Talk:Oroonoko

message: This article is currently listed as a featured article, however it now fails the criteria for being one as there are numerous unsourced statements within the article. This is just not acceptable for a featured article. It has been tagged for needing more references to address this. If the article's sourcing issues are not addressed soon, it will be taken to featured article review to be delisted as a featured article. It also is lacking an infobox, the lead does not appear to be properly summarize the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific; what content do you feel is inadequately sourced? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already noted, there are large numbers of unsourced paragraphs. You cannot just claim that is sourced because it has footnotes, it still needs some kind of actual, real citations. And re your edit summary removing the tag - this article passed FA in 2006. It does not meet the current, far more stringent standards and does need massive reference improvement. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that article tagging is generally a last resort - to be used when you've tried to work with editors and are getting no response. I suggest you be a little more civil and a little less template-happy. Please identify the sections you feel require inline cites, thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, templates are not a "last resort" and are perfectly acceptable to put on any article with issues, particularly a supposed featured article that does not meet the featured article criteria. Randomly removing it and trying to pretend there are no issues with the article and just attacking people for pointing out an obvious flaw is what is uncivil. The article has problems. It was tagged as such. If you'd really rather prefer I got tag every last uncited sentence and kill the article with template overload, fine, or you could just actually LOOK at the article. The lack of citations is blatant and damned hard not to see: The first paragraph if Biographical and historical background - entirely unsourced. All but one sentence of "Fact and fiction in the narrator" - unsourced. "Models for Oroonoko" - all but a few sentences, again unsourced. "Slavery and Behn's attitudes" - two sentences cited, the rest not. "Historical significance" not a single citation. "Literary significance" - two cited sentences. Three cited sentences in "The New World setting" - the rest not. "Character analysis" has one whole cited sentence. "Women in Oroonoko" appears to possibly be cited, but with the issues in the rest, I'm inclined to think its only three sentences that have citations. "Adaptation" uncited except one sentence. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I came across this FA article that no longer fails to meet FA criteria. I tag it as needing ref improving so that it can retain its FA status. Someone removes the tag with the "helpful" edit summary of "this n that". I replace the tag with an edit summary explaining "restore refimprove - FA article should not have any unsourced statements - this one does; tag is indicating this needs fixing - quickly - before film ends up in an FAR" (accidentally saying film instead of article as I was also working on a film issue. Same person removed the tag again, stating "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else.)". I again restore the tag, and this time leave a note on the talk page more fully explaining that the article currently fails the FA criteria. The purpose in tagging and then this note was to give any interested editors a chance to correct the issues before starting a FAR. In some of these older articles, it is often the case where it is "sourced" just lacking the proper inline citations. Then you popped in and again removed the tag, saying "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to achieve FA; overkill at least" - despite my having already explained the problems above and having left notes at the relevant projects alerting them to the need to give this article some love (particularly when it is one of the few Book FAs out there). Yes, it achieved FA in 2005 - 4 years ago when the FA criteria were, compared to today, laughable at best. It does not meet WP:FAC and honestly, I did not find it very helpful at all that you removed the tag with that note, indeed it was mildly annoying, mildly hostile, and mildly insulting as it seemed that you just presumed I hadn't already done so and had not even bothered to look first. Removing the tag does not help alert people to the problems nor call attention to the need for repairs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd looked. I had read. And I found vague complaints, not the details anyone would need to even begin a productive discussion. You finally did give details in the post you made immediately prior to this, and while you found my request for not slapping tags on articles and my request for useful information to be "annoying" and "hostile" I assure you I find your subject, which echoes tabloid fear-mongering headlines, and your repeated insistence that I have been uncivil, not the behavior I would expect of a civilized person. I am now presuming that you consider your portion "done" by edit warring to keep a top level template on the article, and reluctantly giving a few meagre details after much prodding by me; and that you have no intention of actually attempting to fix this article yourself. Am I correct in that assumption? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as "fear-mongering" but reality. It does not meet the featured article criteria. As an attempt at courtesy, I was alerting any active editors that it needed work or it would be taken to FAR. Removing a maintenance template without fixing the problems is just as bad, IMHO. Nor should I have to give a line by line summary of everything wrong. As noted above, the lack of sourcing is glaringly obviously by the lack of citations throughout the article. It is not my job nor responsibility to fix the massive sourcing problems. I didn't write the article nor do I edit it. I gave appropriate notice and if you want to complain about the "edit warring" go ahead. If there are any active editors, they have been alerted to the issue. If no one seems interested in actually fixing the article rather than complaining about its being tagged, then it will be sent to FAR for appropriate review and delisting to a more appropriate classification. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes really; as the one adding the tag, you do indeed have to give a line by line summary of what you think is wrong. Otherwise, you are merely vandalizing the page by adding what amounts to graffiti. Please either list your concerns so someone can address them, or cease this. You seem to feel its perfectly ok for you to do a drive-by templating and say "fix it" and then have us play a guessing game about what precisely you want fixed. That, not to be too terribly indelicate, is bullshit. You put the tag on; you're the only one who seems to think its needed, ergo the onus is on you to explain. If you are too damn lazy to do anything but make vague hostile threats and add tags to articles, then perhaps you could go troll Usenet, or something similarly suited to your attitude. If you actually think this article needs improvement, then rather than spending all your time insulting other editors and edit warring to add tags, you might want to actually, as Outriggr suggest below, read the damn thing and make and post a list. You might even, if it would not be too terribly difficult for your abilities, attempt to fix some of the issues yourself. Good day, ma'am. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Please don't assume bad faith of me in removing the tag. The edit summary "This n that" meant that I made some minor edits to wording that I thought improved the article a tiny bit—that "tiny bit" is a hell of a lot more than adding a tag, revert warring over it, and otherwise making no substantive comment about the article. I have found your approach extraordinarily hostile (towards want entity?—I have no idea—I, for example, have no stake in this article, and yet you bloviate at me, or KillerChihuahua, as if we are somehow the enemy—WTF?). You are stating as fact that this does not meet your idea of a featured article. That is your opinion; please stop stating it as fact. Like KillerChihuahua, I considered washing my hands of this, and I actually am, except that I saw my edit summaries brought up here. I'll be honest, sir or ma'am: your approach is strangely aggressive, threatening ("far looming"?), passive ("it will be sent to FAR"?--no buddy, have the guts to REFER TO YOURSELF--YOU are going to send it to FAR, right? Is that so hard to say?) You have yet to make a substantive criticism of the article, beyond the usual citation-counting crap. Do you not understand what it means for attributions to references to be incorporated into a sentence? Here's an example: "Also, as Ernest Bernbaum argues in "Mrs. Behn's 'Oroonoko'", everything substantive in Oroonoko could have come from accounts by William Byam and George Warren that were circulating in London in the 1660s. However, as J.A. Ramsaran and Bernard Dhuiq catalog, Behn provides a great deal of precise local color and physical description of the colony." To draw conclusions about an article, you have to read it. Goodbye. Outriggr (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: AnmaFinotera, are you going to help make the article meet the current FA criteria? I'd be willing to work with you on that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR Looming - Citations needed 

message: :Only a portion of the conversation in question is here. The full discussion can be found here.  —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from [[User talk:AnmaFinotera]]

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Willoughby.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: Link to ebook text from The University of Adelaide updated so that it would be usable.  Geoffr111 (talk) 1:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Link Fixed