Wikipedia:Featured article review/Turquoise/archive1

Turquoise[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Talk messages left at User talk:OldakQuill and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. Sandy 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are a number of references provided, there isn't a single inline citation. Mlm42 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed it needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice article, well-structured, with good references. I cannot judge the prose, because I haven't read it in detail. But it is begging for citations.--Yannismarou 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. A few edits by FAR regulars, still overall uncited. Sandy 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient inline citations (1c). Marskell 08:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I started work on this, but I can't find enough online to cite the article, and I don't have any of the books listed in the references. Yomangani ^talk 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Not enough citations.UberCryxic 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Per all above.--Yannismarou 08:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who came up with the inline silliness? The article as it stands is perfectly credible. Dr Zak 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Since the issue is verifiability, not credibility, the article has insufficient inline citations. Jay32183 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is verifiable from the references. Who came up with the idea that every single uncontentious fact should be accompanied by a footnote? Certainly bleeding-edge research or contentious statements must be backed up with a source - but footnoting uncontroversial stuff like this?! It's just faux-scholarly. Dr Zak 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed the phrase "is proven" without a citation. In what experiment was it proven and by whom was the experiment conducted. An inline citation would answer the question without cluttering the article. FAR editors generally don't add {{fact}} tags to entire articles without requests from editors attempting to save the article. I'm sure some one will add them if you say, "Hold on, I'd like to save the article, but I'd like to know what facts require citaions." There's still time left before an official decision is made. Jay32183 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is exactly what I meant by "uncontentious fact". Any mineralogy text will tell you what the crystal system is and no one will doubt it. Now explicitly annotating this basic fact with a footnote (as opposed to a broad references section) gives a problem: you are giving undue prominence to the textbook of your choice. Dr Zak 22:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Is proven" is no different than "studies show" which is specifically on the list of weasel words. The fact is not uncontentious, I contested it. Without a citation I am free to delete it. If the article doesn't need anymore citations then it is full of weasel words and should still be removed. Jay32183 23:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Once you take a class in crystallography you would agree that assignment of a mineral to the crystal class is mostly uncontentious. Webster (2000) will list it. Now how about the sane guideline that the Wikiproject physics came up with, it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Citation_guidelines_proposal. Seriously, I can't see any contentious statements that need to be backed up by inline citation here. Which ones to you take offence at? Dr Zak 02:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I am a geoscientist and I find this article not up to the standards of geoscience articles. The reason I haven't added fact tags already is that there is so much without citation, entire sections are uncited. I do not currently have the time or resources to fix the article. The article needs to be accessible to non-experts, people who have not taken geoscience courses need to be able to handle the article. I have not stated that things are untrue, that's not the issue. Inline citations are required by Wikipedia and are actually standard within geoscience publications. Jay32183 02:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be saying that inline citations work to make an article "accessible" to non-specialists. Well, I think that anything uncontentious to a specialist should be relegated to a generic "references" section and only recent or contentious points should be annotated with inline notes. Anything else is not scholarship; it merely gives a veneer of scholarship. Dr Zak 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you read WP:REF? Your current argument is in direct contradiction with "To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor."(emphasis added by me). The other points on when to cite sources are a useful read as well. Jay32183 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Back_to_basics you will find that consensus for your viewpoint (that each assertion needs an inline reference) is nowhere near as unanimous as you claim. Especially those people that edit science topics disagree. And even if a textbook is given as reference anyone can still borrow it from the library and cross-check. Dr Zak 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you ignoring that people seem to agree that when a good faith request for citations has been made then they should be added? Six editors, including myself, have requested more citations during the FAR and FARC. Jay32183 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        People saying "not enough citations" when there is a section of references sound thoughtless. Maybe when they way "citations" they mean "inline citations", but then they should state why inline citations are preferable to a general references section. I have made my case against, someone should make the case in favor. Hint: you don't make a case by pointing to a guideline that hasn't half as much support as you assert. Dr Zak 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There is an existing policy. Until it is changed it will be followed. There is no reason to change it other than editors being lazy. It is a standard acedemic practice not unique to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has in fact been several decades behind the times on implementing inline citations. The standard acedemic practice is an inline citation anytime you make reference to the work of someone else that is not "common knowlege". Common knowlege does not mean what is accepted by specialists. Wikipedia does not allow original research, therefore everything comes from some one else's work. Add citations or you are committing plagarism or including original research. Jay32183 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inadequate inline citations. Sandy (Talk) 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]