Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber/archive1
- Article is no longer a featured article
Review commentary
[edit]Doesn't meet 2 (c) of criteria: it has no inline citations... plange 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just left a note at User talk:Piotrus, who nominated this article originally. Jkelly 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- True about 2c. It's well-written, I'm pleased to see. Tony 04:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am a great supporter of inline citations, and I do believe that a FA must have them. Unfortunately, lots of our older FAs don't have them, as they were not a requirements, and sadly, several of my older FAs can be questioned on the same grounds. My main reference for Weber article was 'Bendix, Reinhard (1960). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Doubleday'. Unfortunately even if we compared the edit before I started work on the article ([1]) with the one after FA process ([2]) there is no guarantee all of the facts were added by me, and from this source, and besides, that doesn't solve the problem of various additons that came afterwards and should be referenced, too. I would recommend adding citation request wherever you think they are necessary, and then we can try to provide references for them. A good news is that Bendix books is in Google Books, so it should be relatively easy to see if a particular fact is mentioned in the book ([3]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Totally understand! Is that smething you can try to tackle (marking the parts you know came from Bendix, etc.) since you're more familiar with it and wrote the main part? plange 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, it's somewhere on my 'to do' list, low-priority, although seeing those concerns raised here gives me some extra motivation. Still, first, I would like to see some citation requests in the article, when they are there, I will certainly try to provide the citations, from Bendix or some other source if I can find it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure you want me to do that? I started going through it and marking and it's pretty much almost every sentence. Not sure you want me to junk up your well-written article with that when the tag at top suffices. Perhaps after you go through with what you think should be cited I can come back and see if I notice anything else? plange 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- While it would be nice to have every fact cited, let's start with the most crucial and controversial information. After it is supplied, we can see which remainig details need to be cited in the next round.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine, that's why I didn't start marking as I have no idea what's crucial or controversial plange 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- While it would be nice to have every fact cited, let's start with the most crucial and controversial information. After it is supplied, we can see which remainig details need to be cited in the next round.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure you want me to do that? I started going through it and marking and it's pretty much almost every sentence. Not sure you want me to junk up your well-written article with that when the tag at top suffices. Perhaps after you go through with what you think should be cited I can come back and see if I notice anything else? plange 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, it's somewhere on my 'to do' list, low-priority, although seeing those concerns raised here gives me some extra motivation. Still, first, I would like to see some citation requests in the article, when they are there, I will certainly try to provide the citations, from Bendix or some other source if I can find it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Totally understand! Is that smething you can try to tackle (marking the parts you know came from Bendix, etc.) since you're more familiar with it and wrote the main part? plange 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- A well-written article, yes; but delist temporarily until sources are implemented, per Cite.php. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Under the new FAR process, there is no delisting consideration until after reviews like this occur. I've put this one on my watchlist, and will try to chip in on the citing process along the way. Nice article. Might benefit from a broader set of sources. ;) Sam 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Status? Two weeks, still not referenced. Sandy 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
To deal with the 11Kb "Weber and German politics" section (written piecemeal since its Main Page appearance in Dec 04 from unclear sources), I split it off onto its own article at Weber and German politics. The validity of these actions and a judgement of the section as its own article can be discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weber and German politics. Maintain 06:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (2c). Marskell 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Insufficient inline citations. Very short lead.--Yannismarou 18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Seriously undercited. Sandy 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. As per previous two reviewers. In addition, the writing is not uniformly "professional", as required. Here's an edit comparison, which looks more than it is because of paragraph relocations, I think. Tony 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)