Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2006

Global Positioning System

This is a good candidate for a future feature, however it is going through massive revisions right now. One editor has been working furiously on it, but we need time for others to review the work and polish it. Also there is a proposal to move most of the meat from GPS to the generic term GNSS. Dhaluza 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - archived by nominator Raul654 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

You may be looking for a different FAC: see sorting old FA archive issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This article has undergone 2 peer reviews and this will be its second FA candidacy. I've been working on it so long (My contributions to it amount in its log to about 89%.) When you either object or comment, please leave a description of what needs fixing because peer review has simply ignored this article. Self-nom. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 13:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• FAC 1

• Object, at least for now, for the following reasons:

1. 30 of the 39 citations are articles of the Constitution - therefore, only 9 citations offer further analysis. This indicates that the legal analysis is inadequate. Something proved by the text itself. When I read uncited assertions like "These passages still do guarantee important rights to New Jerseyans, but they are not necessary to constantly enforce" I get more convinced that my assertion is correct. Who says that "they are not necessary to constantly enforce"? Is there a Court decision? A scholarly analysis? A mere narration of the content of the article is not enough. We need scholarly analysis and relevant court decisions. And, as we saw, even when some analysis is offered, verifiable sources are missing.

2. "Defunct Versions" is tagged. Does this section really need expansion. If yes, then, until it is expanded, the article is not ready for FA status.

3. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 is linked both in "sources" and "external links". Why? In any case, I think that the "Sources" section is redundant. You have references? What is the role of "sources"? To link to the State Constitution? You can do that in external links or in your references, linking to each article of the Constitution.--Yannismarou 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Sources" gone, I just started expanding the "Defunct versions" section. Agree that more citations are needed. AZ _t 17:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Must've missed the PR. I would like to see this article reach WP:FA status, but unfortunately it doesn't seem quite there yet. Why is the {{expandsection}} template still there? The WP:LEAD is also a bit weak; note that WP:LEAD#Writing about concepts states that notable criticisms should be summarized in the lead too. The prose isn't the best either, some examples (I read from the bottom up, and I'll try to do more copyediting later):
  • Amendments are submitted … The amendment is voted upon, inconsistent plurality. Plus, is voted upon by the houses … at least three-fifths of the house's votes again inconsistent
  • The first sections, Sections I through IV, were adopted with the rest of the constitution. Sections is redundant (and so is the first, since we know that I-IV will be first).
  • The Article orders the Legislature to pass all laws necessary for the activation the new constitution missing "of"
  • they are expired or superseded, altered, or repealed "or" is used twice?
  • The new legislature, the process of their election, and their term and rotation are created. legislature is incorrectly referred to with "their". Instead, the members of the legislature (not the legislature itself) are elected.
  • The previous sections create the process of supersession; the remaining sections are the amendments. For reasons unknown, this constitution has never been directly updated since its adoption. The amendments are enumerated in this Article. The Court of Errors and Appeals and Chancery courts are abolished,[36] transferring the cases before them and offices under them to other courts, such as the New Jersey Supreme Court. Hm.. this paragraph doesn't flow too well. The first sentence was discussed already in the paragraph beforehands. That paragraph also notes that this article lists out the amendments. Then, this paragraph goes into Courts?
  • The requirement of the Federal Supreme Court that the apportionment of all state legislatures be by population is stated. "of" doesn’t seem right to me; perhaps "by"? The passive voice can make it a bit difficult to read (a reader might accidentally read it as that the Federal Court (not this article) must state the apportionement of the …)
  • It was passed on election day, 1966, but took effect on January 17, 2006. Odd wiki-linking (link 2006 too!), plus a citation would be helpful for this – I can hardly believe it took 40 years to take effect.
  • As seen in during the time following Jim McGreevey's resignation, New Jersey was exposed as having a disorganized executive succession plan. Awkward, and "was exposed as" is unneeded due to "as seen in" (replace w/ something else).
  • The New Jersey State Treasury Website we know it’s the website… its under "External links".
• For just 3 sections, that's not that good. Hopefully, by the end of this FAC, the article will be in a lot better condition. Try contacting WP:NJ for additional help in improving the article. AZ _t 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Needs more independent sources. Most of citations is the constitution itself. The article is well-written, but the references are a problem. Also, I think that there needs to be less emphasis on the constitution's contents. The article looks like a summary of the constitution. I can't see much about the prepatory work involved about the constitution. As a jurist, I would be very interested to know how and why the constitution's provisions were adopted as such (in general). When was the current consitution ratitied, under what conditions? What has been the general trends since the first constitutions of Jersey (or charters) Criticism is not a good section either. As a general rule, "criticism" sections are weasely, and anything contained in these sections should be inserted in context to other relevant sections. Two months ago I completely rewrote a Constitution article, even though I haven't had the time to look into it again, I have experienced that Constitution articles have a very bad habit of shifting to a discourse of its contents, rather than its place in society/country etc. Baristarim 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - A followup on Az: I don't really understand how an amendment superseded in 1995 would still be in effect in 2006. At the end of the Elections and Suffrage section, the last sentence is difficult to read. It might help to replace "to represent" with a paraphrase "[represents]". The quote should be cited. Also "who is to not have held" -> "who must not have held"? Gimmetrow 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma Sooners football

This is a thorough, well cited, and hopefully well written article. It has been reviewed for NPOV by the College football WikiProject. I support this article as the nominator and primary editor.--NMajdan•talk 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't decipher a source for some of those tables - example, Coaching history. Make sure all data is sourced. Sandy (Talk) 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can do that. Also, I noticed you moved an image up. I know there is a lot of whitespace around the award winners but that image is of OU's first All-American and is lined up with the All-American table.--NMajdan•talk 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sources added. I tried to use the actual award website for my sources but there were two or three where I could not find a list of past winners on their website but I did find another source for those exceptions.--NMajdan•talk 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• When I moved it, it was still aligned with the first All-American - it's long enough to cover both short sections. Big globs of white space are ugly - images don't have to be perfectly aligned with the text they correspond to :-) Sandy (Talk) 23:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A lot of good material, but it's overall focus is very promotional. Half the table of contents is awards, with another main section being championships, making 2 out of 4 sections basically presenting a positive POV about the program. There is some information on scandals in the text, but it is relatively minimized compared to the rest. The text itself isn't all egregiously POV, but most sentences are structured to highlight the positives, making it read a bit too much like ad copy. I think there's good enough material that this could make it with some work. An example to see what I mean is the lead. All but three sentences are positive facts about the program selectively chosen to highlight the positives. Picking timeframes such as the modern era to mention it is the winningest program of the modern era, is an example of POV by selective presentation of facts. The same thing is done by focusing on winning seasons and coaches and won games. - Taxman ^Talk 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there is no precedent in FA for college athletic team articles so any advice is helpful. I've been looking at New England Patriots which is the closest thing I could compare to. You mention that too much of the TOC is awards. The Patriots article has a third or so dedicated to "Players of note", Hall of Famers, Retired numbers, and other notable alumni. I believe these are equal to the awards of college football. But, I can fix that by changing all those subheaders to just bolded titles which would shrink the TOC by half.--NMajdan•talk 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, there's no precedent so the job won't be easy. I didn't mean to be harsh it's just the state of the article. It looks like the Patriots article has the same problem, and it's the same problem that most university articles have. Most of what's written about sports franchises is promotional, and most people willing to write about a sports program are fans, so it's hard to be neutral. I don't see justification for any full sections covering awards, beyond noting as it does in the text already what awards were won. Perhaps instead of listing only positive things such as awards or facts that are better than other programs, consider on some objective criteria how the program compares to other perennially winning programs, Notre Dame, Penn State, Fla, etc. Simply list which criteria they are better at and which ones are worse than other programs. Another thing that could help is more simple description of the program, it's stadium, attendance, revenues. I don't have a lot of other ideas on how to reduce the POV, but changing the section headings to years, instead of eras of the best coaches should help some. What's hard is almost the whole focus of the article is positive facts instead of just description. - Taxman ^Talk 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - In relation to the selective presentation of facts, the generally accepted practice in college football (at least in the media and among the programs) is to ignore anything related to wins and losses before the advent of the AP poll when trying to determine program prestige. Mainly, this is because records for many programs are not complete before about 1930 and there was not a national focus on college football until around that time. One could consider the creation of a national poll like the AP as a response to the increasing demand for national information about local college teams. Additionally, the phrase "modern era" is easily misinterpreted to mean a relatively short time frame when it actually encompasses over 70 years of history. z4ns4tsu\^talk 17:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• I will combine the awards into one section but I am very hesitant about removing them completely. I want this article to serve as a reference for somebody wanting information on OU football. Having a list of what Sooners have won the most prestigious awards in college football is something I can see somebody easily coming to this article to find. Right now, this information is only available by visiting multiple sites but now, on Wikipedia, its available all in one place. I will definitely work on adding a couple paragraphs for the stadium which can encompass attendance and I will work at finding information on revenues. I read recently the budget for OU football was $60+ million but I'll see if I can find other information as well. But thank you for your detailed response on how to improve the article. As you can see, this is my first FA and I knew how critical everybody was. This article has been stable for months but I was hesitant to nominate. I just decided to go ahead a few days ago.--NMajdan•talk 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article reads a bit too much like Oklahoma Sooners football history - the article is essentially a history section followed by a series of lists.. For example, Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else. The infobox has a pageantry section which contains several items notable enough to have their own article; these deserve to be mentioned in the text, under Pageantry or another suitable title. The seemingly endless lists of awards would be better converted to prose, in a manner similar to Arsenal F.C.#Statistics and records. One more minor point: it might just be because I use British English rather than American English, but to me "winningest" seems too informal for encyclopedic use. Oldelpaso 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps you could convert the awards section to look something like the All-Americans box so it would take up less space and only be one item on the table of contents. Also, am I right in that Image:OU-Logo.PNG needs a fair use rationale? VegaDark 21:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I can work on both those. I didn't know if the fair use rationale was needed since I didn't see it on a few other images on other FAs.--NMajdan•talk 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I left the Heisman and All-American sections alone, but combined the rest into one.--NMajdan•talk 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object It's kinda like a boosters brochure or fund-raising pamphlet more than an article, this is along-standing football team that has had more than its share of fame and glory, also the prose is marginal in a lot of areas

"That first "season" saw the team go 0-1, being blanked 0-34 by a more experienced Oklahoma City Town Team (they could not even muster a first down." Who could not even muster a first down? "That first "season" saw the Sooners go 0-1, without even a first down in their only game against the more experienced Oklahoma City Town Team." And Harts isn't important enough to the history of the team to get a closing sentence, that the Sooners didn't get their first real coach until a few years later takes care of Hart. This patchy list of incosequential early coaches without any reason or season for their mention clutters the article. "Bedlam Series" should be used instead of "bedlam football." You need more references for this section, also, as it seems rather POV without the references. No one who is not an Okie or college football fan will know what your first few sentences of the Switzer era section is about. You're writing for people who don't know, not for the fans who want all the points mentioned. There's really too much work that needs done on this article for it to be considered at this point for FA. However, I'd like to see it get up to snuff and be featured. KP Botany 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object, too much POV, advertisement here. Article is too long and needs more summarisation. Its not up to FA standards in general. Terence Ong 08:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• I had a great time reading this panphlet trying to convince me to play football at Oklahoma. Oh, wait, this is an encyclopedia article? There is a lot of shoddy writing in this article, with sentences such as "This flurry of early season wins propelled them to a number two national ranking and setting the stage for one of the great college football games of the century against top-ranked Nebraska." and "The next couple coaches that came after Owen, Adrian Lindsey and Lewie Hardage, amounted to little going a combined 30-31-10 over those eight seasons." Object. -- Kicking222 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. I think the point has been made and it can be made politely too. - Taxman ^Talk 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's a pretty good article, some of the comments above seem slightly inconsiderate and generally not used to sports articles on Wikipedia. But some other comments do seem helpful. At any rate, this article is well-referenced and has the makings of a great summary of the team's history. Tone issues are still there, it's a bit too informal in places, heavilly referring to the team as "OU" for example. I fixed a variety of problems in several sections. This FAC seems doomed but I give a weak support and encourage people interested in OU football to keep at it and try again. Writing the first FA of a given type of topic can be a beast I'm sure, but it would be useful to have a precedent set for college sports articles. To go beyond history & awards fare, perhaps fan culture at OU should be covered, are there interesting fan traditions, what is the fan base like, how is the team percieved by other Big 12 fans and by college FB fans in general? --W.marsh 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Flower

This article meets all of the requirments worthy of being a featured article. Neutral, well written, pictures balance the article very well, etc. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 13:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This article isn't ready. It needs inline citations per What is a featured article. This line "Several other symbols are used that will have to await drawings to illustrate here (see [1])." is innappropriate, as is the Floristry section User talk:James086|Talk]] | Contribs 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong object per James. These problems (which I almost didn't believe when I read James's comment) are inexcusable. -- Kicking222 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may add, this is not even remotely close to a Good Article (per WP:WIAGA), much less an FA. -- Kicking222 15:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• The nominator has withdrawn their nomination per this edit. Picaroon 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Life

Came across this in trying to find out about the subject. The subject has generated allot of interest lately. I feel this is an exceptionally well written article full of good sources and citations and deserves to be featured! frummer 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article is listy, full of external links in the text and features plenty of "citation needed" tags. Huge swathes of text are unreferenced. There's a merge proposal, which suggests it isn't stable. Refer to peer review. Gzkn 03:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Edit conflict with Gzkn
• Object: A mere quick scan of the entire article reveals numerous citation needed tags and a merge notice. Plus the article is list-heavy; External links should be cleaned up and go after the references section, not before; a trivia section; table of contents is ginormous; and lots of stubby paragraphs. Major improvement is needed.--Dark Kubrick 03:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object (snow). Massive external link farm, cite needed tags, doesn't conform with WP:MOS, WP:MSH or WP:LAYOUT, needs cleanup, has a trivia section, rambling table of contents reflecting lack of organization in article, See also isn't see also. Nominator just removed an unreferenced tag from the article, which is needed. Please send to peer review before approaching FAC. Sandy (Talk) 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment although I've contributed a fair bit to this of late, I don't honesty think it's ready to be made a featured article. However, I'll be appreciative of comments on it so keep them coming ... and since it's been listed, I'll give some priority to improving it where I can. Metamagician3000 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest peer review first. Sandy (Talk) 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've just done some more clean-up including merging some overlong material into a Teen Second Life article, as has been proposed for some time but not done until now - I don't think this will be a controversial action. I've also slapped on some more "citation needed" tags (some of the existing ones were mine). I do think that a peer review would help a lot to get this closer to genuine FA standard. The nominator might like to think about that possibility. Metamagician3000 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object While it is well written, there are too many uncited sections that have the fact tag to achieve FA status. - NickSentowski 19:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object You do have some good things going for you (you being the various editors of this article), though. First of all, you are atttempting to, and succeeding more than failing, explain this to an audience that isn't familiar with virtual worlds and the like--thank you. My son and mother do this, participate in some virtual world, and just by reading this article I learned more than they ever explained to me. However, the prose is not rich or compelling. It's not bad, it's just somewhat without depth, flat. Some terms do need explanations after first usage, avatar, for example, any other technical term. "As of December, 2006, between about ten and twenty thousand users are in SL at any one time." This has been blanded to no meaning. "between about a large range of numbers" means you're clueless. This needs to go to a peer review, first, as suggested, but get some richness, some depth to the prose, first. KP Botany 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Aside from the many other glaring problems, does anyone else really dislike the small SL logo to the left of the lead? It's completely unnecessary, as the large logo is just opposite it, and it makes the article look unencyclopedic. -- Kicking222 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really dislike it. I kinda like the color, in fact. KP Botany 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really dislike it - it doesn't belong there. If WP:GTL, WP:LEAD, WP:MOS or some other part of Wikiland doesn't explain a proper encyclopedic lead and heading, we should make sure they do, lest we start seeing cutesy icons in the leads of other articles. (Besides, how about Fair Use on those images?) Sandy (Talk) 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me anymore - I removed it. Sandy (Talk) 10:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, awesome! -- Kicking222 16:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that takes care of that. Still, I thought the color was very nice. KP Botany 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it had to go. Metamagician3000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object: As a major contributor to the SL article and other SL-related articles, I can say without a doubt that Second Life is not in a state befitting featured article status. Signpostmarv 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment - I've fixed everything I could without specialised knowledge. It's obvious that the article is still not in shape to be featured. In particular, a lot of citations are still needed (alas, finding them is beyond my expertise with this topic). I wonder whether the nominator would now be prepared to take it to peer review and maybe nominate it again at a later date, preferably when the citations are dealt with, along with anything else that comes out of peer review. Those of you who still think it has issues other than the citations, could you have a go at fixing some of them? I've rewritten a lot of it into what seems to me to be clearer and better prose, and I've pruned obviously extraneous material, but I'm getting too close to it now and I'd like to see someone else have a try. Metamagician3000 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yahtzee

Well written article with an amazing collection of photographs that walk the reader through the many stylistic phases of the game's popularity. Yahtzee is one of the tried and true favorite games in American culture. The packaging alone shows a good example of America's cultural change over the decades. - NickSentowski 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Doesn't meet any FA criteria, suggest you run it first through peer review for detailed feedback. Sandy (Talk) 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:SNOWSumoeagle179 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Read WP:WIAFA It's got no references, for god's sake. -- Kicking222 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object Not anywhere in the ballpark. I grew up playing Yahtzee (and chess and poker and Afghan 3-card-brag) and can't follow the article: "The player must roll at least three of a kind of all six die face values (or an equal to or greater score of other combinations so that the total is at least 63 points) to achieve a 35 point bonus." What? The introduction is particularly poorly done. If someone reads only the introduction, they should come out with an understanding of the game, include some background, some history, put it in context, is it played all over the world, was it a 60s/70s fad that went bust? Too much work needed for FA consideration right now. KP Botany 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This article really needs some references to back up its assertions. The ratio of text to images is rather skewed: it's as much a gallery as it is an article - though I'm not aware of particular FA guidelines on that front. Adding citations would be a big improvement. Venicemenace 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the lead needs a second paragraph. This should contain a brief summary of the history and origins of the game. Inline refs are pretty well a prerequisite for an FA as well.Cas Liber 10:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Professional diving

I'd like to nominate this article, I believe it's a good article and I've spent a considerable time rewriting it into a decent and hopefully easy to understand, well illustrated article, the images are all public domain, and I have spent time finding the best PD images available for the article. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I didn't get beyond the first sentence, "Professional Diving is a type of diving where the diver is paid for their work," which strikes me as a bit weak. Also, is the section on equipment necessary? I assume this is all covered in diving. Semperf 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, uncited, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT, WP:MOS, WP:MSH. Sandy (Talk) 03:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, if for no other reason that the vast majority of the article is unreferenced. -- Kicking222 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mötley Crüe (album)

I've done a huge re-write of this article, listed all facts and information from reliable sources, and have made sure to remove any POV that was originally present. I've requested this article to be Peer Reviewed and have also submitted it for grading on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment page. I have not heard any feedback from either section. Any comments and/or suggestions are appreciated, I hope this article gets featured. Darwin's Bulldog 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Nice work, however the lead is insufficent, and the article lacks the level of inline citation necessary for an FA. Could also do with a copy edit throughout the text. + Ceoil 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lead way too small (two quick sentences, no meat), not enough refs, too much unreferenced text, prose is not wikipedia's best...the writing needs to be more captivating, it bores me, doesn't interest me in the subject. I think this article is way too short (read: not thorough) for an FA. —ExplorerCDT 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Nat91 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Is there a standard amount of refs neceissary for an article such as this? Also, could I have some suggestions as to what other info I could add? I feel I've hit most of the bases, personnel details, lyrical content, chart info... at this moment in time, I feel additional info on those topics would be superfluous. What other angles should I hit? Darwin's Bulldog 08:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm a little cautious as to were, or how many times I should list the references. For example, I feel obligated to put a reference immedatley following a quote, but in other cases, should I place the ref(s) at the end of the paragraph as opposed to the end of each sentence? Darwin's Bulldog 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Read WP:FN - refs generally go at the end of the sentence, or after mid-sentence punctuation, but there are instances where you need to reference a particular word or phrase mid-sentence. Use common sense to let readers know what the note is referencing - put at the end of the sentence when you can. Refs are necessary for any direct quote, number, statistic, or statement likely to be questioned or challenged, and should certainly be given for any personal bio info. You also should avoid submitting an article to FAC at the same time you submit it to peer review - that could be viewed as an abuse of the editors who put time and effort into reviewing articles - a long stint at peer review, and a good amount of time to correct deficiencies is helpful before approaching FAC. The PR instructions clearly state that they can remove any request that becomes an FAC candidate, so you should choose one or the other.Sandy (Talk) 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I prefer doing PR first, so the FAC goes smoother as most of the issues are already taken care of through the PR process. —[[User:ExplorerCDT|Explor
    • There is no "standard" number of references, just that the criteria says the article should be a thorough treatment of the subject and that it be well-referenced (among other things). I don't think the article at this point is either well-referenced or thorough. For an idea of what I do when I reference an article (which should give you an idea of how much and what kind of referencing I'd like to see on an article), see Paulins Kill (currently an FAC) or Joyce Kilmer (my current project). —ExplorerCDT 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Computer

This is the second nomination for Computer, but you may safely ignore the first since the article has been rewritten in its entirety since then. This is obviously an article on a very broad and (I think) somewhat important topic, and one that many people here will know at least something about. So there are a lot of differing opinions on how an article of such broad scope should be written. After asking for the input of other editors, we decided to attempt to use a hub article approach ("we" being myself and SteveBaker, the primary authors) wherein the main article lightly touches on many of the highest important topics but leaves details to subsidary articles. In this choice we made some decisions that will probably bring up questions/objections in this FAC discussion, so I'd like to address them up front:

• The bulk of the article's text focuses on the stored program architecture and the details of the computer/program relationship. I'm sure that many people would see this and be quite ready to give their opinion on what the core topics should have been. The reason we concentrate on these two issues is that they are the most basic way one can define a "computer" as the term is used in modern language. All modern (since the mid-1940s) computers store and execute programs, and that is the fundamental attribute that differentiates them from calculators. Keeping in mind that this article is about the "Computer", we feel it is appropriate for most of the substantial text to focus on what really defines a computer. All other topics should be treated in other articles.
• There is a big section full of links. I realize this is probably going to be one of the most contentious aspects of this article. Many of us have a bitter taste for lists, and for good reason. However, we have carefully selected the links in these tables to provide quick access to many important computer-related topics. The reason we have done this simple: if the casual reader (unaquainted with Wikipedia in all its technicalities and details) comes here looking for information on computer-related topics, the first article he will visit is this one. We feel that these organized link tables provide a compact way of easily finding further reading on a variety of topics. One might argue that we should just link to a category, but frankly that's all but worthless for a topic that covers a non-negligible percentage of the articles on Wikipedia. Please think carefully before voting based merely on these links. Consider that there are few (if any) featured articles on a broad topic, and there are therefore few examples of broadly scoped article style and organization to adapt. We have tried to keep the link tables to a reasonable size while still providing a "user friendly" segue into the numerous other computer related topics. Once again, the lists in this article are not a cheap substitute for actual content, but rather they are meant to be an easy starting point for further reading on this broad topic.
• This article has relatively few references. Another potentially hot point. The article is an overview of a LOT of information. While there are a myriad of "how your computer works" books and websites out there, I have yet to encounter one that was really well done (technically correct yet accessible to the lay man) and didn't resort to terrible analogies. The very concept of the stored program computer cannot be easily sourced to one location (otherwise I would've just ref'ed von Neumann's First Draft Report on the EDVAC and been done with it). The point is, while this article could easily garner a thousand references, I would rather take the time to use GOOD references than google some random crappy website that probably contains plenty of misconceptions, omissions, or factual errors. If you take issue with the state of references in this article, I implore you to give us specific claims that you would like to be referenced. I will do my best to add solid refs for anything that needs to be verified. Comments to the effect "needs more refs" are worthless and encourage exactly the opposite of what WP:V is supposed to accomplish (that is, encourages finding a myriad of aforementioned poor references rather than a few good ones).

I'm a little concerned that too many people will vote based on how they would have written the article (but did not) rather than on the merits and drawbacks of the article how it currently stands. I ask you to please give this article a thorough read-through before passing judgement. If you do feel the need to tear it apart, please make your criticisms as constructive as possible. Part of the reason for this nomination is to get some additional critical readership since we got very little useful response in peer review. Thanks for your attention, and I look forward to any constructive comments you can make. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T00:32Z

• Object
  • I sincerely doubt that good references can't be found. There are plenty of computer architecture textbooks out there that you could source. Since you asked for specifics, citations are needed for these among many others:
    • Originally, the term "computer" referred to a person who performed numerical calculations (a human computer), often with the aid of a mechanical calculating device.
    • The end of the Middle Ages saw a re-invigoration of European mathematics and engineering, and Wilhelm Schickard's 1623 device was the first of a number of mechanical calculators constructed by European engineers.
    • In 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard made an improvement to the textile loom that used a series of punched paper cards as a template to allow his loom to weave intricate patterns automatically.
    • Large-scale automated data processing of punched cards was performed for the US Census in 1890 by tabulating machines designed by Herman Hollerith and manufactured by the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR), which later became IBM.
    • The table for Defining characteristics of five first operative digital computers and the claims presented in the list of those five in the prose below.
    • Nearly all modern computers implement some form of the stored program architecture, making it the single trait by which the word "computer" is now defined.
    • A typical modern computer can execute billions of instructions every second and nearly never make a mistake over years of operation.
    • For instance, the Pentium FDIV bug caused some Intel microprocessors in the early 1990s to produce inaccurate results for certain floating point division operations. This was caused by a flaw in the microprocessor design and resulted in a partial recall of the affected devices.
    • This is called the Harvard architecture after the Harvard Mark I computer. Modern von Neumann computers display some traits of the Harvard architecture in their designs, such as in CPU caches.
    • The entire Networking and the Internet section. Doing so can also replace vague generalities like "A very large proportion of personal computers" with specific statistics.
  • Prose problems:
    • So by the end of the 19th century a number of technologies that would later prove useful in the realization of practical computers had begun to appear: Why start this sentence with the unencyclopedic "so"?
    • ...around this time; the first of these being completed in Great Britain. Incorrect use of the semicolon.
    • While a person will normally read each word and line in sequence, they
    • It is noticeable that the sequence of operations...
    • In the phrase of John Gage and Bill Joy (of Sun Microsystems), "the network is the computer". In the phrase of?
  • Some of your ref links (like Shannon 1940) don't go anywhere. Gzkn 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I will try to find references for the given examples. This recent WP:V dogma is utterly insane, but if a reference after every third sentence is what you'll require for the rubber stamp, then that's what I'll attempt to provide. It sure is fortunate History of computing hardware was grandfathered into FA before we had to prove that the sky is blue. (or maybe we should nominate it for de-listing along with most of our other FAs) Sorry, I'm just a little frustrated with these nutty circumstances. I see it as a waste of time to be required to properly reference statements that anyone can confirm with a ten-second google search. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T03:25Z
      • "if a reference after every third sentence is what you'll require for the rubber stamp, then that's what I'll attempt to provide" Please don't put words in my mouth. If, as you say, all of these facts can be confirmed by a ten-second Google search (which I doubt), then it should be quite easy to reference them to a verifiable source for the benefit of readers, no? Gzkn 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes they are easy to verify, but googled links hardly make for good sources. Try it sometime. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z
    • Regarding the prose errors; I've fixed all that you listed except for the singular they, which is (arguably) not an error at all. Any other one-word corrections you'd like to dictate? Is it really that big a deal for you to just fix these sorts of tiny errors on your own? It takes just as much time to copy and paste them here. Oh well, better you point them out than they go unfixed... Thanks for your input. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T03:41Z
      • Um...no. I had one tab opened to this page and another to Computer. It was much easier to copy paste stuff while I'm reading rather than editing Computer and sifting through to find what I wanted to point out. Also, this way, it gives you a chance to judge my points, such as the singular they, and decide for yourself if they needed to be changed. I also might suggest a change in your attitude would do you well here. If you view this whole process and my comments above as a charade and a waste of time, I'm not really inclined to help improve the article. Gzkn 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • My comments weren't meant to be condescending, I was merely pointing out that it sure would be nice if you just fixed these kinds of obvious mistakes as you saw them. Anyway, my attitude has gotten me through over three years on Wikipedia, so I see little reason to adjust it. I'm just a little disgruntled about this recent spat of WP:V dogma on FAC, that's all. I do appreciate any suggestions for improvement that you make, so please don't think that I don't value input. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z

• Object—1a (prose) and 2a (lead). The standard of writing fails the requirements throughout.
• The opening sentence is not promising: the ability to store stored programs? Then there's a sense of "stored programmability", which is not what I think you mean.
• The opening paragraph goes into rather theoretical territory, whereas I was expecting a big-picture statement of the rise of computers in our civilisation.
• "computers can be made small enough to fit into a wrist watch and powered from a watch battery"—grammar doesn't work.
• Clumsy repetition: "used to control other devices—for example, they are used to control".

Then, further down:

• • "The question of which was the earliest computer is a difficult one."—What, a difficult computer?
  • "The very definition of what a computer is has changed over the years"—Try "The very definition of a computer has changed over the years". Over the years is vague.
  • "While the resulting Jacquard loom is not considered to be a computer, it was an important step because the use of punched cards to define woven patterns can be viewed as an early, albeit limited, form of programmability." Flabby prose; try "The resulting Jacquard loom was an important step in the development of computers because the use of punched cards to define woven patterns can be viewed as an early, albeit limited, form of programmability."
  • "Due to limits of finances"—no, "Due to limited finance".

It's not worth reading further until the prose has been significantly reworked. Tony 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Most of these prose problems arise from it having been written and revised by just two people. Can you suggest somewhere we could find an editor or two to rework things that may seem awkward to the casual reader? I've looked long and hard for such a thing, but it doesn't seem to exist on Wikipedia anymore (peer review has been dead in the water for awhile now). Thanks. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z

Yes, here, but the page is rather raw. Might help. Tony 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony, Gzkn, and if the article nomination requires a long explanation, it may be because the article needs tightening up wrt WP:WIAFA. Sandy (Talk) 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The long explanation was an attempt to answer questions that may have come up regarding the article's organization. It's notoriously difficult to write a good broad-scope article, and historically nearly impossible to pass one through FAC. I wanted to address some things that could have been contentious right off the bat because I figured they'd come up anyway. I've written two featured articles (admittedly, before these crazy modern times), so I do actually know what constitutes one. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T20:19Z
• Comment To the editors, I wouldn't worry just yet. Prose can be fixed with the right spirit of determination, and usually one or two simple statements can be excused if a good effort to find all the other citation neededs has been made. Seems like no one has objected about the actual content or makeup on the article, so carry on! --Zeality 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment re: the Further Topics section. Not clear why the particular hardware and software listed was chosen for inclusion. Much is left out. Why is this list notable? Who says so? What criteria? Hmains 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• • We started compiling a list of important topics months ago. If you see any glaring omissions, please do mention what they are and we'll discuss including them. -- mattb @ 2006-12-19T23:54Z

September 11, 2001 attacks

I was surprised this wasn't already a featured article. Well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced, etc. —P^urpleRA^IN 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 --W.marsh 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a featured article earlier.--Jones2 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article and topic are way too controversial. Just look at the history, lots of arguing. The article was even protected as recently as four days ago. It is simply not stable enough to be featured, and may never be. --The_stuart 19:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid objection - If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. Raul654 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per The_stuart. Curuinor 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Vandalism got nothing to do with being FA level or not. Wiki-newbie 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Stability does, though. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, specifically 1E. This article was the subject over an edit war over an external link and use of the {{NPOV}} tag not even a week ago, that lead to the article being full protected. --W.marsh 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Though I nominated the article, I would agree. I looked at the most recent 20 or so edits to look for evidence of edit warring, and didn't see any. I guess I should have looked back a little further. The article isn't as stable as I thought. —P^urpleRA^IN 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose unstable, (note I was involved in the edit warning from a few weeks ago) Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The first paragraph of the lead may be expanded and the articles in the see also could be incorporated to appropriate sections using templates like {{see}} or {{main}}. --Brand спойт 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The stability issue aside, I'm not sure it's up to snuff. Why are the aircraft-grounding, continuity-of-government, and rescue-response all the way under longer term effects when they were immediate to the attacks? Perhaps a reorganization of material along the lines of Attacks [to include rescue/civil aviation/continuity of government] > Public reaction > Geopolitical and policy effects > Investigations [which would include current "Responsibility and motive"] > Long-term effects. Anyway, I'm unsure that the 9/11 Commission and its report warrant a named section, but should probably dominate the lead of any relevant section. As it is the Commission-report section seems unjustly puny. What is Gitmo doing in discussion of the international reaction to 9/11? At the very least, the wikilink in the text should point directly to the detention center and the "further" template removed. Perhaps some more material on the charities and their celebrity-spokespeople? It's small, I know, but the controversies dominated news for a while. Anyway, the organizational stuff is just a thought.--Monocrat 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, not a stable article prone to edit warring and often changing content. Controversial topic after all, not in the next 15 years or so. Terence Ong 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, too controversial. The time has not yet cometh for this article to be featured as people still have too strong feelings for the event which shows in the article and how frequently it is edited. More research needs to be publicly available for the disputes to settle and the article to become stable enough. Lord Metroid 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid objection, per my comment to Stuart above. Raul654 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• strong oppose strong POV issues, and time will tell for sure. --Striver - talk 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I would like to see some of the minor sections filled out a little bit: the conspiracy section could be slightly expanded (and, I think, reworked for NPOV); I'm a little concerned to see sections named "Public reaction" and "Muslim American reaction", which could be seen to imply that Muslims are less American than others. Semperf 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. frummer 09:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Obviously this topic is extremely controversial, and probably is one of the best articles on wikipedia, but it will never be featured. Mbralchenko 14:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent, well-sourced article. "Controversial" is not a reason to object -- and what on God's Earth is controversial about it anyhow? And what POV issues are there? I cannot find any. --Jayzel 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object. My problem is not controversiality, but the article still needs formatting work and some stylistic "touches". For instance, I see stubby sections like "Survivors" or "Civilian aircraft grounding" - the existence of a more detailed sub-article does not excuse the existence of stubby sections. In other sections there are stubby, one sentence, "orphan" paragraphs, which interrupt the article's prose flow (this in no way "brilliant" or "compelling"). Finally, some "See also links" are not place just after the headings as they should, but at the end of the sections or sometimes somewhere in the middle! These things need fixing.--Yannismarou 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The protect tag for edit-warring... The article is in very good shape references-wise, and is pretty comprehensive. The stubby sections should either be expanded or merged, but since they are not fundamental section, that's no biggie. If the protect tag can be explained, then I will support. My only concern is stability with this article, but the article itself is very good. Baristarim 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-Reply Yes the protection is for edit waring. There is a fairly large group of Wikipedia editors who treat this article as a propaganda piece/ press release for the Bush administration. The only sources they consider reliable for the article are those produced by the Bush administration. This is in contrast to Reliable Sources guideline (though the propagandist recently rewrote WP:Reliable sources to elevate the importance of government publications ) which states that independent sources are preferred over government sources. This article should be featured by printing it on White House letterhead and having the presidential seal affixed to it. It has not place featured on Wikipedia. It has no place on Wikipedia at all. --MyFavoriteShop 07:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I have done a lot of work on the article for over a year, I rechecked every reference in early September as being accurate to the section linked and still live. Aside from small tugs of war over words such as "terrorism" and a few minor points, the article has changed very little in the last 90 days. Some may wish to see more conspiracy theory issues in the article but this is not needed since it is summarized in accordance with the undue weight clause of NPOV and linked to a daughter article where the issues are discussed in exhaustive detail. There is a lot of chatter on the talk page of the article, but none of this has resulted in much as far as changes for some time now.--MONGO 13:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The page is currently in full-protection mode, apparently due to edit warring. If it's not stable enough to even allow the editorial process to proceed normally, surely it's not stable enough to be a featured article. --Hyperbole 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Centennial Light

Self nomination. The article has been throughly researched and cited and has now reached a good state of stability. It's a little short for a featured article, but I hope that won't be a big problem. --The_stuart 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please expand all of your websources in footnotes: they should include no blue-link URLs, last access date, and name of the webhost. I fixed your footnote placement. Sources used in references/notes need not be repeated in External links. Sandy (Talk) 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Is this a serious nomination? Why am I reading "the worlds longest lasting light bulb" ("the world's longest-lasting light bulb") in what is a stubby, inadequate lead? "hand blown bulb"—hyphen please? Poorly written throughout. Stub. Tony 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is probably the most referenced stub in the history of humanity. --Howard the Duck 05:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object – Tony's a bit harsh calling it a stub (it's only slightly shorter than Hurricane Irene (2005)), but I'd definitely agree about the quality of the writing. The lead needs to be bulked up, and the prose needs a run through a thorough peer review. And given the number of available sources on the subject, I'm sure it'd be possible to add some more substance to the article. It's just not ready yet. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object it's nowhere near ready to go as a FA. However, unlike Tony, I totally agree with getting it up to snuff and featuring it. I like the quirky side of Wikipedia. There are many problems with the prose, it simply doesn't have any continuity. "The bulb was manufactured in Shelby, Ohio by the Shelby Electric Company[3] in the late 1890s. Shelby Electric Company was purchased by General Electric in 1914.[4] It is a 4 watt[5] hand blown bulb with a carbon filament.[1]" How about "The bulb is a 4 watt hand blown bulb with a carbon filament manufactured by the Shelby Electric Company of Shelby, Ohio, in the late 1890s." "It is a common light bulb produced by the Shelby Electric Company, of which many just like it still exist and can be found functioning.[6]" It is or it was? If it is as this says, then that would explain why "many just like it still exist" because they're being manufactured today. No continuity, the prose needs too much work, too much wrong for FA consideration right now. But love the funky topic, and will support it when it comes back cleaned up and ready. KP Botany 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Looks like a Featured Article. So must be one. I nominate this article for FA status. I think the WP:LEAD looks okay, otherwise you will spoil the suspense. --Jones2 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. As much as I'd like to see this article reach featured status, I don't believe it is there yet. None of the references are properly formatted; most, if not all, are simply links thrown at the end of sentences. With this exception, I believe the article meets criteria 1, 2, and 4. Criteria 3 calls for images, of which this article has only one. I believe images are very important to a featured article. With these issues in mind, I believe we have a good article on its way to featured status. If these items are taken care of, I would be willing to support FA in the future. AuburnPilot^talk 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object – Before looking at anything else, there are no inline citations so this article is bound to fail FAC. WP:LEAD is too short (and shouldn't be suspending, but the opposite, the lead should summarize the entire article – this is an encyclopedia, not a fictional novel). Suggest peer review first. AZ _t 00:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The lead should definetely be expanded, as I had no clear sense of who the person is by reading the paragraph. The first priority right now is probably to adjust all the citations to the proper format as noted above. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Insider (film)

I think that this is an important film that depicts a significant event in United States history -- a big tobacco scientist admitting in a public forum (i.e. 60 Minutes) that cigarettes are addictive -- as well as a fascinating critique of American media and censorship as the interview that was conducted was subsequently censored because of corporate interference. Count Ringworm 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object That may be true, but the actual article has only four inline citations.--Rmky87 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object mostly unsourced; opening paragraph says it is a 1999 film yet then says it was "later aired in 1996". Huh? Also object to the repeated use of the term "big tobacco". I'm not exactly sure what that means (Is there a little tobacco?), but I do know it is used in a negative manner by those biased against tobacco sellers and smokers. Therefore, I feel it is a violation against the NPOV policy here. --Jayzel 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per arguments above. Not only that there are only four citations, they are actually all from the same source. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Even though it is a great film and the subject matter important, I must Object per above. Also writing isn't the best. —ExplorerCDT 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object Not even close. No continuity, it reads like a serious of disjointed sentences pulled from a bag, ditto the above, what's Big Tobacco? Lead sentences to sections show a failure to identify the audience, it's not just fans of the film, it's anyone who wants to learn about the film for any reason. "When Mann was in post-production on Heat, Bergman was going through the events depicted in The Insider." The Mann is the director of the film, as the article is about the film, should have come before the mention of his contribution to the adaptation in the lead section. Add this sentence about Mann "in post-production on Heat" and no one can tell what's going on. What does Mann's interest in "doing a movie on an arms merchant in Marbella that Bergman knew" have to do with anything? There are sentences all over that have nothing to do with the article, and there's not even an attempt to make the article a cohesive whole, or even join these stray fragrments on random topics to the article. It's poorly written, the lead section is just a list, it is not written for a general encyclopedia's audience. Too much wrong right now. KP Botany 00:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Lacks inline citations, needs a thorough copy edit. Lead contains more blue than black words. + Ceoil 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, and contains a Trivia section, which needs to be merged into more encyclopedic sections. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Seriously needs references. The controversy section doesn't have any citations, and it is the kind of section that would need strong ones. Besides, I kind of got lost in the controversy section.. I didn't understand why those people were accusing each other, based on what and for which reasons. That section doesn't look good in particular. Baristarim 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All That

• First FAC
• Second FAC
• Third FAC

Self-nomination: This article has been FAC'd to death, and I really think it meets all the criteria, ALL of it. The page now includes important information relating to Season 6, which couldn't be added until the Hoku statement was removed. This statement was causing the article to skip over sections, and now the article looks absolutely beautiful, not to mention brilliant. I think it is finally ready for the front page. PF4Eva 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Object: Overall, a solid article, but not ready to be an FA yet:

• There are several instances of questionable grammer/construction ("The cast reunited on the show...", "...where he (like on All That) has honed his impersonation.." etc)
• There are several statements that seem to be out of place. For example, is Kenan Thompson's Bill Cosby impersonation something that needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Why does the "Weekly Guest Stars" section in "New Era Begins" begin with a paragraph about guest starts before this "New Era"?
• Some statements are unclear: Ex:While the articles on Cold Open, Sketch-Comedy, and musical guests may adequately describe what these aspects of the show are, what exactly is a "Cold open, sketch comedy, musical guest format"? Season 3 and 4 is a particularly foggy section. (Denberg's replacement is mentioned at the end, while Bates' is addressed at the beginning. The focus is entirely on casting, while seasons 1,2,5, and 6 focus on each season as a whole.)

I feel that these need to be addressed a tidied before this article can be featured. (The Swami 01:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

• Object. The information in the article is not substantiated by reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the Hoku statement caused problems because it had an unclosed ref tag. When a named ref is re-used, it has to have a slash at the end, as here. The Hoku unclosed ref tag goes back a while, and was the cause of some other text being deleted. Also, IMDb should be used very cautiously as a reference - other than Writers Guild of America credits, its content is essentially fan-submitted with an undisclosed degree of verification or sources. Gimmetrow 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per Centrx. --Darthphonebook 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Centrx. Nat91 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wheat

Seems to be a well-written and well-researched article, with plenty of supporting references. It's undoubtedly a topic of global interest and deserves to be Featured. --Lost tourist 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object: the article is not yet ready for FA.
  • The History section is still vague, no exact year is given.
  • The Genetics and breedings section is hard to understand. It really confuse me, as a layman reader. Please use more understandable jargons, rather than diploid, tetraploid and any kind of ploids that really does not contribute to the subject. It does not tell me that wheat genetics is complicated, only the explanation itself complicates me.
  • Again the next section is not helpful to me to understand what wheat is. For instances, in the following sentence: This more primitive morphology consists of toughened glumes that tightly enclose the grains, and (in domesticated wheats) a semi-brittle rachis that breaks easily on threshing. The result is that when threshed, the wheat ear breaks up into spikelets. It contains many unexplained jargons (in red color).
  • In this two sentences: There are many taxonomic classification systems used for wheat species, discussed in a separate article on Wheat taxonomy. It is good to keep in mind that the name of a wheat species from one information source may not be the name of a wheat species in another. It's not a good way of telling the reader what the wheat taxonomy is. Why do you need to say that there are different taxonomy? Which one is the correct one? How can I trust this article then?
  • Drop the Cost and returns section. This is not a wheat marketing report. This is an encylopaedia.
  • The Production and consumption statistics is very stubby.
  • Why should be there a special section for United States?

At the current status, it does not deserve to be featured. :— Indon (reply) — 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Indon. Stubby sections, images missing captions, non-formatted sections, POV, plenty WP:MOS/WP:FN issues, non-referenced sections and numbers. I suggest withdrawing this FAC and referring to peer review instead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What is a separate section of wheat in the United States doing there? deeptrivia (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly the article itself should answer that question, but also for China and India--largest wheat producing nations, US has greatest diversity, or did at one time. But since the article doesn't say a word about why the US has a separate section.... KP Botany 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps too many images. Do we need two images of combining wheat? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree- I think a dozen images of wheat, especially considering the length of the article, is a bit superfluous. -- Kicking222 19:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there are too many images, as the images show something, there just isn't enough and appropriate text for the images, and without captions, some are pointless. KP Botany 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object This is not even a good article by the loosest of standards. There are multiple comments necessary about almost every sentence of this article. It simply needs withdrawn for now. Post on WP:WikiProject Plants and ask for help developing the article, then put it through Plants Peer Review, then bring it back here. KP Botany 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Everett Smith

Amazing Harry Smith portal... Wiki galore... Exceptional! Zosodada 19:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object At a glance, saw this: "Much of his imagery is inspired by Kabbalistic themes such as the Sephirah, which are like musical notes on a staff, -- trivia that Harry would find very important to note here -- and is reflected in his choice of graphics and cover art of the Anthology of American Folk Music." no source... and tone issues unless a very specific source is found confirming he finds it important that people note that fact. Then we have weasel words without a citation, "It is suggested that Harry enjoyed cannabis, LSD, desoxyn and alcohol, occasionally.", stuff like that is to be avoided even in non-FAs. But this is just indicitive of a larger problem, article lacks anywhere near enough citations for a FA and most of the footnotes it does have concern the filmography listing, not the prose where they would be more needed. --W.marsh 15:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Nice article on a deserving subject, but not quite FA yet. A quick summary of problems to be worked on: Weasel words, second sentence is redundant, 'Films by Harry Smith' is near half the article lenght and should be cut to a seperate section, headings such as 'The eccentric and bohemian' suggest an editorial bias, footnotes need to be cleaned up, 'electronic recording' is a red link (this area is well documented on WP). Not exceptional yet. + Ceoil 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Opposed. Some good raw material here. One thing I think it needs is an early life/education section: born in Portland, grew up where?, educated where?, first jobs? something that sets the stage for him to become the archivist/film-maker. Semperf 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object - The lead is far too short. The filmography section starts with a mysteriously floating footnote (at least on my screen). The filmography seems to constitute at least half the article. No fair use rationale for the images used. Some sections contain single-sentence paragraphs, which looks bad. Some sections are entirely uncited. In short, this has a lot of work to be done before reaching FA level. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Charizard

First failed FAC, Second failed FAC, Third failed FAC, Fourth failed FAC

Full of sources and reliable information. Although I am not a member of the PCP, I definitely feel this article meets FA standards. Please do not let your personal opinion on Pokémon fail this article. This article definitely meets FA standards regardless of subject. Andros 1337 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Erm, got a reference for being considered the coolest Pocket Monster? Wiki-newbie 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Andros 1337 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support It looks like a well-written article. Joiz ^A. Shmo 00:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Greatly improved since the last time I read it. It was close then, I think it's there now. Jay32183 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Quite possibly better than the other Pokemon FAs we have. DocDragon 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written, and full of citations. Oppose, you know what? Gzkn has some good points. --RandomOrca2 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) --RandomOrca2 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not well written at all. Fails 1a. Some random examples:
  • The name Charizard is a portmanteau of char, the first syllable of "charred" or "charcoal",... Umm, charred is one syllable. It's also the past tense of "char", which means "to burn". There's no need for "the first syllable of "charred" or "charcoal", referring to the act of incinerating objects with flames (or the objects themselves)".
  • As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries, Charizard change form through evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,[4] and would grow a pair of powerful wings, which would allow them to fly at altitudes approaching 4,600 ft (1400 m), supplementing the fiery breath they would inherit from their earlier forms of Charmander and Charmeleon. Huh? What Tony would call a winding snake. The conditional "would" really throws readers off here. "caused by gaining experience in battle" is ungainly.
  • The flames they could produce as Charizard could be hotter than those produced by Charmeleon; at full intensity, they would have the power to melt solid rock or large glaciers. Again, why is the conditional used here? Also, link Charmeleon. Some readers won't look at the infobox.
  • Nevertheless, the power of their flame attacks would be potentially volatile enough that accidental or careless use can cause forest fires and other disasters. "Nevertheless" does not work as a transitional word here.
  • Charizard appears as a non-playable character in Pokémon Mystery Dungeon as it plays the role of a protagonist to support other Pokémon and reveal more information in their quest, although if you pick Charmander, you will be able to play as Charizard later in the game. Ugh. Please don't use second person.
  • When they enter the challenge just to look inside, not to complete it, they see a Charizard suffering, so they are suggested to capture it by the Go-Rock Squad to calm it down. Huh?
  • Strangely, Charizard's cry is identical to that of Rhyhorn. Strangely? Also, an orphaned sentence in need of a paragraph.
  • it has still featured in many ranges of soft toys and action figures
  • The system pits out against 47 different trainers, gives you the ability to catch up to 200 Pokémon and become a Pokémon Master. "Pits out against"?
  • Really needs a thorough copyedit Gzkn 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I could be out of line here but would it not be best to wait more than a few hours between nominations. It seems you are hoping to push it through by nominating it enough times without changing much. Of course, just my thoughts. Dan M 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That fourth nomination ended in September.--Rmky87 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gzkn: not well written. Also, I don't think it would make Wikipedia look good to have a featured article that's so unimportant and trivial. Also, I think it should be noted that if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then the articles that we identify as the examples of its content should be less indiscriminate than this one is in their inclusion of information. Semperf 15:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A subject that is "unimportant and trivial" (when it's not anyway) does not stop it from gaining featured status. Half your objection is invalid. Anyway, some of your sources look like fansites to me: serebii.net, smogon.com, pokemondungeon.com. Also, some of their links don't work for me (at least on my computer).--Dark Kubrick 15:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Serebii.net, although a fansite, is regarded as a trustable information source for Pokémon information. --RandomOrca2 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While its true we shouldn't exclude a topic because *we* think its trivial, we should exclude something if there's a lack of non-trivial independent reliable coverage. I see a great lack of truly indepedenent reliable coverage. Also, I see a lack real-world connection. We do have good articles on fictional things, but those articles show real-world relevance. Is there a specific person(s) who is responsible for the development of this "species"? If so, he should be named at the top of the article. What year did it start? Mentioning the toy recall in 2004 was a good example of something real, but that's the exception in the article. Articles about fictional topics should be set clearly in the context of the non-fictional real-world. Note, I haven't voted, as I concede my ignorance of all things "pokemon".--Rob 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Added a reference to the designer and the info on when it began.DocDragon 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Clumsy prose (good examples cited above by Gzkn. Lack of real-world relevance, and a lack of 3rd-party citations that aren't fan sites or game guides. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Have done some copyediting on the article, fixing some of the problems cited by Gzkn.DocDragon 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I have just read through the article, and the issues outlined by Gzkn have been satisfactorily fixed in my opinion. Tal 11:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Those were just random examples! And half of them weren't even touched! The prose is still awful in many places. More random examples (please don't just fix these; the whole text needs thorough copy-editing):
  • Charizard was designed by Ken Sugimori,[2] and made his debut in 1996 in Pokémon Red. Are all Charizard male and singular?
  • The name Charizard is a portmanteau of char, referring to the act of incinerating objects with flames, and "lizard", a long bodied reptile. This sentence still bugs me; I don't see any particular need to define char or lizard
  • As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries, Charizard change form through evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,[5] and grow a pair of powerful wings, which allow them to fly at altitudes approaching 4,600 ft (1400 m), supplementing the fiery breath they would inherit from their earlier forms of Charmander and Charmeleon. Still a ton of problems with this long, awkward sentence.
  • Charizard in the wild are shown to focus on finding worthy challengers. "Are shown to focus on"? Unnecessarily wordy. "worthy challengers" is quite nebulous.
  • According to the Pokédex, they possess a strong innate sense of honor - relying on only claws and strength to hunt or ward off lesser foes, using their flaming breath only against opponents who they would consider equals. Incorrect use of the hyphen. Needs an "and" before "using". More unnecessary conditional. In fact, the conditional is still being used throughout the article.
  • player vs. player battles, battles between two players A bit redundant, no?
  • They are commonly used for their high special attack statistic, which makes their wide variety of special attacks very strong. They also have a decent attack statistic,[7] since they have a larger physical attack pool they are more commonly used for their physical attacks,[8] as they have a poor special move pool, consisting of only a few attacks like Flamethrower and Dragon Claw, as compared to their physical movepool, where they can utilize Earthquake, Rock Slide and Swords Dance to great effect. Lots of repetition. Second sentence is a run-on and grammatically tortured. Surely our FAs can be better written than this?
  • Charizard appears as a non-playable character in Pokémon Mystery Dungeon as it plays the role of a protagonist to support other Pokémon and reveal more information in their quest, although if the player picks Charmander, Charizard will be playable later in the game. Just try to read this sentence out loud.
  • When they enter the challenge just to look inside, not to complete it, they see a Charizard suffering, so they are suggested to capture it by the Go-Rock Squad to calm it down. Still here.
  • Dropping the health to half or below activates a hold item called a Salac Berry, which increases the speed of the holder, it was at first believed that the effects of it came into effect at below 50% HP, but it was found out to come into effect at below 25%.
  • There are seventeen different Pokémon types, a special attribute determining strengths and weaknesses of each species, offsetting each other in a complicated series of rock-paper-scissors relationships.
  • And I'm stopping here, about a fourth of the way through the article. This really needs a thorough copy-edit. Gzkn 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: please decide whether Charizard is singular or plural. I've seen "it" and "they" thrown in randomly throughout the article. Gzkn 13:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment "Charizard", like most pokemon names, seems to be both singular AND plural, like "Sheep", or "Moose".DocDragon 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object I'd read this article before, but not until Gzkn's comments did I truly realize how shoddy the writing is. -- Kicking222 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• object sorry. I does not seem an encyclopedia article, but a story. --Pedro 00:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object prose problems per Gzkn, and doesn't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH. Sandy (Talk) 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object As above, and also problems with in-universe prose, which doesn't follow WP:WAF. With all these problems, I don't think the article is even GA standard, let alone FA. -- Grgcox 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment About the conditionals in the Characteristics section - Charizard ... would grow a pair of powerful wings and the like, which are commented on above. Several people, including me, have criticised them on the talk page. They're apparently there as a misguided attempt to write from an out-of-universe perspective. When I tried to take them out, my edits were instantly reverted by an editor who insists that they are needed to satisfy requirements by editors who opposed the most recent FA nomination. I think the article would be helped if comments could be made here by other editors about what WP:WAF means, because there appears to be a difference of opinions. -- Grgcox 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They are sorely mistaken if they think the conditional = out-of-universe. Heck, the examples in WP:WAF of out-of-universe prose don't feature any conditional. Gzkn 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Lack of reliable references. Almost without exception, the sources are all promotional. Little to no out of universe information, for example almost all material in the 'Pokémon anime' and 'Pokémon manga' is in universe plot summary material. Either add out of universe material or reduce the article until all material is supported by reliable sources. A 10kb article with material supported by reliable references would be a better FA than 30+Kb of fluff. Look at other FA's on fictional topics. Emulate the best of them, not the worst. - Taxman ^Talk 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has just received a massive copy-edit. It'd take way too long to say everything that's been done, but nonetheless the prose is a LOT better. DocDragon 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, parts of the prose are much better...User:Morgan89 did a good job with the copy-edit. However, there's still plenty of work to be done before the prose meets 1a of WP:WIAFA. Gzkn 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It looked good, until I realized that the sources cited are often irrelevant. For instance, a sentence saying "Charizard are famous for being one of the three pokemon players can choose..." is referenced by Serebii's Pokedex entry, which says nothing of the kind. Huh? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that although the games and manuals are listed as references they are never used in the inline citations. Even though using third party sources is a good thing, using {{cite video game}} for the plain and simple stuff is probably ok. I doubt anyone will question the realiablity of a quote from the game or manual when there is no interpretation on it. Jay32183 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Um... yes, but that's not my objection. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of your object. I thought all the problems with referencing should be pointed out though. Jay32183 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, sorry then. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — Information is there, but article is not superbly written, has poor flow, and not all references are authoritative. Article is not well broken up, and looks a harsh and non-compelling read. Mouse Nightshirt 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Brooks-Baxter War

I've been working on this article for a week or two. A lot of the research came from a research paper I wrote on the subject. The only problems I can see with the article would be citations, which are kind of odd because they are from 100+ year old newspaper articles, and verifying the images copyright status which are all 100+ years old. I know I shouldn't nominate this with these problems but, I think they are minor and can be fixed. Then the article should be good enough to be featured. --The_stuart 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like you've put a lot of work into it, but the peer review you already requested would be a better place to get feedback to help you prepare it for FAC - there is still a lot of work to be done to satisfy WP:WIAFA. Sandy (Talk) 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I thought I had taken into account all of the suggestion given by the automated peer review, which is the only feedback I got for the article. I was hoping to get more real specific feedback here. --The_stuart 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's unfortunate when there isn't enough feedback on PR: it's too bad we can't get some of the GA resources to work on PR. I just left comments on the peer review . The article isn't as far away as I initially thought (because you do have inline cites). More work is needed, but I'm striking my comment that it's not ready for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can't possibly pass with a copy-edit notice at the top. Tony 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Apparently The stuart is not working on this article, and the issues raised on peer review have not been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—This can't possibly be a serious nomination. Tony 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell

I'll get the ball rolling then. Basically, I've done some editing over the last few days in an attempt to get this page to FA status. Hopefully this can be completed before the new year. Post any suggestions here or on my talk page and I'll implement them ASAP. Maxwell deserves an FA because he's in the same league as Einstein, Archamedies, and Newton, but not as recognizable by the general public. -- JE.at.UWO^U|_T 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• It looks good, but it needs a lot more in the way of citations. You only reference three sources, and not consistently, more would be helpful and beneficial to the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I started working on it nothing really was referenced. I took out a couple biographies from the library and maybe I can go through and page-reference each point. -- JE.at.UWO^U|_T 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object By today's WP:FA standards, virtually no articles with only 3 footnotes (one of which has a typo) will pass WP:FAC (by the way, don’t forget to close the div tag by using </div>, as otherwise the rest of the text below also becomes resized).

(minor) Per WP:MSH, words in headings like "Links" should not be capitalized. Some sparse prose problems too (this is only from the first section, suggest heavier copyediting):

• • James never responded well to the tutor's instruction (who blamed his student for being slow and wayward), and his father after considerable searching, sent James to a day school called the Edinburgh Academy. the second part of the sentence is hard to read through due to the awkard usage of commas. Also, "the tutor's instruction" cannot blame anyone (the tutor himself can though).
  • he won the school's mathematical medal, first prise for English and for English verse. an example of why sometimes we do need the serial comma – this sentence can be interpreted as the mathematical medal were those English prises.
  • This work Oval Curves, was published Why is there a comma?
  • Rather, his genious would slowly mature. Come on, you spel it right futher down the page.
  • The scientist who showed that light is related to electricity and magnetism and that it consists of electromagnetic waves was james Clerk Maxwell. From his electromagnetic theory came the prediction that new forms of radiation would be discovered in the future. This prediction was confirmed by Heinrich Hertz's discovery of radio waves in 1885, the discovery of X-rays in 1895, and the discovery of gamma rays in 1896. Vandalism?? Otherwise, completely misplaced (and james is capitalized :). AZ _t 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New antisemitism

Fixing nom for systemex (talk · contribs)

• Comment Is this stable? Jkelly 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree The neutrality of the intro is disputed per recent discussions on the talk page. --Aminz 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, well-referenced. Very well-handled look on the subject. (Ibaranoff24 09:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
• Oppose. This article is about the thesis that contemporary antisemitism comes with an anti-Zionist bent and that suddenly – perhaps unwittingly or unwillingly – very disparate political groups find themselves united behind the banner of anti-semitism. What is missing is the standing of this thesis in academic debate on anti-semitism.

Also, since the article is about the thesis, the section on "Responses" against antisemitism is unnecessary, since what is cited is responses against the phenomenon of antisemitism, not against the idea of "New Antisemitism" in political debate. Dr Zak 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- lots and lots of references; too many direct quotations; neutrality? Semperf 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment

I firmly believe this is a featured five-star article as it goes majorly in-depth into many areas and is suitable for many audiences. It is very acurate, with it being constatly updated each and every day. It gives the important events of the history, as well as the current champions. Davnel03 21:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object inssufficient inline citations, and the ones that are there aren't all formatted properly. Jay32183 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Minor Oppose Maybe a few more References.
• Comment Great aticle, very well formatted. Unefficient references though is not satisfactory with an aticle that greath lenght and in that great detail. It took me about 3 days to read this because I took a portion of it each day. It is well-written and includes just about every aspect of the topic. As an editor, wrestling fan, and as an advisor you have my support.Showmanship is the key 01:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I really think the subject of WWE is a topic deserving of the front page, but I'm not sure if this article is there yet. As mentioned above, the references could be improved. I'm also very concerned about the usage of the term "Professional Wrestling." The WWE markets itself as "Sports entertainment." As sports entertainment, the WWE avoids athletic commissions and regulations surrounding these agencies. Outside agencies may refer to the events as "professional wrestling," but I cannot remember the last time I've heard the WWE use that term itself. Even WWE.COM refers to itself as "sports entertainment" because it is more about the storyline than actual competition. The introduction needs to be more of a summary of the article. The section dealing with the McMahon's is too detailed for the intro. It also needs copy edited.Balloonman 08:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Queen's University

Queen's is arguably one of the most interesting universities in Canada, and very often the subject of national newspaper headlines. I firmly believe Queen's should be a featured article, as it is factual, comprehensive, and free from edit wars and non-factual information.

Just a few Queen's facts: Queen's was the first Canadian university west of the maritime provinces to grant degrees, admit women, and to form a student government. It also hosted the country's first session of Parliament. It has a unique international campus in southern England housed in Herstmonceux Castle, one of the oldest brick buildings still standing in England. Frosh Week, orientation for incoming first year students, is deeply rooted in traditions over a century old, and is perhaps most well known for the engineers, who dye themselves purples. Queen's Homecoming has made national headlines for the past few years, with a massive street party spanning two city blocks and involving well over 4000 students, alumni and Kingston residents. The Queen's Centre, the recently announced overhaul of the student life and athletics facilities, will cost $230-million and take a decade to complete.

• Oppose. Rather large sections of unsourced information, an inconsistent references area. The prose could use a polishing, too, but the sourcing has to improve considerably. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, suggestion peer review: unsourced quotes, other sections are also lacking in citations. Also, it fails WP:LAYOUT, the spacing issues presented in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes are rather poorly sourced (for example, see {{cite web}} or WP:CITE), and the bottom half of the article is very list-weighty. Image:QueensUniversityCrest.png should have a fair use rationale, can we have a better external link for Image:ThomasLidell.jpg (plus proof that it was irrevocably release all rights to the image)?. Not the best prose either (move cursor over underlines to see my comments), from a randomly picked paragraph:

The International Study Centre (ISC) is housed in Herstmonceux Castle, which was donated to Queen's in 1995 by alumnus Alfred Bader. Herstmonceux Castle is in southern England and provides a base for field studies by its students throughout Sussex, in London and Northern England, and on the Continent. The courses available range from English Literature to Geography to Mathematics, with many of the courses specially designed to take advantage of the location of the ISC. Instructors and students are not exclusively from Queen's, but attend from across Canada, the United States, Mexico, Europe, Japan, China, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Students attend classes Monday through Thursday and are encouraged to use their three day weekend to experience Europe. Field trips are required for certain courses (e.g. history, drama and art history). There are also two non course specific field trips that are included in the program fees. In the past, the first semester trip has been to Scotland and Northern England, while the second semster trip has been to Paris, Brussels and Bruges. AZ _t 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A number of the images are improperly sourced, and some are clearly copyright infringing. I have tagged them appropriately. Jkelly 01:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob

I have listed the Screwjob as a major candidate as it goes into deep depth in regards to the events that occurred, leading up to and after the event. It also says how it still occurs today. Davnel03 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object has been tagged as unreferenced since July 2006. The article will need references if it is to be featured. Jay32183 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have read the article before, very great article in a good formal tone. Hope for the best. Showmanship is the key 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very obvious object It's got zero references. Not just unreferenced, but zero references. Please see WP:WIAFA (or, for that matter, WP:WIAGA). -- Kicking222 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Uh... Yea... Object. A very strange vote for a very strange article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Surprisingly, a book search doesn't show anything obvious about it to use, even though it undoubtedly occurred. I don't really know how to fix this article at this point, unless we refr to the action figures. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object "Undoubtedly occurred?" Hmmmm.... Haven't any of them written a book? Not even McMahon? My son has a couple of books by professional wrestlers of this era. All these guys have web pages, they're referenced in various internet sources also--there are books, and Internet resources, and magazines without end about WWF. If none of these have anything about it that can be referenced, we ought to be considering AfD, not FAC. KP Botany 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a URL to a scholarly paper by an undergraduate that discusses this incident[1], the paper is referenced, so, although it might not be usable, it might get you a good start on other references. WWF is comparatively mainstream enough that the expecation of references is not too much to ask, and I like to think of Wikipedia as the one encyclopedia that does archive modern culture. KP Botany 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • A little outside the realm of this discussion, but this is more a failure of our sourcing policies and guidelines than a lack of sources. There's no doubt that this event occurred, and the details in the article are more than likely spot-on, but there's no way this could become featured even with inline cites considering the current handling of sourcing. Just saying. Object anyway, for major prose issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't follow, what about Wikipedia sourcing policies would make it impossible for this to become a FA? I can see The Mentors might have problems with sourcing that could lead to it never becoming a FA, but WWF? Please elaborate. KP Botany 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Mainly because we lack reliable third party sources on the event. We have some who refer to it in terms of it happening (as a Google Books searched showed), but most that refer to it would be considered unreliable, being self-published sources or lacking serious editorial oversight. I'm not even a WWE/WWF fan anymore (haven't been in 12 years) and I'm aware of this - it was a Big Deal - but what's available simply wouldn't cut it. That's not a problem with the subject matter, but with how we rate such sources for the subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • But this stuff is written up in magazines. Did you look at the research paper and see what they used? What about the industry pages, also? Like the lay public reads magazines that feature restaurants, but there are professional journals for restaurent owners and managers--is there something similar for WWF? This might require some library searching at the nearest University as opposed to all on-line research, also. Also, when my son went to a match, it was written up in the newspaper the next day, not the sports page that I recall.... KP Botany 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany is right - magazines and wrestling books have extensively covered the incident. Plenty of sources out there for this, both first hand and third parties. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems pretty far-fetched it wouldn't be covered, when a long look by one wrestler to another's potential lady friend generates a season or two of coverage. Actually, I talked to my son about this. He said there are some underlying issues, mainly that it was unscripted, and apparently (obviously this is going to show I didn't read the article fully) Hart's brother died soon afterwards and he never got another title match, and it's written up, he thinks in one of McFoley's books, but it was written up in magazines at the time, and later in articles and biographical information about Hart, although, again, because it was unscripted, not fully and accurately covered initially. Hart was supposed to loose, was actually pinned, then McMahon came out and told them to restart the match, almost as soon as match started Michaels pinned him, declared winner, Hart went around telling people he would go to WCW because he was very angry about it, went around for weeks throwing up the WCW signal with his hands, eventually left, Bret Hart post 1997 in WCW, Triple H, Shawn Michaels was in Degeneration X still claim to not have any knowledge of what had happened that night. And on and on and on. AND my son started watching wrestling AFTER Bret Hart moved to WCW, so he learned about all of it from reading wrestling books. So, it's there, in the books, in other sources, and I love somewhat non-mainstream culture, and obscure little parts of non-mainstream culture, and would love to see this sucker as a FA, so get cracking, get it up to snuff, and bring something beautiful all about this back here to get on the main page! I love to hit the mainpage and there's an article about something I never even heard of, and others must have fun with this also. Montreal Screwjob--sounds like a sting, to me. KP Botany 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Knitting

Maybe I'm being a bit bold, butI feel that this article is well-written, factually correct, and pretty readable. Overall, I think it meets the featured article criteria, as well as having a lot of the things listed in WP:TPA. DroEsperanto 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Very nice start, but the article needs to be cited (see WP:WIAFA). Also, some attention to wikilinking is needed - common terms that we all know need not be linked. You also may need to prune the External link farm: see WP:NOT and WP:EL. (Some of them should be available on the DMOZ link anyway.) Sandy (Talk) 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Can you give some examples of "common terms" that are wikilinked in the article? Like "parallel" and "USA"?

• coffee shop, t-shirt, for example. Sandy (Talk) 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A fun read but lacking in expanded details and references. Perhaps more info regarding "cannonical" knitting designs? Details regarding knitting complex objects (socks, gloves, sweaters, etc.)? Expansion on stiches patterns and some more cultural matters on knitting can also be very helpful. Sjschen 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Insufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Article needs to decide on A.E. or B.E. (fiber/fibre) Rmhermen 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's hard to tell from early edits what the original author intended, but this edit is a clear indication of British English. Unless something was distinctly American before that, I guess we assume the article was originally written in British English. Jay32183 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Needs a copy editor first. And, an article on knitting should include a picture of a sweater, and some type of knit hosiery or footwear, also. There are a lot of other problems. Has it gone through a peer review also? This would be really helpful. KP Botany 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Just not much there yet, and not nearly cited enough. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object: it's lacking in inline cites, hence it fails 3c. Mikker ^(...) 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse, New York

This article would be great for a Featured Article. This city was a huge part of westward expansion in America with the Erie Canal going through here in the old days. It also has a lot of other history as well and many other articles that relate to this great city in Upstate New York. CrimsonFury 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC) CrimsonFury

• Strong object. I'm pretty tempted to remove this per WP:SNOW because it fails 1a, 1b, 1c (refs), 2b, 2c, 3 (copyright on images) and 4. On top of that, it's too listy, it has too many images and the lead isn't all that great. Mikker ^(...) 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jocular comment: Tempted to remove this per WP:SNOW? How appropriate for Syracuse :-) Daniel Case 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Only funny to those who like to frrrrreeeeeze. Sandy (Talk) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Barely any in-line citations, there are copyright issues on images, the list goes on. Seriously problemed article. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Simply doesn't belong here now for consideration. Among other things: Don't link random dates please, like the year 1851 and the date October 1--bruising (black and blue) makes articles harder to read. There shouldn't be any red links, imo--Zen Center of Syracuse could have an article, or a single comment about its importance and the linkage added or removed, ditto streets, dioceses, newspapers, Onondaga Creek is well-researched enough to have an article. This caption is sterile, "The State Tower Building in Syracuse." and which building in the picture does it refer to, by the way? And why name the building in the caption and include the picture if it's not important enough to have an article or any information in the article. The prose needs work, the sort of work seen to be needed by reading sentences out loud by themselves, and asking, does that stand alone--it needs richness added to be compelling. There are many places where in-line references are needed--like the whole article almost. The lead paragraph makes it sound like this is a rich and diverse city in an interesting area, yet the references are seriously dull and designed as a whole to not be the sort that would result in an interesting article. I think looking for more interesting references, like a book on the history of the city, is the first place to start improving this article. I don't see it as a FAC until something more interesting overall has been incorporated into the background research for this article. Start with a serious Peer Review. KP Botany 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Undercited, imbedded links (external jumps), "best known for the University", but almost no mention of the University, non-standard use of bolding (and many for terms which should be wikilinked, such as Syracuse Stage (yes, there can be red links in an article, although it wouldn't be hard to start the stubs on these notables), not well cited ("Basketball games often draw over 30,000 fans, and football games over 40,000.), Notable list("famous") is unreferenced, suggest a long stint at peer review. Sandy (Talk) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Even I, who have contributed a good 75% of the non-bot content of this article, don't feel it is ready... Someday, someday... -newkai t-c 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Krispy Kreme

Very good article, meets all FA criteria and should be FA!!!! -- Nathannoblet 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - lead to short, no inline citations I could spot, couple of ugly tags in the middle of the article. Maybe a perr review is worth considering? WegianWarrior 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Object - You shouldn't start off by sending people running for cover or a dictionary or an encyclopedia with the first sentence: "Krispy Kreme sells a variety of doughnuts, but it is most famous for its traditional glazed doughnut, often served warm." Don't tell me what it does, tell me what it is. So, is Krispy Kreme a chain of coffee shops that sells donuts? A chain of department stores that sells donuts? A famous fur shoppe in downton Manhattan that sells donuts through a drive-up window? Isn't Krispy Kreme a franchise 24-hour donut shop or something similar? KP Botany 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)*Comment: The first line is and has been: "Krispy Kreme is a popular chain of doughnut stores. Its parent company is Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD), based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA." I don't see how this objection is valid. Rmhermen 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I stand correct. I missed the lead because of the article's layout, there's a huge contents box, tons of blank space, and a tiny little 1 1/2 lines at the top instead of a lead section--I thought the lead section was the next section, which is actually long enough to be one and labelled "Overview" as if it is one. A reason for a longer lead might be so people can see it. Strong Object per Jay32183, the lead is terrible, utterly terrible. Please, it's a culturally interesting topic, it would be great FA fodder to show how to write about a commercial enterprise without being an advertisement for it, take time to give it a lead section, run it through peer review, then bring something smart and great back here. KP Botany 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object:Red links abound. Fix that first. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object The lead is terrible, and there should be no "Overview" section. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, following with an overview should be redundant. Jay32183 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object. It fails 1a through d and all of 2. I suggest the nominator familiarise him/herself with our criteria and with the standard of our current featured articles (see Saffron for a particularly good article). Mikker ^(...) 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object I think the "Unencyclopedic Lists" says it all. Othewise, the rest of the article is pretty bad. There are Red Links galore, for one. Some of the sentences are crammed together and choppy. The pictues at the top are too close and quite crammed also. Work on it. A lot more. Throw in some references and sources. Clean up the look. Expand it. Then go for Good Article. That might get you somewhere. Jerichi 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object The section about the openining of one store in Melbourne is almost as long as section on the company's history. In 10 years, will anyone care that the store at Fountain Gate opened at 6:30 in the morning? Does anyone even care now? And can we take both mentions of the neon sign out of the introduction? --Richmeister_talk 07:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object The history section is bitterly uneven, with a strong bias towards very recent events, as well as flow-disrupting one-sentence paragraphs, often out of chronological order. It's difficult to know what the 'Problems in New York' section is supposed to be about.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria (2)

This is the article's second nomination — the first one failed because of minor issues such as section arrangement (there used to be only two content sections, the first one having most of the current sections as subsections) and the lack of comprehensiveness of some parts of it. These issues have been addressed, as well as thpse from the even earlier peer review. The intro was also shortened and made more concise.

I find the article stable, thorough, well-written, informative, well-referenced and illustrated, and I really think it's FA quality now. It was mainly written by University of Michigan Byzantinist Ian Mladjov. Todor→Bozhinov 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are only two different books used as refs. Are there more, especially web-based? Rlevse 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are four inline (and they're all different) + one more as a general ref (not inline), which makes five. Not sure about web-based refs, I don't think they can provide anything new or that they can be more reliable. These books are the best scholarly authorities on the subject AFAIK, so any web sites would just reproduce this information. I understand web-based sourced could often be more useful than books because they're easily accessed, so I'm thinking of addng this book extract to further support some parts of the text. After all, even more refs are always of use :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it's pretty good to begin with, but it slowly decays to the point that the family section ends with an irrelevant list that should be merged into the main prose. It would also be nice to get rid of the redlinks, especially all those in the infobox. Laïka 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm aware lists are often advised to be converted to prose, but I sort of like the one in the Family section because it displays the information very clearly. Even if we convert it to prose, it wouldn't be much more than the same listing of names and years, but without the clarity it currently has. It can't be integrated in the main text in any good way I can imagine, because sources about Bulgarian rulers are typically very scarce and generally (as well as in this case) we know little more of their children than their names; in this case, we don't have any dates of birth available, so we can't integrate them chronologically. If you really think it would be still better to convert to prose, then please provide some more arguments. Also, I certainly don't think the list is irrelevant.
• As for the red links, the only way to remove then would be simply to remove the brackets — articles about many of these personalities can't ever be more than substubs, because there's hardly anything we know about them. Todor→Bozhinov 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lede is too short, and I'm not sure whether it's comprehensive enough. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• What would be long enough? The first nom had a three-paragraph intro and it was deemed too long, so I shortened it and I think it's fine... Why do you think the article might not be comprehensive enough? Please be clearer when opposing — more specific criticism will help improve the article, but such oppose votes are of little use, I fear. Todor→Bozhinov 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - needs more references and (preferably) more sources. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Astrology

Since it meets all of the criteria, I think that this article should be nominated as a featured article. Astrology is completely different topic which deals with all the study of cosmos impact on our daily life. A lot of discussion can be done this topic. This is a self-nomination. Thanks --Sushant gupta 11:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — 1a is not completely satisified; there are instances of excess wording ("in order to", "a vast majority of", "many different") and some instances of "While" where "Although" should be used. I also see a few large sentences, which should be chopped up into shorter, more managable pieces. I'll help work on these changes. — Deckiller 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't find the content satisfactory then you can improve it. Sushant gupta 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Awkward prose, dictionaries make bad references, the lead shouldn't have footnotes since everything stated there should be elaborated and supported by the body. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is packed with refs, and then the next three paragraphs have no references at all, even for some seriously weasel-worded statements like "A common belief..." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. All of the above (wrt prose and referencing), and pls see WP:EL and WP:NOT. External links needs serious trimming. See also could be trimmed, incorporated into a template, or merged into the article. Footnotes need a consistent bibliographic style, including all relevant information including publisher, publication date, and last access date on websites: the footnote style is all over the place, as if they were each added by different editors. Several of the sections are only listy See alsos, which should be prosified. Sandy (Talk) 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - referencing is spotty in the first few sections. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reference the page contains much citation of the source comparatively to the other featured articles and external links are well arranged. The whole page is well cited. Well to me that page is satisfactory. Sushant gupta 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object: 1a, 1c, 2a.
  • Why are common terms linked? We do speak English. For example, "personality", "scientific", "art", "English", "traditions". This is not a wiktionary.
  • The lead doesn't provide the broad sweep that is required. Compare it with the ToC.
  • "Although the principle that events in the heavens are mirrored by those on Earth was once generally held in most traditions of astrology around the world, in the West there has historically been a debate among astrologers over the nature of the mechanism behind astrology." Getting rather long; easy to split. Same for: "Although the connection between celestial mechanics and terrestrial dynamics was explored first by Isaac Newton with his development of a universal theory of gravitation, claims that the gravitational effects of the celestial bodies are what accounts for astrological generalizations are not substantiated by the scientific community, nor are they advocated by most astrologers." Sentence length needs auditing throughout.
  • "either influence or correlate with human affairs"—"influence with"? "Correlate" is awkward: why not "either influence or reflect human affairs."
  • "A modern explanation is that the cosmos (and especially the solar system) acts as a single unit, so that any happening in any part of it inevitably is reflected in every other part, somewhat representing chaos theory"—Where's the reference? The whole article is under-referenced. Tony 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org

There are a lot of good references throughout the article, and it is very clear on the subject. Also a good use of tables.

Yeti man5 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, Still has a stub section and a trivia section, so not quite there yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too listy, which creates disjointed prose (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's too listy; the citations are not quite good enough (in the "History" section especially); the trivia section should go (see WP:TRIVIA and WP:TRIV); it has a stubsection; it fails 1a (too much jargon in places) and, more importantly, it fails 1b. Mikker ^(...) 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gene Clark

This is a well-written introduction to the legacy of Gene Clark which meets all the criteria for a featured article. Freshacconci 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article relies on only one source, and has no inline citations. Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy. I could probably have gone through this article and labelled fifty uncited facts. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. You also might want to break up the Biography section into smaller subsections. Anyway, refer to peer review. Gzkn 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Inline citations needed. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

Good article. -- JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and cited article, definitely is FA worthy.Ganfon 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, fails criteria 1c off the bat, with only 3 or so incline citations. I would suggest peer review. - Tutmosis 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too listy in places, lacks sufficient inline citations and there's many embedded links that need conversion. This wouldn't even make GA right now, so I echo - Tutmosis's suggestion to go to peer review. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object: the lead needs work; the "History" section is preposterously lacking in detail about the 20th century; "Government and politics" is too short; "Geography" is too listy; "Science and technology" is a stubsection; the wrapping is broken for IE in many places and then, perhaps most importantly, the refs are seriously inadequate. (not enough refs, citation needed tags and inconsistent ref style). Mikker ^(...) 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Only three inline citations.--HisSpaceResearch 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not well cited and in some places listy.--Yannismarou 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not ready for FAC, refer to peer review for more work. Sandy (Talk) 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object There are only three citations, there are articles with 50 references that don't make the GA review. Peer review might be the way to go, or take a look at Canada, Australia and India (all FAs) to see the FA standard for country articles. Baristarim 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object The article lacks a NPOV. It cointains a lot of unreferenced claims. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Boston Red Sox

I think this article is very good. It is most likely a fine article that could make the main page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me, baby (talk • contribs)

• Oppose article has many many problems, lack of citations, missing fairuse rationales and i doubt they are fair use, Image:Tedwilliams and tomyawkey.jpg is a copyright concern, too much trivial info, needs a very strong copyedit etc. Could provide more info on what needs to be done if wanted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly refer to peer review: the article is not ready for FAC. (If it were the Yankees, I'd oppose. :-) Sandy (Talk) 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Insufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• One thing for sure: Once an article is proposed to be a featured article, it should be LOCKED DOWN to prevent it being messed with. Wahkeenah 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) exemplifies a featured article because it is informative, well written, balanced and easy to maneuver through. It contains all basic knowledge about Enter the Wu-Tang as well as many other significant facts taken from balanced and reliable sources. Almost every image found in this article has a rationale for fair use and all information follows suit. Noahdabomb3 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Powelldinho 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some issues:
• Lead is quite short
• Most of the "Conception" section seems like it belongs on the Wu-tang clan page.
• "it was described as cramped" makes no sense, the studio or the album?
• "That single was recorded under" which one, the last sentence talks about 2 singes.
• "which shows how sparing he was with beats." seems like personal analysis therefore original research.
• "Raekwon for who had rights to RZA's beat." makes no sense.
• "are rarely considered to be "gangsta" lyrics" by whom?
• Alot of wierd sounding prose: "Most samples are musical"
• "has made RZA a major influence on the sound of Kanye West and Just Blaze." cite?
• confusing prose: "and six music videos including the singles as well as..."
• "Although "C.R.E.A.M." was the most popular of all tracks" cite?
• "it is generally hailed as one of the best hip hop albums of all time." cite?
• "Critical Recognition" section mentions little of reviews at the time but much later reviews, and what happened to the sales figures?
• "is one of the most celebrated and influential albums in hip hop history." cite?
• Can't "Samples" be merged with "Track listing"?

Overall it needs a good copyedit because it doesn't really flow smoothly. I didn't really touch on the prose problems but I'm sure someone who is more familiar with writing can give much better advice then me. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)
• I read through and changed all the articles' problems that you cited. I feel that it is easier to read right now and that you should support my featured article nomination.
• By the way, the conception information should be added to the Wu-Tang Clan article, but is necessary to the Enter the Wu-Tang article also.

Noahdabomb3 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The infobox is too big and distracting. This is a Wu-tang clan album, so you add only its chronology. CG 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the lead is too short and that the infobox needs to be shortened. It also needs a copyedit to ensure that it is well-written. Problems include not capitalizing proper nouns like "East Coast", capitalizing not-proper nouns like "gangsta rap", not italicizing album, movie, magazine titles, and not using normal capitalization in section headers. Also, I think overall the use of blockquotes is too pervasive, and some of them should be shortened and worked into the flow of the text. Tuf-Kat 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)
• That's all fair Tuf-Kat and CG. I will try to copyedit the article and increase the size of the opening paragraph as soon as I can get to it. Noahdabomb3 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)
• I changed and quickly copy-edited the article and am ready to hear the second round of support and critique. I do have one question though - is it OK that all small quotes in my article are italicized so that they stand out. Wikipedia's copy-editing article says nothing regarding to that.

• Support Hells yeah, mutha fucka. Greatest album ever made. --PDTantisocial 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great work! Chubdub 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Poorly written. Here are random examples of why the whole text needs serious copy-editing.
  • "It also contains hardcore, humorous and out of the ordinary lyrics provided by all nine original Wu-Tang Clan members and no guest vocalists." What is "hardcore" in this context? And out-of-the-ordinary lyrics? Vague. "Provided by ... no guest vocalists" is very odd wording, and at the very least assumes far too much background knowledge.
  • "Today it is heralded as one of the most influential rap albums of the 1990s." Remove "Today". "Heralded" is the wrong word ("regarded"?). The lead is slightly on the side of puffery.
  • "the late 1980's"—The NYT is the only publication that persists with this bizarre apostrophe. Please don't.
  • "They only pressed 500 copies of that single[6] as opposed to the "Protect Ya Neck"/"Method Man" single which sold over 10,000 copies." They only pressed, rather than pressing and steaming? Shift "only" to later in the sentence. In any case, pressing is set up against selling—fuzzy.
  • The use of commas is, to some extent, a matter of personal preference. But in this prose, most editors would agree that more are required for easy reading. (e.g., one before "as opposed to" in the previous point.
  • Inconsistent use of past and present tenses when referring to recordings.

It's a long way from meeting Criterion 1a, throughout. Tony 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Prose issues per Tony, some of the references need to be cleaned up and expanded (let us know what the website is and correct the bad links), and better referencing is needed. I found this uncited statement, for example: "Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) is one of the most celebrated and influential albums in hip hop history." Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)-
• I recently improved all of the references Sandy. That unreferenced statement that I made was already referenced earlier in the article when I made the same point. I assume I am still supposed to reference it and I will. Thanks for pointing that out.
• I also did a little copyediting and will continue to do more of that Tony. I improved all of the examples of "poor" writing that you pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahdabomb3 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 2:

These still have no citations:

The album being a debut may have had a negative effect on the Wu-Tang as none of their other group albums touched the surface of its critical success.

Others suggest that only a few Wu-Tang members are distinct and charismatic.

Although some accuse Wu-Tang Clan's debut album of poor subject matter and inconsistent production, it is generally hailed as one of the best hip hop albums of all time.

It is generally acclaimed as a great album because of its gritty production and comical rhyming.

It's acclaim is not limited to American publications; it is generally regarded as a classic album internationally.

Wu-Tang Clan's debut was able to shift the emphasis away from the melodious, synth-driven G-funk, while restoring interest into the East Coast hip hop scene.

RZA's production on Wu-Tang Clan's debut album set a benchmark for much hip hop production that came after it.

Why are the quotes in italics? What the point of that "studio was frequently cramped." sentence? Inconsistency in refering to the Wu-tang clan, instances of refering to them as "Wu" and "clan". "Most samples are musical and come from songs" sounds a bit obvious. Should be checked for redundancy wording. A couple of statements which "may" have happened (since you used "may" in them), they should be rephrased. Thanks. - Tutmosis 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Respone)

I went through all of the quotes mentioned and referenced them except the ones that I went on to give various examples of in the next sentences. I also removed the quotes from italics User:Tutmosis and corrected the comment I made about samples. I will soon change all of the times where shortened names of Wu-Tang Clan are mentioned and make them either Wu-Tang Clan or Wu-Tang, not the Clan or Wu. I will also sign this comment :) Noahdabomb3 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:I would suggest dewikilinking all the tracks that are red links, it's not visually appealing and I wouldn't want a message given that articles should be created for every song to new users. My last issue is really up to you if you want to change it but the "Music videos" and "Singles" sections seem quite unecessary and don't seem to have any visual charm, but prolong the list heavy feeling of the end of the article with all those tables. Anyway this won't stop me from supporting. See below. - Tutmosis 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the prose (flow and akward phrasing) has definetely improved. That was a major concern for me, along with the uncited statements above. I would encourage you to continue to improve the prose and ask any experienced editors for copyedits (it might still not be good enough for a prefessional eye), since my writing skills I assume are average. Anyway, great work with the article, definetely a classic album for any collection and important part in the history of hip hop. - Tutmosis 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Power: A New Social Analysis

Just finished and fully cited. I'm somewhat happy with the result, and spent a great deal of time on it. I hope this will help popularize one of Russell's more neglected works. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object for the present. The second sentence in the lead seems to be a bit harsty, it should be preceded by a couple of sentences explaining the key ideas tackled in the lead below and why Russell argues. Also there is a POVish peacock "when examining the work as a whole, one can detect an exciting overall research project". Some passages highlighted in color (as in Demosthenes) would look nice. --Brand спойт 15:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the funny sounding phrases in the intro, and added a few blue boxes. I think it looks nicer now. Hope that helps! { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mild object. I've recently noticed there is a lack of the book infobox. The number of portraits could be decreased in my opinion to avoid some gallery appearance. Also it would be better to turn the chapter list into a table and move higher, to the Work section. --Brand спойт 17:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the infobox, as well as two of the portraits. The intro part now seems rather "busy" to me, but I'd like other people to give their thoughts on whether or not that's a bad thing.

I'm hesitant to change the chapter listing into a table, since I don't intuitively know why it needs to be done aesthetically. (It might help if I could see an example of a nice looking chapter list from another article.) I also like it near the end of the article, in order to postpone the less interesting narrative to the end, so the reader doesn't have to slog through it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. Already a nice work, try to download the book cover. To be strict I would support after some additional copyedit, consider assessment. --Brand спойт 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added the book cover and provided a Wikibooks assessment (hopefully others agree with it). { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment (sorry Ben). I've copyedited for various minor problems (prose, referencing, dashes, heading styles), but I still worry about several things:

:1. The article is too long. Partly this is a matter of the prose needing trimming (and I've done a bit of that), but partly it's because it goes into far too much detail. An analytic summary of Russell's main themes and arguments would be more to the point than the level of detail in the current version.

2. Sometimes, the article slips into what seems to be Russell's prose style, and it's often unclear whether this is paraphrase, close paraphrase or unreferenced quote. Quotations are also inconsistent in style: some are in "double quotes", some in italics, others in "both" (which looks horrible).

3. The article is inconsistent in whether it reports in the present tense ('Russell argues...') or the past ('Russell argued...'). I've tried to edit these to all present tense, but may have missed some. This needs going over again.

4. The following don't apparently make sense: 'Third, the means by which one pursues one's goal must be such that they outweigh the value of the end' (Philosophy of power section); 'Collective action should be restricted to those areas that are primarily "geographical"' (Governance section).

5. Missing references: C. Wright Mills quote in endnote; Russell quote in first paragraph of Propaganda and Business section.

If these issues can be sorted - and I'm sure they can - I'll support. As a Mill scholar, I can't resist mentioning in passing that Russell's critique of Mill is rubbish, but obviously that doesn't detract from the article. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the critical eye, Sam! I'll do my best to fix those problems. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone over it, and done the following:

• Trimmed down a few parts where the information wasn't really important (i.e., with respect to the history of priestly/kingly power, and an examination of the forms of power as used by the Nazis). It is a bit long, but I am not sure how to trim it down without losing the comprehensiveness required by an FAC.
• I've also changed those italicized portions which might be interpreted as quotes into either quotations or plain prose, and have inserted new paragraphs for the bulkier quotes. I didn't eliminate all italicization in quotes, because that's how it appears in the original text, and we have to stay true to the work (even if it looks ugly).
• Also changed everything to present tense, or tried to.
• Hopefully made the two problematic quotes more intelligible.
• Cited the Mills and Russell-business quotes. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some more trimming. The main body of text is approx. 7300 words (well within the recommended 6000-10000 word bracket). Granted, file size is still bigger than recommended, but the warning for file size is only mentioned in the wikiguidelines as an indicator for the length of the body of the article. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I've struck through those of my objections I think you've addressed. I have some further remarks (one of which I forgot about, above). 1. Although the prose has been tightened up, I still think the article is too detailed, too much like a plot summary, and insufficiently analytic. But this may just be a matter of taste, so I'm not making it a basis of opposition. 2. The C. Wright Mills quote is still not properly referenced. It needs a page number, not just a book attribution; it's listed as Mills 1956 in the footnote and 1957 in the bibliography; and it's attributed to Columbia 1996, which isn't in the bibliography at all. 3. This final one is partly my fault, because I forgot to mention above that I'd been bold and done something about it. I suggest the following formats for referencing. a. inline references to pages of the book should be in the form (45), before the fullstop, not (pp. 45) after it, because the latter looks ugly and because 'pp' means pageS, not page. I changed most of these in my first copyedit, and I think I've got all of them now. b. footnote references should be tucked up tight after the punctuation mark, with no space - text.^[1] Again, I think I've got all of these, but it might need rechecking. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I did my best to portray the work in an analytic fashion in a minimal sense, by giving names to those discrete concepts that Russell might have considered candidates for either "laws of social dynamics" or constituents thereof (i.e., "emergency solidarity", "psychological types of influence", the "rule of three phases", etc.) Doing more than that -- putting things in the form of "there is an x such that...", etc. -- would seem to be pushing the envelope, so to speak. Don't get me wrong, I share your dissapointment about the lack of analyticity of the work, as do both Willis and Brittan. And I have (independently of this article) attempted to formulate how his argument could have proceeded in an analytic fashion. However, those formulations would be OR, and I must stay within the confines of Wikipedia rules for the purposes of this article, and do not want to depart from Russell's work.

2. Sorry! I had cited it according to the compilation's name and not by author. Just fixed it. The external link next to the reference was meant to substitute for a page citation. Is that acceptable?

3. I had mistaken "pp" to mean "printed page" -- alas. I'll do a double check on that. Thanks. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Here are examples from the top that indicate that the whole text needs a good copy-edit, preferably by someone who's not in the field.
  • "Russell's ambition is to help forward a new method of conceiving the social sciences." "Help forward" is ambiguous.
  • "how and when one form of power changes into another form of power"—Remove the last three words.
  • "is capable of being so unsatisfied with their lot"—No, "dissatisfied" if you're talking of degrees. Why is plural "they" used in this sentence?
  • "Doesn't"? See MoS.
  • "that they should go out and try to accumulate more goods than meet their needs." "Go out"? Where, to the local corner shop? Remove as too informal, and unnecessary anyway. Insert "are necessary" after "than". Tony 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree that #1 and #2 are awkward, and changed them as per your suggestion. Also, I will go through and remove the contractions As it happens, the only contraction in the article was the one you noted; so that's that.

I also removed "go out".

Regarding #3: as far as I can tell, there is no difference between "unsatisfied" and "dissatisfied". Looking at Merriam-Webster, the morpheme "dis" has no conventional connotation with degrees. All that M-W tells us is that 'dis-' carries the same (relevant) connotations as 'un-': namely, of opposition and negation. (Perhaps Oxford English is more precise?) I wouldn't object to the change if it were made, but I don't see any justification to do so, so won't do it myself.

The plural "they" is used in reference to "humans". Is that not clear? { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I was surprised to encounter "explained below" in the lead - please have a look at WP:LEAD. The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article. The second wikilink I hit was a redirect, and the term social dynamics was not wikilinked in the lead; the article should be thoroughly checked for wikilinking. The page number references are mixed with cite.php notes, resulting in a mixed reference style, which could be confusing to the reader. All book references should have ISBNs. Critical reception should be expanded: most of the text given in that section is from Russell himself, so the reader is given little context of other critical reception. There are some fan-crufty statments that need references (example, "The lack of theoretical rigor may seem uncharacteristic of Russell, since he is routinely praised for his analytic treatment of philosophical issues."). The article reads like a promotion or summary of the book, mixed with OR or a personal essay (for example, "By 'economic democracy', Russell means a kind of democratic socialism:" - does he say that, or is that the writer's opinion?). Sandy (Talk) 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for your input.

• Offending sentence has been removed just now.
• Where there were suitable links to redirect, I have redirected (just now). Exceptions: "domination", which goes to a disambig page, where the relevant option is not given a wiki; Quietism.
• ISBNs are not available for all editions of all texts. Where necessary, I have placed ASIN#. Will replace the rest when I have time (off to work right now).
• It is not at all true that Russell was the only one mentioned in the critical portion. Yes, Brittan and Willis were in the Russell text, but their opinions are not Russell's opinions. Still, I agree that it could do with an expansion. This would be much easier if I had access to scholarly resources.
• I don't agree that the quoted statements are "fancruft", and think that a reading of the material would support the text. Can provide sample quotes, if you think that would make things clearer. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I have just now added the last ASIN/ISBNs, and written "p." before page numbers so that they are less confusing to the reader. I have also added a citation to the "democratic socialism" sentence, to show that his intent was quite clear.

Unfortunately, I am not at all sure where one might read OR into any of what's been written, so I can't either act or comment upon that. Impressions are one thing, examples are another. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just recently had another pair of eyes copyedit the page for grammar and style, and edited accordingly. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support (changing !vote from above, having struck out met objections). Nice job, Lucidish. Sam Clark 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks Sam! Also, I should have mentioned this more boldly, but I support the FAC. Though it should be noted that I am the author of the vast majority of the article. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I don't know how to say this any other way but the layout is downright ugly. The small images, the non-standard TOC, and the ===== sections are a bit unmanageably for my taste. The references to the titular work itself need to be cited to the proper page number, for every single sentence within the relevant section ("the work"). The critical reception section could use a broader scope. The intro needs to be a bit meatier as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TOC unfloated, subsections merged, citations added after every mention of "the work".

It wouldn't be appropriate to make the intro much longer than it is. I agree that the critical reception section could use expansion, but I simply do not have the resources to do it. I've been trying to track down some relevant articles -- i.e., a paper written by Alvin Goldman on social power during the 70s, where 'Power: ANSA' is cited -- but this is just not possible when I don't have access. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried google scholar/google books? If you run into an article that you need but don't have access to, I may be able to get it for you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think Sam has me covered. And yeah, I found the article with Google Scholar.

Would like to get my hands on SR Clegg's "Frameworks of Power" to see just how substantive his treatment of P:ANSA are, and whether or not it would be fair to say that serious scientific interest in the work has grown over the past two decades. But that's probably not possible short of buying the book. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The article is clearly WP:OR in places and several of the notes violate WP:NPOV. Less seriously, the prose isn't brilliant (1a) and the lead could use work (2a). Mikker ^(...) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be far more helpful if you were to say where, exactly, you believe that OR is present, because I've made a concerted effort to be merely descriptive. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I can see how some of the notes were borderline, and have trimmed out any possible NPOV. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Confusing ref style; article has some footnotes but also lots of strange citations with numbers in the brackets (ex: (251), (pp. 242-251), 147, sic)). Please stadnarized, preferably to footnotes. There are still unreferenced paragraphs. Table from footnote 11 would look better inside main article. One picture is missing captions entirely, captions of others I believe fail WP:CAPTION. The article seems also light on inlinks (per WP:BTW), I had to ilink social philosophy in the lead, and just the first section has quite a lot terms that could use hyperlinks (ex. ethical, pessimistic, goods, needs...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Have standardized all citations according to Harvard system, as well as added some links, and more citations where they seemed lacking. It wasn't my impression that every substantive paragraph needed to be referenced, but I've gone ahead and done it anyway. Table from footnote has been moved into the article. Will do image captions now.{ Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Inline links added, and image captions added. I hope that's enough to change your mind! { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - good job.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian literature

It's a well-written and comprehensive article about the Persian literature, and - right now - probably the best article on Persian literature available in the www. Tājik 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Not enough refs, huge areas don't have one and the ones you have are not consistently formatted. Full dates, ex March 13, 2006, should be wikilinked. Rlevse 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not well cited, suggest a stint at peer review until issues are addressed (the peer review received no comments). Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above problems and:
  • the 'influence' section is largely anecodotal. Nietzsche is cited, although no reason is given (just because a character is named Zoroaster? I'm sure lots of books fit that description). It really needs to be rewritten and referenced.
  • too many red links for literary critics
  • too many lists--satire should be a paragraph and in it the most important people should be touched upon. A list can go in the sub-article not this overview.
  • Images like Image:Shahrokh Meskoob.jpg need to be sourced before we can trust their copyright tags. and WP:FUC are needed for images like Image:Dehkhoda book cover.gif
• These little things all need to be done first--and then it can be brought back to FAC. gren グレン 07:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, also too many blue links in the article, names linked over and over again, instead of just the first time, or when particularlaly relevant, thereby making the article hard to read, when the purpose of blue linking to other articles is to direct the interested reader to more information, not make the article look bruised (black and blue mess).
  • Excessive linking: ""Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;" It is not to emphasize the importance of some subject, and actually fails in that by appearing cluttered and poorly copedited instead. In the lead paragraph alone "Central Asia" and "Persian" are both linked twice. The entire article is like this. See WP:relevant links & WP:MOS (links). KP Botany 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hastings, Ontario

I am nominating Hastings, Ontario because I believe it is a very well written and interesting article. I have worked on it for the past few months, and I think it is ready to be nominated for a Featured Article. The article recently received Good Article recognition, and a lot of effort has gone into making it the full and informative article that it has become today. Writing a long and detailed article is relatively easy for a large city, but this article is written on a village with scarcely 1,000 people! Dhastings 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First FAC.

Object Definitely a solid article, but a fair number of problems:

• Lead doesn't seem to cover the whole subject. If the marina is important enough to get its own paragraph, you should explain why that's so. Otherwise, the last paragraph should be turned into a general discussion of the most important geographical or social features of the town.
• I'm sure interesting things have happened after 1875.
• Socioeconomic data in the "demographics" section?
• Non-Internet references?
• Prose is far from brilliant. Example: "Hastings is served by Hastings Public School, for elementary education. For secondary education, Hastings residents would attend the Campbellford District High School. There is also a high school in nearby Norwood; the Norwood District High School. These schools are all part of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. Peterborough, the most populous city in the area, provides college and university education with Fleming College and Trent University."

I see at least four problems in that paragraph: an unnecessary comma between "School" and "for"; "would" isn't the right word for the second sentence; you need an independent clause after a semicolon; and it's inelegant to say that the city itself "provides" higher education. Stilgar135 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A quick look shows several sections not having references. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, there are no sources available for information after 1875. There are no actual books published about the village, as far as I know. The Trent University Archives, which are available online, provide no history of the 20th century.

No, the comma is necessary after "school". If there was no comma, that would imply that "for elementary education" was part of the school's name. Also, the person who edited the section left a spelling error in the word "education".

My point was that the comma should not have been there because it was a poorly-written sentence. Much of the article contains similarly clunky prose. Stilgar135 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. All sources are referenced. I suggest taking a wee bit more than a glance before saying that. Dhastings 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1a not met. Where are your sources for Transportation? Reference 8 no longer works. Also, you really need to reword some of the sentences that are lifted almost verbatim from your sources.
  • "Hastings, on the Trent River, is the gateway to Rice Lake, the second largest lake in the Trent system." from http://www.hastingsvillage.ca/about.htm
  • "The first settlement, known as Crooks Rapids, began in 1810 and was named in 1820." from http://heydon.com/business/hastings/hastings.htm
  • "Henry Fowlds bought the land in 1851 and renamed the settlement Hastings in 1852, when the first post office was opened." from http://heydon.com/business/hastings/hastings.htm
  • "The locks were completed in 1844 and the waterways became part of the Trent-Severn passage." from http://heydon.com/business/hastings/hastings.htm
  • "Together they had ten children, (Eliza, John, James S., Robert H., Elizabeth, Henry M., Mary C., William J., Mary Anne, and Theresa) of which only five survived (James S., Elizabeth, Henry M., William J., and Theresa). The family came to North America in 1821, settling first in New York City, and then in Hartford in 1833. In 1834, they crossed the border and settled in Prince Edward County, Upper Canada. The Fowlds family settled in Asphodel Township in 1836, and then moved on to Westwood, where they set up a saw mill in conjunction with Dr. John Gilchrist in what was to become the village of Keene." from http://www.trentu.ca/admin/library/archives/72-001.htm
  • On September 27, 1851, Henry Fowlds purchased, from the Honourable James Crooks, the water rights, lands and buildings then known as Crooks Rapids, and later as Hastings. The Fowlds built upon this base, expanding their original saw mill to a corporate business of a saw mill, grist mill, general store and post office. The Fowlds were quite active in Hastings, occupying the seat of reeve, and the office of postmaster." from http://www.trentu.ca/admin/library/archives/72-001.htm
  • Gzkn 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Would you like me to give you a link to MapQuest? I don't see how Transportation can be sourced.

Reference 8 now works, they had moved the page on the website.

Otherwise, I do agree. Some rewording will take place; that was a big mistake on my part. Dhastings 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Parâkramabâhu I

Hello everyone. I've nominated this article I've worked on for the past few months and I think it adheres to all of Wikipedia's Featured Article requirements. Thought I'd nominate it and see what happens. I look forward to everyone's input! DocSubster 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think this article is extremely well written, and very well researched and referenced. Docsubster has put an amazing amounty of work into it. Good work, Doc. Jeffpw 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, no progress at peer review, not nearly ready for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Refer to peer review. Sandy (Talk) 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have not read the article yet. Just one comment. Per WP:MOS inline citation superscripts should immediately follow punctuation marks, not before it. Please change all the citations accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Another comment. See WP:MSH (about using &) and WP:LAYOUT. AZ _t 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object until peer review has run its course. Not quite WP:FA quality yet (mostly due to WP:WIAFA 1(a) and 2). Otherwise, good job! (see the peer review for my comments) AZ _t 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object full of peacock terms. FrummerThanThou 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yeah I agree with Jeffpw, This is one of the extremely well written article. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent piece of work.Not only this is well written,comprehensive and factually accurate its also neutral and gives an excellent image of, probably the best ever king My motherland ever had.I Don't see any reason not to have this as an FA .Having studied and gained a pretty good knowledge of Sri Lankan history, I would like to inform my fellow wikipedians,that so far I'm unable to see any reason to keep the peacock tag on it.I would appreciate, if anyone can point out the disputed sections or phrases here.Thanks -- Iwazaki 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with the above post. It would be helpful, FrummerThanThou, if you could point to the "peacock terms" so action could be taken, or better still, be bold and make the changes yourself. After all, we are all supposed to be working towards the same goals here. Jeffpw 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I've done a lot of the referencing cleanup work myself, I suggest it's premature to ask someone else to make prose changes: the copyedit needs in this article are quite extensive, and will require an extended effort, along with the list still at peer review. Sandy (Talk) 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Methamphetamine

The information is factual and relevent to 2006. The images are all clearly valid as they can be found on DEA.gov. An important article, especially with much recent improvement to wikipedia's pages on drugs. Miserlou 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object, section on medical use is too short. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, the chemistry of the compound is als really short --Stone 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, the references need a lot of work - many of them are just blue links or URLs. Sandy (Talk) 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The refs already there need a cleanup, whilst more refs need adding. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Very good start for a potential FA article but still a number of problems. As noted above, the medical use section is too short, the legality section is a list of one-line subsections, many more references needed, list of street names should be referenced and added back. The quote in the addiction section strikes me as trivial and unencyclopedic. Pascal.Tesson 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oil phase-out in Sweden

This article is about Sweden's announced intention to break their dependence on oil by the year 2020. So far oil supplies 32% of Sweden's energy needs and I think this would be a very interesting featured article. The article is well written and an encouraging note on this issue to many of us addicted to this commodity. FrummerThanThou 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. If we ignore the fact that there aren't any inline citations throughout the article, the article does not have enough depth. Why did Sweden decide to break their dependence on oil? The decision did not come out of thin air, didn't it? What were the political implications of such a move? What actions did the government take to implement its decision? Those are just a few questions that I see are unanswered in the article. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Not comprehensive, hardly any inline citations, stubby paragaphs, bloated See Also section. Might want to list this at peer review instead. Gzkn 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object recommend to peer review. Sandy (Talk) 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, obviously, per above. "See also" is the biggest section of the article. -- Kicking222 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

Seems like a lot of editors have spent a great deal of time working on the Bogdanov Affair, and sorting fact from fiction. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object, loaded with external jumps and blogs as references. Sandy (Talk) 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Clearly not settled down yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly object. Not even close. Not only should that monster cutline on the first image not be in a featured article, it shouldn't be in any article. I didn't even go on from that. But it looks like this won't be anywhere stable and NPOV for a very long time. Daniel Case 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not stable. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There may be issues with this article, but as the page history shows, stability is not one of them. Raul654 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but would the ArbCom consider removing such a tag? Would that entire mess start once again as soon as the tag is removed? It is too contradictory to have a "we can't control this thing" disclaimer next to a featured star. Content-wise, the article is disorganized, lacks the gory details of all the events that happened here and in frwp (WP:ASR doesn't apply here, as sadly, we're primary sources in the controversy), and which have to be described for the article to be comprehensive. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't speak to the content (I haven't really read the article thoroughly), but I agree with you 100% that it's contradictory to have the disclaimer and the FA star, and if the time comes when it looks like it could be promoted, I'll bring it up to the other arbitrators and see what they think. Raul654 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have probably put more constructive effort into this article than anybody else, and it would please me greatly if my work and that of the others who cared to get the story right was rewarded by an FA star. I do not think the article is very disorganized (for a treatment of such a murky subject, I think it's pretty darn good). The long caption on the second image, largely the work of cosmologist Wikipedian Alain Riazuelo, seems to me a good idea. It summarizes the relevant science while leaving center stage for the "human drama", much like a sidebar in a magazine article. Others may, of course, differ with my estimation.

Few people have tried to write about this shady affair in anything like a scholarly way. I was, therefore, forced to do a whole bunch of "he said/she said" quoting and footnoting. WP:NOR forbids anything beyond that, and I think the content as it stands satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:V, since the quotations from blogs and other less-than-ideal sources are all of the type, "this is what so-and-so has said about the issue". I believe the content to be in line with the Source rules of WP:V and the Reliable sources guideline. I tried to pay attention to the self-published sources problem, and all in all, the result seems OK. Again, others are welcome to disagree.

I think it is a tad Wikipedia-centric to claim that the ArbCom ruling is the primary source for this "controversy", particularly when in its heyday, it received coverage in Die Zeit and The New York Times. Perhaps a couple more sentences on the ArbCom's decision might be warranted.

Now for the bad news.

By a strict reading of the stability criterion, this article will never qualify for Featured status. A small number of people with a vested interest in the problem have been very enthusiastic about damaging this article's integrity. Fortunately, they have been very predictable. My personal impression, based on watching their continuity of edit styles, is that probably only one or two people are responsible, and certainly not more than a handful. (You can sample these vandal acts by checking the contributions of the sockpuppets tabulated here. The short story is that they're a whole bunch of names all making the same few edits without even touching another article first.) Whether or not this constitutes a real instability is not my decision, and I think the ArbCom should look at the situation. I do know that at my request, Freakofnurture unprotected the article, and within two days the sockpuppet theater was back. We then terminated the experiment and restored the semi-protection.

My personal recommendation is to revisit this article a year from now and see if the situation has improved. (I am also curious how long we have before sockpuppets manifest to derail this page, too.)

I seem to be on indefinite wiki-sabbatical these days. I stumbled across this FAC discussion by accident; though I don't have much time to help out with anything, I'll try to check once a day or so.

Best wishes, Anville 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem I was concerned about. As soon as the article gets any significant visibility, the circus might start again.

However, here's some comments to improve the article:

• Try to shorten the lede significantly, and try to make it specific to the affair itself. While a bit of background is most of the time useful, too much makes the intro bloated. Move some details to the rest of the article.
• Convert a few "bare links" to footnotes. For example, convert the Bogdanov brothers' thesis to footnotes.
• Write an article about Niedermaier (even if it is a sub-stub), so you can get rid of the bare link as well.
• Format block quotes with <blockquote> or some other type of tag or markup; but do it consistently.
• Source all quotes. I cannot stress that one enough.
• Too much talking about Loop quantum gravity - move it to its own article, summarize it here. A reader doesn't need to know about the conferences surrounding LQG, but that article may be a good place to put that.
• Proper Internet references. Since you are talking about a debate that happened significantly on Usenet (and to a lesser degree here - I did not want to insinuate that the debate was primarily here; if it sounded like that, it was not my intent), then you need to reference those posts and those diffs in the article. Be sure to do it carefully, though: follow something similar to what is used on English Wikipedia, formatting the citations with {{cite web}} and using permanent links. Bypass the direct wikilink to the ArbCom case (due to WP:ASR), but reference it via URL, like any other reference.
• Feel free to use the same reference several times. Cite.php is very useful for this.
• Add details about what happened here and at French Wikipédia.
• Try making some of the external links into references.

Otherwise, the article is a good read (I personally don't like the extremely long caption, but that's my opinion), and with some cleaning up and tender care, can get closer to FA. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all very good comments. As usual, FAC proves itself as a good crucible for articles on the make. I agree entirely on the superiority of Cite.php footnotes over bare hyperlinks, if for no other reason than because they have room for information like the date of last access. I also agree on bypassing the wikilink to the ArbCom decision (which seems to have appeared after I left — I first wrote that section using only external sources). I think the original point of the reference to loop quantum gravity conferences was to indicate that Motl's low opinion of LQG is not universally shared; however, looking at it with fresher eyes, I think it is fairly expendable.

All in all, very useful remarks. I shall try to make the time to address them (or bribe somebody else to do so). Thank you. Anville 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Update OK, while procrastinating on some important tasks, I was able to put a little work in here. The bare hyperlinks have been converted to footnotes using Cite.php and the citation templates. I redid the reference to the ArbCom ruling and cleaned up a few minor matters throughout. I have not shortened the lead, since that is a matter requiring more thought (and if I did, somebody will come along to complain that it's too short. . .).

Thanks again. Anville 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Voyager 2

This article is extremely well written, and represents a technological and scientific breakthrough. I think it would be the prefect candidate for a featured article, based upon the quality of the article, and it's significance in history.

Danactro 06:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article has one inline cite and it's not even formatted properly. I suggest you get a peer review and look at examples of other articles to improve this. M3tal H3ad 06:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object — I agree that the subject would be a good FA, but I also agree with "M3tal H3ad" that the page needs much more work. A PR followed by GA status would be a preferable prior to a FA. — RJH (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Send to peer review for cleanup, article is mostly uncited and needs better image placement. Sandy (Talk) 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial Experiments Lain

See sorting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-nomination. This article has been made GA a month ago and has been improved since. This place seems like the right one to get more feed back on how to improve. --SidiLemine 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, I am listing this orphaned nom on WP:FAC now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please fill in the redlinks, especially for Ryutaro Nakamura and Triangle Staff. They sound pretty notable to me.--Rmky87 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Couldn't find much to say about Triangle Staff, but at least the stubs exist.--SidiLemine 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Please, do not consider this statement as means to assure your vote if I nominate MADLAX. ^^; The article is well written and features a whole lot of sourced explanations of the more incomprehensible aspects of the story, which makes it extremely useful and informative. On the other hand, for those, who have not watched the series, it'll be hard to understand just WHAT was the story about, in other words, the plot summary is very superficial. But then, I agree, it is hard to summarize in words (which should probably be stated more explicitly in the article). And that's my rationale for supporting the nom. --Koveras ^☭ 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. It would be nice to see some references from books and more serious academic research. See Google Print for suggestions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Added two books and a (pretty hardcore IMO) universitary study. Please advise if enough. --SidiLemine 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Better, but it would be nice if they were used more extensivly. Some additional comments upon second reading: 1) why was list of episodes split off? The article is not too long, and it would look nicer with a table/pictures list of episodes than just bullets. 2) Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 00.png would look good in the top infobox, the plain logo is not very eye catching. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Would it be wise to have an extensive "scholarly response" (or such) section, with all that has been said in books, studies, and lectures? I'm not sure if all scholarly work is always relevant for wiki. If this should be the case, it would make it easier for me to use these sources. About the two other comments, it's done. I'll look for a picture of Lain in bear-pijamas to "catch the eye"!--SidiLemine 12:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Such a section may be useful if you think there are items that don't fit elsehwhere; there is no guideline on that but basicaly academic studies are not trivial thus ultimatly they belong on Wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
          • This has been actioned. Two anthologies and three essays (a fourth one will follow shortly) have been added in the "Reception" section, and used extensively.--SidiLemine 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object-- First of all, I commend your bravery in taking on the incredibly daunting task of writing about this intricate series. There are still some problems, though.
  • The controversy section states that the creator considered the piece as a criticism of American culture, but doesn't establish who exactly took issue with this. Who specifically found this controversial?

A link has been added to back this. The fact that Ueda says in an interview that he has had a lot of questions about that might be a hint too. Should I rephrase to include that?--SidiLemine 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuately, you're now citing a forum thread, which WP:V doesn't consider an acceptable source. Even if it did, the response still seems fairly minor -- a couple of dozen comments on the subject on a fan forum is not that notable. Was there really that much controversy about Lain? It seems logical that there'd be some American fans annoyed by the creators' anti-American remarks, there doesn't seem to have been a very significant negative reaction. -- Bailey^(talk) 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Althought I understand your concern about the verifiability of forums, I couldn't find anything specific on WP:V. The fact that this is a 2002 thread should help assert that I didn't make this up myself. I added two online chats and an interview where Ueda is specifically asked about this statement, and each time this is the only past statement he is asked about. Does this qualify as a controversy? If not I'll have to change the term.--SidiLemine 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the term just in case.--SidiLemine 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • There seem to be some unsourced statments (and/or original research) in the article. As attested by the difficulty to find a game review online, the game drew little to no attention from the public is a big one; also Somewhat unusual for anime, the opening song is performed in English begs unusual according to who?

OK, these two have been deleted. Please point out if there is still more lurking around.--SidiLemine 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I will reread throughly and get back to you here, but in the bit about Lonliness as a theme, Friendships turn on the first rumor; even God is said to need believers in order to continue to exist seems like original research. Although this is sourced the the series itself, the idea that these examples relate to an overall theme of lonliness should be advanced in a reliable secondary source or not at all. Similarly A key debate to all interpretations of the series is to decide whether matter flows from thought, or the opposite. looks like it needs to be sourced, and The Be, with the blue "B" and the red "e", is the original logo of Be Inc also. -- Bailey^(talk) 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a necessity to source stuff that is not stated, like the examples relating to the theme. What would that be based on? I added a ref to the logo of BeOS (not Be, inc., btw).

I am quite sure that there is no practical way to source implicit statements.--SidiLemine 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

**I'm not certain about this, since I don't have access to the Animerica article you cite, but the discussion of major themes appears to contain original research, as well. There doesn't seem to be an inline cite for Communication, in its wider sense, is probably the main theme of the series for example; all of the statements of theme should be explictly cited.

done.--SidiLemine 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• • More sources may be needed in order to approach comprehensiveness. You're not using Visual Experiments Lain or Scenario Experiments Lain as sources; both contain in depth discussion of production, story, and design directly from the creators; also, there's a officially licenced guide to the anime called the "ultimate fan guide", and Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation by Susan Napier, contains a fair amount of scholarly discussion of Lain and its themes.

Unfortunately, I am not fortunate enough to possess these works. Is there a requisite to use every single source on a subject? If there is unaddressed points covered by these, fine; if not, they may wait.--SidiLemine 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Using every source available on the subject isn't a requirement, but particularly when you're taking about critical response and critical commentary, it seems that using the best sources available is directly relevant to the comprehensiveness FA requirement. Don't get me wrong -- you've done well with what you've used -- but some of the sources you're using seem weaker, and most likely less in-depth, than some of the other books available, particularly with regards to theme. Lain is a complex series. It bothers me that discussion of the theme of communication, for example, is limited to two sentences, citing only one non-professional online review. If you told me you'd read the other books available and they'd had nothing new on the subject, that would be different, but it seems like an oversight to not look into books with thoughts from the creators of the series, and in at least on case, thoughtful analysis of theme from a professional academic (If I'm remembering correctly, Susan Napier has actually written a number of academic articles largely about Lain and its themes apart from the book I mentioned above). I also think more could be said on production/influences, particulary visual influences (the character design section is rather short) -- Visual Experiments Lain and Scenario Experiments Lain seem like they would help here. -- Bailey^(talk) 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean perfectly. However, I would like to point out that while Visual Experiments Lain is a beautiful artbook, it is just that: an artbook. With tons of screenshots, original drawings, concept art, but practically no functional data. As the name puts it, it is conceived as per se material. On the same level, Scenario Experiments Lain is a collection of episode original scripts, in Japanese, with no annotations. As such, it is useful, but not more than the episodes themeselves. I am reviewing An Omnipresence in the wired, by ABe, to see if there is anything useful to lengthen the character design section. You are still right about Napier, thought. She has some pretty good material, and I'll try hard to get a hand on it.

Visaul Experiments Lain has been used; two anime anthologies, and three essays. "Eva and Lain" by Napier will be added tomorrow.--SidiLemine 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Lastly, I'm not sure why there's not a seperate article on the Lain Playstation game, but lumping these together seems odd. It seems as though it would make more sense to have a seperate article on the game and briefly address the game here in summary style. The anime is most notable, but there should be more than enough content to justify seperate pieces on both. -- Bailey^(talk) 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all the information I (or anyone I know) gould gather about the game, and I don't feel like it justifies a separate article.--SidiLemine 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the game being its own article, I'd be willing to defer to whatever the CVG wikiproject thinks, but it seems that we almost always have individual articles for individual game titles even when they're obscure or spinoff of a larger franchise. Regardless, it seems like the coverage of the game presented here falls short of comprehensiveness. I'm concerned that you're only citing a single review -- possibly user submitted? -- from one seemingly non-professional website to cover the whole reception section. I realize the Lain game didn't attract much attention in English-language speaking countries, but to be fair, it was a text-heavy game that was never translated from Japanese. Its reception in Japan seems like it would be far more relevant then its reception, or lackthereof, in countries where it was not released and for which it was not translated. Also, the gameplay section could easilly be expanded; you haven't really described the unusual "Web browser" interface, where you're guiding physically guiding Lain to walk and jump toward media files to select them; discussion of plot could also be more in depth, considering that the creators seemingly thought of the game as a equally important chapter of the story they were telling -- most of that could be sourced to the game itself. -- Bailey^(talk) 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of information I have, I'd be more than happy to cut it off. But what should I include to preserve the comprehensiveness of this article?--SidiLemine 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The game has been cut off.--SidiLemine 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've just read through the article, and done some spelling work on it. Some bigger things that need cleaning up are "the assumption that everything flows from human thought, memory, and consciousness ("if there is no record of it, it has never existed")." - Is this a philosophical school? Postmodern, perhaps? Are there any analysises (not a real word, I know) about Serial Experiment Lain's place in philosophical/psychological thought? A further analysis of the schools of thought in Lain would be brilliant.

I never found one, so that would probably have to be OR.

When the Machines Stop: Fantasy, Reality, and Terminal Identity in Neon Genesis Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain and also Problems of Existence in Japanese Animation by Susan Napier address this; probably Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation, too. Also Serial Experiments: Lain as a Reflection of Modern Japanese Anxieties in the Digital Era by Mitchell Tribbett comes up via google scholar, although I can't seem to find the full text. -- Bailey Note - the full text of "Serial Experiments: Lain as a Reflection of Modern Japanese Anxieties in teh Digital Era is available here: http://www.corneredangel.com/amwess/papers/lain_essay.doc ^(talk)

Gee. I see myself cornered. Thanks a lot for the good refs. As said above, I'll try to get them (aaaargh no library in Mauritania!!!)--SidiLemine 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in capitalisation of The Wired (the Wired, the wired?) needs to happen.

Done

Wording - "only actual friend" - her only true friend?

Done

Find kanji and romanisations for the other characters too. Which episode is Image:Lain hacker small.jpg from? It's in the episodes section.

Moved. Will put more appropriate one.

Misspellings in quotes need to be followed by (sic).

Is this part of a guideline? I couldn't find it at WP:MOS.

"It is then no surprise that influences are scarce at best." - could be "It is then no surprise that concrete influences are scarce at best." (or acknowledged, or clear, or something that means specific).

Done.

"Yoshitoshi ABe confesses to have never read manga as a child, as it was "off-limits" in his household, so he didn't have manga influences generally expected from anime and manga artists. " This last part needs clarifying, I think. I've done a possible re-write below. Yoshitoshi ABe confesses to have never read manga as a child, as it was "off-limits" in his household, so it is unlikely that he had artistic influences from other manga artists, as would be the norm.

Done.

"Close the world, Open the NeXT" is the slogan for the Serial Experiments Lain Playstation video game. NeXT was the company that produced NeXTSTEP, which later evolved into Mac OS X after Apple bought NeXT. At the end of episodes 1-12 the screen says "To Be Continued." The Be, with the blue "B" and the red "e", is the original logo of Be Inc.. - These seem to stand awkwardly, without connection to the rest of the paragraph.

Done

The Lain franchise was originally conceived to connect across several forms of media (anime, video games, manga). - Is this part of a wider trend?

It is considered "not unusual" by the producers. does that warrant mention?

Update: Included "not unusual" in (removed to own article) game section.--SidiLemine 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the themes section, you mention Rein, Lein and Lain - can you please provide links to more information about who they are, exactly? Even people who have watched the whole series through may get confused.

I never found official sources specifying that - but I could probably enumerate the three personnalities - Malkinann 09:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see answers above in bold.--SidiLemine 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • OK people, back from wikibreak now. Will answer shortly.--SidiLemine 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object 3rd level headings, single subsections (4.1, 5.11) which cause a lopsided ToC. Excessive bolded text. Align images to the left at the beginning of a section. The "Serial Experiments Lain (PlayStation)" infobox should be at the beginning of the section, not the end. Images should be a consistent size. Suggest u do not use a set px value. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All demands have been met. Please advise if any other.--SidiLemine 18:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It still looks messy with the bold text. I'm sorry about the left align, I meant right. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed all bolded text. All images aligned to the right. --SidiLemine 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this part of a guideline? I couldn't find it at WP:MOS. - it may not be - that's just something that I've always seen. take a little look at Sic. It is considered "not unusual" by the producers. does that warrant mention? - Yeah, if you can quote it. I'm thinking a little of the .hack series, where it's a multimedia giant - that'd be part of establishing a connection to the wider world? I never found official sources specifying that - but I could probably enumerate the three personnalities - Maybe Lain herself (selves?) should have their own article? Also, just doublecheck that all the links are relevant and non-red. - Malkinann 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. As I thought, sic doesn't apply to all citations between brackets, but to citations with unusual or surprising spelling in them. I'll check for those and apply.

I'm not sure I get what you mean about the .hack series. Can you explain?

Well, a separate article for Lain is an idea, but I'd still lack sources linking names to personnalities. I'll enumerate the personalities in the article, thought.

Links checked.--SidiLemine 09:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In .hack, there have been many permutations of the story throughout various media. I think it's been called part of a wider multimedia trend, that has become more apparent recently. I thought that the multimedia of Lain could maybe have been said to be part of this multimedia trend? If you can manage to find something that says this, it would be like a comment on the multimedia of Lain as part of a wider trend.

Also, why does the List of Serial Lain Experiments episodes simply duplicate what's in the article already? Do you really need the separate list if it fits in the main article?- Malkinann 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've included the comment from the authors about it being common in Japan; I'm still looking for something to link it to .HACK or else. About the episodes, I need to delete the List article; at first it was way too long for the main article, but now it's OK.--SidiLemine 12:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I love the idea of Lain as an FAC, so I'll try to help here.
  • Serial Experiments Lain relies heavily on philosophical subjects, such as Reality, Identity, and Communication, to follow Lain Iwakura, an adolescent girl living in suburban Japan, and her introduction to the Wired, a global communication network. Lain lives with her average, middle class, normal family, composed of her inexpressive older sister Mika, her cold-as-ice mother, and Yosuo, her father obsessed with computers.
• This section seems extremely comma-happy and is somewhat difficult to read for that reason. Simplified
  • ("if there is no record of it, it has never existed")
• Source this to the episode where it is from (using an inline citation). Done
  • Instead of the traditional linear events depiction, the series consists more of a collection of philosophical themes (episodes are named layers), and a cross-reflection on all of them.
• The comma in this sentence is incorrect IIRC, and the parenthesis are very awkward. Try to integrate facts into the sentence rather than separating them with parenthesis. Done
  • It is asserted that if this was to be linked to a system that enables unconscious communication between people and machines without physical interface (eg. using the Schumann resonance)
• Same as the above. Integrate the parenthesis statement into the sentence and explain a bit more. Someone unfamiliar with what Schumann Resonance is and its relation to Lain would have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Well, I tried :). Is it OK or should I explain some more?
  • as the sum of all consensus.
• Explain this further. Reality would be the sum of all consensus of what? As someone who saw Lain, I know what you mean, but it is not reader-friendly. Developped, added link.
  • It is explained that he included pirate code to give himself total control of the Wired (through the system described above), then managed to “upload” his consciousness into the Wired, and died a few days after.
• "Pirate code"? Again, avoid parenthesis. I think the last comma is incorrect also. Rephrased
  • At some point, Masami explains that Lain herself is the artefact by which the wall between the virtual and material worlds is to fall, and that he needs her to get to the Wired and “abandon the flesh” (as he did) in order to achieve his plan.
• Parenthesis again. OK
  • In the end, the viewer sees how Lain, after much introspection, realises that she has absolute power over everyone's mind, and so, over reality itself. Her dialogues with different versions of herself show how she feels outcast from the material world, and how she is afraid to live in the Wired, where she has the possibilities, but also the responsibilities, of a goddess.
• You are very, very comma happy here. OMG I didn't realise.
  • The key designer of Protocol 7. While working for Tachibana Labs, he illicitly included some pirate code enabling him to control the whole protocol at will, and "embedded" his own consciousness in the protocol. Shortly after, he was fired for this by Tachibana Labs and soon found dead on a railway.
• "Pirate code" again, along with the comma after "at will". Done

I might go through the rest later, but this is what I found at a first glance (up to the character section). — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looking forward for the rest. Any insights on how to easily includes interpretations of the show by various scholars?--SidiLemine 13:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have a section called 'Critical reception', or something? Maybe it should be paired with the Themes section. "Serial Experiments: Lain as a Reflection of Modern Japanese Anxieties in the Digital Era, by Michael Tribett. Anthropology of Japan, Reed College.</ref>" - this reference is broken. "Close the world, Open the nExt" I'm pretty sure was used in the anime as well as the video game... Is MiB a fan term or used in the series? - Malkinann 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It is kind of sad writing articles has became an act of 'bravery'. --Cat out 23:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gonna read through some of the rest now.
  • Alice/Arisu Mizuki (瑞城ありす, Mizuki Arisu?): Lain's classmate. Her only true friend throughout the series, Alice is a devoted friend and has a simple, sincere personality. She secretly has a crush on one of the teachers at her school.
• You used "friend" twice in an awkward way. Better word choice. replaced by confident
  • At a certain point through the series, her consciousness is seriously damaged by a set of violent hallucinations when she asks Lain about a strange scene she witnessed that afternoon in Shibuya.
• Explain this further. It sounds like you're going somewhere... and then you don't.developped and explained through citation
  • This top executive from Tachibana Labs has his own agenda that he carries through the use of the Men in Black. He looks forward to the arrival of a real God through the Wired, and he also orchestrated the death of the Knights.
• Turn this into "...God through the Wired. He also orchestrated the death of the Knights.", I think.tweaked a little: He looks forward to the arrival of a real God through the Wired and orchestrates the Knights' mass assassination for obscure reasons.
  • The authors have been asked recurrently
• This seems like an attempt to get a wiktionary link in there. Recurrently doesn't seem like the right word, for some reason. removed
  • Serial Experiments Lain is not a conventionally linear story, but "an alternative anime, with modern themes and realisation",[26] with themes ranging from the theological to the psychological, and are dealt with in a number of ways, from classical dialogue to image-only introspection, passing by interrogation of imaginary characters.
• Holycrapohmygodthecommasarepainful! Multiple sentences, or at least dump some commas! sentences splitted, commas removed
  • wanted to show the audience (preferably between 14 and 15)
• This seems somewhat disconnected... integrate the parenthesis into the sentence as before. tried: "... feelings". Director Nakamura wanted to show the audience - and particularly viewers between 14 and 15 - "the multidimentional...
  • dialogues between Rein, Lein, and Lain
• Explain this a bit more--who are Rein, Lein, and Lain? We don't know at this point in the article.Expanded, explained, added two refs and an image. As I said before, I can't tell who's Rein or Lein, but I think it sheds enough light on the business as is.
  • Update Removed specific names and left only kanji/katakana/latin.
  • The distance with traditional games is made even bigger
• Horrible writing, should be easy to fix though. Lain distances itself even more from classical games...
  • Opposite to the anime, the game drew little to no attention from the public.
• "Unlike the anime" maybe?OK
  • There was also a short manga produced, but like the game it was only released in Japan.
• Could be written in a somewhat more sophisticated manner. "There was... but like...," etc.A manga was also produced, and like the PlayStation game was only released in Japan.... Don't know if it's much better, but if someone wants to take a go at it I'd be glad.

• I probably missed a boatload of stuff, but overall I think I found a lot. Watch out for your comma-happiness! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, support! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 05:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all that. The text is much, much better now.--SidiLemine 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How does "Rein", "Lain" and "Lein" - the english fan names, I assume - correspond with Kanji-Lain, Katakana-Lain, and Roomaji-Lain? You might also want to put the entire article through a spellchecker, and get someone experienced to copyedit it. - Malkinann 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1a. I shouldn't easily be able to find flaws such as:
  • "The video game, that share with it only the themes and main character, was never released outside of Japan." (In the lead, no less.)
  • Again in the lead: " her inexpressive older sister Mika, her cold-as-ice mother, and her father obsessed with computers"—Make the grammar in this list consistent (see this for hints on listing technique). "computer-obsessed father" is what you want.
  • Lead: "Serial Experiments Lain relies heavily on philosophical subjects such as Reality, Identity, and Communication and focuses on Lain Iwakura, an adolescent girl living in suburban Japan." Two quite different ideas uncomfortably jammed into a single sentence.
  • "The whole story is primarily based on the assumption that everything flows from human thought, memory, and consciousness. [3][4] Given this setting, events on screen can be considered as hallucinations of Lain, of other protagonists, or even of Lain making up other people’s hallucinations. Furthermore, hoaxes are central to the plotline, so even the offscreen voices or narrations' information cannot be trusted." An assumption is a setting? "Furthermore" should be removed, because it doesn't effectively link the last sentence to the previous statements: it's just not flowing logically, or assumes too much background knowledge, or both.

I won't read further. What I've seen thus far indicates that the whole article needs a serious re-write. There are good WPian writers in this area, and you need to enlist at least one to bring this vaguely within the ambit of Criterion 1a. Definitely not there yet. Tony 12:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 1a as per Tony. This article needs at least 3-4 copyeditors; its scenerio rivals ANH. I'll be willing to help, but I can't do it alone since I've never seen the series. — Deckiller 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, why a spoiler warning in a section labeled "plot"? — Deckiller 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for the copyedit. I see how it is necessary now. I'm trying to get around to get good editors to help. The spoiler warning, if not mandatory, seems like a curteous thing to do. The thing is that this plot explains the whole series to the very end, and some might think it's just a synopsis as sometimes seen, with the first episodes and the general story outline.--SidiLemine 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem; I just wanted to make a few fixes to show how it can be improved. Outside copyeditors who have never seen the series (like me) are key, because it's such a complex project. I recommend finding another two or so copyeditors to finish the article up, then it should be ready for FA status. As for spoilers, yeah, it's used in some projects, but not in others. — Deckiller 13:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is one of the more interesting anime series, the article is well referenced, well formatted, and it has relevant images. I would love to have this as a featured article, but it is currently undergoing substantial changes as a result of this FAC, making it too unstable to evalute right now. After substantial content changes has been made, it needs to be copy-edited. Is it possible to put this FAC on hold for a week, or does it need to be re-submitted? --GunnarRene 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Actually, seeing how messed up this nom is getting, re-submission doesn't seem like a bad idea at all...--SidiLemine 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • revision of comment The last demand is for a good copyedit. There might be some adding of reference afterwards or in the meantime (like for the design of lain's hairstyle and bear pyjamas, or adding Napier's main lain article to the reception), but that should hardly be a reason to oppose. I don't know if it's better for the process to renominate or to put on hold.

Comment: Maybe the Character Design section needs more stuff in it? Certainly about Lain and her other personalities, and the god of the Wired, if no-one else. Napier's Lain/Evangelion article has been removed from the journal's website by her request, so unless someone's got a backissue, it won't be possible to use it as a source.- Malkinann 20:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we can use it as a source, although it's less convenient. It does still exist in a scholarly journal although it's not available on the website. --GunnarRene 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and ordered it via my university library. No telling how long it will take though. --GunnarRene 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have received it. User:GunnarRene/Sources#Science fiction --GunnarRene 14:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Inadequate sourcing. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be a little more specific? - Malkinann 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Message left on talk page.--SidiLemine 11:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are sections without references, and there is at least one {{cn}}. I hold references to be very important for featured articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal I am hereby withdrawing this nomination for the time being. The reasons are: 1) Possible rearrangements of article: merging of character andplot sections, movement of media to other article, addition of three new print sources, and major copyedit needed. Will re-submit when all have been attended to.--SidiLemine 10:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hip dysplasia

Self-nom - I think this has become a thorough article on this common veterinary medical condition. It has suitable balance and images, and is well written and informative on a broad scale. Other points are, it is non-controversial in content, the text and structure has been long-term stable, and it has been added to both the Cats and Dogs WikiProjects. This article exemplifies most FA criteria well, as far as I can see. In-line point by point recognition of sources may be an issue, against this formal sources are cited and several sections are linked to source articles rather than in-line cites. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object Nice start, and you've done a lot of work, but it's not nearly ready for FAC. At first glance, at least, you need to expand the lead, reference the article with one style (and a preponderance of peer-reviewed PMID sources), remove all the external jumps, and follow WP:MEDMOS. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and the most recent medical FAs (Bacteria, Influenza, and Tourette syndrome). Sandy (Talk) 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it would be better to split into human and animal hip dysplasia articles. And also before nominating here a peer review can be very useful. Not anywhere near FA quality right now. --WS 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: doesn't cite sources enough, doesn't comply with WP:MOS.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys

(First FAC)

This is the second nomination for Arctic Monkeys; since the first FAC, the article has undergone an extensive rewrite, including the removal of all unecessary fair-use images, new sections and plenty more sources. The article is at GA quality, and I've gone through it to correct any outstanding grammar issues (one of the points which held the article back last time). The article follows WP:MOS fully now, and I feel is now ready for Featured Article status. Laïka 13:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Prose needs work.
  • Unlike many of their contemporaries, who were marketed and advertised extensively by record labels, Arctic Monkeys achieved their success through fan-made demo tapes and online file-sharing, culminating in fans singing along at gigs of songs which had never been officially released, leading media commentators to discuss the possibility of a sea change in the way in which new bands are promoted and marketed. -> "Marketed" is the same as "advertised". What is being "culminated"? Awkward sentence in general.
  • Eventually, the band signed to independent record label Domino Records, releasing their debut album Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, which debuted straight at number one and broke the record for the largest first week sales of a debut album in UK history. -> Repetition.
  • After teaching themselves to play, the pair formed a band with Turner's school friends Andy Nicholson and Matt Helders later in 2002. -> "later" is unnecessary.
  • According to Helders, Jamie Cook came up with the name at school before the band existed, saying "He just always wanted to be in a band called Arctic Monkeys. Which is a cool name." Unclear as to who is "saying" the quote.
  • They themselves took no responsibility for their music, admitting that they did not even know how to get their songs onto the Internet. "They themselves"?
  • The success of the strategy — "We've got this far without them — why should we let them in?" — was illustrated with a series of sell-out gigs across the UK. Who said that? Why is it appearing in the middle of this sentence?
  • The temptation of money saw them almost sign for an undisclosed "other label", but the band were attracted by Domino owner Laurence Bell, who ran the label from his flat and only signed bands that he liked personally. "temptation of money saw them" is quite an awkward construct. Also, "band were"? Gzkn 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the issues you've highlighted with a couple of exceptions: Marketing is not the same as advertising; bands are often marketed in that the songs they write are often changed by the label to appeal more to a "key demographic", which is not the same as promoting them to the key demographic. Also, "they themselves" is a valid structure; indeed it even appears in the Bible, and "the band were" is valid in British English, which this article uses, but not American English. Laïka 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not all direct quotes attributed to people have been cited - this should be addressed. LuciferMorgan 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which ones? I can't find any. Laïka 18:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object—1a, as per Smurray. Tony 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you mean "as per Gzkn"; I'm the nominator! Laïka 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn and Tony, and references need work. For example, news sources (like the BBC) should include the publication date. Sandy (Talk) 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fluke (band)

I have been working on this article for some time now. I hope that other editors will find it is well written, thoroughly referenced and comprehensive considering the limited number of resources available on the topic. Martin Hinks 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Way too many samples! Reduce the number of samples because it is pushing fair use. Also, try using Template:cite web when citing a web source. CloudNine 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now taken out most of the samples from inline with the text except where it indicates a change of musical style or a significant song. I'll work on using the cite web template... Martin Hinks 16:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now all using cite web template as well. Martin Hinks 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now removed samples from the bottom cluster as well, only leaving in songs that show a clear change in musical direction. Hopefully this resolves your comments. Martin Hinks 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. I agree that having that many songs bunched together verges an infringement of the tenets of fair use, but assume that this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all. I do have one other detraction, nonetheless, to this otherwise informative and well sourced article. (Sourced to death, some might say :).) Incidentally, I'd like to beef about style, and the general voice and diction used in certain portions of the article. Some sections seem to operate outside of the realm of rules regarding subordinate clauses. For example, take

The band's debut album, 2Pie Island, was released in September 2006 in the UK to virtually no critical attention either positive or negative.

The passive voice in this sentence is a personal style objection: my tendency to appreciate the active voice, when it can be used, is often hypocritically ignored by me. (To speak nothing of split infinitives.) In the above sentence the phrase "either positive or negative" sounds like a run-on sentence because it is an unrequired subordinate clause the likes of which should be set off by a comma and I must comment that if commas are not used that often it gets fluid either to the point where the prose does not seem brilliant or you're not entirely sure how the sentence started. Finally, "either-or" should be "neither-nor." I would suggest:

2 Bit Pie released 2Pie Island, the band's debut album, in September 2006 in the UK to virtually no critical attention, neither positive nor negative.

Or even better:

In September 2006, 2 Bit Pie released its debut album, 2Pie Island, in the UK. The coverage by cultural critics was minimal and overall neutral, and the album amassed only a dearth of critical attention.

Also note, for example:

The album is named Risotto because it contained a mix of the pre-released singles "Atom Bomb" and "Absurd", new tracks "Goodnight Lover", "Kitten Moon", the post-album single "Squirt" and older tracks remixed by themselves; "Mosh" being a remix of "Tosh" from Oto.

What's a risotto? I had to look that up. After learning what it is, it took an intellectually significant logical inference to determine the nature of the causality in the quote above. "Being" should generally not be used as a verb.

This content is good, but just to me, the manner in which it is presented is of generally good but occasionally dubious quality (in certain places). Martin Hinks: briefly looking over your contributions, you have a tendency to articulate things deftly. Some of this article does not have this. Also, endnotes must have been a relative nightmare: good job on that. I admire the work you've done for this article. I'm attempting to do the same for Flat Earth (right now I'm creating a "game plan" before editing), and it requires a concentrated exertion of pure brainpower. I overall support this article! --Gracenotes ^T § 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Granma on the subject of Grammar

"amassed a dearth of critical attention". Are you serious? The writing in terms as contradictory as that is very much worse prose than writing in the passive voice when one could write in the active. Moreover, the use of "neither, nor" works like this:-

1. There was neither positive nor negative critical attention. Correct!
2. The critical attention was neither positive nor negative. Correct!
3. There was no critical attention, neither positive nor negative. Incorrect!

Why? Because there was no critical attention of either kind. The reason being that in cases 1 and 2 the negative sense of the sentence is conveyed solely by the use of the neither and nor. In sentence 3, the nagtive is conveyed by the word no. "There was no attention" is a definite statement. What sort of attention could there have been? "either positive or negative".

There was nothing wrong with the sentence to start with. Nitpicking at perfectly acceptable grammar is ridiculous!

A great number articles come up for review that are written by people who are quite ignorant of grammatical rules and use the language badly. There are others written by people for whom English is not the first language and who also need help. Let's do it instead of demolishing perfectly adequate writing just because this particular forum permits and encourages criticism.

--Amandajm 08:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support - I'll take a look through the article today and see what I can do about those passive voices. I'll also link in risotto to give the context for that sentence.

I have now looked at the sentences you specified and will continue to look through the article for any other sentences that aren't up to scratch. Many thanks, Martin Hinks 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object There's information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. The lead should only be a summary of the article. LuciferMorgan 17:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Afraid this was an oversight on my part. Originally I had the information in the lead using inline citations, but saw that FAs don't follow that format and that the lead should just be a summary. This lead to me accidentally removing the citations without duplicating the information further down. This should now be resolved. Thanks, Martin Hinks 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent article, long standing fan of the band,

fantastic source of information. JustinCredible2006 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. I can't yet support this. Please go through and simplify or chop up the long winding sentences; here are three, for which I point out problems other than their length and comlexity.
  • "The band also realised at this early stage that they would experience the greatest artistic freedom if they possessed their own recording studio and so they took it upon themselves to obtain their own premises at this stage, an asset which has, according to Jon Fugler, proved invaluable in coordinating the "wider pool of people - musicians and friends - that we draw on to help."[6]" And please get rid of the "also"; where are we told before this that the band realised something?
  • "When Fluke were touring for Risotto their official mascot was an animated racing car driver named Arial Tetsuo, again derived from their involvement with the Wipeout soundtrack, personified on stage by Rachel Stewart who sang the female vocals for all Fluke's live performances between 1997 and 1999." This is an involved chain: too complex. And a comma or two would make for easier reading (throughout the article, there are too few commas). In the previous para, there's a redundant "also".
  • "The album is structured so that the more accessible 'pop' tracks are to be found at the beginning of the album, whilst the more ambitious ambient tracks are to be found towards the end of the album and although this could have given the album the effect of petering out it received favourable critical reviews with Billboard magazine describing it as "groundbreaking".[8][9]" And remove the several redundant "to be found"s.Tony 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, many thanks for your comments. I have just taken a look through the article and spent a few hours adjusting sentences that were too long as well as hopefully sorting out the issues that you highlighted. I'm now going to get my "real-world" proof reader to have another look through it and when I've implemented any changes she suggests I'll get back to you. Hopefully I can resolve this to your satisfaction! Martin Hinks 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I'm still not wildly happy to be able to easily locate problems in the prose. For example, at random:

• • "This burst of success was followed by a rush of two further singles,"—Not encyclopedic (a little excessive, a tinge of POV, and "rush" is loose semantically.
  • "Though this could have produced a stagnating effect, it was received favourably by critics"—It's unclear whether the first clause is POV; I mean, was it a stagnating effect? Could have? Can't have it both ways.
  • "suggesting that Fluke were to become the next big thing in Europe"—"Would", not "were to".
  • "Oto was somewhat darker than Six Wheels on my Wagon,"—What does "somewhat" add? It's one of those non-words; consider removing it. Either it was darker or it wasn't, and there's no point in hedging about it.
  • Sorry to be picky, but the grammar of the first two items is different: "After touring for a year with Risotto on the American, "Electric Highway Tour", and having made two appearances at ..." Easier as: "Having toured for a year with Risotto on the American, "Electric Highway Tour", and made two appearances at".

This doesn't come up to the standard of writing in other FAs in this field I've looked at. Someone else to run through it? Tony 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Reeve

Self Nomination. I added a lot more secondary references, and cleaned the article up a bit. Gunkyboy 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you broke something with your page move/archiving. --Ideogram 07:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Not brilliant prose. Left comments in the text. --Ideogram 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't have time to work on this right now. --Ideogram 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedited and found no major problems. I am very pleased to change my vote to Support. --Ideogram 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Terrible prose, as per Ideogram. Bad grammar & flow.

• Reeve had an unusual medical history. He suffered from asthma and allergies since childhood. He had suffered from alopecia areata since age sixteen, a condition that caused patches of hair to fall out from his otherwise healthy head of hair. Generally he was able to comb over it and often the problem disappeared for long periods of time.

1) To begin the medical section with the 1st bold is marked with too much enthusiasm on the fact that he had unusual medical history.

2) On 2nd pair of bolds, shouldn't childhood sickness be w/ "had", and teenage sickness be w/o it, considering the timeline?

• Reeve's first role after Superman was as Richard Collier in the 1980 romantic fantasy Somewhere in Time.

1) "was as" should be "was".

2) correct: "romantic fantasy, Somewhere in Time" (disregarding italics).

• Reeve was a licensed pilot and had flown solo across the Atlantic twice.

1) Has to be organized better or written more clearly b/c I thought this was about his movies. Try to separate trivias from his roles in movies. (Wikimachine 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

• Comment - I made some of those changes. The licensed pilot thing, if you read further, is important since a few sentences later I cite it as the reason why he did the movie The Aviator. Gunkyboy 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I found this an excellent article. Very well researched, well written, and highly deserving of being made FA and being placed on the main page. Wikipedia can be proud to include an article of this quality. Jeffpw 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks Jeff. Yeah, Ideogram, I think I did break something. I was confused with the whole archiving of the old featured article discussion. Hopefully it's not too screwed up. I took your comments to heart and have made a few changes. Those suggestions were very helpful, and if you have any other suggestions for the rest of the article, I'd be happy to consider them. Before objecting the nomination flat out, please know that I am willing to make any changes necessary. The intro was never the strongest part of the article because it was written in haste after someone said I needed to expand it. Gunkyboy 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work so far. I will get back to you with more comments. --Ideogram 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that line was a bit fawning, so I got rid of it. Also fixed a sentence in the Activism section. It's a long article so it's hard for one person to notice everything. Gunkyboy 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article should mention the 'controversy' regarding Reeve, his wife and the episode Terms of Endearment of Drawn Together. More generally, I think there should be a section of 'references in the media on Christopher Reeve'. --BMF81 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the External links section is a bit bloated. Why is the Why You Should Respect Christopher Reeve essay part of the external links? Is it really that notable? Also the National Health Promotion and Information Center... one is a subpage of Christopher Reeve's own home page, so I don't think you need to include that. Did Mr. Reeve have any ties to Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics? The article doesn't mention it, so why is it in the external links? I'm sure there are many memorial sites out there dedicated to him. Why is http://christopher-reeve.memory-of.com/ the one in the external links? I'm concerned that this invites random users to shove more and more random links in there, and that the section might devolve into a link depository. Finally, ref 65 is missing access date/author/publisher information. Gzkn 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yup, I agree. I didn't add any of those links, except for the Database ones. I fixed that and also fixed the reference. Gunkyboy 12:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To get more information about Alopecia areata: Causes, diagnosis ,treatments.click the Link Ajayabishwokarma (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• SergeantBolt (t,c) and Wiki-newbie both gave a Support in the last FAC discussion, so that would make it 5 Supports to 1 Oppose. And the guy who opposed appears to have only read a few lines from the article. Tough cookie. 67.161.26.190 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is customary to include the link to previous nominations; FAC is not a "vote", and Supports from a nomination of a month ago aren't pertinent to this version of the article. You might want to correct the archive links on the talk page so that the first nom is to Archive1, unless there are actually two previous noms. "And the guy who opposed" was right about the prose, which needs attention throughout, although he only gave a few samples. Please enlist a good copyeditor to help. Here's a sample (don't just fix the samples): "For the first few days after the accident, Reeve was heavily sedated and remained unconscious. Dana sat by his side and took care of Will the entire time." She took care of Will by Christopher's side? She sat by his side while she took care of Will? She sat by his side all the time but was still able to care for Will who was at home? Needs to be clear, compelling, and brilliant. Sandy (Talk) 14:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Several issues that need to be addressed:
  • The prose is choppy and not compelling. It would help to have someone unfamiliar with the text run through the entire article. Here's a random sample:
    • Reeve took a job in the soap opera Love of Life in July 1974, because he needed the money. He played Ben Harper, a polygamous "bad guy." By August, the character became popular and ratings for the show went up.
  • There are too many Fair Use images.
  • Some of the references need to be expanded to include full bibliographic information such as author and publication date (on news reports, for instance). For example, the following does not include the author and the publication date - please complete all entries in a consistent bibliographic style:
    • Le, Van. Paralyzed Alum Invigorates N.Y. Race: Grad hits the campaign trail with inspiring story, seeking N.Y. State Senate Seat. The Harvard Crimson. October 24, 2006. Accessed online November 3, 2006
    • There are several sources that are actually news report, but not identified as such, and should be so noted, including the news source and the publication date. Please check all citations for consistency - if you're not sure how to correctly cite sources, you might use the cite news and cite book templates.
      • I cleaned up the refs; I suggest other issues still need to be addressed. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article relies too heavily on Christopher Reeve himself as the main source; almost all of the material is referenced to his own books. Those books could be listed in a references section, which would include the full bibliographic info, and then each footnote would be abbreviated to look like:
    • Reeve, Christopher (1998), pp 235-239
  • rather than repeating all of the book biblio info in each note.
  • Some of the sources might not rise to the level of WP:RS; there are quite a few fancrufty personal websites, although I didn't check them all, since there is no consistent bibliographic style, and it's hard to tell. Bookofjoe looks like a blog.
  • The wikilinking is sporadic: some of the words linked are common words, and some of them link to disambiguation pages - they should all be checked.

A longer stint at peer review, until you get sufficient feedback, would be helpful. I agree with the person who said that Christopher Reeve's entry should have a picture of *him*, not a picture of him as Superman in the infobox. Sandy (Talk) 14:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes. I think the References are fine and I can't spend 2 hours changing them just for aesthetic reasons (shortening the Still Me references). I think they serve their purpose well enough. I'm no writer so I'm not going be spitting out any brilliant prose. All I can say is that this is a comprehensive and completely accurate article, and I've done the best I can with the little time that I have for this. Gunkyboy 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I went through the entire article and cleaned up all of the prose. Unless you find any glaring errors, that's the best I can do. Gunkyboy 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Sandy, you cleaned up those references fast! Is there some shortcut? BTW, Christopher Reeve Homepage is a very well researched site, not fancrufty at all, and bookofjoe is the blog of an anesthesiologist. Gunkyboy 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The shortcut is, put the article into Word and do a global replace on the Reeve sources. That took five minutes. Expanding your news sources took the rest of an hour. Now that I've helped out, please do spend some time on the other issues listed. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any political involvement in the section headed:

• 6. Films, family, and political involvement

It looks like that is all in activism, and this section needs a better heading. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed "political involvement" to "activism". There is political involvment in there (standing against Pinochet, campaigning for Senators, being asked to run for Congress), but "activism" works better. 70.231.232.18 16:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But now you have two sections covering activism. Sandy (Talk) 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object: not written to the required "professional" standard. 2a fails too. For example:
  • In the lead: "In 1987, he stood with 77 Chilean actors who were being threatened by the dictator Pinochet."—Stood with meaning "supported", or stood on a stage with, or what? Vague. Why is this the third sentence of the lead? Big picture first, please.
  • 1995 was not in the "early 90s".
  • "Reeve died at age fifty-two on 10 October 2004 after suffering cardiac arrest"—Replace "suffering" with "a".
  • "Reeve's parents did not remain married for long." Vague chronologically. Here, our readers expect precise information.
  • "an amateur group held tryouts for the play"—"tryouts" is too informal here. Same for "fizzled".
  • Why are ordinary English words such as "apprentice" linked? We do speak English, you know; if we don't, we can look it up.

Not good enough for an FA. Please don't just treat the examples I've provided; I'm referring to the whole article. Tony 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Folding@home

You may be looking for a different page: see discussion of sorting old archive errors here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Accurate simulations of protein folding and misfolding enable the scientific community to better understand the development of many diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, BSE (mad cow disease), cancer, Huntington's Disease, cystic fibrosis and other aggregation related diseases. So far, the Folding@home project has successfully simulated folding in the 5-10 microsecond range—a time scale thousands of times longer than was previously thought possible.

As of November 9, 2006 45 scientific research papers have been published using the project's work.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign report on October 22, 2002 states that their distributed simulations of protein folding are demonstrably accurate.

--Records 03:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object too many stub sections, references and bibliography needs to be merged and use in-line citations, the size of images, along with a bulky {{cquote}} makes it very hard to read. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC) See comment below. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done to the article? In fact I would appreciate if you were to be bold and edit the article, please?--Records 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My only intention is to provide my opinion about this article being featured and provide some problems with it. I'm not obligated to fix my concerns with it. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not bad. I'd like to see some points covered:

• If I run the program while doing something else in my computer, does it significantly affect the speed of performance?
• Is there any significant stastistical trend among people who allow there computer to use the program (for example, whether most of the users are chemistry/biology students)? (however, this data will be :*How does merely "contributing electricity" by Playstation3 would help the project?
• Need to have more wikilinks to technical terms. For a person who does not understand computer lingo adequately, sometimes it is tough to read the article. For example, what is "450 X1900" GPU, or, what is "x86-64" Linux?
• "...is measured against couple simple qualificators." - what is couple simple qualificators? Or am I missing some word?
• WU=working units, right?
• "With push to larger WUs and longer folding timeslices, the system speed is influencing more the possible porting decision than the possible system count" - hard to understand. Please elaborate. Also please wikilink System speed and system count.
• How about a section on problems/bugs of the program? Is there any controversy regarding it's acceptability among the scientific community?
• Why did not Google toolbar incorporate the program this time?
• Lead needs slight expansion.

I think addressing these concerns would help some sections get rid of the "stubby" look as noted above by Selmo. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know can you be bold and fix it for me, please? --Records 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object it's great to see interest in this article, but it really isn't close yet.

• Just in terms of the structure, the lead is too short and does not cover the article's content, there's a large and unnecessary blockquote, the referencing is mediocre (good that it exists, but all the inline citations seem to be to online sources/commentary rather than the published papers), and the linkfarm at the end needs cleanup.
• In terms of content, this article has zero information on how the technique works (which is all published); to be a comprehensive article on the subject, it would need substantial descriptions of the algorithms and methodology, and in particular it needs to detail the justification for sampling many short MD trajectories rather than one or a few very long ones, which is the key that makes distributed computing work for these types of calculations. Similarly, the types of problems for which this technique works well should be explicitly pointed out and contrasted to those problems for which it fails because a long trajectory really is needed. There is no academic criticism of the method presented in this article either.
• Lastly, as an article on an internet phenomenon, it's missing comparisons with the user base size of other distributed-computing projects (eg Rosetta@Home, SETI, the prime-number one, etc.) and could use expanded discussion of the 'work unit' model and the informal competitions that have developed between websites that encourage their users to join their 'team'. Opabinia regalis 07:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know can you be bold and fix it for me, please? --Records 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Personally, I find there's not enough detail on the process itself. It treats protein folding calculation as a "black box". This would be of great interest to the layperson, I suspect. Also there's no comment on similarities and differences to similar protein structure prediction projects and such. NB: the importance of the subject is not a a"featured article" criterion. Sockatume 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know can you be bold and fix it for me, please? --Records 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Nomination seems to be an attempt to get people to fix this article. That is not what FA is for. This was also listed at SCOTM where and a call for votes on the Folding@home forum was put out here. Nomination for FA should be withdrawn. pschemp | talk 01:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Object on procedural grounds. Please do not abuse FAC as peer review. Given your nomination of the same article for SCOTM, it seems you did not expect this nomination to succeed - if you did not know, SCOTM is for improving articles that aren't featured yet. Please do not leave sofixit demands on people's talk pages like you did here. Your behaviour here so far has been an absolute disgrace to your cause. Please do not use the Wikipedia community as a vehicle to further your own projects, especially not a remote-controlled vehicle! Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with this editor. Discussion should be closed immediately and Records formally repremanded somehow. Disgraceful behaviour. Sockatume 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not WP:BITE. AZ _t 22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll bite spammers all I like thank you. pschemp | talk 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Updates ==

• Reference & Bibliography merged as per suggestion of User:Selmo --Records 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Added new section for Google Compute & F@H with more information. --Records 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Improved Lead. --Records 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed bulky quote as it is not encylopedic. --Records 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed See Also as links in article direct to See Also articles, besides FA articles don't have see also eg. todays one.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed BOINC section as they dont plan on releasing a BOINC client in the near future besides the stand alone is more easy for newbies.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Changed Progress to Participation. --Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to apologise or explain your spamming? This article still isn't anywhere near FA quality btw. pschemp | talk 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

After this "explanation" I am totally opposed to this article being nominated. User continues to spam talk pages for his cause and has admitted personal gain motivations. pschemp | talk 03:6, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Object per the above. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Records had be blocked indef for admitting to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Not to mention removing comments on this and other talk pages and general disruption. This FAC really should be shut down now. pschemp | talk 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Close the discussion, as this was obviously never FA material and the discussion, along with the listings on Collaborations and various other parts of the Wikipedia, was created for entirely dodgy reasons. Sockatume 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not only due to the above, and because it lacks substance overall. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Wal-Mart

Very comprehensive, well sourced, copy-edited and NPOV. A well written article, especially considering the danger of POV for this article. I believe deserves FA status. Justinmeister 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 2a. I can see a lot of work went into the article, but it needs more. The "Taxes" section needs more verification. Particularly, the phrase "Critics (such as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) charge that the company was trying to profit from the deaths of its employees" is the most important part of the section, since it explicitly names a critic, but it isn't supported by the one reference. The prose very often uses commas awkwardly or incorrectly. Most importantly, the more I read it, the article often fails to identify the groups making particular complaints. So in the "Product selection" section, most of the individual examples are cited, but nowhere do we learn just who is criticizing Wal-Mart over these examples; it just says that Wal-Mart was criticized over and over again. The lead section does not appear to be a summary of the article. The second and third paragraphs particularly discuss topics that are not revisited. Most critically, the lead hints at efforts by Wal-Mart to respond to their critics; without an exploration of those efforts, the article isn't comprehensive.

  I would suggest going through the article looking for weasel words and passive voice, and where you find them, replace them with identifications of specific critics. Copyedit the article a bit more. Try to export specific, extraordinary claims that require citations out of the lead section and give them some room to grow in the body. Melchoir 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose 1d, 1e, and 3. First off, this article is a POV fork and possibly the most infamous one on the English Wikipedia. It was nominated for deletion a couple months ago, therefore I question its stability. As much as I would like to see this featured on Main Page, I hardly doubt that would ever happen. There are not enough images in this article; in addition, the fair use images are used for decoration and the context of their captions and usage is quite NPOV POV. The first one is of a bumper sticker made by ReclaimDemocracy.org, an organization that is only mentioned in this article's External links section; the second is a comic strip in popular media that parodies a people greeter -- none mention who Wal-Mart is being criticized by. In addition, this article has way too many child articles. Tuxide 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your criticism that the images are used "for decoration", clearly they are prominent examples of criticism of Walmart, one by a political organization, another in popular media. If the captions need work, that's one thing, but saying they are merely "for decoration" is rediculous. I also don't understand the criticism that the article has too many child articles. I don't see any child articles, just one sibling article, Wal-Mart employee and labor relations. What child articles are you referring to? Kaldari 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess there is just the one child article, I completely forgot that the "five criticism of Wal-Mart articles" dilemma was resolved a while ago; however there is still the second one, which contributes to this article's instability. The two images are not referenced in the article. For example, I would expect something about ReclaimDemocracy.org to be mentioned in a paragraph, however it is not. On the other hand, this article is merely a collection of information where the only discriminator is negative POV against Wal-Mart. Even if this was a featured article, it will never be linked to on Main Page for this reason. If I wanted to read about ReclaimDemocracy.org's stance against Wal-Mart, I would probably refer to the ReclaimDemocracy.org article instead, since this is the party that is giving the criticism. There used to be a fair-use image on the Planet of the Apes thing that was tied in perfectly to the respective paragraph. I wonder what happened to it. Tuxide 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland

I have nominated this article for an FA status due to the fact that it is well-written, very clear and is an examplary Geography-related article. Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I support this as I nominated it Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - 13 inline citations is far too few for a featured article. Those that are there need to be formatted properly. HornetMike 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment How come does Acorn Computers have an FA status, when it ONLY has 11 references and ONLY 7 other notes! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a quite old FAC. And anybody can nominate it to FAR to be reviewed. But it is not this article which is judged; it is Switzerland!--Yannismarou 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment mere numbers of refs are not a valid objection, it's more a matter of where they're at and formatting. Rlevse 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a valid objection if the article is long like this one.--Yannismarou 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Entire sections are missing refs and the refs you do have are not properly formatted. Use cite php/web, make them consistent and ref unref'd sections. Rlevse 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support very well written, just like Booksworm says. --SonicChao ^talk 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is obviously not ready for FAC. It is undercited and not well-prepared. It is characteristic that in "Religion" just after the heading there is a link for further information to an article which does not yet exist!!!--Yannismarou 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Undercited, Footnotes not correctly formatted in a consistent biblio style, very listy, templates (Further, main, etc.) not used correctly. Recommend peer review to prepare article for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object. Though I do not think that references "make the article", so to speak, I do agree that Switzerland features a few fewer than most FAC. Switzerland did have a peer review (which I was planning on digging through sometime, but then things got in the way). The lack of citations seems to be a major objection. Get a few more, clean up formatting a bit, and I would support. Ourai ^т _с 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Major comment How ON EARTH did Infinite monkey theorem become an FA and Switzerland cannot. Someone answer this for me, becasue I really don't get it! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem became an FA over two years ago, when standards were lower. You can nominate it for review at WP:FAR, where it will be improved or demoted from FA status. Sandy (Talk) 14:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support but the objections should be taken into account and acted upon. Chavatshimshon 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object — A lengthy list of suggestions were presented during the peer review,review/Switzerland/archive2 but it appears that few if any have been addressed. Also per above comments. — RJH (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2142

I am nominating this article for Featured Article, because it has all the information you need, it is well formatted, contains pictures, is not subject to vandalism, and the information is correct. Flubeca 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well, I nominated it. Flubeca 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Big section in the middle is basically a GameFAQ and it doesn't provide sufficient insight into how the game plays for an outsider. Sockatume 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: A bit too "game guidish." It would make a good good article, but it still has some way to go for featured article. Focus some more on the development and reception, and cut down on the rumors. bibliomaniac15 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object No information on the development of the game. Lots of WP:MOS problems, as far as comma usage, italicizing game titles, refs going after punctuation, no capitalization of words in headings (except for the first words and proper nouns), etc. Tons of one-sentence paragraphs. The middle section is, as Sockatume (great name!) said, just a giant GameFAQs page... and I hate GameFAQs. Most of the text lacks intrawiki links- between that and the Manual of Style problems, I could easily slap a {{wikify}} tag on it. The trivia section is rather unnecessary. Please read WP:WIAFA. -- Kicking222 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did the WP:FN fixes, but the article is not ready for FAC; recommend the article go through peer review to prepare for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Kicking222. I will however, nominate it as a Good Article. --SonicChao ^talk 14:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment My advice would be to check the structure of existing FA game articles. For instance, BF2142 needs a good reception section at the bottom. --Zeality 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object "Battlefield 2142 (abbreviated BF2142) is a first person shooter using a modified engine of Battlefield 2 set in the 22nd century, during a new ice age. Battlefield 2142 was released on October 18, 2006 in the US and October 20, 2006 in the EU." What the heck is a "first person shooter?" Oh, wait, release dates, it's not a battlefield, it's not some famous sniper, it's not a person, it's a game. Article is not written for a general audience, no idea what it even is without quite a bit of reading, that I'm not willing, as a general reader, to do, since the article is obviously not written for a general audience. Just back out of it for a bit, and pretend you're trying to explain what this is to your neighbor's grandmother who doesn't have a computer or television or know what a DVD is. KP Botany 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First person shooter is (at least I think) another way of saying Role-playing. I don't know if there is a slight difference, but that's the idea. (You shoot from the first person position) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, it's just not general enough to tell someone who doesn't already know what it is. "Battelfeild 2142 is a first person shooter computer game," or is it a video game? And if so, what platform? The article is entirely about the game for gamers. This isn't a gamer mag, it's an encyclopedia. KP Botany 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - get rid of the entire 'Weapons and equipment', 'Vehicles', 'Ranks' and 'Maps' sections. Game guide information is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Reference the 'Rankings' and 'Punkbusters' issues under 'Bugs'. Reference the 'Pre-order bonuses' section. The introduction should be 2 or 3 paragraphs, not 2 sentences, that summarise the article, and assert the importance and notability of the game. Proto::► 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Per the reasons above, you might want to take this to Peer Review, or ask people at the Computer games Wikiproject about ways to improve it. Straight away, my main concerns would be:
  • It needs a longer introductory paragraph.
  • There's too much "useless" game guide information. Instead of listing all the weapons and ranks and what they do, talk about how the unlock and ranking system actually works. I think listing the maps and the classes are fine though.
  • You need a few paragraphs on the critical reaction to the game, instead of just listing the bugs. How well did it do in reviews? How many copies were sold? How popular is the game compared to its predecessors? Sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings can help, and WP:CVG/M may be able to establish print sources for you.
    • - hahnchen 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too repetitive and should have more information aside from the units and weapons. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is more of a game strategy guide and game FAQ... -Advanced 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Excuse me! This is also current Good Article nominee. What's this about?[2] I thought the idea was to go from GA to FA, not try out for both at once? KP Botany 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All That

• First FAC
• Second FAC

Self nom and for: I have revised this article well. It is currently a good article, and I want to take it further. I grew up watching this show, and I think the article is amazing in its current form. PF4Eva 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Too listy, stubby sections, refs go at the end of punctuation not in the middle of a sentence, some photo captions too big, big block quotes are distracting. Rlevse 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:The only real list in the whole article is the full cast list, which I believe to be necessary unless told otherwise. Is it all right if the cast introductions for Season 1 and the 10th anniversary are converted to prose or something to keep the captions shorter and simpler? PF4Eva 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Some parts of the article just look like a really long list, and the rest just looked like a bunch of stubs sloppily pieced together. - Stretchyrubberbands^{( Tell me how to overcome my stupidity)} 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above and lack of otherwise better references. This was quite the popular show and has a number of famous alums, some better sourcing might help with further expansion and streamlining. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As for the references, those are the best I can give you. Trust me, I have searched high and low for pages and articles online relating to All That. It's especially hard when it's a Nickelodeon show from the 1990s and when it has such a common title that is hard to google. But I will do the best I can to improve this article for FA consideration. PF4Eva 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University

Self-nom. A few dedicated editors have vastly improved this article. It is better referenced than any other educational institution that I could find on Wikipedia. There have been 3 peer reviews, and it is currently a GA. WikiprojectOWU 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, as an Alumn, I have a few questions:
  • "in the school's PhD creation rate" Has OWU started offering PhD's in the past 15 years or are you referring to students who go on to earn PhD's elsewhere? When I was a student, OWU didn't offer any graduate programs. If this is the later, then you need to clarify that.
    • Fixed.WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "In the athletics world, the Battling Bishops" This is the first reference to the Battling Bishops and there is no indication that the Battling Bishop is our school Mascott. I'd love to see a picture included here.
    • Battling Bishops occurs in the infobox in the beginning of the article. Do you think it will help if the term is reintroduced after that? Will it be not be redundant?WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally I would include in the intro... people may not read or notice the info box... I didn't. If it is mentioned in the article, then IMHO it should explained in the article.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I see your point but I think this one is a matter of Wikipedia convention. WikiprojectOWU 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • [72][73][74][75] I was advised in my peer reviews to condence multiple back to back references... I don't know if this is standard, but just throwing my two cents out there.
    • These references are provided as a result of past discussions among various users to back statements on a multifaceted criteria. The discussions appear on the Talk page of the article.WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know what the wikistandard is, so I'll defer to others and accept the above.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • GLCA agreement---I'd like to see GLCA spelled out the first time it is used. EDIT: Just saw that it was, but the acronym wasn't used when the term was used, thus people wouldn't associate GLCA with Great Lakes College Association.
    • Fixed. This was a great suggestion! WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Over the past decade there has been a building boom within Ohio Wesleyan," Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the past two decades? The new Union, the renovation of Austin Manor, the conversion of the main street into a walk way, etc all started while I was a student there.
    • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Strand Theatre should have more than just a short sentence saying that it was historic.
    • It has a separate article. If we include more information here, what part about Strand do you think is worth sharing on the main article? WikiprojectOWU 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "upperclass students are placed in dormitories through a lottery system." when I was there the lottery was to live off campus, the article makes it sound as if that has now changed?
    • You are correct. Both applicants for on-campus and off-campus living go trough a lottery system. For on-campus applicants, the lottery is for dorms. WikiprojectOWU 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked at the article, but did you clarify this in the article?Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I clarified the policy in the article but feel free to let me know if you feel more detail is necessary. WikiprojectOWU 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Most students cite the school's policy on off-campus housing as one of the "worst things" about Wesleyan." Explain why... if it's the same reason as when I was there is was because more people wanted to live off campus, but that doesn't come across here.
    • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Norman Vincent Peale the Methodist Minsiter and author of the series of books, "The Power of Positive Thinking" definately needs to be included in the list of famous alumni. He is one of the most famous alumni's and was the keynote speaker at the sequentenial (150th) graduation ceremony in 1992.
    • He definitely appears in the List of Ohio Wesleyan University people section. I tried to lump alumni into broad groups such as Politicians, Scientists, Arts and Sports and tried to keep it tight. WikiprojectOWU 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, that's a judgement call... I think he deserves to be on the main page, but I can accept your position.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Transcript non-OWU people won't know that the Transcript is the school newspaper.
    • Where specific reference do you mean? The first reference that I saw in the article clarifies that it is the school newspaper. WikiprojectOWU 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, I must have missed the first reference when I read it.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the election results and voting districts of Delaware are imporatant.
    • It is always a fair game question to ask whether political leanings of an organization are important to include in the article. I think in this context they provide a legitimacy check for political NPOV. For example, one might say that the Activism section leans left. In the context of the fact that the whole campus leans left actually, then the Activism section fits several NPOV criteria: undue weight, equal validity, consensus reality and good research I think referencing election results from two precints, exclusively precints for OWU students, legitimizes the fact about their political leanings. WikiprojectOWU 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd question if the OWU students had that much sway in the two precincts. AFter all, there are only 1800 students and pricincts are usually counted in the thousands. And college students, even at OWU, are notoriously poor voters many of whom will vote absentee in their home states. But again, it's a judgment call.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • These are actually small precincts and created a lot of headaches for the Delaware County Election Board because of a discrepancy between voting behavior on an Ohio issue and the following presidential elections. Check the references on this issue actually. The story is somewhat thick and interesting. In fact, this made the national news and is still a pending issue. It is also well-referenced. WikiprojectOWU 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The activism section seems to be loaded with POV. It is ALL liberal and mostly current events. While I agree the school is pretty much on the liberal side, there are conservatives who are active there.
    • What part of the article do you think violates the current NPOV criteria? I provided a rationale above. WikiprojectOWU 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the section needs to expanded AND trimmed. There is too much on the past few years and not enough on the older stuff. For example the efforts against Apartheid in the late 80's, the boycott of McDonalds (for serving food in styrofoam containers,) Habitat for Humanity, the Haiti Trips. What about activism earlier than this? I'd trim the section down SIGNFICANTLY. I don't support getting rid of it, but as is its length and extreme position make it POV. I'd also consider getting rid of the section where Campus Crusade for Christ is attacked... as written, without knowing the full extent of the situation, it sounds as if OWU students/faculty decided to squash the free speach of a group they disagreed with.Balloonman 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Let me know if you have any objections to the new section. It should address all of your concerns. WikiprojectOWU 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, when I was there, there was a mock "electoral college" event held every four years where the students 'voted' for the presidential candidate for the party out of office. This might be a place to mention that.
    • Wow, great suggestion! I think this may actually fall under Traditions. Or do you prefer to include it under Activism? WikiprojectOWU 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Traditions... because it isn't advocating a stance, the tradition is to take the party out of power (regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat)... oh I think I messed up isn't it "mock convention" not "electoral college?"Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I included 3 sentences to the Traditions section referencing the starting year of the tradition and its significance. WikiprojectOWU 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "In fact, originally the event started as a girl's atheltic fete, hel in celebration of the organization of the Monnett Athletic Club." fete? hel? I think the second word is supposed to be held, but I'm not sure about the first
    • I fixed "hel", and fête means "party". Lovelac7 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok. thanks.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "The school mascot is the Battling Bishop, and the official school colors are crimson red and black." This should be moved to the intro.
    • This sounds like a great idea but I haven't seen anything like this in the intro sections of Cornell, Duke University, MSU or University of Michigan. Are you sure your suggestion is consistent with the FAC criteria guidelines? WikiprojectOWU 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No... it's just my opinion. I don't know what the proper form is.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd get rid of the slang terms section.
    • Fixed. user:BryanD took care of this one. Thank you, user:BryanD! WikiprojectOWU 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • midnight breakfast should be moved to the end, where it is at it makes the other events that follow it look like new traditions as well.
    • Fixed. user:BryanD took care of this one. Thank you, user:BryanD! WikiprojectOWU 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WHAT ABOUT THE ROCK!!! I know it is still used, I saw it when I visited the campus 2 years ago!
    • You probably realize by now that including or not including something can be "you are damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue. Do you really think that the rock is worth including in the article? If so, under what heading? WikiprojectOWU 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the ROCK deserves to be there more than some of the other traditions. The rock has been in use for at least 40 years. (When I was there 20 years ago, alumni would say, "I remember that rock!") It is also a somewhat unique tradition among colleges---whereas "Presidents Ball" or a number of other listed things are no different than other campuses. Also, something to look into, back in 1988 I believe it was, there was a car wreck that killed 3 OWU students on their way home from a Model UN event. The rock was painted w/ their names and it was weeks before there was a huge cerimony before anybody would use it.Balloonman 08:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that it is somewhat unique. Do you mind if I put it for discussion on the Talk page? I would like to include it in the Traditions Section but I need some history of how the Rock got on campus. I think it will be useful. Do you know its history? WikiprojectOWU 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Ohio Wesleyan University has 21 varsity sports teams that are known as the Battling Bishops." Does it have any that aren't known as the Battling Bishops?
    • Fixed this one. WikiprojectOWU 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "it in several athletics magazines' rankings in the late 1990s on weirdest college mascots." Needs a reference.
    • Fixed. Several additional references were provided. WikiprojectOWU 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I REALLY want to see this FAC pass, but these are some factual questions/points that only an alumn could ask.Balloonman 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. On the nominator's talk page I left examples from the lead of why the whole article needs serious copy-editing. I think that this nomination is premature. Here's another problem that my eyes landed on first thing scrolling down the article:
  • "On 5 August 1846, the first president Edward Thomson delivered his inaugural address in which he maintained that "the college was a product of the liberality of the people of Delaware and that it was fortunate that Ohio Wesleyan was founded in a community divided in religious and political opinions because the friction of a mixed society prevents dogmatism and develops energy and pointed that the spirit of the college is the spirit of liberty".[21]" Now, is this a direct quote in its entirety? I ask, because it has the markers for an indirect quote ("and that ...", and "pointed that", which I guess should be "pointed out that ...").
  • Fixed the ambiguity. Tony, thank you for point this out! WikiprojectOWU 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Only three of the past presidents are actually graduates"—spot the redundant word.
    • Fixed this one. Lovelac7 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Accounts on the school's first president Edward Thomson focus on flowing eloquence, interest in literature and philosophy."—on? Surely "of". Do you mean "his" flowing eloquence? And does this refer to his prose/oratory, or what? "And" should appear before "interest", then another "his". What a mess.
    • Fixed. I reworded the sentence and the concerns above have been addressed. WikiprojectOWU 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this needs serious work. Tony 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support. Once we fix the issued on this page, I'll wholeheartedly support the nomination. In the mean time here's my 2¢:

• The university presidents section still needs some work. In particular, some aspects of the section refer to the role of the president's office, and other parts discuss past presidents' role in campus history. It might help if you separated the "People" section into "Administration" and "Alumni" subsections, moving at least some of the "Presidents" section there.
• Some of the OWU traditions probably aren't all that notable. Doesn't every school have a homecoming, convocation, and commencement, etc.? I'd rather hear about the traditions that are unique to your alma mater.

The community groups listed in the "Campus" section should go into the "student life" section. That's all I can think of for now. If I find anything else, I'll let you know. Lovelac7 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I cannot support this article unless something is done about the activisim section, which is POV in its extreme selectivity and uncomprehensive in its focus on the last half decade. There is really nothing there that is not typical of any American university, and my preference would be to drop the section entirely. However, this can also be fixed by summarizing the types of protest activities undertaken by students throughout the existence of the University with references. Indrian 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indrian, since I am the nominator of the article and a person who have put a lot of time in improving the article recently, I would like to step in and ask you, you mentioned As a result, the article only shows what issues are improtant to the person who posted the particular events and are therefore POV, what issues are important and are not represented in the Activism section? WikiprojectOWU 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • First, let me say that I applaud the work you have been doing on this article and other articles related to OWU over the past several months. Your hard work has gone a long way towards making this article informative and balanced. As to the issue of activism, I wish I could be of more help. I do not claim to know what issues have been especially important to OWU students over the course of the institution's history, nor do I know the specifics about the level of activism in general. All I can do is tell you what I would like to see. If the activism section is removed, I do not think it does great harm to the article, as this is a common facet of American universities and therefore does not present a unique understanding of OWU. Now, I am not saying that such a section offends me; just that if that section cannot be made comprehensive then it can be removed to satisfy my concerns. If the section is to stay, it needs to become more general. For example (and none of the following is based on actual facts so please do not put it in the article), the section could say that "In the 1960s, OWU students, like many students across the nation, were strongly against the Vietnam War and engaged in numerous protests that mobilized as many as 500 individuals, with the largest gathering taking place on December 18, 1967." This could then be backed up by references in the Transcript or Delware Gazette that illustrate such protests were taking place and how many people they attracted. For the 2000s, one could research the Transcript and Gazette to compile a complete list of protests engaged in by students over those years, determine which issues garnered the most protests and student support, and then use this research to state what issues are particularly important to students today. I realize that this may be beyond what you are able to accomplish during the FA period, or even at anytime, but I feel that any FA article must be backed up by thorough research of the appropriate primary and secondary sources. An activism section which merely states that X students protested Y action on Z day, wash, rinse, repeat, does nothing to illuminate how activism works on the campus in general and therefore prevents the section from being comprehensive or NPOV. Something that may be more realiztic during the period of the FA would be to compile a list of activist groups on campus and give a small overview of the areas they operate in and one or two specific examples to illustrate the point. I hope that helps. Indrian 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Object. Refer to peer review. This article needs quite a bit of editing and I don't think the FAC is the appropriate place for it. In general, the effort to be comprehensive has diluted focus from that which is notable. Here are a few of my specific problems, but this is not an exhaustive list.

• Too many references to where the school ranked in whatever ranking system is being referenced, especially in the lead.
• The lead should contain a mention of the school's Methodist origins and its current relationship with the Methodist Church.
  • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I am missing something, but I do not believe you responded to the full objection. I still see nothing about the current relationship with the Methodist Church. I suspect I know why this was left out. A while back, some users tried to add the school to the category of Methodist-affliated schools. OWU is, in fact, still officially affliated with the Methodist church, but the presence of the church is so miniscule that few people realize this is so or encounter the church in their daily lives. Adding this fact may touch off an edit war as some users (wrongly) attempt to deny the Methodist affiliation, tenuous as it may be. Not admitting it may fail to satisfy this objection. I have also removed WikiprojectOWU's strikethroughs from this objection. I am sure this was just done by her as a way to keep track of what she has changed, but it is up to the person who posted the objection to decide when concerns have been met and strikethrough his own objections. A strikethrough implies that the person who originally made the comment considers the issue to be closed. Indrian 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• The student life section is way too big for the article. Student life in general is not terribly notable, and as such the article reads more like university PR. Condense the whole thing down about 80%.
  • I am not sure I understand your comments here. Are you saying that Traditions, Organizations and distinctive policies regarding student life, all part of this section and components that make one school different from another are not terribly interesting to read or just plain non-notable in general? After checking the other schools' FA articles, I am even more confused: they all seem to contain such sections and some are even bigger than our own here: see Cornell University, University of Michigan, Duke University and Michigan State University. Could you please explain what you mean? WikiprojectOWU 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • WikiprojectOWU, this section could use a thorough trimming. Here's how:
      • Read Wikipedia:Summary Style for guidelines on how to trim down this section.
      • Create a new article called Ohio Wesleyan University student life or something like that.
      • Copy the entire "Student Life" section into the new article and add a few lead sentences.
      • Keep all four of sections you currently have, but trim down the number of housing options, the number of organizations, the number of protests and movements, and the number of traditions. Pick the most notable of each category.
      • I think you could probably cut down each of the student life sections to half the current lengths. If people are interested, they can link to the main "Student Life" article.
    • I think that these changes would go a long way in making the article FA-worthy. Lovelac7 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• History section is rather disjointed. Some of it is out of chronological order. I don't understand the purpose of the "Univeristy expansion and university presidents" subheading. You already have an article called List of Ohio Wesleyan University presidents so simply mention notable presidents naturally within the text. Keep the section focussed on notable events in history of the school rather than seeking to include every president's tenure. Also, there may be too much emphasis on the school's recent history.
  • This concern came up in another editor's comments. User:Lovelac7 comments were in the same general spirit, so I will try to tighten the section. WikiprojectOWU 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• In one section you say the school was founded to train ministers, but this isn't mentioned when you actually talk about the founding of the school.
  • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not exhaustive. I suggest taking a good hard look at the article and making it quite a bit tighter.--DaveOinSF 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, DaveOinSF!!! Any help is gretly appreciated! WikiprojectOWU 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. WikiprojectOWU asked me about the "Activism" section in the MSU article. For easy reference, I have color coded the various sections, with blue for liberals, red for conservatives, and purple for moderate, bipartisan, and nonpartisan. Furthermore, historical protests and movements are highlighted in goldenrod:

Activists have played an important role in MSU history. During the height of the Vietnam War, student protests helped create co-ed residence halls, blocked the routing of Interstate 496 through campus, and led to the resignation of MSU President John A. Hannah. In the 1980s, Michigan State students convinced the University to divest the stocks of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa from its endowment portfolio, such as Coca-Cola. Today, MSU has many student groups focused on political change. The student government is the Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU). It is known for its unusual nonpartisan bicameral structure, which includes the parallel Student Assembly and Academic Assembly. Graduate campus groups include the Graduate Employees Union (GEU) and the Council of Graduate Students (COGS). Michigan State also has a variety of partisan groups ranging from liberal to conservative, including the College Republicans, the College Democrats and several third party organizations. Other partisan activist groups include Young Americans for Freedom on the right and Students for Economic Justice and Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) on the left. Given MSU's proximity to the Michigan state capital of Lansing, many politically-inclined Spartans get internships for the state representatives.

Let's look more closely at the colors in this paragraph. Most of the political groups mentioned are centrist or nonpartisan. The paragraph is slighly slanted towards the left, though much of that is from our parent's generation, as you can see from the goldenrod highlighted section. Anyway, I hope this helps. Lovelac7 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The History section seems longer than the History of Ohio Wesleyan University article. I know we are not judging linked articles, but that just seems odd to me. -Bluedog423^Talk 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - After performing a brief copyedit of the lead, I am somewhat suspicious of the quality of the references used in the rest of the article. The references didn't always provide the information that I was expecting. For example, "Campus construction efforts have resulted in new science and athletic facilities in recent years" reference was Remembering Mr. Rickey. Great. Maybe I can find about the new buildings by clicking around on that site, but that's not the point of a reference. The top ten of international student % link is to a U.S. News subscription service that I cannot see. "Top ten" should also be replaced with the exact number. Also, U.S. News didn't "rank" schools. They simply relayed facts about percentages. Can just state it as fact with U.S. News as the source. I found on another site that it was at 11%, but couldn't find where that places it. Also, no reference for twelve years in a row. Please make sure your references actually provide the information preceding them, and aren't just there to make readers think they do. -Bluedog423^Talk 06:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista

You may be looking for a different FAC: see correcting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the best articles, I believe, in all of Wikipedia. I frequently look at it, as I'm not only interested, but as it's also so informative and interesting. Furthermore, the article is well-documented and frequently updated with new material, keeping it fresh and current. Also filled with many good pictures, it's been marked as a Good Article, and I think it's time to make it a featured one. Nicholasink 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article isn't bad, but it isn't stable, sadly, as WP:WIAFA.1(e) requires. Until it is released, then I'm not sure it meets the stability requirement. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the features section should describe at academic level the actual technologies used and read less like a marketing sheet.--BMF81 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this topic is a current event, and things may change rapidly. wait several days. Yao Ziyuan 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I'd rather not wait only a few days as it releases to the general public next month. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yao. This is still a software in development.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose without even reading the article in detail. It's simply unwise to make it a featured article since we can't expect it to be stable in the very near future. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be a landslide opposition here so before the nominator starts getting too depressed I'd like to add that this is a high quality article, just not one currently suited for FA status. Pascal.Tesson 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, article content is not stable due to the status of the articles subject. Ansell 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; I've written at least half of this article, but as much as I'd like to see this article be FA, I don't think FA status will be appropriate for another half a year, at the least. -/- Warren 10:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; As previously stated the article isn't stable as it's a current event. A large amount of the pictures are missing Fair Use rationales as well. Alexj2002 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. sd31415 (talk • contribs • count)
• Oppose per all above too. Needs more work, and subject needs to become more stable. -Advanced 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

South Australian legislative election, 2006

After several improvements including on items mentioned above, others believe the article may now be ready. Please review and comment as appropriate. Thanks for your time. Timeshift 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment "The upper house is based on a state-wide vote and quota system where voters have the option of selecting a single party "above the line" with preferences flowing to the pre-determined choice of said party, or in Single Transferable Vote style, numbering each of the candidates below the line to allow the voter full control of where their preferences flow." I can understand what this means, but is it too complicated for people unfamiliar with this system? 203.109.221.19 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. How does it look now? Timeshift 12:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Forth

• Previous nominations: 4 June 2006, 22 June 2006.

Self-nom. Previous nomination failed due to lack of inline references; if this is still a concern I would like some guidance on what needs to be referenced. --Ideogram 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Forth is a programming language, but why its main image is a picture of a person? It's misleading, though he is the inventor.

It is hard to find a picture related to a programming language, since it is not a physical object. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • External links section has too many items. It has unencyclopaedic statements: excellent, easy to learn, etc., that may be suspected as spam links. Use some of them as sources, or remove unecessary external links. I found one link to a webring (?). Please read again WP:EL, and WP is not a directory.

Fixed. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Further copyediting is still needed. Perhaps, ask somebody who does not familiar with the subject. I randomly picked some sentences below:
    • Some Forth versions (especially early ones) compile threaded code, but many implementations today generate optimized machine code like other language compilers. → some? many? how many is exactly?

It is not clear to me that exact numbers here are available, desirable, or even possible. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Forth is so named because "[t]he file holding the interpreter was labeled FORTH, for 4th (next) generation software - but the operating system restricted file names to 5 characters." → I don't understand the meaning of brackets "[t]".

Brackets in a quote are a standard notation indicating a change to text from the original to make it fit the surrounding context. In this instance I would assume the "t" in the original quote is capitalized. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • ...not a 4GL as we understand the term today. → we? who is we? Also avoid terms today, because it is inexact in the future.

Fixed. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Programming is done by extending the language with words (the term used for Forth subroutines), which become part of the language once defined. → Honestly, I don't understand at all, although I am a programmer.

I have rewritten this; please read it and see if it is clearer. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • etc.
  • The article is still missing history of the subject.
  • The prose has too many specific jargons that non-specialist readers will get difficulty to learn the subject. Please take a look at other technical featured articles. There is none yet for programming language, but maybe you can compare the article with HTTP cookie.

— Indon (reply) — 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, for now. With regard to your question about inline citations: what I look for is enough citations that at any given moment the reader can figure out what references support the text they're currently reading. Based on the way the notes are distributed in this, I'm guessing many are "covering notes" that indicate a source for a paragraph or more of text--but it's hard to tell, as this isn't explicitly clear. Personally, I'm a big fan of the "unless otherwise noted, all information about X (or ...in section X) is drawn from Source, p. ##" type of notes--they can provide a way to pin down all the information, as it were, without cluttering the article up with repetitive citations; other people have other approaches to this. So try to have section or paragraph-level citations that cover just about everything; stuff that should be specifically cited includes more judgemental statements like "A well-designed Forth program reads like natural language, and implements not just a single solution, but also sets of tools to attack related problems."

I found this, by-and-large, to be pretty approachable for a computer-illiterate individual such as myself, so I don't think the amount of tech-speak is a concern. One thing I would like to see is a section, outside of the lead, on the creation and history of the language. The one other big concern I have is the copyright status of the image in the infobox; could you forward the release email to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org to allow for archiving and examination for appropriate licensing for Wikipedia (free license as opposed to permission only). So all in all, good work so far, but still a few things to address. --Robth^Talk 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregory House

I feel that this is a great article that should be mentioned throughout Wikipedia. Bushcarrot 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Trivia section needs cleanup--Acebrock 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Poorly referenced, full of trivia, and rambling. Needs extensive copyediting. Sockatume 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Should have way more refs and they should be consistently and properly formatted. Rlevse 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object before getting any further than the second graf, as it's sort of OR-ish. Needs to be sourced at the very least and that's not the sort of thing that belongs in the intro. Daniel Case 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• object this is actually on my watch list and it is CONSTANTLY being updated, changed, vandalized, reverted, etc. There is not a day that goes by without somebody speculating on what is happening.Balloonman 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment in the last 50 edits, which occured over the past 10 days, there have been 22 different editors on this page. At least seven of the edits are to revert or remove speculative content/vandalism... the article is an interesting one and well written, but it is not an FAC.Balloonman 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Martin

It looks like the only reason this failed last time was because it didn't have any sources, of which it has plenty now. --Arctic Gnome 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Every footnote is just an URL. They should contain information about the source like author and title other than the URL. I have fixed a few footnotes who referred to CBC News. I think that this is gorunds enough for an objection since the comprehensiveness of the footnotes is poor for the moment. Jeltz talk 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done --Arctic Gnome 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. While it does now have several refs, they need serious work. Put them in cite php/web format. See Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) for samples. Rlevse 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Working on that. They'll all be in citeweb by the end of the day. --Arctic Gnome 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. --Arctic Gnome 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Large parts of the article go totally without inline citations. "Early life", "Candidacy for the Liberal Party leadership", "Becoming Prime Minister", "Prime Minister" - sections like these need inline citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Well written, NPOV, broad in coverage, stabile, focused. Comment: the second and fourth sentances in the lead paragraph are equivalent, they could be combined, as to avoid repetition; Section "Entertainment" should be renamed (to something like "Appearances in media") as he isn't an entertainer after all (nor very entertaining).--Qyd 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merged the 2nd and 4th lines of the lead papagraph. --Arctic Gnome 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object.

• "In 1969, Power Corporation took a controlling-share in CSL. On December 2, 1970, Paul Martin, the 32-year old executive assistant to Power Corporation Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Maurice Strong, was appointed to the CSL board of directors."

It does not tell how he became "executive assistant" to CEO of Power Corp.?

• "One month later, in July, 1981 Power Corporation announced it was selling its subsidiary CSL Group for $195 million (CAD). CSL Group at this time included the shipping company, shipyards, engineering firms, and a bus service (Voyageur, previously known as Provincial Transport). The following month in August, 1981, Paul Martin and his friend Lawrence Pathy secured financing and announced their intention to purchase CSL Group Incorporated for the price advertised by Power Corporation."

How did he secure financing for 195 Million dollars?

• One sided view, what about this:
• CSL and fiscal evasion House of Commons debate - Hansard ?

• It lacks business prespective, which is a paradox, as he was listed with Forbes with fortune of $225 Million, due to his shipping corporation. --Records 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support It made me laugh out loud It has nice infromation. Zombiebaron 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New York City

Re-nominating this Aritlce. Great Article for a great city. Mercenary2k 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Old Nomination Comments [3]

• Support- Wow! Amazing article, lots of links, great job. Long, but necessary for a city of that importance. The only thing I saw was there were no references for:

• History section (actually there was one, but only for the last paragraph, unless that one reference covered the entire section
• Culture (The first paragraph)
• Sports section

Other than those errors, I thought that it was very well created, and very informative. Each section was well written with enough information to understand the city well, and it was referenced quite well, except for the above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hairchrm (talk • contribs) .

• Support The article in question is outstanding. I'm all for nomination. Slicedoranges 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Per WP:WIAFA 1a. Prose is not compelling, even brilliant. Examples: "...The social change was an earthquake." - Unnecessary. "...Lacking the bureaucratic civic structure of today, the city's infrastructure built as it was an a volunteer network of similar minded individuals collapsed." - Copyedit needed. "The battles in and around New York caused significant damage, which was worsened by a suspicious fire that leveled nearly half of the city" - what is a suspiscous fire?

Per WP:WIAFA 1c. Citations are conspicuously absent from important sections like "History".

Per WP:WIAFA 1d. Neutrality cannot be ascertained unless there is a good number of citations backing the text. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object History section really needs some citations. Also, needs a thorough copy-edit. Some random examples:
  • The region was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its European discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano. What region are we talking about here?
  • This transformation was among the first changes in New York which later spread to other cities and henceforward society in general looked to the city has the cutting edge of change. Huh?
  • New York's colonial heritage was arguably unique in British North America at the time of the Revolution, since New York was the one metropolitan city of note which started as a non-British colony of Dutch heritage. Weaselly
  • Although by the time of the Revolution, with nearly 80% of it's population of English origin, New York City was virtually uniform as a typical British community, it's Dutch commercial inheritance was crucial in making New York the most important city in North America in the 19th Century once the Erie Canal was built. Quite a confusing sentence. Note also "it's".
  • Due to the effects of war and the continual occupation of the city by the British for most of the war, it's population was nearly halved. Another "it's".
  • When General George Washington finally rode in triumph into New York, the city was almost deserted with most of it's upper classes Gzkn 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Honestly, I looked at this article yesterday and said, "Wow, for an FAC, this is kind of... dirty." That's pretty much the best way I can put it. Also, it obviously needs to cite a bunch of statements. -- Kicking222 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, where's the sources for history? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The History section in particular needs work, for example:
  • "The region was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its European discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano." It would be useful to include the date of this event.
  • "Under British rule the City of New York continued to develop, and while there was growing sentiment in the city for greater political independence, the area was decidedly split in its loyalties during the New York Campaign, a series of major early battles during the American Revolutionary War." It would help to include the date of the New York Campaign.
  • "In later years, known as the Gilded Age, the city became the first metropolitan American city to transform [...]" It would help to specify the dates of the Gilded Age, in place of the vague 'in later years.'
  • "Although by the time of the Revolution, with nearly 80% of it's population of English origin, New York City was virtually uniform as a typical British community, it's Dutch commercial inheritance was crucial in making New York the most important city in North America in the 19th Century once the Erie Canal was built." Is there a reference to support the italicised statement?
  • "Furthermore, once Great Britain recognized the United States and abandoned the city, thousands of Loyalists and the thousands more of troops and their families also left." The prose is awkward in this sentence, particularly the italicised part.
  • "When General George Washington finally rode in triumph into New York, the city was almost deserted with most of it's upper classes, including its merchants, traders, bankers, and builders gone when they left with the vast British fleet." It would help to include the date for this event. Also, as mentioned above, "it's upper classes" is incorrect - the whole article needs to be checked for incorrect "it's", there are numerous instances.
  • "From 1800-1840 the city grew in wealth and power and never again would the city have such a substantial stable society of American born citizens." I wouldn't include 'never again' in an encyclopedic article - who knows what will happen in the future.
  • "In it's place was born the modern city of professional police, fire, and other utility services, traffic control, neighborhood development, factories, foundries, and the whole panoply of what came to be known as Gotham." What exactly came to be known as Gotham and when? Also, what was the origin of the term Gotham, and why was it applied here?
  • "Additionally, while immigration spiked and fell between 1842 and 1892, a new wage of immigration began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which once again transformed the city's demographics." - "wage" -> "wave"
  • "New York overtook London as the most populous city in the world in 1925, ending that city's century-old claim to the title." Is there a reference to support this statement? What was the population of New York in 1925?
  • "New York City's ever accelerating changes and rising crime and poverty rates ended when World War One disrupted trade routes, the Immigration Restriction Acts limited additional immigration after the war [...]" Acts or Act? What was the date(s) of the Act(s)? It would help to include links to the relevant wikipedia articles, e.g. Immigration Act of 1924.
  • Picture Caption: "Lower Manhattan's skyline with the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" - it would help to include the year of the photograph in the caption. (I've added the year to the caption - Jazriel 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Good luck with the article. Jazriel 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support New York City should obviously be a featured article. It covers just about everything essential on one of if not the biggest, most diverse, and most important cities in the world. Besides, it already has FA status in both German and French. Being linguistic in the latter, I don't see how the English version is in any way below that version, in fact it is even better, and therefore it seems illogical that it should not be an FA too. Everyone objecting this article is SO PICKY! I don't get how you can complain so much about an article as informative as this. If you look at the site's featured articles, most of them are extremely subpar to this one. Bottem line: NYC is an article of very high caliber. It more than deserves a bronze star. 2Pac 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, so you're saying that because it's featured in other languages it should be featured here as well? Did you read even a portion of the article? Not to worry, I'm a 2pac fan don't think I'm "hatin' on ya". Phoenix2 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Importance of subject is not a criterion for Featured Article status. Sockatume 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the comments. I will fix up the history section and will get proper citations. Been busy with University stuff so havent had much time to fix this up. Mercenary2k 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra-strong supportAwesome article, five stars! I t has every little detail, and really should have been chosen first time around, but as they say, first time you mess up, try again! -User:District Attorney

Oppose until citations are added and copyedit made. Feel free to strike this once you're done. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Nice article, but needs citations. Heimstern Läufer 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley scandal

I am nominating this article is an excellent example of Wikipedia's excellence at comprehensibly treating a current event better than any other single source of information (paper encyclopedae and books will take longer to publish, shorter articles in the mass media are not as comprehensive). I've been waiting for the article to stabilize, which it now has -- despite it's inherently controversial nature, it has successfully coalesced by consensus. Great job to the many editors of this article. I recommend that it be featured as an example of how to write an article about a major breaking controversial news event. Thesmothete 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: The references need to be cleaned up (yes, I know from experience that it can be tedious). You should go through the article and remove unnecessarily repetitive links–the nature of the article's creation means that various figures' names are often linked almost every time that they are mentioned. You should also remove superfluous references to people's offices (e.g., Kirk Fordham's position as chief of staff for Tom Reynolds), as well as superfluous use of first names. That's all for now. NatusRoma | Talk 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have adjusted most of the first names/titles. Wikilinks remain for the moment. What do you mean about cleaning up the references? Thesmothete 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe they mean using {{Cite web}} or other such referencing templates. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A number of the references have missing or misformatted tags (this is most often true of date tags, though some title tags have extra square brackets), and a few need {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} tags. NatusRoma | Talk 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to dig in and help you clean up the references, but I found that you've used the cite templates, which I personally hate, so I can't help. I can list some samples of problems (I always start at the bottom, since most people start at the top) - these are only samples:

(Two authors are listed, should be added to cite template) "Istook aide to cooperate with inquiry", The Oklahoman Newspaper, 2006-10-06. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.

(What is the October 8 date - this article was printed October 5, and authors are missing from cite template) "Legal Case Against Foley Could Be Tricky to Build", Los Angeles Times, 2006-10-08. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.

Couldn't check NY Times refs, don't subscribe to that rag.

(Why two Oct 5 dates? Your last access date of Oct 5 may be correct, but statement was made Oct 3.) ^ "Statement by Mark Foley's attorney, David Roth", ABC TV News, 2006-10-05. Retrieved on 2006-10-05.

(They move article to archive - new link needed - didn't check info) "Explicit Net messages aren't a federal crime", Houston Chronicle/AP, 2006-10-05. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.

(Associated Press needs to be added to cite template) "Foley Could Face State Charges", FoxNews.com, 2006-10-07. Retrieved on 2006-10-07.

(Author, Lis Wiehl, needs to be added to cite template. Can't understand where two dates come from, as I can't find where publication date is listed on the article.) "Lis On Law: Jumping Through Legal Loopholes?", Fox News, 2006-10-17. Retrieved on 2006-10-17.

(ref needs to be expanded from URL info only) ^ http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/foleys_former_c.html

(Consistency in date links - this one is red, while the rest are linked - I personally don't link dates in refs, which I think is a waste of time, but I guess that's personal pref. Also, consistency in date format - this one is different from others.) "Hastert Accepts Responsibility for Foley Scandal, Won't Resign", Bloomberg News Service, October 5, 2006. Retrieved on October 8, 2006.

(fix link) Wolf, Z. Byron. "Staffers Testify On Foley E-mails", ABC News, 2006-10-16. Retrieved on 2006-10-16.

Sandy (Talk) 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: per above, plus the merge tag needs to be settled before FA. ALso, as an FA is to be stable, the current event nature of this needs to be settled before FA status. THere are also too many refs in the lead. A lead should summarize the article and hence should have few or no refs in it. Rlevse 03:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree about the merge tag, but as for stability, this article is pretty stable now. It could take months or years to learn every significant fact related to the event, and, respectfully, I think that would defeat the opportunity to show how to write a great article under the pressure of real-time events. Or are we saying that a current event can never have FA status? Thesmothete 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The current event tag has been removed, we felt events are "no longer rapidly changing". BUt, if the tag is appropriate, the article is specifically ineligeble for FAC--but that's now a moot point in this article's case. Rlevse 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Article reads like a news report. This is not wikinews. We need to assume NPOV and document the scandal without assuming that Foley "did it". Kyaa the Catlord 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the NPOV you are concerned about? Thesmothete 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ref #33 is broken and it is not next to another intact ref.--Rmky87 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already fixed that or in any event Ref #33 looks fine to me. Crust 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was going to say first that I just think it's way too early to assume this article will remain stable as investigations are continuing (imagine what will happen after January when the leadership changes, for one thing), but then I looked at the article. While it's certainly been looked after well, it's not FA-ready yet even if this were all she wrote (which it isn't).
  First, the intro's a little long for my taste. This happens a lot but I really think one of those grafs could be combined with another.
  Second, the section on "Priest's alleged molestation of Foley" has a stray AP dateline at the bottom. Was this just cut-and-pasted from the wire? I will give the editors the benefit of the doubt, but whether it needs to be rewritten or not that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 18:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just cut the lede by about 40%, and delted the AP dateline -- probably just left over from a cut and paste to an inline cite. Thesmothete 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of it being too current eventsy. It's not even entirely up to date - part of Mark_Foley_scandal#Post-scandal_polls_and_commentary was obviously written before the midterms. I think this is just too high profile for the time being. Tuf-Kat 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to being a current event, I also have concerns about the addition of vague accusations regarding Jim Kolbe and an unnamed congressman being included in this article which is named Mark Foley scandal (which itself should probably be renamed Mark Foley controversy). Also refering to people's roles as "controversial" violates POV policy (e.g. "Other leaders whose roles are controversial include Reynolds, John Boehner, John Shimkus, Ken Mehlman, and Sue W. Kelly"). Lastly, aesthetically, this article is a mess. There seems to have been no thought put into writing a coherent, flowing article. It's just a mish-mash of random facts. --Jayzel 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro

This article seems very well written and contains extensive references to different sections (Economy of Montenegro, History of Montenegro, etc.). I would consider it to fit the featured article criteria very well, as it is also of appropriate length itself and has many pictures (particularly at the bottom). Nicholasink 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment What about references to things besides sections? That's what really counts.--Rmky87 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Sorry, but with only 7 footnotes for a 40kb article, especially when all 7 of those are websites (there's got to be lots of books on such a large topic), this article won't be able to pass WP:FA yet. Suggest peer review. AZ _t 16:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment Suggestions to help improve the article - the following were based on the reviewing script. The lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD, nbsp's are needed (WP:MOSNUM), conversions should use standard abbreviations, repetition of title in headings should not occur (WP:MSH), and switching back and forth between American and British English spellings (probably just stick with british spellings, I guess? ex: neighbor (a), meter (a), organize (a), recognise (b), offence (b), and organisation (b)). AZ _t 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per huge image gallery with no text to accompany it. Please consult WP:NOT. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is sheer bullshit (not intended as a personal attack). There is text to accompany the "huge" image gallery. --Crna Gora 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. --Crna Gora 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilaiyaraaja

You may be looking for a different FAC: See sorting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I submit this A-class article for evaluation as a potential Featured Article. This article has gone through peer reviews. My reasons for this submission are as follows:

1. This article is (a) fairly well-written, to my eyes at least. The prose flows smoothly, is structured logically, sentence structures are simple and easy to read (not convoluted). It is (b) comprehensive: it covers all important facts about this music composer (why he is important, what his contributions are to the body of music, details of his early years and career, the characteristic of his musical style, his major works). This article is (c) factually accurate: factual statements are meticulously cited from reliable published sources that include academic journal articles, academic book chapters, a university research thesis, and major newspaper articles. These are laid out in a Reference section (please see). It is (d) neutral: it does not glorify its subject nor does it contain a point of view weighed against or for the subject. Biased views and unsubstantiated claims contained in previous versions have been omitted.

2. This article complies with Wikipedia's recommended layout for FAs, i.e., it has, inter alia, a succinct lead section that adequately encapsulates the subject matter; it has a properly organised headings system; the table of contents is concise and sufficent.

3. This article contains a photograph. More, and better photographs are desired that fulfill the copyright requirements of Wikipedia, and this is an ongoing process.

4. It appears to have a fair length for a feature encyclopedia article (although it could be expanded). It is approximately 2,300 words long excluding the References and External links sections.

A constructive evaluation and consideration process would be appreciated.

With regards, AppleJuggler 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Almost there but it needs a bit more cleanup; notably images and grammar. The only image in the article is lacking a source, has an improper fair-use tag and is scheduled for deletion. The discography is much nicer now that its been pared down to size. The article appears very well referenced. There are a few problems with grammar and verb tense-agreement - for instance, "He has been pivotal in the shaping of South India's film music landscape in the late 1970s and 1980s." There's also a few superlatives which may indicate a bit more cleaning up is needed to NPOV the tone - things like "most gifted", "veritable singer", "grand scale". Some of these may not need changing though since a look at the impact of his career shows that he was influential in many respects. Shell ^babelfish 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed up some of the things that you've pointed out. Will review article fully to ensure grammar is sound throughout. Will also proceed with fleshing out the article along the lines that we discussed about. AppleJuggler 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't say that it really seems comprehensive. It's rather short for someone who seems to be so very notable. I also don't think it's appropriate to cite Wikipedia as a reference. 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate you going through the article. I've replaced the Wikipedia reference with the primary source of information (see reference no. 3 in the article). I agree that the article requires some expansion. Will be working on it (pls see Discussion page To-do items #2a,b,c and d). AppleJuggler 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. POV issues in the lead, and some other sections (e.g. impact of his career). Not comprehensive. Where does he live, for example? More about his family (considering that many are composers in their own right)? No picture. Cribananda 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Could you perhaps help highlight what POV issues in the lead that you are referring to please? Your explanation would be useful in fixing up this article. AppleJuggler 07:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I have changed those parts of the lead that I thought were eulogistic. May be I have over-done this, but I hope you get the idea. On another note, how about a picture? Cribananda 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

60 Minutes

This page is a major TV art around the world and is a good artical. It is considered by many to be the preeminent investigative television program in the United States. This page is also very popular amoung all users. Cocoaguy 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, the page is down as a GA candidate here. I'd wait for the outcome and freedback from that before nominating this for FAC. RHB 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object While I'd love to see one of my favorite TV shows become an FAC, this is not ready. Like RHB, I'd suggest you wait for the GA outcome. Huge swathes of text are unreferenced, the article is quite listy, and the lead is inadequate. Gzkn 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object There is a mix of citations and external links (presumably as citations) and some sections, particularly the ratings and recognition section (it is very important there) have no citations at all. Other than that I think it could use more images, particularly in the format section where it says "a backdrop resembling a magazine story on the same topic". That could definitely use a picture. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object, and send to peer review (GA does not an FA make). Mixed reference styles, listy sections including "pop culture", lack of citations, stubby short sections. Sandy (Talk) 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note for all who question the idea that 60 Minutes is note a GA look at this page Talk:60 Minutes. (added by Cocoaguy, nominator here)
• Yes, you've passed 60 Minutes through GAC several times without actually reviewing it. See User_talk:Cocoaguy RHB 09:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object The lead does not summarise the article. The article is listy, has numerous single sentence-paragraphs, few references and inconsistent reference formatting. TimVickers 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sumo

I think the article - hopefully the first of several martial arts related - meets all the criteria. Generally these type of articles are under populated for no good reason. It passed GA status some time back and in fact is the only one above B class in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts. There are two other candidates for GA status there but one step at a time.Peter Rehse 05:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't a bad article at all, but it's practically unreferenced, diacriticals and punctuation style are inconsistent, organization is questionable, and as long as it is, it seems incomplete. There's very little about the rules -- what's there is scattered throughout the text -- and nothing at all about the various kimarite, even the more common ones. For all that I don't think it's unsalvagable, and I would enthusiastically change my opinion if these concerns were addressed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the above reasons, but also quality of writing... in particular the headings are rather un-encyclopedic in quality. For example, instead of "Winning a bout" (which sounds like a How To guide) you should make the heading on the rules of the game. "Life as a sumo wrestler" sounds like it comes out of a children's book on forign cultures, not out of an encyclopedia. In addition, I'd definitely like to see more about the rules, and particularly the strategies of the game. Are there leagues? Is the game played in other countries? Where is it popular, and how popular is it? As far as I understand Sumo wrestling, there's lots more to be written, and it needs to be written for this to be featured. Fieari 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mario

Self-nom, and my first attempt at an FAC. I have been working on this article for a matter of months, and I feel that it is very comprehensive on the subject, uses the NPOV, and is a good length. —The Great Llama^moo? 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Object. While the article looks fine, I've picked up a couple problems from the lead.

• The second sentence just stops the flow. Can it be expanded?
• In the third sentence, "two-dimensional sprites", "three-dimensional", and "polygonal models" should be wikilinked.
• In the third paragraph, the first sentence sounds weaselly, and "becoming synonymous with video games" should be changed too, "and his image has become synonymous with video games."
• The third sentence in that paragraph is vague and kinda redundant; the second sentence has already established Mario's games are best-sellers.
• The last sentence mentions the television, film, and comics without giving them a proper introduction to the reader.

I'll read more later.--Dark Kubrick 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Too fancrufty. Moving "Conception and creation" up to be the first section would be a start at improvement. There was a recent video game character article nominated that was quite good and could be used as a template for yours. Can anyone remember what it was called? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I, personally, would have waited longer on this. I was making suggestions at peer review and everything specific I suggested had been done, but I had only had time to review a small part of the article. One of the broad comments I had made was about reducing the "Characteristics" section, which has been done a little, but I still feel there is too much relative to the real world significance in the article. I would love to see this as a featured article, but I'm just not sure it's ready yet. Jay32183 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay then, it could definitely use some more improvement. I'll (and other editors), will try to improve it some more. Obviously not FA quality yet. —The Great Llama^moo? 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Article does not conform generally to the encyclopedic standard required for FA. For this kind of subject matter (reiterating a point made above), it is critical that the tone eschew any semblance of fan-driven enthusiasm. Eusebeus 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Complete paragraphs are uncited. Needs some work. Very good effort on the article though, Llama man. Good luck. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the apperances section has no lead paragraph, and the "Cameos and allusions" is too stubby. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: To me, this isn't as bad as people are makign it out to be. I'd shorten the baby mario section a bit and move the abilities close to the top of the article. Plus, the lead isn't flowing well. --Wizardman 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - not encyclopedic enough, lacks depth of coverage on real world perspective. Appearance section needs a complete rewrite. Addhoc 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Metra

This article contains a lot of information, and cites its sources. It meets WP:FA, and can be a featured article. --MasterA113 17:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lead is too short and doesn't summarize article, too listy, refs way insufficient. Please review recent FAs and read criteria. Rlevse 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object - It is indeed B-class as of now, and needs improvement to reach FA or even GA status. The WP:LEAD needs improvement and expansion. My reviewing script also points out the following (summarized): overlinking (according to WP:MOS-L), linking years that often don't provide WP:CONTEXT, needs &nbsp; (see WP:MOSNUM), repetition of title in headings WP:MSH, doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT, filled with lists, and the external links should be converted to ref tags. Suggest peer review. AZ _t 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Do a peer review first. This article is too short and isn't that well written. Suggest peer review.Tinyboy21 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, needs major work. Rlevse 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Removing the bold since you already objected above ;). AZ _t 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs better discussion of relationship to CTA and Amtrak. Rmhermen 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not at all ready for FAC. Lead inadequate, lacks inline citations, listy. Further improvement and peer review suggested.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Preston North End F.C.

I feel that Preston North End F.C. now deserves featured article status because it contains a rather thorough club history of one of the most influential clubs in English football. This is a self-nomination, as the page was in a poor state beforehand, factually inaccurate and badly written. I feel as though I have remedied that, and this page is without doubt favourably comparable to other football club histories, some of which have attained featured article status already. Self nomination - Dannypne7

• Some quick points:

Why are level 1 headers used? The standard is generally level 2.

There isn't a single reference

There are too many red links

The images are untagged.

Object at the moment, but keep working on it. --Majorly (Talk) 13:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to this, so thanks for your advice. I have changed the headings to level 2, and will work on referencing and tagging the images. - Dannypne7

That's OK. Good luck with it, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Majorly (Talk) 13:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Really not ready yet. The history section needs to be moved into a history article then summarised in the main article. The managers section needs to be converted into a table with statistics added. Sections needs to be added on statistics, colours, crests, fans, grounds. You need off-shoot articles on seasons and players. And references, obviously. See Arsenal F.C. for a good example of how to do things. HornetMike 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not only Arsenal F.C., take a look at all clubs listed on WikiProject Football's list of featured articles to get tips and ideas on how to improve the article. – Elisson • T • C • 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Uncited, very listy, refer to peer review. Sandy (Talk) 14:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now, suggest that you attempt a peer review first. Some other things to work on: it needs footnotes. Sentences like However, no football club in the world can claim to be steeped in history and tradition to a greater degree than Preston North End are POV and contain weasel terms. Many people will object based upon the long lists at the end; try converting some to prose. Other things: note WP:MSH, needs image copyright tags and sources (ex: Image:1954.jpg, add {{Book cover}} w/ a fair use rationale), and try getting rid of some of the redlinks. AZ _t 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article, I'm afraid, is of a very poor quality. This single sentence captures everything what is wrong with it:

Known as a team of hard men on the pitch, they played just as rough off it, wrecking both a railway station bar and a hotel in London in the process!

It's weasel worded, uncited, fails to give specifics and is written in an unencyclopaedic tone - there is absolutely no need for that exclamation mark.

On top of that, there are many more problems with this article. Too many images have unclear copyright licensing information. Wikilinking is of a very poor quality - too many red links and misdirected blue links - e.g. links go to Sunderland not Sunderland A.F.C.. The paragraphs are too short and should be reaggregated. No criteria are given for what makes "notable former players" notable. There is little to no information about the club's colours, crest, stadium or supporters. The list of managers can and should be more detailed.

In short this article needs a merciless re-edit to correct the tone and fix the redlinks (perhaps nominate it at the WikiProject Football Article Improvement Drive). It then needs to go through peer review. And after that it can be resubmitted to FAC and stand a decent chance of confirmation. My advice is look at some existing featured football articles, in particular club articles such as IFK Goteborg, Arsenal, Manchester City, Everton and Sheffield Wednesday and the associated PR and FAC pages with those articles. Finally, don't be afraid to ask for the advice of the people who helped pushed them through (I'm one of them) for assistance Qwghlm 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no worse referenced than most other football club pages. I think some of the comments placed on here are downright rude, when some simple advice would have sufficed. As a consequence, my article has been practically vandalised and now looks awful. Some of you lot should show a little bit more manners in my humble view. - Dannypne7

Danny – take these people's advice, they know what they're talking about. Address the issues with the article, then get a Peer review for it. Remember to assume good faith. --Majorly (Talk) 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I know a lot of football articles don't have any references, but the featured ones do. Currently Preston North End doesn't have any, and thus fails the most basic FA criteria. And it's not your article, the edits made to have been made in order to improve it. HornetMike 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who "vandalised" the article by adding the cleanup notices to the page and I stand by that decision. I'm sorry if my review of the article is taken as rude, but I was just trying to be honest, which is the best policy in reviews such as this. If you would like to improve the article then you'll need to take the advice of others, and definitely not resent them for editing "your" article. Having helped other football club articles reach FA status I am more than happy to help, as I have said, if you wish. Qwghlm 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As a goodwill gesture I have led by example and cleaned up the first part of the History section. I've fixed the tone, repaired some of the wikilinks, and removed or added references to most of the uncited claims. Hopefully this will serve as a demonstration of how to improve the article. Qwghlm 10:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

General relativity

See comment on talk page. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Which comment? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is filled with {{facts}}. Some of the lists can be converted to prose. The WP:LEAD needs expansion. BTW, am I right in guessing that the comment is Tompw's? AZ _t 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The lead has now been expanded. Hopefully that will alleviate that one concern. --EMS | Talk 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too many unreferences, not featured-quality. Hello32020 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Is there more wrong with this article than its needing more references, or is that the only issue? (It does not surprise me that this article is failing the review, but I want to get as much out of this as I can given that it has been nominated so that it can become FA soon.) --EMS | Talk 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object; the entire "Status" section is unsourced, lots of technical terms that the average lay-reader would not understand, such as unit vector, derivatives etc are not linked. Lots and lots of redlinks. Laïka 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The "Quantum mechanics" section is only one sentence long, expand it or combine it with other sections. Jay32183 14:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Upon second look, the intro to that section is only one sentence long. Still an issue, but I needed to be specific. Jay32183 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — It might have been helpful to first try a peer review and then bringing it up to good article status before making this a FAC. (In fact I sometimes wonder why GA isn't a prerequisite for an FA.) That being said, here's a few comments:
  • This article is written at a level that seems appropriate for somebody with a bachelors in physics, if not a physics graduate student. So in that sense it appears as more of a review for those who are already familiar with the subject matter. I'm not at all clear that this is going to be helpful to those looking for an overview. Even the introduction requires a certain level of knowledge of the topic. So it might make sense to place the "For a non-technical introduction to the topic..." line at the very top.
  • Normally the history is placed near the top of the article so that the reader can get a historical perspective on the development. The current history seems a little weak, however, particularly on the post-Einstein history. (No offense intended.)
  • There are several red links that need to be addressed.
  • This sentence seems somehow incomplete: "Multiple views of the same object: Observations of quasars whose light passes close to an intervening galaxy." Did it intent to show that this effect was confirmed? (I.e. because the luminosity variations of the multiple quasar images matched up?)
  • The topic of gravitational radiation is mentioned several times but I didn't see it explained in terms of space-time curvature. It might be useful to explain this prior to the Predictions section.
  • Are the "Geodetic precession" and "Frame dragging" predictions redundant? They both use the same test of the changing gyroscope orientation. If not then some clarification would be helpful
  • Dark energy was predicted by general relativity? I can see the connection of the cosmological constant, but I thought this was only discovered due to observation of supernovae? So how is it a prediction? I thought that up until that time the constant was thought to be near zero, so that the universe would not be "required" to accelerate? Pardon my ignorance.
  • The equation "2MG/c^2" should use the math notation instead.
  • As a whole the article needs to be much better referenced, particularly the "Status" section which is essentially a commentary.
• Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • RJH - First of all my thanks for the comments. I will seek to deal with these issues over time. As for some specifics:
    • On how this page came to be nominated: Other editors seem to have been impressed enough with it to cause this to happen. While I am quite flattered that this happenned (as I have put a lot of work into this article), it is not at all a surprise to me that this nomination has failed. It seems to me that the process you outlined is the way to go.
    • On the history: I will consider your comment, although I feel that a discussion of what GR is is more important than its history. I do agree that more needs to be said about GR after Einstein however.
    • Gravitational lensing has indeed been confirmed by observations of what are obviosuly multiple images of the same pulsar. The identifications are made by their having identical spectra (which are more consistent than luminosity variations). Additional confirmation has been obtained from luminosity variations, but there is often a lag time between images of years!
    • dark energy is a prediction based on the observation of supernovas which indicate that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion. If the expansion is really accelerating and if general relativity is correct, then the universe must be 70% dark energy.

  In any case, thanks again for the helpful comments. --EMS | Talk 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Katie Melua

• This page is well written, comprehensive and extremely well sourced. I feel that it is worthy of feature status. Hera1187 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment footnotes are not consistant; all footnotes should go immediatly after a full stop or comma, like this, not like this. Laïka 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spotting this. I have now fixed it. Hera1187 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; I'm not sure that the "Musical taste" section really adds anything to the article, but other than that, I'm happy to support. Laïka 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I would suggest you don't need to detail her moves from Georgia to Northern Ireland to England and her respective ages in the lead. I would also agree that the section about her taste is fairly unnecessary, and could be cut down to a sentence "Melua has stated she likes" etc. Otherwise, good job. HornetMike 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've implemented your suggestions, thank you.Hera1187 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object To be honest, I've only read the lead. However, of those five sentences, four would currently be considered run-ons.
  • "Melua is a British singer and musician, who was born in Georgia but moved to Northern Ireland at the age of 8 and then to England." This sentence is barely coherent. There shouldn't be a comma after "musician", "8" should be spelled out, and it should be stated when she moved to England (and then written as "moved to NI at the age of eight and then relocated to England at age ____" or something like that).
  • "Melua is signed to the small Dramatico record label, under the management of songwriter Mike Batt,[2] and made her musical debut in 2003." This contains a huge non-sequitur.
  • "In November 2003, at the age of just 19, Melua released her first album, Call Off the Search, which reached the top of the United Kingdom album charts and sold 1.2 million copies within its first five months of release." This should clearly be broken into two sentences.
  • "Her second album, Piece by Piece, was released in September 2005 and to date has gone platinum four times." This needs at least one more comma, if not two.
  • Just scanning the rest of the article, many, many paragraphs are one or two sentences. This is not what I would consider "compelling prose". -- Kicking222 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kicking222. Other random examples:
  • Melua would later site this experience as the reason why she shuns certain materialistic aspects of fame and fortune. site -> cite
  • Due to her political unstable upbringing in war torn Georgia and troubled Belfast, Melua initially had no inkling to become a musician, instead she planed on a career as an historian or politician. Lots of problems here.
  • The price was £350 worth of MFI vouchers with which she brought a chair for her father. Prize? Bought?
• Really needs a good copy-edit. I'd refer this to peer review. Gzkn 07:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kicking222 and Gzkn. I think, once its been proof read, the page could be eligible for a WP:GOOD nomination. I would like to commend this page on being well sourced and I think if the grammar is improved and the prose completed it could and should be nominated again. Philip Stevens 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kicking222, Gzkn, and Philip Stevens. This article needs a lot of work before it is even a WP:Good, much less WP:FA. Has it been peer reviewed at all? Although there are a lot of sources (excellent for an article about a young popular singer, very seldom done), some of the material from the sources is poorly used. The prose needs serious work before even being peer reviewed, imo. Try to get another editor to look it over.

...who was born in Georgia but moved to Northern Ireland at the age of eight and then relocated to England at the age of fourteen.[1] Her family moved. "...born in Georgia, but as a young child moved with her family to Northern Ireland, then later to England."

Due to her political unstable upbringing in war torn Georgia and troubled Belfast, Melua initially planned becoming either a historian or a politician.[11] The article referenced doesn't say anything about the impact of violent years in Georgia on Melua, and only slightly alludes to the same in Northern Ireland--references not well used--plus sounds like she's the one politically unstable, poor grammar as mentioned above. KP Botany 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • About the opening: first Mike said "I would suggest you don't need to detail her moves from Georgia to Northern Ireland to England and her respective ages in the lead", the opening was then changed. Then Kicking222 said, "it should be stated when she moved to England and then written as 'moved to NI at the age of eight and then relocated to England at age ____'", so it was changed back. Now KP Botany says it should be "born in Georgia, but as a young child moved with her family to Northern Ireland, then later to England". Can you all please get a grip and decide what the opening should say before it’s changed yet again. For KP Botany's other point, I've added a better referenced. Also, I have to say that I don't agree that its sounds like she's the one politically unstable. Hera1187 06:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is the article needs to be better written overall. The prose is simply not compelling. Until it is, there will be tons of picky little details about the article. Tense is mixed up, descriptions vaguely apply to either wars or the singer, sentences are incomplete or incoherent, etc., etc. It simply needs a lot of work. Work which should have been pointed out during a Peer Review, the place this article needs to go first, imo, after it has been cleaned up quite a bit. I added comments to the talk page. KP Botany 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kicking222, Gzkn, Philip Stevens and KP Botany. Nat91 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not well written, certainly not brilliant prose. Refer to PR and then GA. --kingboyk 14:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution of Saddam Hussein

Sexy. ~ UBeR 06:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I object. It is a good article, but not yet at featured status. I was actually considering GA-nomming it in a few days. The main problem now is that it is so dynamic. A featured article should be relatively stable. Sexiness is not a criterion for featured status, whether one agrees that this article is sexy or not.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Most new revelations have stopped by now. He's been executed and buried and most countriest have made statements. It's been stable for a while. ~ UBeR 07:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not stable. Listy and full of orphaned quotes with no context. Will need an overhaul after this news story dies down. Gzkn 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Fully half the article is taken up by quotes from world leaders and humanitarian groups in reaction to his death. Would such a collection of quotes be better off on Wikiquote, with a few of the more noteworthy quotes worked into the article? --Richmeister_talk 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This I have addressed in the discussion page. I'm waiting on a consensus on what to do with it. It's recognized that it is overly long, and most likely will be reduced dramatically, if not altogether. ~ UBeR 07:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • See WP:LAUNDRY. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, but a good start. Just H 07:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sterilize too sexy to be a featured article. On #wikipedia, I commented to WAvegetarian "In a week or less, we could try GA", and I still think that this could be true. At this point, however, any long-term causality related to this event is (by definition) undefined, so it is not really comprehensive. Nor is it stable: I most certainly hope that it isn't. If this FA could pass, it would certainly be a marvel and testament to the efficacious way of Wikipedia. However, reality is not always so efficacious. (No, not even wikiality.) Waiting a bit might be advised. Not to mention that the article is a bit listy (as mentioned by Richmeister and Gzkn). By the way, this is a comment. Oooh. Gracenotes^T § 08:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see {{recentism}}. While recentism may not be a problem, it's still a concern. Gracenotes^T § 08:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not yet stable. Metamagician3000 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Way too early. The article documents a current event, and as such has not yet stabilized. Needs a copy editing and additional sources, too, as noted above. Jeffpw 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, no way. The "reaction" section needs a lot of digesting while preserving all significant points of view (not necessarily all parties who expressed them). Gazpacho 10:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose should be removed from FAC under WP:SNOW. Rlevse 12:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too early for this find of thing. --217.210.147.74 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very bad joke. That is not even an encyclopedia article. In other projects such a thing would get a deletion request. --Thogo (Talk) 12:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, only a news article by now, historically and politically half-baked --EvaK 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not stable, as it is on the main page as an ITN item (and may change radically over time). Also, you should not nominate articles with "sexy" as reason. Did you expect us all to laugh and then happily give this article a star? This seems like a violation of WP:POINT. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too early, current event articles shouldn't be FA so soon. The article is likely to change way too much for this to be FA. MartinDK 14:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Not only does this article document a current event, it needs some serious NPOV revision. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now - Let's wait until this is more stable and not a current event. Also, there are neutrality issues with the article, apparently. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose WAY too unstable, and too many NPOV issues. If these can be worked out, then maybe later. Hut 8.5 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No "Aftermath" section! :-) NikoSilver 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Just not yet ready to be FA.--Yannismarou 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. per Niko. Semperf 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Recent edit warring over an NPOV tag I added last night due to the article consisting of more than 50% quotes of non-relevant people expressing their opinions against the death penalty. Regards, --Jayzel 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Only your detracting of the international community shows your POV. Regards. ~ UBeR 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't no what your problem is, but I've had it with your attitude. Numerous other people have pointed out that the article is list heavy. At no time did I say there shouldn't be reactions from world leaders. I just object to an article entitled "Execution of Saddam Hussein" consisting of only three paragraphs on the actual execution itself while also devoting more than half of it to quotes from obscure people in Iceland and Finland. I also find it insulting to the FAC process for you to nominate this shortly after I announced I was going to sleep while the article was in the middle of a POV discussion. Good day, --Jayzel 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. An article about an ongoing event such as this simply can't be stable enough to meet the Featured Article criteria (pretty much any of section 1 of the criteria). Someone needs to invoke WP:SNOW here. Mike Peel 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this nomination please. Look at the nomination. It's a bad joke. Get this tag off the discussion page. Tempshill 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would hesitate to nominate a relatively narrow-scoped subarticle of an article that in itself isn't even a Good Article. But the biggest problem is that this is an article about a too recent event. Give it more time. Yeah, it could be given a "Good example of Wikipedia staying on the pulse fresh and covering current events" award. But Featured Article? Eh... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

John Titor

Great, well written article that really deserves another shot at being Featured. --TehBrandon 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• FAC 1
• Strong Object per unresolved problems at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Titor/archive1 (no inline citations, WP:LAYOUT problems, list-weighty, try peer review first). AZ _t 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object per above and lead doesn't summarize article, no inline cites, POV and doesn't discuss non-believers in this idea.Rlevse 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Refer to peer-review. This is hardly a B-class article!--Yannismarou 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please, please read WP:WIAFA before renominating this article again. -- Kicking222 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

This article was originally nominated for deletion on November 1, when I first started working on it. That motivated me to get it to FAC standards by the end of November. I have had it under a general Peer Review and a Military History Peer review for about 10 days now. During which time I have received excellent feedback and responses on the article. I asked one of the active voices here to review it and he told me that I should go ahead and nominate it for FAC.Balloonman 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I should also mention that the article is about the sub-culture and affects of growing up in a military environment.Balloonman 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, article deals almost exclusively with the U.S., drawing largely from U.S. sources. Also, "The military remains one of the few places where institutional sexist attitudes still prevail" is not at all a neutral statement, and it can even be seen as insulting. Andrew Levine 09:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1 The US centricity of the article was discussed as part of the peer review on the Military History Peer Review. The sub-culture of Military brats is one that has only recently been studied and then principly in the US. A possible solution might be to rename the article, "Military brat (US Subculture)", but as there are no credible international documents (reasons explained in the article) this is a US focused article. But one that I believe has a lot of interest because brats don't know that they are a recognized/studied group. It was also discussed that any attempt to globalize the article without credible/verifiable/reliable resources would be eroneous, OR, and add more bias than it would eliminate. Thus, the thoughts in the Peer Review was to go the other way and make it clear that this is US based article.Peer review comments on why it isn't feasible to go global.Balloonman 09:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Renamed article per your comment and ALR's in the Peer Review. If there is an admin reading this, could you fix the title to lower case? Also, is there a tool to fix the double redirects created? If not, I'll go through it tomorrow and manually change them all.Balloonman 09:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)On second thought, I won't. I'll create a stub for strictly military brat(s)... but it will be pretty short.Balloonman 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2 As for the "sexist attitudes still prevail," how about "The ultimate purpose of the military is to prepare to fight in war, thus there is a bias in favor combat designations. Since women are not allowed on the front lines in combat zones, the military woman, no matter how sharp, is limited in prestige and respect. While women can be found on military bases, their role remains that of a second class citizen." I am reluctant to get rid of this section because the affect on female brats is very pronounced and documented. Citations in article so that it is not OR.Balloonman 09:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Renamed I've fixed all the links I could find for the rename. Let me know if there are more problems. Rlevse 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ThanksBalloonman 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments—I hate the title, even if it's used widely in the US military. Why not "US military children"? I don't mind the "sexist attitudes still prevail" bit, unlike the reviewer above. Some of the prose is fragmented. Tony 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • CommentSaying it's fragmented doesn't help. You need to be specific. Submitters can't read your mind. Sumoeagle179 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the problem with the title the inclusion of the word brat? Believe it or not, it is a term that brats take pride in, it is the appropriate term. The usage of 'military children' would look awkward (and IMHO offensive) to the described group. Admiral Blair, former Chair of the Pacific Joint Chief of Staff said, "There’s a standard term for the military child: 'Brat.' The Navy also uses the term 'Junior,' but 'Brat' seems to cut across all the services. While it sounds pejorative, it’s actually a term of great affection." A quick look at the references will show that all the books/articles/research use the term. Some researchers talked about how they didn't want to use the term because as outsiders they felt it was offensive, but that after researching the subject discovered it is the term that brats choose to use. As for the name, I'm open to other suggestions "U.S. Military Brats"?Balloonman 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Also see Wiki Naming Conventions self identification.Balloonman 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony, you've helped me realize that even if *I* say that it isn't derogatory, non-brats may not realize it is the term we embrace. So I'm going to add the footnote: "The term 'Brat' has been used in the title and throughout the chapter to follow the wishes of the participants. It is a term that they use and feel comfortable with, signifying anyone who had at least one parent in a branch of the armed forces." In Williams (2002) p 67. And brat expert Mary Wertsch told an interviewer, "So don't be afraid to use the term 'military brat.' It has various elements of truth in it, about our experiences, and we should be proud of it." [Military Brats are a Special BreedBalloonman 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I AM A MILITARY BRAT AND PROUD OUT IT. The article is excellent and whether the title stays as is or becomes "U.S. Military brats" doesn't matter to me. Sumoeagle179 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fine article, and yes, Sumoeagle179, I'm proud to be a brat too. In this context, the submitter is absolutely correct, the term is not derogative in any way. Rlevse 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support seems to meet all criteria. Stilgar135 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak opposeSupport. This is a fantastic article, and I learned a lot from reading it, but I don't think the consequences of the change of title have been quite dealt with yet.
  • The term is described in the lead as having "specific cultural implications with American military brats" (on a side note, shouldn't that be "for"?); I'm not sure whether that is intended to suggest that the article will focus solely on the US, which is what the title suggests, or merely to excuse the lack of attention to other countries.
    • Trust me, this was one of my biggest frustrations, I wanted to make it global, but couldn't find anything. If you look at the discussion, my page, and the peer reviews, the US focus was something that bothered me. But the people on the Military History Peer Review convinced me that it would be impossible to write a truly comprehensive article on all military brats from all countries---just as it would be impossible to write a comprehensive article on the life of any subgroup in all countries. Even if I could find material, which according to Ender's book doesn't exist, it would be impractical.Balloonman 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • New wording, While military brat can be used to describe soldiers' children from any country; U.S. military brats have been a studied as a unique American subculture. Does that work better?Balloonman 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then we have the heading "Research U.S. focused," which sounds rather odd to me. It does a good job of explaining why there isn't more information on military children in other countries, but surely this section isn't necessary if the article is only about US children?
    • I just changed the title to "History of the Research" and made the paragraph on the differences between US and non-US armed forces into a footnote.Balloonman 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then there are photos of "British colonial boys" and of Michael J. Fox, who's Canadian.
    • Those were left overs from when I tried to globalize the article. I've removed those pictures and replaced Fox's picture of one of Tiger Woods aboard the USS George Washington.Balloonman 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an excellent article, but it needs to be a bit clearer about what subject it's actually aiming to cover. MLilburne 07:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My concerns have now been dealt with, and I'm pleased to change to firm support. This article is strikingly well-researched and an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, illuminating a subject about which little is known outside of the military. MLilburne 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The See also templates for Racism and Sexism aren't used correctly. Those articles are not daughter articles of this article, and this article isn't a summary of those articles. The terms should simply be linked in the text, rather than included as templates. Sandy (Talk) 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FixedBalloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Oops, switching to oppose upon closer examination. There is a large number of references that need cleanup of the blue links, and a number of the Footnotes need to be expanded, as they are currently only one word (example Useem and Deployment center - those are not adequate citations). I dislike the title, but I won't object on that basic - even if it is a common term, it's not encyclopedic - but please clean up and finish up the references and footnotes. Sandy (Talk) 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "There is a large number of references that need cleanup of the blue links," what does that mean? I'm not sure of the problem, so I can't fix it.Balloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 12/5 about the name being unencyclopedic, I disagree. If it was strictly a slang term used by military families/brats, then I would agree with you. But since it is also the term used by researchers and academians, I do think it is encyopedic.Balloonman 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • " number of the Footnotes need to be expanded, as they are currently only one word (example Useem and Deployment center" Those are links back to the references. EG Useem would be the reference provided by Ruth Hill Useem and Deployment Center would be the one by the deployment center.Balloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There are also some copyedit needs: in the lead, we find, "While the term "brat" is commonly utilized in a derogatory manner; in military communities, brat is neither a subjective or judgmental term.[2] One either is a military brat or one is not, its usage is unrelated to that of "spoiled brat"." Should it be neither - nor? The second sentence has punctuation problems. If this is in the lead, perhaps a copyedit of the entire article is in order. Sandy (Talk) 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Neither/Nor fixed. I THINK I fixed the grammar problem in the second sentenceBalloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of the blue links as examples - more notes on sources:

• No source given here: Associated Press (2005) Among the Military Child Education Coalition's successes was an agreement in 2000 by the Army and Air Force to allow soldiers and airmen to stay in one place when they have children entering their senior year, except for wartime combat assignments.
  • The associated press is how I was referencing an unnamed announcement sent out by the AP, so I went ahead and modified it. Again, it referenced a reference above.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• This is not a ref: ^ At Department of Defense schools students will say the Pledge of Allegiance
  • Pulled back into text, it was removed during the globalization phase.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I struck other issues addressed above, but the prose problems were only samples: someone should run through the entire text. Sandy (Talk) 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I'll work on these concerns tonight. I'll also see if I can find somebody to give it a once over... I've read the page so many times that I'd probably miss the obvious now.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT will work on tomorrow... I have a reference book for another page I'm working on that I have to return to the library tomorrow, so I focused on getting key quotes from it tonight.Balloonman 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 12/5 I've had two people give it a complete once over (but their changes/guidance were minimal) and I have one of the people you recommended giving it a thorough once-over. The person you recommended has done a wonderful job so far. While I can't promise that he'll go over the entire article, I hope he does, the pieces are coming to place. Another day or two and I hope to have you changing your vote ;-) Balloonman 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Another: this is a personal website, not likely a reliable source - http://wanjennifer.tripod.com/ Sandy (Talk) 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It was an article, so felt that it was ok. But I went ahead and changed it. I found another source which, ironically, had both quotes in it as well. The authors are recognized names in the field, whereas the leslie article was the only one I saw by her.Balloonman 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • BTW, regardless of whether or not I can get you to support this, I wanted to say thanks for your assistance. I really do appreciate the constructive criticisms.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I struck my Object above, and will have an in-depth look at the article again later tonight or tomorrow. Nice work ! Sandy (Talk) 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • YEAH!!! hopefully, you'll be able to support it... if not let me know... and this wouldn't be where it's at without your assistnce (and the person you referred me to.)Balloonman 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• I added my concerns about the article prose and organization to the article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I just don't like the overall tone of the article, I think it reads like a string of largely negative quotes from a study about brats, it fails, imo, to give any impression of the subculture and the deep empathy, imo and alse noted by researchers, brats feel for each other. The overall negative tone may be because that was the focus of the research, but it doesn't make it any easier to take. There are many positives to being part of a military family, that take a distant second place to the negative research, such as, when you move onto base, people go out of their way to welcome you, introduce themselves, find out if you have children the same age--did the researchers de-emphasize this? It doesn't deal well or at all with the issue of differences between small bases, less class-restricted, and larger bases, or look at changes in enlisted housing over the past 20 years, the surreal fishbowl of living on a military base in times of war, or differences between branches of service, or the names of housing units and streets. I disagree, however, with the comment that it is not material for an encyclopedia--it is material, and it is very topical. I would like to see it as a FA, but I don't think it's ready. A subculture has a powerful identity. KP Botany 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I commented on this in the article too, but I think it's pretty fair. There are positives mentioned and negatives - the point that researchers may only be looking into bad stuff is a good one, but that's mentioned in the article: "These studies overemphasized the negative attributes of growing up military because they were based upon patients seeking counselling.[13] In the 1980s, the trend in the U.S. started to change. The U.S. Armed Forces began sponsoring research on the effects of growing up as a military brat. This research was usually sponsored in reaction to social and psychological issues found in military families and communities.[14]" There's always room for improvement, but I think it's good --AW 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"I think it's good"... can we take that as a Support???Balloonman 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Made many of the changes that you recommended... but not all of them. Some of them, while I personally agree with them, would be OR/blog style. I really don't think that the article is very negative towards brats. I think it's fairly balanced. As a group, we're antiracist, have higher median IQ, do better on tests, have more education, and can make friends with just about anyone. Those are some pretty positive attributes. I hope that with the changes that I've made, that you could support the article now---if there are any issues that you feel are absolute musts before you change, let me know.Balloonman 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not everything in life is equally positive and negative. Sometimes a slightly more negative accounting of something is the reality. Fluffing it up to make the subject sound lighter or "better" can only make it less accurate. I believe what we have here now is as accurate and realistic as possible, given the published information available. --ScreaminEagle 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the small changes Balloonman made addressed this particular concern of mine quite well, and the article lost this particular problem with its tone, imo. It needs a thorough copyedit and lots of picky edits. I've gone through it once and will post today and tomorrow as I have time, but I'm doing the same with the Sei Whale article, also, so be patient, and understand that there will be a lot of picky comments, but I consider the article, overall, necessary and well done. KP Botany 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'll post on the article's talk page, though, as my comments are extensive. KP Botany 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that you are changing your vote to "Support" or are you holding off until you make your "picky" comments? Either way, I look forward to seeing your comments, as I said on the articles talk page, I firmly believe that the more people who review the article the stronger it will be.... Balloonman 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm holding off until I make my picky comments, then I will change to strong support, although I bear watching to make sure I follow up with the change after picking at the article. KP Botany 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1) I personally believe that this article should become an FA. I think part of the reason why the brats who have read it are in full support of the article is because they see the value/truth in it. As the article points out, brats often do not feel as if they belong and feel as if they are outsiders. But brats are studied subculture, and learning that can be exciting for brats. I don't think most people realize how much research has been done on brats over the past 15 years. Comment 2) Having said the above, the article has undergone heavy editing over the past week and I believe that Sally and Outriggr made critical/valid criticisms concerning the article on its talk page. I suspect that the "Supports" (and 2 pending supports) might be able to prevail over their objections, but I want their support.Comment 3) Thus, I am withdrawing this nomination (but will contact everybody who posted here when I renominate in a week or two.) I want to make the changes that they recommended and I want to do this article justice. It is already a very different article than the one I nominated last week. I encourage, no I implore you to offer your suggestions here or on the talk page on how to improve it. I also appreciate any help you might offer (particularly when it comes to gramer and spelin.)Balloonman 09:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Please consider this article as it just lost in the last nomination and I think it has improved enough to be a feature article. jeremybelpois 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support even though 1d From Overview->Premise "fantastic animals" (Fantastic? Looks POV to me). --SonicChao ^talk 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are few deficiencies. Though there is some POV, a lot of the seemingly opinion is realy the intended opinion set by the creators of the show. This means that through logical deduction the powers or abilities the animals contain (in your example) are made to amaze the show's audience.

• Comment"Fantastic" isn't POV. It this context, it refers to something being "Existing in or constructed from fantasy"--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Striked as per Fyre2387. --SonicChao ^talk 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The website references should use {{cite web}}, and more inline citations are needed, some sections don't have any. The images need fair use rationales. Jay32183 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Striked as per Parent5446. Problem addressed and completely resolved. (note, only the striked out part.)
• Comment The {{cite web}} template makes the article too messy as it puts a title, language, etc. about the source. However, I do agree that more citations are needed.

• At the very least the url, title, and accessdate fields would need values. The more complete the source information the better. Sources aren't there to make the article pretty, they're there to make it verifiable. Jay32183 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, I filled in all I could do by using the {{cite web}} template on all non-inline citations. You an check it out. jeremybelpois 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I converted the first inline citation, can you handle the rest of those on your own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs)

• OK. I figured out how to do it now. I'll change them as fast as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs)
• Please don't strike other people comments, report that it's done and I'll strike it myself. Actually, you missed numbers 2 and 3 of the inline citations. Jay32183 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I support this article due to that I feel it is superior and it is well-written, unlike what it was four months ago. The only flaws are that there is not a list of the episodes on the page (since there is a seperate article for the epsiodes) and that there are only 19 inline citations. That is not much of a deficiency.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• No Vote Due to my extensive editing of all Avatar: The Last Airbender related articles, I refrain from voting on the subject of Bias. I hope that my other editors do the same. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article itself is definitely good enough to be featured, but I'm not quite sure about the links. The character bios linked to this page are mostly biased and some do not have their fiction made clear.Stretchyrubberbands^{( Tell me how to overcome my stupidity)} 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Stretchyrubberbands. --Twlighter 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as an editor of the aricle, I belive that this article has improved vastly from last time. (Actually I can't edit the article because McAffee stops the page from coming up completley, but thats another story) Cnriaczoy42 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object Missing a lot of key information. No Production information, no critcal reaction, except for some rewards, no information on it sucess or how popular it is. The subsections in Influence are short, stubby and uneeded. They can easily be one or two sections. Media Information section just lists whats in another article instead of summarizing it in prose (with facts). There is also a citation needed tag. See also section shouldn't have links that are already in the article. All images need fair use rationale. Sokka image has incorrect copyright info. Medvedenko 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There does not have to be information on how poplar it is, it is just an article on what the show is about. In addition, there may not be a lot of rsources for some information such as influence and production information. If you can come and find enough resources to write one or two sections of influence, then tell me and you can prove me wrong. Otherwise, a lot of your objection may not be possible to complete. Besides, the purpoose of the article is to draw people in and inform them about the show, not tell them about idols from a religion that influenced the show. The only reason anyone would put that would be for people really researching Avatar: The Last Airbender or to just make the article longer (which is not the point as a literary piece, including an article, only ha to be as long as it takes to make a point, which the article has clearly done).

The article is NOT on what the show is about its about the show. No where in the body of the article (not the intro which only sumarizes what is in the article) does it say when the show aired, how it came about, who created it, where it was animated. All that information may not be available, but some of it is and it must be in there. Same goes for popularity and critical reaction. The article's focus should be on facts outside the show's story. If there is no reference on an Influence than it can't be in the article because that would original research. I said nothing about going into detail about the influences, I just wanted you to merge the subsections in influneces. Every Influence doesn't need its own section when they are only one or two sentences. Medvedenko 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment about "how popular" the show is refers not to what fanboys are saying but to the opinions of notable television critics and ratings inforamtion to show how large the audience is. I agree that that type of information should be included in all articles about television shows. Jay32183 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused, why doesn't this work again?

• Originally slated to start November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV February 21, 2005 and is available on DVD or for download at the iTunes Store and the XBOX Marketplace. Produced at the Nickelodeon Animation Studios in Burbank, California, and animated in South Korea (where many animated television series are animated), it was co-created and executively produced by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko.
• A consistently high ratings performer in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside of its intended six-to-eleven-year-old demographic, Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics. The series' success prompted Nickelodeon to order a second twenty-episode season, which began airing on March 17, 2006, and a third season has been announced to begin airing in 2007. Notable merchandise based on the series include five DVD sets of episodes, six-inch scale action figures, a video game, stuffed animals distrubited by Paramount Parks, and two Lego sets.

H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Medvedenko, are you by any chance suggesting that we try to make the production information end up like the one in the House article? [4] Or am I completely off the wall in saying that? Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 08:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes a section similar to House or other television articles is what I'm getting at. The Introduction shouldn't contain information that isn't found elsewhere in the article. Though I hope you'll be able to find more related information than whats already in the Introduction.Medvedenko 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the sokka problem and the catation needed tag. Will work on free-use images. Cnriaczoy42 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

added Fair Use Rational to all images. Cnriaczoy42 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent images of Chinese characters do not have Fair Use rationale, but they should not be used anyway since it should be easy to get a free to use symbols. Also the use of lines in the Characters section makes the section look very ugly.Medvedenko 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that those images are not fair use at all, since they are not directly taken from the show, but were made by a Wikipedian, and depict ordinary (albeit archaic) Chinese characters that just happen to be in the show, and were not specifically created for the show itself. But I don't know enough to say for sure. And I really like the lines in the Characters section. I think they divide it up much better than just space, but I guess that's just one opinion. --Herald Alberich 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The images clearly say they are a from a television show. They certainly look like they are from Avatar as well. Same art style. Medvedenko 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As Sage of Ice stated on the talk page, they are screenshots after all. My mistake. --Herald Alberich 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update Content issues are resolved in my opinion. An issue on the talk page about how Aang learns his skills needs to resolved though. There are two problems left. The Asian characters in Elements still need rationale, but because those characters can be depicted using free images (or just use the Chinese text right next to the image) I'm not sure you can create a rationale. The other problem is the use of the lines in characters. These lines are supposed to be used spraining if at all, and just makes the section look bad. I still think you should merge some of the subsections in Influences, but I will not object on that issue alone. The only thing keeping me from full support is the use of the lines in Characters and the images of the Chinese characters. Medvedenko 00:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support After reading the above I think all we really need to do is re-arrange some of the popularity and influence notes (maybe even elaborating/adding on a few?), but I also think along with H2P that I might only be supporting because of my own personal bias. Other than that the article had com a long way since the last nomination. Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alrighty then, it seems just a few more references are needed. Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support: It is a good article, but with the tag about the lead on it, I can only give it my weak support. I believe that the lead is okay, but at the same time I respect the talk page. On the talk page they claim that it does have some shortcomings, and I agree it is not perfect, but this article is still worthy of FA status.-Hairchrm 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've never heard of the show before and so approached the article with a blank slate. I think that for someone in my position, the article gives a pretty good summary of the show. But I think more is needed to make the show a featured article:
  • "Media information" section simply is a link to the daughter page. It should be written to include several paragraphs or two in summary style.
    • Done, although it could use some cleaning up. Y BCZ 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's only two critical reactions listed, and it's a pseudonymous toonzone.net review and a SciFi.com piece, which is probably not sufficient. See The Wire (TV series) and Arrested Development for examples. I would like to know how general TV critics (i.e. those who don't work in a particular genre) have reviewed the show.
    • I will find more critics and list there sources within the next few days. Keep checking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs)
      • There are no critical reviews on Avatar: The Last Airbender. I could not find any, even in the archives! There are only secondary and other reviews. Please help me find some. jeremybelpois^{(Murder me for my actions)} 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "However, given that even Spirit-infused characters such as Princess Yue have been shown incapable of bending, there is also a likely genetic factor involved." How does this conclusion follow from that premise?
    • The article used to not have that sentance in it. I believe it flowed better without it and took it out.Cnriaczoy42 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Also, according to an interview with the artists involved in creating Avatar" not cited.
    • It is mentioned on the Book 1 DVD Box Set, 6th dvd. This is form the Appa Page. How do we cite a DVD refrence? Cnriaczoy42 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you can use {{cite visual}} for DVD references. Jay32183 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done Cnriaczoy42 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Zuko's principal rival throughout Book One." What is Book One? What is Book Two?
    • Added sentance explaining this. Cnriaczoy42 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Avatar also draws on a mix of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Tibetan, Persian, Mongolian, and even Inuit philosophy, religion, language, clothing, martial arts and culture. " Where's the Inuit/Persian/Mongolian influence? The Chinese, Tibetan, etc. are all explained in the article but not the others. Where's the source for them?

That section has been cleaned up a bit.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic" Source?
  • "With consistently high ratings... Avatar is popular with both audiences and critics" I've mentioned the critics already, but what is the source for the ratings? Andrew Levine 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to add sources. Someone tack this on: [5]Y BCZ 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • <ref>{{cite web| url = |title = |accessdate= YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref> is how you source webcites. If you have to use it more than once use <ref name="insertnamehere"> in place of <ref> the first time and then <ref name="insertnamehere"/> every other time. Jay32183 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • see {{cite web}} and WP:CITE for further details. Jay32183 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Much thanks, problem taken care of. Y BCZ 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Lack of referencing in the first half of the article. Needs a better system of citing the episodes themselves if that is where all of this is coming from. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Objection withdrawn—you may consider me neutral. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The parts that you are talking about I assume are the plot summary and charchter descriptions. If that is your problem, please look at Arrested Development (TV series) and other T.V. related featured articles. As you will see, their are no refrences for carchters or plot their either. Cnriaczoy42 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • {{cite episode}} is available if necessary, although I think the source in general is assumed in this case. Jay32183 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I referenced the Plot Synopsis section. The other sections in Overview I will get too later.jeremybelpois^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Finished the rest.jeremybelpois^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some of my objects have been resolved, while others still stand. The lack of good critical response is the biggest problem. Also, what is a "cine-manga"? Andrew Levine 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Man, this is Wikipedia, look it up :-P. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  I did, but the page gives several definitions. Andrew Levine 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikilinked, if it helps in the slightest bit. Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    See above. Andrew Levine 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Good point. There is no definite article for that link, one would have to look at both the anime and manga articles to derive some sort of idea of what a cine-manga is. I agree this could be very confusing to those researching the article and come upon this, however anyone who researches a little in-depth won't have such problems. I myself have no idea what the heck it is either, by the way. The subject at-hand itself needs it's own article... Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    I think it's the second one. Haven't seen it though, unless the comic in the Avatar Magazine is a preview. As Why stated, the understanding of what it is really isn't our fault, we're just using the word they give us. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    A cine-manga is where they take scenes from the episode and arrange them in a manga with captions. Cnriaczoy42 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Would a "professionally" written nomination have the following bloopers in the lead?
  • "executively produced"—very awkward
  • "outside of" (which one is redundant?)
  • "best rated showing"—hyphenate the first two words
  • "six-inch scale"—metric equivalent is ...?
  • "and now a third season has been announced to begin airing in 2007." When is "now"? In two years' time, will it still be "now"? Replace "to being airing in" with just "for".

The opening sentence is stop-startish: "Avatar: The Last Airbender (also known as Avatar: The Legend of Aang in several countries), an American animated television series, currently airs on the television network Nickelodeon." Make it: "Avatar: The Last Airbender (also known as Avatar: The Legend of Aang in several countries) is an American animated television series that currently airs on the television network Nickelodeon. Tony 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll have a crack at it...Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, even though I think the remedy I put for the "outside of" comment needs work. If anyone feels lke they can do better, feel free.Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Request I would like to know which of ANY objections on this page still stand. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 20:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The map of the four nations still needs a fair use rationale. Jay32183 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Added fair use rationale to map image. Anything else? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Parent it's not going to be as easy as completing a list of complaints and then getting the nomination. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I know that. The page was just getting a little too long for me to take in all at once. In addition, some of the objections have been fixed and since they have not been struck out, I wanted to find out what objections people still had against the article. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Stretchyrubberbands. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let it be known that any vote that doesn't give a reason for it's vote, whether it be support or oppose, should not be counted as anything meaningful. I am so sick of lazy people putting "per X" when X's comment above has been modified in the article but not changed on this vote page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please note: it's = it is. There are a lot of these floating around at the moment. I've been asked to review my object that was on the basis of 1a. I've skimmed through the article at random, and am disappointed to easily find a high density of obvious shortcomings, such as:
  • "Like most animated series in recent times, it is animated in South Korea." Problems with the use of present tense (including at the start of "Creation") to refer to something that was created two years ago. Also, make it clear that the animation is not set in recent times: "Like most animated series produced recently".
  • "Avatar took six years to go from an idea to a completed first episode, longer than normally expected." Just "longer than normal" will do. There's redundant wording throughout, which needs to be weeded out by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Here's another, in the very next sentence: "the series was originally set to air at some point in November of 2004"—No, remove "at some point". "Move" would be nicer that "go".
  • And the sentence after that is "Airing of new episodes occur Friday at 8:00 Eastern Standard Time, while airing of reruns occur on weekday evenings." Nope, "THE airing", once only please, not twice. OccurS, not occur. You ellide "on" first, then include it. Does EST refer to the US? If so, say so, because there are lots of other ESTs around the world. And I think you mean FridayS. And why not say "New episodes are first aired on Fridays at 8pm ...." Your 8:00 could mean 8am in 24-hour code. Friday evening IS a weekday evening, or at the least is ambiguous. Too many "airings" in that section.

This suggests that the whole text has still not been copy-edited to the required "professional" standard. Tony 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've reworded a bunch of the sections now. Man, the grammar in that paragraph you pointed out was...god-awful. I can't believe I didn't notice it before. Y BCZ 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Just had my first look at this article, and don't understand how it got this far into FAC without basics (such as section headings per WP:MOS and WP:MSH) being corrected. Prose problems already detailed by Tony. Also, referencing is not complete - clicking on a few footnotes at random shows incorrect article names and the like. External links could be pruned - WP:EL, WP:NOT. There is uncited text, which may be WP:OR (example, "The episode, 'The Spirit World' and the two-part first season finale 'Siege of the North' are good examples of this influence, as the former prominently features a corrupted forest spirit attacking a human settlement as a direct result of the destruction of its forest home, while the latter involves the main protagonists trying to prevent the murder of a nature spirit by an ambitious mortal, all of which are also featured in Princess Mononoke.") Not there, surprised that basics weren't reviewed in previous Support votes. Sandy (Talk) 11:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed headings, removed uncited statement. Does it count as original reserch when they said that they were inspired by those two shows a paragraph above and an example is shown? The Placebo Effect 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the information in the article is not referenced in reliable sources independent of the producer. Information about critical response or how it fits into the history of animation and television is also lacking. The majority of the article is a plot summary and character summary. —Centrx→talk • 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are too many sources from the producers bad? They surely know the most and would provide the best information. The characters shouldn't need citations explaining their traits. Arrested Development doesn't have citations for its characters. Most of the information their too is also on the show and its characters. SO what is the differance between these two articles. And what do you mean by how the critical response fits into the history is lacking? The Placebo Effect 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

I have expanded, cleaned-up and copyedited this article significantly. It covers all aspects of the tpoic, and is well referenced. I think it's a good candidate to become an FA -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment News sources are not cited correctly, making it harder for a reader to locate the source should a link go dead. For example:

• Bruser, David. "Cost may stall automated train plan". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2006-11-22.

is a dead link, but no publication date is given, making it harder to find this newspaper article in a library or in hard print. Please double check that all sources are complete.

Why is a Main template used in Lines in operation, while a See also template is used in Expansion lines? Main is for summary style; see also is for further information that has not been linked within the text. Canada and Evergreen lines are mentioned in the text, so aren't needed as See also, and should be listed as Main if this article is summarizing information in those articles. Sandy (Talk) 10:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I used a see also template for expansion lines because the bit on the Broadway extension has no separate article, so that section wouldn't be summarizing any other article all the way through. I'll add publication dates to the news sources. Thanks for your input. -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the news references now have dates. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: unless I missed it, I don't see any information on whether lines are elevated over streets or in former railroad rights-of-way. The link to "at-grade intersection" implies that there are some; how does this work on a rapid transit system? I also don't see anything about yards and other maintenance facilities. --NE2 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments as I go:
  • "world's longest transit-only bridge" Does that mean mass-transit only?

  Yes. Will clarify.

  • I don't know if any guideline backs me up (WP:SS?) but I personally think an article just reads better if longer (prose-wise) sections are earlier. Some flow issues with the current section layout too, for example it talks about the specific lines before it gets to the "lines" section that actually introduces the lines.

  I'll reorganize the article

  • Starts talking about "One-zone tickets" without explaining what a zone is. Also, doesn't explain that tickets are bought from an automated system until it's already been discussing the lack of turnstyles and so on for a while... just kind of left me wondering how people were supposed to get tickets in the first place.

  I'll explain in the article that a fare zones measure the distance one travels.

  • "Transfers from buses" might link to an aritlce on buses in Vancouver, if one exists.

  There is a further information link at the top of the section

  • "The SkyTrain was one of the first fully automated rapid-transit systems in the world, and remains the longest today" really seems out of place in the paragraph about the route... should be in the history or even the intro.

  Will do

• I have two major general concerns though. First and most actionable, this article needs something on public reaction. Even if everyone loves the SkyTrain, the article should say that. But I imagine there's at least some criticism, and that should be covered in a well-balanced encyclopedia article. Also there's little to nothing about it's larger role in Vancouver. Right now the article addresses the history and technical details of the system, but little on how it fits into Vancouver - does it substantially help traffic? Does it reduce the need for surface parking? Does it reduce emissions for the city? Do other cities see Vancouver's system as a desirable solution to be emulated? Do citizens take any particular pride in the transit system? I think this general type of coverage would add context for non-rail enthusiasts/people from Vancouver and is what would make this a featured article, as opposed to just a good, technical article.

  Well, in that case, this article isn't ready for featured status. Researching and writing a reaction section does take time.

• Second, and this is less actionable obviously, I'm hesitant to support a FA about a topic with so much future work planned. I mean... if this becomes a FA, the article will need serious updates to still cover to topic accurately in 2009/2011/whenever they finish the new lines. If that doesn't happen, FA status wouldn't be appropriate then. So you see my hesitation to support something that will just be a FA for 2-4 years unless someone does a lot of future work. --W.marsh 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Your concerns are good, and I will address them. I'll renominate this later -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article is full of sources, well-written, and contains accurate history. UW-Madison is an academic powerhouse, being the one of the top four research universities in the country. It is the largest university in Wisconsin, and the tenth largest in the country. It also has a great sports program, with both the men's and women's hockey teams winning the National Championship in 2006. The Wisconsin Badgers football team and men's basketball team are among the best in the nation, and Wisconsin frequently dominates in lesser-known sports, such as rowing, track, and cross-country. The University of Wisconsin-Madison brings together all aspects of college, being one of the finest universities in the country. Lordmontu 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, reasons: all of the above Lordmontu 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object and refer to peer review to better prepare for FAC. Lead too short and does not summarize article; article is uncited; external jumps (links to external sites imbedded in text); mixed refernce styles (some inline, some cite.php); External links is something besides External links. Sandy (Talk) 04:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy. Three references does not equal "full of sources". Send this to peer review for improvement. Gzkn 06:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Plus short, stubby sections, too many lists, prose is awful at times, summary style is weak, not enough quality photos, organization is poor, headings are inappropriate....refer to peer review. -Bluedog423^Talk 06:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Read WP:WIAFA Having a great sports program does not make a school's article a Featured Article. Having inline citations will certainly help. -- Kicking222 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object The article has only three references; The lead is weak; The organization could be improved - the section student protests is second, while the academic one is deeper down; Too listy. WikiprojectOWU 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn It is apparent this article needs work. It is currently up for peer review. Lordmontu 17:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Valley of the Kings

Self-nom. Hi I have confidence that the article is factual, neutral and concise, and that it is of FA quality. Any comments and feedback and advise is welcome. Markh 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance, this looks quite good. Jkelly 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Whilst slowly scrolling down, I unfortunately witnessed a devolution into lists. Sorry. Wiki-newbie 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We are trying to highlight the tombs that are of interest, is it that the tomb descriptions are too short, or that they shouldn't be there at all? Markh 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering here, since I have the same concern. The sections are short and choppy, and the entire thing should be better "prosified". It needs to be compelling, brilliant prose, and feels too listy as it is presented. Sandy (Talk) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Would "prose-ifying" the list do the trick? In other words, take the current content of the list and talk about each in terms of general tomb development, where it fits into the overall historical picture and the like? Just looking for guidance. Captmondo 14:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Have change most the tombs section to be more narrative, and it looks better, but is now more choppy! Will have another go look at this later in the week. Thanks for pointers everyone, it certainly looks much better now Markh 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments
• Capitalized, or not?
  • 4.2 Eighteenth Century
  • 4.3 Nineteenth Century
  • 4.4 Twentieth century
  • 4.5 Twenty-first century
• Please expand blue links in notes to full biblio entries, including last access dates. For example:
  • ^ [29] Tourists massacred at temple
  • ^ [30] Projected visitors
  • ^ [31] New visitors centre

Changed, but not sure whether this is what you suggested! Markh 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Seen your examples, understand now. Cheers Markh 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please add ISBNs on books.

Done the further reading, will add the books from the notes section later Markh 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pulled all the books details out and put them in the references section, some of them (older books) I cannot find ISBN's for. Markh 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article is a bit choppy, with a lot of content amounting to one or two-sentence paragraphs. Sandy (Talk) 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for correcting the capitalization in the Table of Contents: just a note, you should wait for reviewers to strike their own comments rather than striking yourself. I expanded two refs to give you a sample of the work needed. For example, on one, you had not identified your source as a BBC News source, and had not provided the publication date. On another, you had not identified the website, and the title (Projected visitors) was not the title of the webpage. If your links go dead, readers should have enough bibliographic information to be able to locate the information. Sandy (Talk) 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I corrected more refs to get you started: there are a number of books in the Footnotes that have no publication date or publisher. Sandy (Talk) 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for the advice. Markh 12:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Once you've filled out the information on the books in Footnotes, I'll show you how to cite those globally in References, giving only the page no. in Notes. Sandy (Talk) 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have done the above, I changed all of the web references and books in the reference section to use citation templates (that way I dont have to worry about what should be shown). I am going to redo the middle 'important tombs' section, merging the lists into a narrative. Thanks for all the advice. Markh 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still web references that need to be expanded (what is the website, etc.). There's a lot of inconsistency between the Footnotes and the References. There are books listed in References that aren't used in Footnotes (should those be listed as Further reading, or were they actually used as references?), there are publication dates and publishers that differ between Footnotes and References, and there are some books used several times in Footnotes that aren't listed in References, and that don't include full biblio info such as publication date. I did several samples to show you how these can be cleaned up and made more consistent, and I left some inline notes where I found inconsistency. Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, hopefully the references are now consistent and all the books referenced are in the References section, with as full a biblio as I can find (I didn't do some of the references). Now redoing middle section which seems to be the major problem (into a more historical narrative). Again cheers for all the help and advice. Markh 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your referencing looks to be in order now, minus a few page numbers on some footnotes - I left inline notes. VERY nice progress so far ! Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Have a look at External links under WP:LAYOUT - you've got some mixing of References and External links, with External links listed as References. Sandy (Talk) 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started through the prose now (reading only the first three printed pages), and have some concerns - a fresh set of eyes to do a thorough copyedit and reorganization of text and sections might help:

• MOS indicates work needed on "century" capitalization throughout.

Done (also sorted out AD/BC issues) Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• (Stands on, across from, within the, under the, behind the - YIKES - I felt like I'd been on an all-day hike by the time I got there.) The valley stands on the west bank of the Nile, across from Thebes (modern Luxor), within the heart of the Theban Necropolis, under the peak of the pyramid-shaped mountain al-Qurn, immediately behind the temple of Hatshepsut of Deir el-Bahri.

Chopped the breathlessness of the sentence, to give a more general location. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• The lead could be expanded (see WP:LEAD).
• There are many instances of terms and concepts being introduced and used before they are explained. I'm confused about how the Theban *Hills* work into the entire picture. The first time we encounter mention of hills is in Geology, and the hills aren't specified - are these the Theban Hills? This doesn't seem to be clarified early on in the article, which delves into terms as if everyone knew that info. The placement of the Geology section is also confusing, as it uses concepts and terms which are discussed more fully in later sections. The entire paragraph about "The problems of tomb construction" was confusing, as it relies on information not yet presented. Another concept introduced a paragraph before it is explained is Old Kingdom.

Specified which hills they are.

• In History, we start to encounter prose issues:
  • It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is thought to have been the reason why the kings of Egypt started to be buried beneath it, echoing the pyamids of the Old Kingdom. Thought to have been (by whom)? "Started to be buried" isn't understood (presumably, they were buied elsewhere prior). Old Kingdom is explained in the next paragraph.

Reference first part. Rearranged second to explain first. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cite needed - probably, according to whom? The tombs of Ahmose and his son Amenhotep I were probably (their exact location remains unknown) in the Seventeenth Dynasty necropolis of Dra' Abu el-Naga'.

cited. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall, the article needs a reorganiztion with a fresh set of eyes - reading it, I get the impression that the author is very familiar with the Valley, and might not realize that the unfamiliar reader can be lost by the order in which terms, thoughts and concepts are presented. That's as far as I got. Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is great, so thanks. I have made most of the changes, and someone has volunteered to copy-edit it later this weekend, so hopefully that will sort some of the comments out. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The list of burials in the Valley of the Kings should be linked somewhere and some of the key tombs need to be mentioned (Tut and Ramses). Also, fiction section is too short. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "in fiction" section as it is too short and there is probably not enough information. Tutankhamun's tomb is mentioned in the introduction and there are 9 Ramesses's burials in the valley, most of which are mentioned in the historical section. list of burials in the Valley of the Kings is mentioned (as a see also in the Tomb Development section). Cheers for the suggestions and help 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Clearly this needs to be copyedited by someone else, so I have withdrawn the FAC. Thanks for all your time people. Markh 11:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)