Gothic: Dark Glamour. Retrieved September 10, Retrieved May 8, March 16, Retrieved August 17, Sputnik News Agency. Gimme danger: the story of Iggy Pop. Omnibus Press. Retrieved July 26, April 17, Retrieved April 29, December Retrieved January 14, November Max's Kansas City.
September 17, Archived from the original on August 26, Retrieved September 17, January 11, Retrieved February 18, Retrieved May 29, The Dominion.
Archived from the original on March 11, Retrieved May 10, Karz-Cohl Publishing. Retrieved January 9, Retrieved July 1, Retrieved May 4, Operas in English: A Dictionary. Scarecrow Press. Retrieved October 30, The New York Times. BBC News. June 25, Retrieved July 2, Archived from the original on March 14, Retrieved April 9, CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown link. March 12, Brand Republic. January 6, Retrieved September 8, January 2, April 28, Retrieved April 2, July 9, Kotaku Australia".
Music: Iggy Pop quits stage diving". March 22, Retrieved May 5, Zottegem — Het Nieuwsblad". July 11, The L. Retrieved April 26, Retrieved December 23, November 25, Retrieved October 28, Dangerous Minds. Retrieved March 20, Japan Times. October 8, Retrieved March 23, Retrieved March 22, The List. June 23, Retrieved June 23, January 24, Retrieved January 21, Post Pop Depression Tour. Retrieved April 24, Retrieved February 5, The Official Charts Company.
Retrieved May 18, Retrieved June 28, Retrieved July 18, Entertainment Weekly. The Hollywood Reporter. January 12, Retrieved April 6, June 3, Retrieved August 20, Retrieved April 15, Retrieved March 8, Retrieved December 19, October 20, Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on September 14, Retrieved October 10, Retrieved December 13, New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved April 27, Routledge, London. Retrieved June 22, Verse Chorus Press.
Portland, London, Melbourne. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 20, CBS News. January 8, Vaughan, Robin June 6—12, Boston Phoenix. Archived from the original on June 28, Harvard, Joe. Boston Rock Storybook. Archived from the original on October 24, Robbins, Ira. Trouser Press Guide. Retrieved November 27, Retrieved March 15, Washington Post. Retrieved May 3, Both retrieved on November 27, Strange Days Japan.
Archived from the original on May 8, Retrieved January 10, Soundwise, we wanted to be incredibly loud and violent! That says it all. The hippies wanted to be nice and gentle, but our style was the opposite of that peaceful, natural attitude. Retrieved January 11, Retrieved January 17, Retrieved on November 29, Note that Taylor misidentifies the year of publication as p. Village Voice. Retrieved July 23, Reprint of article, "James Taylor Marked for Death" that appeared in Creem , in winter-spring edition , that refers to garage the Troggs and similar bands as "punk" on pp.
Italics in original. December Rolling Stone : He indicates that much "punk" fanfare in early 70s was in relation to mids garage rock and artists perceived as following in that tradition. The first issue of punk magazine had a picture of a 60s garage rock band which appears to be the Seeds on the front cover .
Fall He refers to an album by the Other Half as "acid punk. Retrieved on November 27, Omnibus Press. Arista Records. Archived from the original on November 3, Strongman , p. Retrieved December 27, However, the Richard Hell anthology album Spurts includes a live Television recording of the song that he dates "spring Retrieved on December 11, Buckley , p. The Love Club is no more it operated in the basement till a month ago. Aztec Lounge This is only partly punk—the bar crowd is actually friendly.
Heylin dates the "Hot Wire My Heart" single to Archived from the original on October 1, Retrieved December 10, Retrieved on November 26, Retrieved December 1, Donnelly, Ben.
Retrieved November 29, Boston Groupie News. Retrieved December 28, Eddy, Chuck July 15, October , p. The Age. Retrieved September 22, Gook, Ben August 16, Retrieved on September 11, ; Robb , pp. Retrieved on December 3, The quote has been incorrectly ascribed to McLaren e. Robb , p. June 27, Retrieved December 29, Quote: Robb , p. Retrieved December 20, Strongman describes one of the Sex Pistols' objectionable requests as "some entourage accommodation".
Savage says they were dropped from the festival following a violent altercation between Sid Vicious , then part of the Sex Pistols' "entourage", and journalist Nick Kent at a Pistols gig. It is possible that the organizers were specifically afraid of Vicious's attendance.
Detour Records. Archived from the original on October 15, Reid, Pat May Rhythm Magazine. Retrieved on November 19, December 9, Archived from the original on October 12, Retrieved October 22, Retrieved on January 7, International Contemporary Art , December 22, Exclaim , June Retrieved on November 27, ; Keithley , pp.
Retrieved on November 11, Both retrieved December 18, Retrieved November 15, Retrieved on November 27, ; Wells , p. Retrieved March 26, Retrieved December 3, Guardian , July 20, Retrieved on November 25, Noise for Heroes , summer The Age , September 3, Dusted Magazine , February 5, Retrieved on May 30, Retrieved April 5, Svensk punk — Stockholm : Atlas.
Both retrieved on November 25, Victim of Time , May 16, Retrieved on July 29, Punk In Africa , Retrieved on June 8, The Guardian , October 4, Beach Punks! Retrieved February 28, Retrieved on January 21, All retrieved January 15, Retrieved on December 30, Archived from the original on May 4, Retrieved January 4, Retrieved August 16, Retrieved on January 14, Midtown Monthly. January 1, Retrieved April 22, Washington City Paper.
Archived from the original on July 31, Retrieved December 23, April 27, SOS Records. March 12, Archived from the original on December 18, Retrieved on December 16, June 11, Retrieved on February 4, NPR Music, March 16, Retrieved on November 12, Stanford DK Publishing. Retrieved November 7, Thomas , p. Retrieved October 27, Retrieved on December 2, It hasn't: meet punk rock's children". June 24, June 14, Feminism-Grrrl Style!
That's the lead alone—well, there are other things there I haven't listed. This needs to be confined to the dustbins of Skaro. Back for another look. External jumps and the external link farm appear corrected; referencing is much improved. I still have the following list:. A copyedit is needed: Tony already gave examples. I do think the article has come far enough that it would be productive to get LoCE involved.
Still working on this. LuciferMorgan added a few citation requests a day or two ago, which I've taken care of, but that's slowed down the more difficult tasks of finding citations for the "Culture" section and copyediting. Still no word from the LoCE. Note on closing : Sandy has struck the referencing remove and the prose has been gone over.
I'm not entirely happy with "Other appearances" and "Merchandise", as I think some of it remains trivial I removed what I thought was the obvious stuff , but "taking a flamethrower to the place" can often cause more problems than it solves, and I don't think what remains rises to remove. In sum, this has been extensively looked over, the referencing is robust, and the prose is much better. So a keep finally! Marskell , 30 January UTC. Inline citations are absolutely lacking. The topic is vast and vibrant and has great potential.
Dineshkannambadi , 4 December UTC. In fact the point I made about mixed languages implied tribal langages of the "Soligas" etc. Dineshkannambadi , 5 December UTC. This can move off quickly if people are happy with it. Marskell , 21 December UTC.
As there's been a rather heated war over the "Letter V and the Number 5" section , this needs a review since it appears consensus is to keep the section in. The problem? The section is entire original research , and does not cite any reliable sources to back up the claims. No featured article should have original research in it, period.
If the section doesn't stay out, it shouldn't be featured. As continued talk page discussion has not resulted in a fix, I'm putting the listing back up. Featured articles should not have original research. It is not mentioned in any reliable sources because it's so obvious. I think they only need one reference that talks about that mentions the subtle V references, and the rest of the entries they can just leave as they are.
Since they've already done that, the section is fine. This is going to be an interesting process. If I'm not mistaken, we have already determined that there is a "V theme" in V for Vendetta.
Is this not correct? Well since the section is cited now I suggest that we close this review. Have concerns of all reviewers been addressed? So I've relooked at this again per request, and the biggest problem areas are dealt with in terms of my original complaint about sourcing.
A few new notes as I give it a second closer look over. More later. This has dragged on far far too long, almost to the point of silliness. If you want to help me troubleshoot those areas, please do, but let's close this FARC so we can all go home. As Yomangani has quite insightfully pointed out, the graphic novel reference establishes that there is a V theme in the novel, and since several of the V references in the film have been directly pulled from the novel, I think we can comfortably include those references in the film's V theme.
Even if the novel were disregarded, you must admit that there are all sorts of personal signatures from V that are clearly intended to be based on a V theme.
Fireworks, signatures, monologues and messages on mirrors What is CSD-ed? And what was wrong with the copyright on the picture? Also, why was the picture deleted without any warning? It's certainly not a decoration and why it is not a decoration, is clearly stated in the fair-use description.
Could you elaborate? What size do you feel comfortable with? I'm questioning whether this reference needs to be referenced at all. If Anne Coulter or Cindy Sheehan said a political statement, then I would link to their personal sites as well. What is your opinion? However, I believe it may be very difficult to find information regarding when the Best Sellers status finished. If you have any ideas as to how to obtain this info, I'd like to hear them. In any case, I'm going to assume that people know that best seller status is not permanent thing.
Not being sarcastic or anything, but just pointing out the robustness of it's current state! Feel free to copy-edit any spelling mistakes or typos you see in the article.
All the information should be available to you and it would save us both time in the long run. I've went through all of the references recently, but could have certainly missed some info. Despite it not mentioning the film, it's key to the points that it is referencing. Mind you, I consider that reference a high-level assurance one, as I believe that it may not even be necessary.
In response to UKPhoenix's comments regarding rude vandalism, I'd just like to say that I was the one who added that reference. For example:. Which is just wrong! However, I also think that this will allow for the process to end more quickly. When badlydrawnjeff does come back and if he still has concerns, he can go through some other wiki-arbitration process, if he so chooses.
Hopefully, these can be addressed quickly. However, I imagine that issue will take a while as it sounds much more involving than the other issues. So instead of coming to a complete closure in that area during the FARC, perhaps we could set a clause where I would guarantee to resolve that issue in a satisfactory way… say in the next 2 months or so.
That's my 2 cents. How does that sound? We have I think - the thing is so long, it's hard to count four reviewers voting Remove based on OR, and now I'm concerned about POV as well, since the Medved review was not reinstated per my earlier question. I think we've beaten this to death and given it our best shot in probably the longest review ever.
We've done all we can here - delist it and expose it to broader review at FAC. I didn't read the book, didn't see the movie, and think a fresh review from a broader base would sort these issues out.
And I pledge not to vote on a new FA candidacy, since structural items that I usually check have been addressed. I am going to be traveling soon, and can no longer keep up with this lengthy FARC. The talk page says that this is closed Can someone officially close this now? This article falls within the scope of the Military history Wikiproject, but was sidelined from the start for having "citation problems": there were a total of 14 inline citations for roughly 40 kilobytes of info.
Note that I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond be patient; its likely school work has me tied up. Tom, were you planning to finish the ref cleanup work here, or did you need help? Please delink all of the dates that aren't full Month-day-year dates, and review all of your wikilinking for consistency link only important terms, link the first occurrence of each term, etc. You might want to doublecheck that some of those references weren't intended to cite a very specific fact from one source, that would be better placed at the end of the sentence, rather than the end of the paragraph.
What I was referring to earlier is that for example a paragraph of five sentences - all from the same source - didn't need to have that source repeated on each sentence. If the entire paragraph comes from one source, you can cite the paragraph once. On the other hand, if you have a paragraph cited to 3 different sources, it's better to specify which sentence comes from which source, rather than grouping them all at the end.
Hope you're feeling better! Comment : Moving down as it was not definite to close. Marskell , 14 December UTC. Has some general formatting issues, especially the long bulleted list in the middle. Almost no inline sources, there are many references listed at the bottom but only one of them is attached to a point in the article. On a side note, this became featured several years ago with only 2 votes. Vicarious , 20 November UTC. I am not convinced that the mention of names of companies engaged in the production of titanium sponge and melting of ingot is not useful in the article.
In fact the economics of titanium metal and several other exotics like tantalum and zirconium are influenced by the fact that so few firms are involved in its processing and manufacture.
I think that in order to have a well rounded understanding of these metals, their sources and applications, the reader is well served by being made aware of the economics of the thing. For anyone working in the metals industries as I do , knowing who processes the materials, where they are located and how they're doing is as important as who uses them.
If you're going to be religious about policy, then mention should also be deleted of Airbus, Titanium Metals Corporation, Boeing and Tiomin, all companies mentioned in other areas of the article. Note also that we're not talking consumer goods here; these kinds of companies don't advertise since they sell business-to-business only, and don't need to.
Looking good! Pzzp , 2 January UTC. I don't see quite so many problems in subsequent text, but a check of the way ideas are integrated into sentences, and of redundant wording, would not go astray.
Tony , 3 December UTC. Comment : All chart ratings and sales statistics ought to be cited. It is better to take someone else's subjective commentary as a quote and then cite the source as is done in the second paragraph which is only one-line, not good practise and should be merged with the first paragraph. If these are fixed, I would vote Keep, otherwise I would vote Remove. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review.
No further edits should be made to this page. The article was removed , 19 January Some further minor problems: The lead is a bit problematic. For example:"His two visits to Italy while part of the Spanish court are well documented.
Personally, I believe that the section in question is incomplete. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review.
The article was removed , 21 January Cladistics [ edit ] Review commentary [ edit ] Promoted as "brilliant prose". Message left at Evolutionary biology. The article needs to be cited. With the effort of knowledgeable editors, this one should be salvageable.
Sandy Talk , 14 December UTC Here are some suggestions to improve the article: I think the distinction between cladistics and phenetics should be addressed a second time once plesiomorphic and apomorphic terms are introduced.
Cladistics is interested in synapomorphies. Phenetics does not distinguish between the two. An example of how the two could come up with a different tree would also help.
I'm a bit unhappy with the discussion of what it means to be basal. I completely agree that usage of the term primarily refers to a taxon-poor clade that branches off early. I also think that the term gets used in reference to the ingroup, the taxon sampling, and the question being asked.
For example, gibbons will commonly be said to be basal among the hominoids, yet there are 13 species of gibbons in four genera and only 7 species of great apes also 4 genera. In this case, the research question usually being posed is really about a focus organism us and relationships among the gibbons is less important in that particular discussion.
The research question is how are bats, insectivorans, carnivorans, pangolins, perissodactyls, and cetartiodactyls. From that perspective, bats and insectivorans to qualify as basal to the cetferungulates.
Being "primitive" shouldn't qualify a group as basal although it probably is used that way in some instances. Bats fly, echolocate, and look nothing like the ancestor of the Laurasiatheria. The distinction between synapomorphy and autapomorphy should be clarified. The second paragraph of the section titled "Cladistic methods" is confusing.
Plesiomorphies were present in the last common ancestor of group discussed. Apomorphies arose subsequent to the last common ancestor of the group discussed. To say that an apomorphy was present in the last common ancestor of the ingroup is false.
A synapomorphy was present in the last common ancestor of the clade it characterizes and may have arisen anywhere along the branch leading to that clade. Autapomorphies are also a type of apomorphy and they weren't present in the last common ancestor of any two taxa in the analysis.
Eliminate the use of "we" in the 4th paragraph of the same section. They are still constructed on the basis of synapomorphies, they just incorporate information about how characters evolve and attempt to incorporate the potential for additional evolution hidden in a final parsimony analysis. They are definitely not phenetic methods. I'm also amazed that there still isn't an article on maximum likelihood in phylogenetics.
The total evidence approach advocated in the 6th paragraph isn't universally accepted. Most but not all do agree that data where homology is questionable should be excluded. That should be addressed in the paragraph as well and I'm not all that comfortable with the behavior example without expansion and clarification for that reason. That statement that molecular, morphological, etc. Homoplasy is more common in morphological data? Are we sure about that? Paragraph 7. A small point, but cladistics does assume that evolution is bifurcating as opposed to hybridizing, reticulate, or having lateral transfer.
In my opinion, the "Cladistic classification" section can reasonably stay, but seesm to ramble on as if it was written by several editors who had differing opinions and tried to jump back and forth in such a way as to make it sum up to NPOV. I'm not happy with the notion that about half of the text of a featured article on cladistics is spent discussing the PhyloCode and Linnean hierarchy.
There is a subtle, but important philosophical difference between cladistics and parsimony. This article should address that clearly. The "see also" is an odd list. It should have links to phenetics, parsimony, maximum likelihood phylogenetics , maybe Bayesian phylogenetics , as well as some of what's already there.
I hope someone besides me has an interest in working on this, because I know nothing about the morphological side of things. Opabinia regalis , 18 December UTC I'd like to see this article rescued, but the chances of me doing any substantive work on it before the holidays are approaching zero - I haven't had the time to gather sources together and won't have any relevant books with me while I'm out of town next week. I don't really deal with FAR much - if this review period can be extended until early January, that would be great; if not, maybe it'll get a new star eventually.
Marskell , 2 January UTC See this thread - after waffling a bit on this, I've concluded that my efforts alone would not be enough. The article as it stands has serious oversimplification problems and is not comprehensive, and cladistics is far enough outside my field that I don't have the necessary familiarity with the relevant literature to write a balanced and up-to-date article.
As I said on my talk page, I'll try to make this article not suck , but that's not the same as bring to FA standard. But what's right about the article is that, although quite muddled, it thus fairly reflects the field! My own views are highly controversial to most people who identify themselves as cladists, and are regarded as borderline-crackpot and dismissable. So I am not a good person to edit this article. Thanks for thinking of me, but Per above.
Remove as per previous reviewers; really needs an expert or two. The article was removed , 18 January Individual paragraphs are very small. A decent copy editing will help.
Inline external links be removed and cite. Although the article has a lot of valuable data and information, they have to be organised in a much better way. There are a lot of stuff unnecessarily in parenthesis, which needs to be cleaned up.
Here are a few examples from the top. Is that the case? Seriously under-referenced. The article was removed , 29 January It has a massive external link farm that needs pruning see WP:EL and WP:NOT ; See also needs pruning as well, with relevant entries incorporated into the text, and articles that are already in the text deleted from See also. Many of the References Footnotes are not properly formatted, some are missing completely, some are missing basic info, some are missing last access date, and journal-published articles should have PMIDs.
There are numerous citation needed tags, and many more that could be added - the article has many facts which are not cited. The article is replete with uncited text and weasle words example: Debate continues over the nature and causes of chronic flashbacks.
Some say HPPD is a manifestation of post-traumatic stress disorder, not related to the direct action of LSD on brain chemistry, and vary according to the susceptibility of the individual to the disorder. Many emotionally intense experiences can lead to flashbacks when a person is reminded acutely of the original experience. However, not all published case reports of chronic flashbacks appear to describe an anxious hyper-vigilant state reminiscent of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Move to FARC. Then we have at least another two weeks in FARC, when people can vote to Keep or Remove, and improvements can still happen. My main reason was that references are skimpy: many statements of fact are made without one. LuciferMorgan , 20 January UTC Remove I cleaned up what I can in the article structure, but the article remains massively undercited and weasly, with no one apparently willing to work on it. Chunks of US government text are used but not attributed, that's possibly plagiarism.
Also many paragraphs full of non-trivial claims are not cited at all. Pity—it's quite well written. The article was removed , 24 January Central processing unit [ edit ] Review commentary [ edit ] Messages left at Wackymacs , Video games , Computing , Computer science , and Arcade games. I don't think summary style requires the references be re-cited in the summary. I wrote this article and have little intention of adding an inline reference to every third sentence.
I feel that the current dogmatic interpretation of WP:V as far as FA standards are concerned is, frankly, ridiculous. I just wanted to nominate this for de-listing myself before someone else got around to it. Those guys are pretty good at getting inline citations. Jay , 15 December UTC Needs more citations to support statements and facts throughout the article in all sections. At its current status, this article doesn't live up to current FA standards being met by many other featured articles.
LuciferMorgan , 20 January UTC Problem with external links, see also, references, and referencing - is anyone working on this? The article was removed , 15 January Messages left at Geography and Protected areas. Once left with the rest, there's a lot of work to be done in order to retain FA status.
Maybe both use the same PD work. There's not exactly copy-paste material, except from  for the Bats section. I'm going to run several tests again later. Not good. I checked again the site  , and it turns out that there are some exact sentences from this site appear in this article. And I don't think that site is a fork from Wikipedia. Yes, it's not good. So no need to run google search, it's a copyvio.
Gzkn , 11 December UTC OK, I searched phrases from each section and I found out that the Geology section is not copyvio, as the text from that website was copied from this NPS web page , which is in the public domain. However, I could not find anything else for the other sections, so they may still be copyvio.
I'll do some more research Gzkn , 11 December UTC This seems to suggest that the National Park Service website actually copied its information from there too, as the former appeared much earlier than the latter. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to contact the NPS or that guy who owns www.
At the least, public domain or not, the sections taken from another site must be cited. This is a separate issue than is that of the original source questions something from the public domain can still be plagiarized--as can be something publicly reprinted with private approval of the original author. Given the significant age of the original as well as sea-changes in our common sensitivity to, and sense of outrage about, the commercial destructive exploitation of public treasures I'm thinking I heard something about protests against the continued in-cavern vendors and new evidence that this commercial presence was deteriorating the caves--but I have been wrong already several times today!
Does this make sense to anyone? Granted, some of the most important rooms should be described, but in articles on buildings we don't describe every room, so why should we describe them in a cave? I would encourage keeping the rooms distinction.
This flows from the historic categorization of caverns. That is, unlike rooms of a building, the different caverns are subjected to sometimes subtle differences which over time, result in strikingly different or similar appearances. While the trained geologist may inwardly snicker these caverns should be featured here because of their impact on, and influence of, the public. Poets have often invoked metaphors in an attempt to do justice to the unexpected beauty or drama.
Perhaps it would be best for us to retain both of these perspectives: The academic geologic and the popular rhapsodic? This is not to suggest that geologists are not so mechanical as to be immune from a gasp at an unexpected scene, or that the public is not fully interested in the geologic details.
Perhaps both of these perspectives should be honored. Perhaps through some new or renewed structural mechanism in the article's organization?
Oh, and somewhere in the wikipedia entry covering the residence of the President might in fact mention "the White House", and even "the oval office" and "Lincoln's bedroom. The section on bats should be expanded to include other fauna and may be even flora if there is any in the cave.
Just a few suggestions of things I can see. It is a full article about the geology. The geology section at Grand Canyon which I also wrote is a several paragraph summary that should really be a wee bit longer. The geology section in this article is starting to get a bit long, but not long enough yet to warrant splitting and summarizing since the summary left here would need to be well over half the size of the full separate daughter article.
Thus little point would be served by a split at this time. Congress upgraded the monument to a national park on 14 May Do a search and destroy for this word throughout.
Oh, there it is in the very next sentence, too. Isn't it already in the future tense? Sandy Talk , 27 December UTC This is in need of a major update, as this does not appear to take into account the last seven years of Central Asian history, other than a brief mention of the color revolutions. Guenter Lewey, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst , argued that the generals and war planners severely underestimated the enemy's abilities to match and even to exceed US forces.
Enemy forces were initially pushed out of certain territories, but as soon as the American forces left the areas, they simply returned with more reinforcements and weapons. The effectiveness of the missions is also doubtful. Those estimated figures, however, should be considered in light of the by how they were obtained. They were almost exclusively gathered by indirect means: sensor readings, sightings of secondary explosions, reports of defectors or prisoners-of-war, and inference or extrapolation.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Redirected from Search and destroy missions. For other uses, see Search and destroy disambiguation. This article includes a list of references , but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. September Learn how and when to remove this template message. University of Hawaii Press. Categories : Military terminology Military tactics.The Red Hot Chili Peppers recorded a cover of "Search and Destroy" during the sessions for Blood Sugar Sex Magik; the song appeared on the B-side of the "Give It Away" single, and later on the Iggy Pop tribute CD We Will Fall, the compilation CD Under the Covers, and the compilation CD The Beavis and Butt-Head bluesrock.granilargardajindforcerunner.infoinfo: James Newell Osterberg Jr., April 21, .