Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kibbutz/archive1

Kibbutz

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish culture and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology. Sandy 14:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A FA for two years and has degraded. Issues:

an entire section has a wikify tag - Decline of the kibbutz movement
there is at least one citation tag
refs: refs follow a very old style and there is an external jump

Rlevse 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a copy-edit to comply with modern standards (2a). Some POV issues (2c). Tony 11:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the refs. It seems to use Harvard referencing, which is fine for Wikipedia per WP:CITE, and actually preferred nowadays outside WP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns prose (2a), structure (5), and citation format (2c). Marskell 08:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the citation format, Marskell? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed it to footnotes. Was it the Harvard refs you didn't like, or something about the way they were written? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the non-reply. I was simply noting as a matter of procedure that it was something mentioned in the original nom above. You'll see I leave that sort of note on every review that gets moved to FARC. Perhaps I'll re-word to "Suggested FA criteria concerns..." in future. I'll try and read this one over. I looked at and was a little daunted by the size. Marskell 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's in much better shape now. I vote to keep it FA.Rlevse 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thoughts then.

I believe this may be too long. It's generally summary style but it may be summarizing too much. For instance, the history section begins with a five paragraph description of the status of Jews in Tsarist Russia, which could be abbreviated; it also lacks a topic sentence/paragraph ("The movement began with...") and reads oddly in this regard.
At points it may come close to panegyric. In 1.3: "Degania in the 1910s seems to have confined its discussions to practical matters, but the conversations of the next generation in the 1920s and 1930s were free-flowing discussions of the cosmos." This is followed soon after by a fairly long quote from an ordinary woman beginning "Oh, how beautiful it was..." It's good to add colour, but I don't find this encyclopedic.
For 65k the refs need to at least double. Stats particularly remain unsourced.
More should be dabbed, even if it leads to red links. For instance, the "Communal life" section has a massive block of undabbed text.
I didn't notice any one sentence paragraphs but there's still a lot of short two sentences ones, which could be incorporated into larger paragraphs (that's partly personal taste).

So, I guess 5 is my criteria concern ("appropriate length, staying tightly focused"). I'll try and come up with more specific stuff and do some copy-editing myself, but Slim (or anyone else interested) might think how to trim the over-all structure. One thing I notice is that there isn't a single sub-article listed under any of the headlines. Perhaps a few are in order here. Marskell 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marskell. I may try to find some time to work on it, though I can't promise. I haven't been involved with the article prior to this, so I don't know the history, but if it has deteriorated, it might be worth reverting back to the version that got FA status. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work. On size, it is 65KB overall (which is not a problem), but 58KB is prose (only 7KB overhead). Summary Style is needed. Not only is 58KB prose size large, but in relation to overall size, it reveals the next problem: a critical lack of inline citations. I fixed the ref tags, but there were very few of them. Is anyone working on citations and Summary style? Sandy 23:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, when you say you "fixed" the refs, do you mean that you moved the ref next to the period? WP:FN doesn't say (or didn't when I last checked) that the ref has to be pinned against the period without a space. When it says ref after period, it means "after" rather than "before," which had to be stressed because there were people writing ref then period. There was a discussion about the placement of the ref but it was agreed not to recommend anything, although if you look at any published work, you'll see a space between the punctuation and the ref. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FN gives multiple examples throughout the article, but no example contains a space. I typically try to clean up the refs while I'm in there checking the inline citations. Sandy 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if that's your preference, but publishers do put a space between punctuation and refs, and we're allowed to do the same on WP. If you think about it, it's odd to want to cram them together. We don't write Harvard refs like this(Smith 2005). We don't write sentences like this.And like this. So it's odd to want to write a ref like this.<ref>abc</ref> I don't mind much and wouldn't revert over it, but I just want to clarify that both are acceptable on WP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, further reading and external links are not two sections. Further reading is for material, on and offline, that sheds further light on the topic but was not used as a source. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now that you changed them in the GTL a few days ago. I always check the FAC nom and edit history before working on a FARC, and didn't see any main editors present in this case, and I didn't realize the article had an owner; sorry for the intrusion. Sandy 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it in the Guide to layout to make it consistent with WP:CITE, which is the relevant guideline, and which has said for a long time that what used to be called External links may now be called Further reading, but they're the same section, referring simply to any interesting and relevant material not used as a source. I'm not sure what your WP:OWN comment means. Someone posted a note about this to Wikiproject Jewish History, so here I am responding. Was that not what you wanted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs also a lot of work for neutrality. For such a controversial topic, you're using only "Israelis" sources and not one "Arab" sources. In addition, there's so little mention about criticism and impact on Arab population which I think is essential to balance the article and to make it more accurate. More effort should be put into this article to meet the primary policies of Wikipedia, so for now I vote for its removal. Minor comments: The article is too long, summary style and wikifying of some sections is needed. Plus, could you name the "About" section something more comprehensive? CG 16:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Still too long, needs Summary Style, not well cited, and work seems to have stalled. Sandy 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per a week with no work (or at least very little). At a minimum I think the history needs to be taken to a sub-article, and the section then greatly compressed on this main page. But I think this requires someone with familiarity with the article. Refs still insufficient and CG has pointed to a pertinent POV concern. Unfortunate, because there's a lot of good info here. Marskell 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]