Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberalism/archive2

Response I've gone through all the alt text in the article and removed proper names while also making the text more descriptive in general.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good now, after I tweaked it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help!UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You say in the nom statement: "The article did have a peer review, which I just closed. It received scant attention there..." The peer review was closed within five days, which scarecly gave time for proper PR attention, particularly for such a long article. Had you been prepared to wait a little (there is a running backlog of 12–15 articles) your article would indeed have got attention, not least from me. I don't have the time for detailed comments at the moment, but here are a few minor points:-

• Two disambiguation links to be picked up from the toolbox
• The caption of the lead image ("Vote Liberal") ought to specify earlier than it does that this refers to A Canadian election. Thus: "Poster from the Canadian Liberal Party..."
• Perhaps too many images? The overcrowding has caused more than one incidence of text-squeezing between left and right aligned images. This is contrary to WP policy.

Sorry no time for more. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've rephrased the caption and I've removed two images from the article, including one with suspect copyright. One of the images that I removed in Impact and influence was kind of repetitive as the article has a similar image that deals with that topic. Take a look again and tell me what other images you think should be removed or repositioned to make the text flow better. As for the disambig links, can you tell me which ones they are? I could not find them. Scratch that I fixed those too.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No dead external links. Two links to dabs, as Brian noted, and I second Eubulides's issues with the alt text. Ucucha 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've made significant changes to the alt text now, per the policies cited above. Can you please tell me which links are bad? I don't know how to check.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are to absolutism and end of history, as you can see in the "Dab links" section of the toolbox at the top. Ucucha 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I'm really sorry about that.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ucucha 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people who worked on the article, I want to thank everyone who commented above. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should combine identical refs. --Skizzik^talk 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't; FAs such as Cologne War have been approved without combined refs. However, this article is inconsistent; you should either combine all identical refs or none of them, per criterion 2c (consistently formatted citations). Ucucha 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess you are right that it isn't a requirement for FA, but I can see no advantages at all with having them separated. Personally I think the few duplicates in Cologne War should be combined too. Are there any guidelines about this? --Skizzik^talk 22:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process right now of combining references.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skizzik: I think the reason for not combining is that it preserves the sequence of the refs; when you click on one ref you can easily see the surrounding ones. See here for another editor's motivation for not using it. But the matter is moot here anyway since UberCryxic has introduced named refs throughout the article. Ucucha 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have gone through the article and combined all like references. So do you want me to do that or not? I prefer the earlier version, but don't care that much either.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed some (Van den Berghe 56, perhaps others). As I said, it's your choice: either combine all refs or combine none. You should do what you prefer. Ucucha 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I prefer the earlier version so I'm just not going to combine any. Is this discussion closed? Never mind Sandy just edited the article and I don't want to do one big revert like I was planning to. I'll just take care of the rest.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van den Berghe combined now too. I don't see any others, but if anyone knows how to remove all my edits pertaining to combined references without undoing Sandy's as well, go right ahead.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha: Hm I can see your point. I still think its more elegant with condensed refs but I guess thats just a personal opinion then. So do what you think is best for the article if there are no guidelines on how it should be done, sorry for the trouble I may have caused. --Skizzik^talk 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah to be honest with you I really don't like the new system, so I'm going to go back to the old citations. Sorry Skizzik, but if it's not a requirement, I'd rather not have it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Overall, the present edition is inferior to the old version. There is no mentioning about Rousseau, Voltaire, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Karl Popper or Friedrich Hayek. The article explains why fascism as ideology was a threat to liberalism, but it remains unclear why communism was a threat. Terms like political liberalism or economic liberalism are never defined. There is no mentioning about privatization or even about the rule of law (other than in the lead). Certainly rewrite and cleanup were long overdue and they have made the article more attractive and readable, but much of the substance has been lost.—pivovarov (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of addressing your concerns right now. However, I take umbrage at the suggestion that the previous version was superior, considering that it had several neutrality tags, scores of important yet uncited claims, choppy categorization and slender paragraphs, and a million other problems that could fill an entire book (including a total lack of substance and context, while we're at it). I will definitely include some of the authors you mentioned, but it's very unfair to suggest that this version is inferior, and I'm quite surprised that you would make such a suggestion.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have now included material on Rousseau, Voltaire, and Hayek. I think this is good enough, in the sense that you could always come up with a list of people that you think should belong in the article. The main purpose of this article, however, is to summarize the subject, and I think it does that fairly well now with the philosophers mentioned. As for your other concerns: private property is mentioned throughout the article. The rule of law is explained in the context of social contract theory throughout the article. I'll work some more on the communism part.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned a few names that were missing in the new version, but the problem is not with the names (there are more names: Ludwig von Mises, John Kenneth Galbraith, Kenneth Arrow). My point is that the version of 2010-02-01 was fairly mature and you should have used it as a reference. In the course of your work you lost some valuable material that was present in the old version. You are saying that the old version was hardly better because a couple of sections had neutrality tags. True, they had, so how have you resolved the neutrality problem? The sections in question were on neoliberalism and on 21st century — in the new edition both are gone. The section Europe in the current edition says nothing about liberalization or privatization, which were the actual policies in the 1970s. The fact that private propery is mentioned throughout the article is irrelevant. What I do see throughout the new edition that it confuses liberalism with both democracy and liberal democracy. The old edition had two sections ("Elitism and democracy" and "Democracy") trying to address this subject and to explain why original classical liberalism was hostile to democracy.—pivovarov (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism is not gone. It's mentioned under Wars and renewal. It doesn't have its own subsection anymore, but considering the length limitations under which I'm working, it does not deserve its own subsection, and the initial decision to give neoliberalism its own subsection was actually a mistake. The complex relationship between liberalism and democracy is discussed under Dominant ideas and traditions. Whether it's discussed enough is a different issue. Liberalism is so broad and general that you can come here and demand greater coverage on every notable topic pertaining to it. These are the kinds of hard choices I had to make. Significant amounts of material needed to get cut to keep the size down. You are throwing around several peacock terms, describing the current version as "inferior" to the supposedly more "mature" article of February 15. You give that version a lot of praise without mentioning that it did a horrible job in covering the history of liberalism. Both the content and the structure of (almost) the entire article were patchy and incoherent. I would rather leave some things out and make the article comprehensible rather than list every possible thing relating to liberalism without cogently explaining anything. Look, if you have good and actionable advice, I'm happy to take it. You said include more philosophers (you named them too), and I did. But I'm afraid complaints about what the article covers and what it does not cover are more difficult for me to address when I think your fundamental premises are completely flawed.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot of hard work and in many aspects the present edition is better than the old one. However, my concern is that readers are going to find it incomplete and will start adding unreferenced and biased content as they did five years ago. In my view, it would be better to create a near-all-inclusive text, to refactor it into child articles, and to leave an overview containing all keywords in the parent article.—pivovarov (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer specific suggestions, like what sentences you want included, for the article? I am working under extremely tight length requirements right now, which is why you might have noticed that History underwent massive cuts and reorganization. I want to address you concerns, but I also hope you are aware that this article has limitations (it can't cover everything).UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is 10,000 words: a good portion is history. Why is there no use of
  summary style to History of liberalism (which for some reason, is a redirect to liberalism)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

One of the things I've wondered about is just why Wikipedia does not have a History of Liberalism article. You'd think that's a standard article that should've been created a long time ago. I guess no one got around to writing it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be preferable to move the current "History" section of Liberalism to History of liberalism and replace it with a summary. I agree that this article is too long. Ucucha 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely create a new article. Long overdue...as for length, I'll trim some non-essential parts from the first few subsections (Prelude and Beginning), but I think the rest of the material is really important and I hesitate to fiddle with it. Also, Elvis was promoted a few weeks ago with over 160 kb. This article is currently 113 kb. I suppose length might be a problem if you compare the vast size of History to the rest of the other sections, but the article itself does not seem long when you consider the subject..UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis (pop culture, music) did not get the kind of review this article will get at FAC, and

History of Liberalism is a redirect, when the history is here, could all be copied into that article and summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Not a redirect anymore! I just recently

created the article. For now, I simply copied what's in the main Liberalism article, but I'm going to start trimming some parts from the latter right now, per your advice here. That way they won't be the same.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Speaking of that new article: Sandy, can you please go and do its initial review, confirm that it's an article that deserves to be on Wikipedia, and remove the tag? Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on size After making some significant cuts to History, the article has fallen from 113 kb to 108 kb. I merged the Prelude and Beginning subsections. I hesitate to make further cuts without more guidance here because I'm afraid it would hurt the narration and might impede the understanding of the average reader regarding the progression of liberal history (or what gave rise to liberalism in the first place). I would also say that it's expected for the History section to be long, or at least much longer than the other parts, because it mostly focuses on what liberals specifically did, as opposed to what they thought (Philosophy) or what they influenced (Impact and influence). What people do should have more encyclopedic value in general, although others might disagree with that perspective. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place to hash out our philosophies on the proper structure of an encyclopedic article. Like I said above, for an article of this stature, 113 kb (and now 108) is fairly reasonable. If you want more cuts, please provide specific examples of what you think should be cut.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version is 9700 words (we measure articles by prose size, not KB, see

WP:SIZE and User:Dr pda's prose size script). I'm surprised the cut is only 300 words, but will wait for others to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well

WP:SIZE does say that articles over 100 kb should be split, as a "rule of thumb". Under that standard, I should be following the kilobytes. But if I am following words, as you wish, then how many words do you think this article should be? I mean I think it's senseless for me to just cut things without a proper idea of what length (in words or kilobytes, whatever) is appropriate. I want this article to be focused and coherent, but I also want it to contain enough detail to actually entertain readers or pique their interest.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I just slashed off one more paragraph in History (106 kb now if you measure by that standard). Does caption text count as part of the article's word count?UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't.

Perhaps a more effective approach, rather than trying to slash off bits and pieces every few sentences, is to write the section from scratch as a summary of History of liberalism. Ucucha 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But if I did that, where would you want me to stop? Do you want...6,000 words? 7,000 words? Drastic cuts is not the problem. I just have no idea what exactly you're looking for (ie. what you consider "short" or "long"). Now, presumably you do have such a standard because I'm being told that 9,700 words is long. So if that's long, what's short? Or better yet: what's acceptable? That's what I want to know.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-right just give me a few minutes. Let me go through it once more and I'll get back to you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

summary style as much as a readably sized article that won't burden readers; reviewers will have an easier time determining how well it covers current concepts once History is summarized, and doing that correctly probably means a rewrite from scratch as a summary (as Ucucha suggests). An article rushed to FAC, without waiting for PR, is likely to get bogged down in this sort of thing, that would have been picked up at PR (which typically takes two weeks minimum). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm in the process of slashing and burning right now. I perfectly understand that History was (is) long, and that was a deliberate choice on my part. I wanted it to be long, but I guess I went a little overboard (ok a lot). No one's perfect. I got the script by the way, but I'm not sure how to use it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a new link in your toolbox, on the left of your screen, that says "page size"; click that when you're on the page whose size you want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit I don't see it. I must've added the wrong thing in my monobook.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Chrome by the way. Would that have anything to do with it?UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you added the script to the correct page (vector.js if you're using Beta, monobook.js if you're using Monobook, etc.) and emptied your cache? Ucucha 04:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say "yes," but I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I'm afraid I'm a little bit inexperienced in the finer details of Wikipedia. Look it's fine. I'm making the requested changes right now. When I think I'm done I'll notify you and you can let me know if the new History is ok. It should not take more than 30 minutes.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm also in a tough bind with the opposing editor above because that user is demanding more material. This is a very careful juggling act. It's essentially impossible for me to seriously cover that user's concerns with these kinds of reductions.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With two articles, there is room to cover everything; that's why the article needs to be written correctly, using summary style, not trying to cram History into one. Again, you should be focusing on writing the article correctly, comprehensively, and with due weight; if that means summary style needs to be used in other places, that's what it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update #2 on size Phew....ok. I'm done. I've given History a complete facelift. It's significantly shorter (3 subsections now, like Philosophy) and it still does a good job of summarizing the main features of the topic (neoliberalism is still in there!). I don't think readers will be left wanting here. My script isn't working so I can't check word count, but I've taken the article to 94 kb...from the 113 at the start of the FAC process. That's actually smaller than when I first start editing in February. Can someone please tell me the word count (and also what fraction of that is History)? Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version; 8,300 words. You started over 10,000, hived off 5,000 to history, but are still showing 8,300 ... that seems to imply you have a 3,000 word summary of history-- which is not a summary-- it's a full article. May I suggest that peer review is a better place for this sort of work? Pivovorac's 1b) comprehensive concerns are significant. 1e), stable, is also an issue here, at least one editor disagrees with thos quick changes; Pivovorac links to a version that is only a month old, was not peer reviewed, was not put through GA, and is unlikely to be stable in its current form. FAs in a few weeks may be achieved by some very experienced FA writers, but are highly unusual even for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're doing a pretty good job at hashing out our differences here. We've accomplished a great deal in just a day. Under those numbers, History represents about 36% of the article. At this point we're entering very subjective territory, but I don't see that fraction as too big of a problem, although I am willing to further reorganize that section. I would just note that this article cannot be judged under the same standard as most others on size. It's expected to be (I would think) significantly longer than the typical Wikipedia article, for good reasons.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is not peer review and not a place to hash out differences when an article was rushed here after major changes with no other review; why was the peer review closed in only five days, without waiting for feedback, and what is the rush? An article should be stable before it comes to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it seems like the article was rushed here. I felt like the peer review was going badly and that the article was ready for FAC. At the same time, I am somewhat surprised to see you say some of these things. You bring up stability: the article changed under the auspices, and with the approval of, the two editors that had been watching it for three or four years. I made sure I brought them into the process carefully and systematically before making these rigorous changes. Wikipedia articles sometimes change quickly.

Be bold is one of our greatest mantras. I've done this in the past many times, and I'm not sure what's wrong now. People do have disputes during the FAC process. I'm working with you to fix the article's mistakes, and again, I think we've done amazingly well on the first day. I'm sure we can correct all issues of comprehensiveness and size today in the FAC, making the peer review process very repetitive. We're making good progress here and I'd like to continue. I will give History another overhaul.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Two editors is not very broad consensus :) A peer review would have brought fresh eyes, and would have fleshed out these problems. I do not think this article is ready for FAC, and suggest you withdraw. Pivo's concerns appear substantial, and adding that to the size issues, an overhaul is needed. Because I've participated now heavily in this review, I am recused as FAC delegate, so that is just one editor's opinion -- I am not speaking as delegate, and closing this nom will be up to Karanacs. FAC is not to be used for PR; reviewers are overburdened, and it's an abuse of their time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm quite shocked that I'm reading these things. I did not come here for PR or to overburden reviewers. With all due respect, I've worked very warmly and effectively with the other reviewers. They've made their suggestions and I've (almost always) followed their advice down to the last period of the last sentence. You're the only one from which I sense some antagonism, and I don't know why, considering that I am actively trying to follow your suggestions too. Rick and The Four Deuces are regulars. They've had a long experience with the article. They know how it looked three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, etc. They were generally content with my changes. By contrast, you're following the advice of someone who's made a grand total of 52 edits on Wikipedia. I placed the article on peer review per Wikipedia's guidelines, but was disheartened that it received little attention, so I decided to come here instead. I respect your position in Wikipedia, but I have been to FAC five times before and I'll be here again in the future. This is exactly where I belong.

Now, our wikidrama aside, let's get back to History. It stands at 36% of the article now. I can give it another overhaul, but it's best if you and I do this together. Tell me exactly what parts you think should be cut or reorganized. The section is short enough that you can read it easily and quickly.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other examples throughout. You ask for "brutal and scathing" feedback, but that is not what this is. I offer these only to illustrate that this article badly needs expert attention. I would suggest a review by the

peer review department at WikiProject Philosophy, for example, before bringing this to FAC. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Response Which version of the article are you reading? Descartes no longer appears in the article, per some major reductions I had to make to bring down the size of History. Take a look at the current version of History and let me know what can be done to improve it.

The Dominant ideas section is derived from Major themes, which explains that it's very difficult to come up with what you call a "coherent story" for liberalism. That was the point of listing all those adjectives and the quite blatant quotation, which should resolve your worries, that liberalism contains "separate and often contradictory streams of thought" (Shaun Young, Beyond Rawls: an analysis of the concept of political liberalism). Major themes, however, does list several principles common in the liberal philosophical tradition (per philosopher John Gray). Dominant ideas itself covers some of those important principles (and what liberals have said about them) mentioned in Major themes. And it's unfair to suggest some of those flavors have not been explained "at all." Classical liberalism and social liberalism (the dominant political conceptions of liberalism) were explained in detail.UberCryxic ^(talk) 07:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The jist of my comment is that it comes off as a very uninformed and thus uninformative treatment of the topic, which I believe more expert hands could greatly improve (spoken by someone who does have expertise in the subject). If you really want to make this a great article, I would encourage you to give some expert hands a chance to improve it. I hope my points are taken constructively; I do not expect to comment further. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wish you would comment here further since I'm trying to address your concerns. Can you offer any specific changes?UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can and will, if asked do— in the context of a peer review. While I have noticed that you have improved it a quite a bit since my first read through, there remain real issues under both 1(a) and 1(b). My comments would be extensive and no doubt invite more discussion. I have to agree with Sandy and Brian that this is not the place to do that. Why not just withdraw it and allow the proper time and attention it needs to be a solid FAC? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1(e): Since its nomination here, the article had been under continuous amendment. It is changing all the time; it has been edited about 200 times in the last 36 hours, among other changes losing more than 2,000 words. I have started to read it several times, but what's the point of trying to review an article that is so obviously still being built? As has been emphasised many times in the past, FAC is not an article-building process; nominators are supposed to bring stable, finished products here, not work in progress. The article should be withdrawn immediately, and re-presented when it is finished and stable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History (and only that section) has been under continuous amendment because I have been asked to change it, and I've complied with those requests. Beyond History, the article has hardly changed at all. The changes that I've undertaken involve making History more compact, focused, and readable, per Ucucha's and SandyGeorgia's advice, with which I agree. Stability mainly refers to, as I understand it, the absence of edit warring or content disputes. This article has had none of that recently. That one section is changing quickly in response to FAC is no reason to claim the article is unstable, but especially not when the changes involve trying to summarize the section from its related article (History of liberalism, just created). From what I gather so far, the only major complaint against the original version of History was its excessive length, which is why I created a new article entirely and tried to summarize the remaining section (hence the 2,000 word drop). All that changed is I got rid of extraneous and unnecessary content, but if you compare the section and the article, their basic themes and motifs are the same. In that sense, the article has remained stable. When the article came to FAC originally, History was the problem child (some of the editors knew that even before FAC) given its enormous size (over half the article). All I did was trim down its size, and that's not a sign of controversy or instability. Everyone agreed it needed a massive reduction. As for a finished product: I have full confidence that History is now written in summary style and still covers the major aspects of the topic. Take a look at it again and tell me what you think. You can do that now because the article is no longer changing. Things seem to have settled down.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your nomination statement begins: "I and Rick Norwood proudly nominate this article because we feel it fully meets the FA criteria" (emphasis added by me). You now say that you brought it here knowing that History was a problem child, so I wonder why the problem was not addressed before the article was nominated. I think my objection is valid, but I don't want to hammer the point to death. I note your later comments, and will try to add some objective comment/criticism in the next 48 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I eagerly await your comments. I know you have far more experience than I do with featured articles and you can help us significantly. In recognition for your effort, I promise to address your concerns with lightning speed. I want to earn your support and I'll make all the necessary changes to do just that. I sincerely apologize for not taking care of History before the nomination. Rick brought up the problem of length, but I mistakenly disagreed with him and we decided to nominate instead. However, now I have made a huge push to resolve the length problems very early (1st day) into the nomination, which is notable at the very least. An article that was 113 kb when it first came here is now 94 kb. As I mentioned above, far bigger articles on less notable and encyclopedic subjects have become featured.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • WP:IUP
  • File:Women's March on Versailles.jpg - needs a verifiable source
  • File:Charles Meynier - Napoleon in Berlin.png - "source" added ca. three years after upload and is obviously not correct (at a minimum, confirmation of artist information should be sourced)
  • File:En Mendigorría.jpg - source provides date of publication, not author death. What is the basis for the p.m.a. + 70 license (Spain, by the way, is p.m.a. + 80 if the author died before 7.12.1987)? The publication date would support PD status in the US, not necessarily the country of origin; Commons hosting puts image stablility into question
  • File:Liberal reforms socialism.jpg - needs a verifiable source
  • File:Wpa1.JPG - needs a verifiable source
  • File:Thomashillgreen.jpg - needs a verifiable source
  • File:Logo République Française.png - needs a verifiable source
  • File:Liberal Democrats UK Logo.svg - image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B), does not contribute to a reader's understanding of this topic (NFCC#8), and has no rationale for this article (NFCC#10C)
  • File:Katarina Kresal.jpg - copy and pasted correspondence in user space is inadequate. Permission should be filed with OTRS
  • File:Koizumi in Graceland 2006.jpg - source is a deadlink. How can we verify federal authorship?
  • File:Udlp logo.png - blatant copyvio
  • File:Liberalinternationallogo.JPG - does not contribute to a reader's understanding of this topic (NFCC#8) and, although thus moot, has no rationale for this article (NFCC#10C) Эlcobbola _talk 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Per your advice, I have removed all images listed above that do not have verifiable sources, although I plan to look for others that do have good sources. The logo of the UDLP in Sudan had already been removed. Tell me if I left anything out, and thank you for your help.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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