Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2012

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 00:15, 28 November 2012 .

Notified: Ruhrfisch, Moonriddengirl, MathewTownsend, WP:TFAR, WP:FAC

I am nominating this featured article to be delisted because the edit history may contain copyvio issues and the page will never be eligible for TFA. I don't see any need for discussion; should be a straightforward delisting. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• The background of this page is that it was written by Susanne2009NYC, a sock of banned user ItsLassieTime who was a serial copyright infringer. Substantial copy-vio was discovered with a substantial number of edits made to rewrite and remove the close paraphrasing and plagiarism. and the article rewritten from top to bottom. Some months later all of the edits made by Susanne2009NYC were deleted. Recently the page was nominated for TFA. Given the history of the page it's probably best for it not to be on the main page, ever, and given its history probably best to delist it. As far as I can tell the only way to guarantee a clean history is to copy the existing version out of this page, delete the page, and begin anew (though don't know how the page history would be preserved). And additional problem is that all or most of the Beatrix Potter articles were written by the same user, so many of the article this page links to are similarly contaminated.

• The community should decide how to move forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I recall this when it happened. I can oversight all the revdels - that way all the copyvio edits will disappear completely from the history - only the handful of oversighters can see them. At that point it can safely go even on the main page I would have said. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think because it was questioned: , , , , the community should be allowed to respond. I'll also notify MathewTownsend. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I've heard though, wouldn't the copyvio still be there in the intermediate edits? --Rschen7754 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not if they were revdel-ed and/or OS-ed as well. Imzadi 1979 → 01:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I can clear the copyvios out from the history - that's just a technical problem, and shouldn't be what determines whether or not it stays at FA. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't that violate our attribution rules? --Rschen7754 02:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If the current version was so completely rewritten that none of the earlier edits contributed to the final version, then I would think they could safely be deleted as well. It might be a problem though if those edits actually contributed towards making the current article. Calathan (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—the question should be, "is the article, as it stands at the present time, FA-level in terms of the FA criteria?" If so, then the article should be retained. If not, then the followup question is, "if the article is not up to that standard, can it be brought back up in a relatively straight-forward manner?" If the answer is still no, then we need to delist it. FARC can only solve the TFA question with a sledgehammer (removing the article's star) when a flyswatter may do (refusing to run it in the TFA slot). Even so, that question isn't really pertinent to what FAR/FARC aim to do: verify that articles still meet the criteria, revise them as needed or delist them as the last resort. Imzadi 1979 → 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I noticed the discussion at WP:TFA/R but didn't comment there. Anyway, I strongly disagree with the idea that an article should be delisted from being a featured article because of the article's past history. Maybe there is something about the situation I'm not quite understanding, but it seems completely nonsensical to me to delist the article after the problems with it have already been corrected. Either the article is of featured quality now or it isn't, and I don't see how copyright violations that have been removed from the article in any way matter for whether the current version should be featured. I also disagree with the notion that it shouldn't ever be able to be a TFA. Once all the copyright violations are gone, including any in any article that may be linked from this one, then I see absolutely no reason why it couldn't run at TFA. Calathan (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Tomorrow I'll make list of articles that would involve. To rev-del all those pages is a good idea and if it can be done, would be very helpful. There are, however, a substantial number of pages involved if my memory is correct. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the history, I think the issue is that the edits by Susanne2009NYC were revdel'd, but no others were, so susanne's net work is still visible, just not the incremental changes. Chris857 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• That makes a little more sense. I guess it depends on if the other edits can be RevDeled as well. Calathan (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing of Susanne's original work exists. Each sentence has been rewritten and all the quotes attributed, etc., so the page as it exists no longer contains the copyvio. If, however, the copyvio still exists in history, then all the edits to the page have to be rev-del'd - at which point we'll have a stub and worthy to be delisted. The technicalities confuse me; that's why I've placed it here. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not correct. Once all of the previous revisions of the article that contain Susanne's work are deleted, then the copyvio has been removed from the past history. However, that doesn't remove content. The current revision would remain, plus any since the last of her work was removed. That wouldn't stub-ify the article in the least. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining that. I guess that's where I have a fundamental misunderstanding. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• List of articles linked to from Miss Moppet that most probably have a contaminated history: Beatrix Potter, Frederick Warne & Co, Peter Rabbit, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, Hill Top, Cumbria, Norman Warne, The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher, The Tale of Tom Kitten, The Tale of Samuel Whiskers or The Roly-Poly Pudding, Appley Dapply's Nursery Rhymes, The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit, and all the links on Template:Beatrix Potter. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cross-posting Iridescent's comment: Elen, as per my earlier comments on this I completely disagree that oversight is a solution. If Suzanne's edits are oversighted, the content will remain but will instead be attributed to whoever happened to touch the article after her. Thus, for instance, revdeleting this sequence of edits will still keep the copyvio in the history, but instead attribute uploading huge quantities of problematic to User:Parrot of Doom. The only thing which would fix the copyvio issue would be to revdelete every edit which contained any of the problematic content, which would destroy the article history and effectively mean deletion-and-recreation. As I said to Maggie, this is a situation where the legal requirements to "have no copyvios visible in the history" and "have all edits to the existing article attributed" are mutually exclusive, since some of the material in the current article was added to versions which still complain some of the copyvio content. As there's no solution that doesn't lead to both legal requirements and the terms of use being broken – and the WMF don't want to make the call as to whether to preserve the copyvios in the interests of attribution, or to destroy the attribution in the interests of deleting the copyvios, this either needs an Arbcom motion or a strong community consensus as to which way to go. Miss Moppet is only a test case because it happens to be the one to come to notice – there are many, many articles that would be affected if copyvios-in-the-history was enforced at policy says it should. – iridescent 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Truthkeeper (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction to my post quoted above following discussing with MRG; Wikipedia's policy is "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it". I think this reeks ethically – as the revdeletions mean the copyvios are now attributed to innocent third parties who happened to come along afterwards – but policy is clear. My advice would be to do an out of process delisting given that these are special circumstances; as I understand it, all those substantively involved in writing the current version feel that it should be delisted. – iridescent 19:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can revdel text and leave the attribution behind - there is no way it would look as if Parrot shoved a load of copyvio into the text, I don't know where you got that idea from. Or - to comply with what Maggie said - I can unrev the text, so both text and attribution are clear. Or I could suppress the lot, but this doesn't seem to be the norm.If an article can never be FA once it has been subject to copyvio, you really are blowing off both feet to spite your face (or some similar saying). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not like we're suppressed the fact of who's contributing/contributed to the article... the account names are all there in the history log, but we have suppressed the display of the old revisions. Imzadi 1979 → 22:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite. It's common to revdel the text to stop some innocent adding it back in at a later date, not realising it's a copyvio. It still shows the name of the person who added it, just not the text. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Just want to be sure that what I said is understood. :) There is no policy that I know of that mandates removal of copyvio from history...but we do it routinely, anyway. It is very common in copyvio cleanup to rev-delete edits that contain substantial infringement. In extreme circumstances, we have deleted histories altogether and complied with licensing by providing a complete list of authors. As long as the names of contributors are retained, we are satisfying the attribution requirements set out in the Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I peer reviewed and supported this article at FAC when it was riddled with copyvios (and did not catch them). I then worked with Truthkeeper to clean it and we checked every source and rewrote the article. While the silver lining of the experience was getting to know and work with Truthkeeper, the whole copyvio mess left a bad taste in my mouth and I have not taken an article to FAC since. As I see it, there are two issues here:

1. The more minor / article-specific issue can be framed as a question: Is the article OK in its current form? Although we did our best to clean it up, we believe it needs to be checked by third parties to make sure it is as in as good a shape as possible. If you like, it could be framed as the normal FAR question: "Does this article meet the FA standards?" (but that also depends on the next question...)
2. The other issue is more general and could apply to multiple articles. It is perhaps best expressed as a set of questions. Given its history of copyvios, can this article ever truly be a FA? If it is a FA, could this article ever appear on the Main Page? Are there copyvios so egregious that they permanently taint an article and thereby render it incapable of being either an FA or TFA?

I hope this helps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There should not be a separate standard for what a FA is and TFA is. If and article can pass the current FAC standard, it should be able to go straight to TFA.PumpkinSky talk 03:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In practice there has been a distinction between FAs and being capable of being TFA. Raul654 always said that there were a small number of FAs that he would not run on the Main Page as TFA (I am pretty sure Jenna Jameson was one of them). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a test case for that issue as well. I'll place a notification at FAC talk; perhaps we can draw in some more people and eventually try to reach consensus. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep If the only issue with this article is copyvios may appear in the history, and Elen can fix that, and the article is OK in its present form, then there is no reason to delist this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that discussion has stalled a bit, but I can't tell if there is a consensus to keep the article as featured, or if everyone is still considering. The two points posted above by Ruhrfisch might be a good starting point for further discussion. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dana for pushing this along. I meant to post something here today. Last night I cleaned The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin, , taking a page at approx. 1600 words down to about 1100 words. Everything I removed was either very closely paraphrased or taken verbatim from the text. The good news is only about one third of the article needed to be deleted; the bad news is this is generally what I've found in all the Potter articles. To answer Ruhrfisch's question #2, I would say yes, the copyvios in the entire suite of articles that are linked from Miss Moppet, either in text or on the Potter template, are egregious enough to prevent this from running on the main page - at least until they've been cleared. The clearing is possible, but it's time consuming. That then brings me to question #1: I don't know the answer to that - hence bringing it up here. Should we move this to FARC (sorry, not sure how it works here ... ). One more thing to mention: for the most part the material in the entire suite of articles is taken from a single biography and with the amount of material that's been copied in verbatim, I'm also wondering about a threshold in terms of taking material from a single source (not sure this makes sense - but know what I'm trying to say). Truthkeeper (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for weighing in so late-- here are my three cents for what they're worth.

1. The purpose of this page is to determine if an article meets WP:WIAFA; I'm not seeing analysis or criticism to that end, so I'm guessing this should be kept FA. In the case of Grace Sherwood, it came to FAR so that the copyvio edits could be systematically revdel'd and it could be determined if an FA was still present-- in this case, the article has already been rewritten (for better or for worse).
2. The issue of how to deal with the past copyvio is a more complex one, and unlikely to be resolved on this page. If it is determined that the current page meets standards, how to deal with the history is a problem to be determined by <someones> who deal with such things. We used to rely almost exclusively on MRG to resolve such issues, but now that she is wearing two hats, the situation is murky. What to do about the history is not FAR's problem.
3. As to whether we should highlight an article on the mainpage when we know darn well the history of its first editor, and what will likely result if we do so, and considering there is no shortage of articles to be run on the mainpage-- of course not. Anyone who knows ILT knows we don't need to encourage more of this, and TK isn't clamoring to run this article TFA. Let's stop politicing and get back to work; is this article FA or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   As far as I am concerned, there is no reason why it should not be an FA, given that it meets all the FAC requirements, and the FAR should be closed forthwith. The article was nominated for TFA by a newbie editor who was completely unaware of the history. This is likely to recur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional closing note - The consensus seems to be that the article as it currently stands is of FA quality, and that the edit history meets current WP standards for copyright compliance. However, there also appears to be a consensus that the article should not be run at TFA, possibly ever, but at least until copyright issues in related articles are cleared. I would hope that interested editors would help TK to clean up these articles. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 12:33, 16 November 2012 .

Notified: Ixistant, WikiProject Video games

I'm bringing this to FAR primarily over concerns about outdated information and poor sourcing. There are currently maintenance templates (Template:Out of date & Template:Update) on the "Backward compatibility" and "Wii Family Edition" sections. I counted 8 paragraphs without citations. The prose quality is also well below featured quality at this point, and the reference formatting is a mess too. A message on the article's talk page about the article's issues a couple weeks ago went unanswered. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC Mark A is spot on. Not one edit has been made to the article. PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I've since addressed the update issues and added additional in-line citations. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Jtalledo, I'll take another look at the article, but I should mention that last I check the prose was well below featured quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Leads are summaries and as such this is overcited. Some refs need format work, prose weak, sentences/paragraphs choppy. PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the prose, what particular passages and sentences? Excerpts would help. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing really, featured-quality prose is a high bar. Your best bet would be to get somebody from the GOCE to go over it. They're having a drive right now, so the wait might not be too long. Just submit a request and then ping someone who seems pretty active from this list. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the article at GOCE. The current drive seems to be focused on July and August 2012, as well as earlier months. In the meantime, I'll review the article for any glaring problems and make corrections as necessary. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's my comments:

• File:Wii.svg, source is a bare URL and VGPRO appears to be longer active.
• File:Wiimen.png, redirects to the official Wii page at the Nintendo website.
• Toolserver shows that refs 66, 93, 96, 103, 108, 121, 134, 139, 232, 243 is a dead link.
• This link , points out to the reregistration screen.

JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the FT link as well as the image sources. I checked all the refs you mentioned and all of them still work. --Jtalledo (talk)

Question - Can we get an update on how work is going on this? Is it about finished or should it be moved to the FARC stage? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

While Jtalledo has done some good work improving the article here, and should be commended for that, I don't think the article is at a point where I'd be comfortable keeping it at a featured article. Remaining issues (in my mind) are the prose failing to reach 1a, the 10 or so dead links, and several bare urls/reference formatting issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I can fix the dead links/ref issues pretty easily. As for the prose, absent any concrete examples, I don't know what needs fixed. I've referred it to GOCE, but they haven't got to it yet. I suppose you could move it to FARC, but I think progress is being made towards keeping it FA quality. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Added Wayback links/updated bad links. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Seeing that there is a gap between the last edits, October 24th to November 1st, I think that this review should transition to FARC. GamerPro64 05:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Err... what does a week gap in editing have to do with being at feature article standard? --Jtalledo (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• What I'm getting at is there hasn't been a lot of editing on the article. Also I think its about time it should more at FARC. GamerPro64 15:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Since concerns have been raised about prose quality (and the article is on the Guild of Copy Editors' request page), I'll copyedit it. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Miniapolis. Would you please post here when you're finished? Then we can ping Mark back in and hopefully get this wrapped up fairly quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Miniapolis posted that the copyediting is finished on my talk page. Noting this just in case Miniapolis isn't watching this FAR discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think my major concerns have been addressed at this point. Probably some polishing that could still be done, but I don't think this needs to be kept open. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:23, 6 November 2012 .

Notified: User talk:RossPatterson, WT:NYC, WT:WPSCHOOLS

Discussion raised 6 days ago on talk page with no action.

• Very many portions of the article are unsourced.
• The article's structure is very sloppy, with loads of very short paragraphs and standalone sentences. A major copy edit is needed. (For instance, nearly every sentence in "History" begins with "In …".)
  • "History" section cleaned up. RossPatterson (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Dubious lists ("Other publications" and "summary of floors") that are also unsourced.
  • (Deleted "Summary of Floors" as entirely inappropriate -- Y not? 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC))
  • Cleaned up "Other publications" RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Entirely unsourced segments ("SING!").
  • Sourced as much as I could quickly find. RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• "In popular culture" is a mess of trivia.
  • I wouldn't mind seeing that whole section removed. RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree. I did it. -- Y not? 18:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Another editor also raised concern that some of the text seems promotional. I tagged at least one section ("strength in areas such as math and science").
  • I'd like to know specifically what User:Kudpung found objectionable. Thank you for tagging that one section. RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • SEe Talk:Stuyvesant High School. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I assume you mean your August 1st comment "There are some phrases that might also be construed as promotional." RossPatterson (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • POV-tagged "Academics" section cleaned up. RossPatterson (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • POV-tagged "Culture Festive" section removed. How much diversity can there be in a 72% Asian, 23% White student body? :-) If someone finds references, it can alwasy come back. RossPatterson (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also see a very high number of primary sources.
  • 27 out of 124, or about 21%. About half of those are for cases where a school web page or document is the authoritative reference, but, especially for the clubs and publications, the rest are certainly primary (and weak). RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • For the robotics team, StuyPulse, if you don't want to cite the team's website, http://frclinks.appspot.com/t/694 resolves to an official FRC page and shows the year they first competed, 2001 (being founded the year before as the season begins in January). If this is an improvement, make use. Chris857 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, added. RossPatterson (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was promoted to FA in 2006, and kept through review in 2008. It is clearly unchecked in the past 4 years, as are many of the older-generation FAs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I will look into all of the above issues. I expect the article can be massaged back into FA shape and pass this review. RossPatterson (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer wrote on my talk page on 12 August 2012 (UTC):

• There are still a few unsourced statements, and a lot of short paragraphs that I think should be combined.
  • Thanks. I'll take a pass across the whole article in the next few days. RossPatterson (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've made a pass through the article finally, and pulled together all of the short 'graphs I noticed. There are still a few {{citation needed}}s, and I added a {{expand section}} for one section that seems like there ought to be more prose. RossPatterson (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Ross, thank you very much for all of your work on this! To everyone else: could we get some comments on whether the article needs additional improvement or whether it can be kept without a FARC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ross hasn't made any updates to the article yet because he's been busy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm back on the job, as noted above. RossPatterson (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I pitched in on the 2008 FAR for this article, and it seemed to be in fine shape then. As we all know, 4 years is a lifetime on-wiki - and it has deteriorated. I'll see if I can take a crack at it next week. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article hasn't changed much in the last four years. A comparison of the post-2008-FAR and current versions shows mostly simple cleanups, a few sections moved around, and very little deterioration. Some of the current state is the result of this FAR, but a similar comparison of post-2008-FAR and pre-2012-FAR versions shows that this article hasn't generally suffered the slings and arrows that most high school articles do. RossPatterson (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since I agree with concerns per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), here's my comments:

• The section The Stuyvesant Standard and Other publications lacks a lot of refs and citations and is unsourced.
  • The Stuyvesant Standard seems to be defunct - I can't find any current information or any issues since 2009 - so I've removed that section. I've also flagged Other Publications as unreferenced so we don't lose track of it, while I look for references. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• File:Stuyvesant High School building on 1909 postcard.png has no information and needs a source.
  • It says "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." (User:DeansFA). RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• File:Stuydoors.jpg, File:Stuyvesant-library-interior.jpg and File:Danny-Jaye---Rothenberg-mem.jpg has no source.
  • Stuydoors says "Photo taken by me" (User:A1111). RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stuyvesant-library-interior and Danny-Jaye---Rothenberg-mem both say "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain" (User:Zxcvbnm). RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• File:Voice May1977.jpg, no fair use rationale and source is a malformed url.
  • URL fixed. There seems to be a fair use rational as well. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• File:Stuy sing v 1977.jpg needs a source.
  • It says "Scanned image of program from SING V, Stuyvesant High School, 1977. Program is from personal collection." (User:Simon12), and asserts public domain status. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Excel is disambiguation link, and needs to fixed.
  • Fixed, along with all redirects. There were no other DAB links. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 12:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't believe the individual images are included in FAR, although their use in the article obviously is. I would assert that the use of all these images, so long as they continue to exist on Wikipedia, is appropriate in this article. RossPatterson (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of any requirement that images be "sourced" (i.e., that they be backed by reliable sources). Each of these images contains what appears to be a valid rationale or license for its use on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to make a pass over the entire article fixing redirects and DAB-page-links. I do it from time to time, and I guess it's time again. RossPatterson (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Any further progress? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• I believe all comments above have been responded to. If there's more criticism of the article, I haven't seen it. RossPatterson (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I still see several unsourced sections and at least one . The intro's also a little short. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Intro has been tighted up and expanded per MOS:INTRO. RossPatterson (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still seeing a lot of cleanup tags on this article. Can we get an update on whether these are going to be addressed or whether the article should be moved to the FARC stage? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed all tagged material from the article. RossPatterson (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I believe the article cleanup has addressed every actionable comment that has been raised. RossPatterson (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are still a bunch of potentially dated statements, but right now I see no other issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • All but 2 {{As of}}s have been cleaned up. Those two both validly identify current states that will potentially change, but on a multi-year scale, not in the near future. RossPatterson (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, looks like we can keep this as FA now. I see no problems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed (as if there was any doubt :-) ) RossPatterson (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:25, 6 November 2012 .

Notified: Kurt, WikiProject Finance, WikiProject Numismatics, WikiProject United States

Since its promotion in 2006, this article has some concerns:

• Some paragraphs 1 and 3 in the section "$5 notes" has no citations.
• Paragraphs one and two in the section "Production figures and collecting ability" is unsourced.
• File:Demand Note$.jpg, needs a summary and possible source.
• File:For the.jpg and File:US $5 Demand Note.jpg, needs a source.

JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 20:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerns in the review section related to the featured article criteria focused mainly on referencing and images. Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - Per referencing issues. GamerPro64 14:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delist per myself, I saw no changes since I started the review, however, with FA concerns above. JJ98 (Talk) 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That's because you haven't made any. It is up to you to carry out the changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.