problem with the "places it in context" part of 1(b), plus the stability, 1(e). If you look at Brandt Luke Zorn's massive recent work in the OK Computer article as well as creating the new Radiohead tours article, you see where we might go with "context" in order to pack more kaleidoscopic information in less space. It's good that the influences part has stayed, this is VERY important for this band, as their wide range of influences is what's seen to set them apart stylistically, and it's good to have the brief description of band roles even if it's now reduced so one gets less sense of the stress the Kid A sessions put on the band members who played guitar, drums, etc. anyway that IS still hinted. What is absolutely missing is any larger discussion of the band's influence or indeed their aesthetic & STYLE and SONGWRITING, which is the subject of countless books and articles. We need no more than a paragraph on it yet right now we have a single sentence which makes a generalization about their influence on British rock music, neglecting to give an idea even of the specific British bands they have influenced or what about their music exactly was considered influential let alone the acts from other genres and nationalities who have mentioned their interest in the band, or covered their work. Text of this influence section has always been dated, though, focusing on early 2000s. So in a way it's good to have a clean slate to work with on that, and I will withdraw the FAR nomination if possible, but hopefully someone has some ideas on how to make this section better, even if those ideas require us adding back the same number of words we had before... so long as they are better ones, I hope there would be people who would argue those words were worth keeping and argue against "stripped down" as the guiding principle for every article (talk page comments operate on different principles, or don't require the same degree of care, of course, or I wouldn't dare to do anything on Wikipedia), if it means readers, who don't ALREADY know what we know as editors of the topic, get shortchanged. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the comments so far, I don't see any problems that couldn't have just been discussed and settled on the article talk page, and thus I feel the FAR should probably be closed. WesleyDodds (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is full of [citation needed], [clarification needed] or various cleanup tags. The article is not bad, but if it were to undergo FAC right now, it would spectacularly fail. Hence, FAR.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. There are places where citations are desperately needed. We need a speedy remove in FAR, to handle such articles passed long back in 2005 or so and currently do not meet the present FA status.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The intent of this page (FAR) is to review, improve, and bring articles back to FA standard not to delist them. Speedy removals contradict this objective. Joelito (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Notified User:Borisblue (FA nominator), WikiProject Physics, History of Science, Astronomy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Notified: Mac, Fbagatelleblack, Jack Rosebro, WP AUTOS.

Needs cleanup; it has citation needed tags and an expansion tag. I also think that there are problems with regards to criterion 4, in particular the History section; it isn't excessively long, but it doesn't seem to provide completely relevant information to the reader, it seems to be an indiscriminate list of events that are somewhat relevant of the topic without much connection to each other (proseline). Many of the inline citations are not formatted, and most troubling, many of those sources are of questionable reliability. Also, the Organization section lacks references and should probably be converted to prose. Some of the subsections are a bit stubby to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The History section is in WP:SUMMARY style and chronological order (as prose, not a list or "proseline" -- which I believe to be a poorly-defined term the case of summary-style chronological history sections) with less-important details relegated to History of plug-in hybrids. This issue has been raised before, but there have been no ideas forthcoming about how to address it with improvements. Do you have any specific ideas about how you would fix the History section?
The Organization section has been converted to prose, as requested. The expansion tag is, I believe, not a defect and is encouraged even in featured content to help point editors to where the article can most reasonably expanded, but I deleted it anyway. All of the citation needed, citation formatting, and source issues occurred after the FA promotion, of course, and the source issues which are specifically called out here have been addressed. All of the citation needed tags have been properly fixed, a dead link has been patched from a WP:CONVENIENCE archive, and all of the bare URL references have been reformatted.
Which subsections do you find the most stubby? 69.228.201.125 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FA should be revoked. It fails to meet FA standards.
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; FAIL
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; OK
(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; FAIL uses at least one non RS as a ref
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias NOT TOO BAD
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. POSSIBLE PASS Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific problems with the prose; if so, can you please suggest how you would improve it? The reference reliability issues which Dabomb87 lists below have been addressed. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Note to Greglocock: Please see the FAR instructions; in the FAR stage, "possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies." As 69.228 has requested, specific issues would be helpful. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Understood. I'll look at the prose after the tech stuff is finished.Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive list of sources of questionable reliability:

This was a troubling source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and Commerce because while on one hand it is an email authored by the founder of the California Cars Initiative (a nonprofit organization) who is a recognized and widely-published authority on the topic, it is also clearly a book recommendation and thus an ad (for someone whose views on foreign policy have been called in to question by himself -- but that should have no bearing on his views on environmental policy.) This reference is being used to support the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. There have been arguments over this assertion before, so I supplemented the email describing the less reliable but more generally lay-accessible source with a reference to a peer-reviewed academic journal article. I also put the book citation first in front of the email review link inside the reference. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to look at. Since it is supported by a journal, I suppose it can stay. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an absolutely irreplacible historical document, used in the History section, originally sourced to a 1969 Popular Science article and fully meets or exceeds the criteria for primary sources in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History -- but it is also a secondary news report of the 800 car GM XP-883 concept fleet. The blog link is merely for WP:CONVENIENCE to our readers so that they might view the the primary and secondary source. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the convenience link itself should be reliable, as per WP:CONVENIENCE: "In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source" such as an on-line copy of a print publication, the editor should cite the intermediate source, but may also mention the original source. In such a case, the intermediate source must itself be reliable." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That ref has been returned to its form during initial FA passage, with an access date added. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is used thirteen times, going back to articles from 2005 to the very recent. As a news source, it has an experienced editorial and seperate publishing/commercial staff, the Editor holding a graduate degree in journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern. Per WP:RS, it is and has always been a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nobody in my memory has ever called its reliability, independence, fact-checking, or accuracy into question. As such, it does not suffer from the drawbacks described in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and commerce and should be accepted as a primary source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I admit I'm going only on the Editor's Medill School graduate degree when I suggest, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Responding to queries about reliable sources, that he must be, "a member of the press with a reputation for reliability." Also I found several press citations with a web search, such as this from a major newspaper business writer. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, that should work, although another would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC) OK, this does the trick: http://www.greenpresswire.com/cgi-bin/press.pl?record=22. Striking. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Google News says this is another although I haven't personally breached the subscription wall on that particular article, it is certainly an insider trade publication ("AutomotiveWorld.com has been delivering accurate, insightful and timely information to professionals working in the global automotive industry for more than 15 years."[1]) 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that; the Lutz quotation is now sourced to Naughton, K. (December 31, 2007) "Bob Lutz: The Man Who Revived the Electric Car" Newsweek. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Another excellent catch! http://motortorque.askaprice.com/news/auto-0801/toyota-announces-plugin-hybrid-by-2010.asp has been superseded by Ohnsman, A. (August 28, 2008) "Toyota Plans Electric Car, Earlier Plug-In Prius Test" Bloomberg, which was already cited in the article's introduction. There are no other instances of "askaprice.com" in the wikitext. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That was replaced by California Air Resources Board (March 27, 2008) "ARB passes new ZEV amendment - Measure could produce 65,000 cleaner vehicles by 2012" (government agency release) as a primary historical source in the History section. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


The article has no link to that URL. We link to http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/go-electric-says-gordon-brown.html to document the Brown statement and http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/plug-in-hybrids-and-battery-electric-vehicles.html for the Leape quote. Are either of those uses troubling? I replaced the latter with http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=129321 which seems to be the primary source for the quotation in question. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That was the base URL, not the specific page. Struck the latter, may need to scrutinize more later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As done as possible, pending answers to my boldfaced questions from the reviewers. All of the specific issues raised were addressed, along with other sourcing, formating, and a few related issues. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work 69.228! I'm glad that this article, which is of considerable relevance in this day and age, is undergoing improvement. I still have questions about some more sources. In addition, all web citations should have a publisher and last access date. Now that some of the technical issues have been cleaned up, it is time that we find a copy-editor, because the prose needs some cleaning. As you request, I will be back with more specific issues and replies after I look at the rest of my watchlisted items and take care of something in real life. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I will certainly add access dates and publishers. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
On the proseline, perhaps it would look better if some of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs were combined. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I tried that, and I agree. It allowed for the deletion of several redundant years in dates. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, much better. I will try to find a copy-editor, and post more comments here later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we trim the External links section? It seems that some of those links could be used as reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, "Groups promoting plug-ins" should merge into "Organizations," and "News" has always been kind of a holding pen for things that should be written up in "History" or it's main article, but haven't been yet. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject, User:Cyrius, and User:Golbez notified.

The article was featured on October 15, 2006.

  • The lead is too short.
  • Most of the article is unsourced, including entire sections. The Records and notable events, in particular, sticks out, with unsoured numerical facts.
  • The article lacks significant information; the Deaths and damage is only a few sentences long, even though the season was one of the most destructive in history.
  • Many individual storm sections are not comprehensiveness.
  • The article is sourced almost exclusively to the National Hurricane Center, with few secondary sources.
  • Several references are not formatted properly.

–Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In regard to "sourced almost exclusively to the NHC", why is this a problem? --Golbez (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are too many problems for this to be featured. I personally think the article should be re-constructed along the lines of the other featured seasons from the time period (I am working on one such article now). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please no, that format is awful. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects notified.

Fails 1c, and also, there is a lack of an etymology section. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A few parts of the article is lacking some sources for verifiability, which is quite evident, so I think that needs to be worked on the most, but overall I think the article is well written, stable and consistent. Mohsin (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Question to Bl/YellowMonkey: Why is the "lack of an etymology section" a ground for FAR? Can you please cite the Featured article criteria related to this? As far as I can see, the etymology of the name Dhaka is already present in the 3rd sentence of the "History" section. --Ragib (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I missed that. Struck. I wouldn't have sent it to FAR but for the 1c. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Notifying Mike Peel, Marskell, Ashill, and WilyD.

I really hate nominating interesting articles for review here, but this one is just so far from the standard. Problems with 1a, 1c, although its five references are somewhat accurate so far, and mainly, 2c. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I've been notified, as I've never actually edited the article... I suggest that the appropriate wikiprojects are notified (e.g. WP:ASTRO).
However, I would agree with you that the article needs significant reworking if it is to stay as a featured article, especially with respect to references. I would volunteer to do some of that, but I really don't have the time at the moment. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I notified several people I knew were experienced with these types of articles from WP:ASTRO, and from personal experience. Sorry to bother you, if you feel like I've intruded. That goes with the rest of you, too. —Ceran [ speak ] 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it: it's always better to over-notify than under-notify, and as it's turned out I've had some time to do a bit of work on the article. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I can sort out 1c and 2c, though it's (again) going to be a slow process as I have trouble with my internet connection at the moment. As far as the referencing goes, much of the information comes from Williams et al. (1996). I can also check whether Scientific results-section needs update. I cannot do much with 1a, though. Random astronomer (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will help after 10 January, when I will have access to journals again (now I am out of work). Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington, Wikipedia:WikiProject Seattle, User:Bobblehead, User:Lukobe, User:Jmabel
previous FAR

I have nominated Seattle for review because I think in the year since the previous review, the article could use some work. Some issues that need to be addressed are:

  • The lack of citations in some areas (e.g. Economic history, Topography, Media, Outdoor activities, Infrastructure)
  • Dead reference links [2]
  • Use of list in history section instead of prose
  • Lack of proper WP:SUMMARY style - the article is huge (117k) but the main, most important, pieces of information seem to be lost in a sea of seemingly trivial facts

I hope that by bringing the article forward at FAR, that these items can be quickly addressed. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it standard operating procedure to bring up concerns about a Featured Article on the article's talk page prior to sending the article through FAR? But to cover the points:
  • I'm not sure what the nominator is expecting as far as references. The sections seem to be rather well covered and in line with applicable guidelines. There are a few claims here and there that are not referenced, but aside from a claim in the Media section about "a large number of publications about the environment and sustainability" that could be removed without harming the article, I don't see anything that requires citations that is already covered in a citation.
  • Unless I'm missing something, having dead reference links is not a Bad ThingTM. They can be marked as dead, but it is generally acceptable for dead links to exist as they indicate that the reference was there at one time...
  • The listification of the History section is a bad thing, I'm going to see if I can figure out when that happened and why.
  • The article has 44kb of readable prose, so WP:SIZE concerns are not a concern here. The remaining 74k is references and wikimarkup that are generally not considered part of the size restrictions. The sea of trivial details may be valid, but welcome to Wikipedia. I doubt you'll find any article, particularly those of cities, that don't have a large amount of trivial details. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bobblehead. I decided to go forward at FAR just so the greater Wikipedia community can have input into the process, as opposed to just those who happen to have the article watch-listed. There are only a few items, like those I have listed. I plan on providing a more detailed review, but wanted to get the ball rolling and see if any other editors wished to provide additional comments. So yes, I didn't mean opening the FAR because I thought the article should be demoted or anything of the sort. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated File:Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition - Rainier Vista.jpg for deletion. Editors may wish to comment there. No other image problems that I could see. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting the history section to get it back to prose rather than lists. Take a look. There may be more work to be done, but I think this gives a much better basis to move forward on that section. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are we on this FAR? The only real problem identified by the nominator (The listification of the History section) seems to be resolved (good job, Jmabel). Jmabel has also found a postcard with the image that was nominated for deltion that seems to indicate the image was published prior to 1923, so the image seems to be in the public domain despite what UW says about the copyright status. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp and Projects notified.

Fails 1c. Also concerned that some parts of the article plug various schools and businesses. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Second concern regarding schools and businesses removed. --GPPande talk! 07:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Add comments below under individual sections so that follow-up becomes easy. I am doing sections as I am getting the references via google and so please pardon me for not following them in order.

  • Civic administration: Politics section merged with Civic administration. Refs added. Check here.
Goodness gracious sakes alive, Pande, would you mind lowering the amount of excess markup, per WP:TALK. This is very hard to read; gonna need sunglasses. Also, please avoid the excess use of graphics, as they slow down the load time. We don't need minute-by-minute on your progress; FAR is a deliberative process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry. Removed the excesses. --GPPande talk! 07:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't File:Deolo.jpg be either PD or CC but not both? DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I had uploaded the images to WP at a time when I was unaware of the intricacies of licences. I have made the changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Following sections have been completely referenced:- Summary, Origin of name, history, economy. --GPPande 16:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1c issue is cleared. Any other points? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Err yes, lots of the article isn't referenced. Also in some places there is a ref at the end of the paragraph but it only covers 1 sentence. Aslo some of the references aren't formatted. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the culture section onwards. Will look at it once I return from my New Year's break. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Flora_and_fauna is done. --GPPande 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    Done quite a few. If there are any that need a cite tag. Let us know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah! I forgot to mention, I had added refs to Poeple and culture section few days back. Anything else? --GPPande 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified David Monniaux, WP Gender Studies, ‎ WP France, ‎ WP Human rights and WP Philosophy

This article is a 2005 promotion, listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing as one of our most problematic featured articles. It has had citation needed tags for almost two years, uses mixed citation styles, has unformatted citations and the External links could use a trim. There are also MoS issues that could be addressed if the article is cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Notified: WP BIO, WP World's Oldest People, WP MILHIST, Bart Versieck, Editorofthewiki, Canadian Paul.


I'm unsure why this was promoted earlier in the year. IMO, it fails Criteria 1a (poor prose throughout) and 2 (MoS breaches, such as the range-hyphens in the infobox and the linked date at the opening, still not satisfactorily justified on the talk page), with a question mark over Criterion 1b (it's hard to believe that it's comprehensive—a person's whole life and, specifically, his role in the war and symbolic meaning as the last survivor). The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text (cf. the requirement for a professional standard of formatting). Tony (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • "The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text." Give me a break. I have cited everthing challengeable, as per WP:V. "Poor prose throughout" - You only provided one example of supposed poor prose on the talk page, which I didn't see was a problem but was fixed nonetheless. Please provide more examples to back this up. I have no clue about hyphens, so I'd like someone else to fix that. The linked date at the opening clearly passes WP:MOSNUM as there is a clear reason do do so, as explained on the talk page, and bringing this here because you don't like that may be a bit pointy. I will search for new sources, though last time I checked we covered about everything. I'm having technical difficulty on my computer over the last couple of days so I don't know if I can add much until it's fixed. Oh, and Ponticelli was not the last French veteran, just the last poilu. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to demote the article, the citations don't seem to be a problem to me; I prefer multiple citations for contentious points, in fact. Support Retention as Featured Article Skinny87 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Declarations of "Keep"/"Remove" (or other related comments) are not made at this stage. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - At the request of EOTW I will look through this article. I will try and c-e all points that are a little messy, but I don't think there are as many problems as needed to go to FAR. —Ceran»^« 20:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Certainly not "brilliant, engaging prose throughout", which would make it a 1a failure. Sorry. Some examples include:

  • "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches" I have difficulty making sense of this in its current form. Perhaps simply "was the last official French veteran of the First World War" and explain poilu later on in the article? It's difficult to try and work it into a compact sentence in the lead and, I would guess, it is not key to the topic.
    • Couldn't do much for this. I reworded it somewhat to "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches." I hope this satisfies your concern. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • 'Fraid not - still a very awkward sentence. I really do suggest dropping the attempt to explain poilu until the body of the article. 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I fixed that into the notes. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, the footnote means that at least when someone is confused they can find out what is meant, but it really should be possible to create wording here that is clear in the first place. Can I start again with a simple question: why is it necessary to mention poilu in the lead? 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France" Bit tricky - there's got to be a neater way of putting it that doesn't involve the obvious contradiction of Ponticelli being the oldest living person at his death. Possibly, "Before his death in March 2008, Ponticelli was the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." (Specifying "both" is redundant.)
    • Basically done exactly as you said. Mentioning "March 2008" would be equally as redundant, since I already said that earlier in the lead. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine (but I would say that, wouldn't I? ;-)) 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "He described the event in an undated interview as "blood running through [his] eyes", but he "continued firing despite [his] wound."" This really doesn't make any sense. The quote is also inaccurately transcribed from its source. Looking at the reference, I suggest: "In an undated interview, he described being shot by Austrian troops: "Blood was running into my eyes ... I continued firing despite my wound."
  • These are examples only. In general I would say that the text is rather clunky, with the linkages between ideas not clearly drawn out. I suggest getting a really good copyeditor to go over it.
    • I contacted Dabomb87. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I left a couple of inline queries you may want to address. I'll try to go through the text more closely tomorrow. Anyway, we have plenty of time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree and fixed most of them. However, I purposely used "first World War" and "World War I" for variety. If I just stuck to one or the other, the text IMO would be blander. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I suggest that in this case it is better to be consistent with terminology. There is also the question of WP:ENGVAR. IIRC, World War I is mainly American usage and First World War mainly UK usage. The article seems to be written in American English, so I suggest standardising on World War I. 4u1e (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read a couple of the sources, I am now also concerned about criterion 1c (factual accuracy). For example:

  • The article links the quote given above about being shot to Ponticelli's injury during an attack on an Austrian position. However, there is nothing in the two sources used to link these two events. In fact, they suggest they are separate events, since in the first case the Austrians surrendered, and in the second the attack was "futile". Article needs to be checked throughout for similar examples of WP:SYNTHESIS, and for accuracy of facts and quotes.
    • I don't see where you're coming from when you say the source doesn't link the events. Quote THe Times: "There he was serving as a machinegunner when he was seriously wounded by a shell burst during one of the many futile Italian assaults on welldefended Austrian mountain positions." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That's because the wording has been changed since I made the point. The version I reviewed explicitly linked the wounding and the quote: "Ponticelli was seriously wounded by a shell during an assault on an Austrian mountain position.[1] He described the event in an undated interview...[2]" The undated interview describes a different event. The current wording in this case is OK now, but you need to check for similar unwarranted synthesis throughout the article - this is just one example that leapt out at me after a glance at two of the refs. 4u1e (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a little worried about potential plagiarism, compare:

  • "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was told he had to join the Italian Army and was discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was escorted by two gendarmes to Torino, where he joined 3 Alpini Regiment for service against the Austrians" from the article with
  • "But in 1915, with the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side he was told he must join the Italian Army and was discharged. Refusing at first to be parted from his French uniform, he was firmly escorted by two gendarmes to Turin, where he joined a regiment of Alpinieri for service on the Austrian front." from ref 2, the Times article.

That's a very close paraphrase - could other editors comment on whether this is a problem? I haven't checked for other examples. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    • That doesn't seem terribly close to me, so it shouldn't be a problem. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Really? The second first one seems clearly derived from the first second with only minimal changes. I doubt it would stand up to a legal challenge...but if no-one else agrees with me, I'll let it go. 4u1e (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I would call it clear plagiarism as well. So a little rework should be necessary.--HJensen, talk 18:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a problem, though I can rework it a bit if you wish. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • No worries, I changed it to "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was forced to join the Italian Army and was summararily discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was led by two gendarmes to Torino to enlist in the 3 Alpini Regiment, where he served against the Austrian Army." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • That's probably enough of a change to get away with it. You're still directly paraphrasing the original though: you introduce the same ideas in the same order with the same sentence structure. You need to check throughout the article for similar cases. Can I suggest that if in doing so you find other examples, you try and throw away the original text and write from scratch? I strongly suspect that in this case at least the original text was cut and pasted from the newspaper article (not necessarily by you, I hasten to add!) and then modified. When this is done, it's inevitable that the article ends up with the appearance of plagiarism. 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That's a common practise of mione: I copy text directly from the source and then reword it. Apparently in this case I didn't reword it enough, tough I never thought that the entire practice was inherantly wrong. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Like all things, it depends. In my opinion (which you are free to ignore!) it's a very bad habit, because it leads to the situation we have here in which the text has been only very lightly modified - which is plagiarism, or theft, if you're feeling righteous about it. A much better approach (imho) is to read all the relevant sources, write up the article, or chunks thereof, from memory or notes of key facts and then check what you have written against the sources. 4u1e (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I restored the word "escorted", because that is really the best word, if not the only word that conveys what happened. I also changed "Torino" to "Turin" as this is the English Wikipedia, and besides, the redirect is to Turin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
            • I've got no problem with either of those points, but it takes the wording closer to the original again. Can the information be more fundamentally restructured? 4u1e (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I played with it considerably. See what you think.

  • I've had a go as well and produced a version I'm happy with (natch!). See below for another example, though. This really does need sorting out throughout. 4u1e (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another direct lift from one of the sources: Compare "His Italian Alpine regiment had once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke; they had swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and taken pictures of each other." (from The Economist) with "His regiment once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke, swapping loaves of bread for tobacco, with the opposing soldiers taking pictures of each other" in the article. Looks like a systematic problem. This needs rooting out throughout the article. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Changed to "Once, his regiment stopped fighting the Austrians for three weeks. The armies, who mostly spoke the same tongue, swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and photographed each other." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I had a go at copy-editing the lead and found lots of issues. See inline queries. One instance where I'm unsure of my edit (see talk). Tony (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Now that I think about it, it is kinda odd to refer to the language of the Austrians, which was a rather polyglot empire ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I fixed many of them, athough the last I was unable to resolve. The sources didn't say how he accepted the funeral, and anyway, that would be trivial. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder about the comprehensiveness of this article. Did the man marry? We don't know, though he left a daughter, so odds are. Were there other children? I realize these things may not be in the newspaper articles, but I see in the biblio a French language book by Lazare, which probably has some details of his life (published in 2005). It may not be easy to obtain, and the translation may be an issue, isn't a Featured Article intended to comprehensively cover the subject matter? And if we can't say for sure the man married, or how many times if so, then is the article comprehensive? I'm just not sure, so having exhausted my own wisdom (matter of microseconds), I'm wondering what others think on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to give every detail to be comprehensive - if those details are not available. However, I skimmed through the French language news sources last night and was left with the impression that the article doesn't even cover everything from those. For example, according to l'Express.fr, Ponticelli re-discovered his brother Celeste by chance when he joined the Foreign Legion, and the recruiting sergeant noticed that there was another Ponticelli on the register ("«Ponticelli? Il y en a déjà un inscrit sur le registre», s'interroge le sergent recruteur. C'est ainsi que Lazare retrouve son frère aîné, Céleste..") Much more interesting than the bald statement that they were both in the same unit. The book may have more on Ponticelli, probably focussed more on the company, which might make an interesting addition. Does anyone on fr.wiki have access to it, I wonder? 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Don't see it on Google books, is there a French equivalent of same? But by running a google books search, I see four French language books that mention him. A couple look fairly interesting, if I spoke French, which I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
See here. Not sure it's much help though. 4u1e (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I speak a wee bit of French, though I need a translator for the book. I guess I'll go through the French sources, though there is really nothing more I can find in english. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I can read French pretty well still (just don't ask me to speak it!). If you have anything in the French sources you want to confirm your understanding of, or you want translated, let me know. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Probably your best shot is to find someone French who has access to the books (at fr.wiki?) - if you do that, there's