Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2007

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:20, 31 December 2007.

The Carpenters edit

previous FAC #1
previous FAC #2


I made many, many edits to The Carpenters. I added tons more references, I did everything people told me to do. Thanks to everyone that constructively criticized it! I feel this new page is much, much better and has a slight shot at being featured. Please leave constructive criticisms if you oppose this! Thank you! Also, I don't appreciate phrases like, "Oppose per name". Instead of that, please explain what you think in your own words; not someone else's. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added tons of references and formatted them correctly (thanks to User:MeegsC and User:Ling.Nut), I got rid of trivia, and I abridged the discography and singles, and I expanded and clarified many topics. I also expanded the lead section, too. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Contains a [citation needed] tag, and contains a few other problems as well. Could use a section detailing the band's musical and lyrical style. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, do you believe that it's closer to being featured article than before? Maybe that's not a fair question. You may or may not answer it. I shall add the musical and lyrical style. Thanks for the constructive criticism! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that (although I was not around for the article's first nomination) it does appear to have improved since that time. Also, I would format references to internet sources with the {{cite web}} template. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Done. I started a rudimentary section explaining their music (I need help with that; I'll get it peer reviewed), and I added the Cite web templates. I even threw in a few Cite video templates, too! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Generally the main sections from "childhood" to "post-carpenters" should be subsections of a section called "History" - see existing band FAs for reference.
  • If they were "Carpenters", why is the article called "The Carpenters"?
The page was originally called "The Carpenters", then a few of the editors moved it to "Carpenters", but when it got changed back to "The Carpenters", we were unable to get it changed back to "Carpenters". Not to mention, there is already a page existing called Carpenters and it talks about their eponymous album. I think it's fine the way it is now. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you include the "haunting" pic in the death section?
You mean the one from 1982 with Karen in the yellow jacket (although it's grayscale)? I can move it if that's the one you mean. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Done!
  • Template:The Carpenters needs to be edited for MoS errors and also be reduced in size; its huge right now. Use other band templates for comparision.
I'll work on this tomorrow. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Done! You can see it at Template:The Carpenters. It's much, much shorter, and I used Template:The Beatles as a reference. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The musical style and legacy sections are painfully under-referenced and POV. For the entire article, try to include at least one reference per paragraph.
In the process of doing this. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about a band called "Carpenters", remove personal information about each of them; that is meant for their individual pages.
  • Remove that table in the middle.
But that is a piece of evidence to support the statement. I don't think it can be removed. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Indopug (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references need to be correctly formatted, preferably using the Cite web and Cite news templates. Some of the references are extremely vague, for example ref 50. Are you citing the whole of IMDb? Because I think you need to link to specific pages, or even find a better source, because IMDb isn't the most reliable of sources. Others like ref 65 are vague as well: which issue of the newsletter do you mean? Or was there actually only one?

Green tickY Done!

"Television Specials" should be "Television specials", "Albums and Singles" should be "Albums and singles" and "Grammy Awards and Nominations" should be "Grammy Awards and nominations".

Green tickY Done!

Also, Image:Carpenters LOGO.png, Image:A Place To Hideaway 0005.png, Image:Timerichardsolo.jpg, Image:Karencarpenter82.jpg and Image:Carpatchrist77.jpg lack fair use rationales. Gran2 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's very detailed. Thanks for the criticism. Let me say something first. The newsletter is clarified in the full references section. It says something like "Wallace, Evelyn" etc. The newsletter was #63 I think. April of 1973. I'll add a fair use rationale template for the images. Thanks! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I did references one and two. Do they look good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to work on this tommorrow. Thanks for your great ideas! Good night! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is also currently listed at peer review. Can someone please archive that review? Thanks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY I have archived it. Thank you! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close The article is now on GAC. Close the FAC, wait for the GAC to finish, then if the article passes GA, you can take it back to FAC, but you may want to PR it first. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. That sounds like a better idea. Might as well take baby steps, right? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things: it's not on GAN, and I don't know how to close this. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, take baby steps. I see a "The Carpenters is a good article nominee" tag on the talk page but it was not listed at GAC. I nominated the article for GA. You can ask Raul654 or SandyGeorgia to close the FAC for you. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuyler91093, if you want to withdraw the FAC, just so say so here, or leave a message on my talk page, and I will archive it. Please take note of WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like it to be archived, please. Thank you so much! By the way, I am Cuyler91093. This is my official alternate account for music-related purposes. – Karen Carpenter (talk • contribs • count) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The request has to come from the original nominator. Are you aware of Wiki's policies about using someone else's name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to use your main account (Cyuler91093) to post "I want to close this FAC". --Kaypoh (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that. I wish to close this until next time. Can someone go to my own talk page and tell me how WP:GAN works? I think WP:FAC is much more convenient and easier to understand. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.

Rugby league in England edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it fufills the criteria. It has already passed "Good Status". It has not previously been nominated.GordyB (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It's a nice article, but to pass FA, as a very minimum every major claim in the article must be verified with a reliable source. I've tagged a couple of such claims, but really the article's littered with them. --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto it as soon as I can.10:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GordyB (talk • contribs)

I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS?GordyB (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the additional citations, there are still great swathes of uncited material in the article. Have a look at some recently passed FA quality material to see the extent to which FAs are cited... I have a candidate article here myself - see Sid Barnes. --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is far from FA:
  • Referencing is not FA standard.
    • Paragraphs 3 and 4 of "Post war" section are unreferenced.
    • Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of "Eighties and onwards" section are unreferenced.
    • Only 1 reference in "Governing bodies" section.
    • No references in "Competitions" section.
    • No references in "Derbies" section.
    • Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of "Junior rugby league" section are unreferenced.
    • Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of "Student Rugby League" section are unreferenced.
    • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of "Other forms of rugby league" section are unreferenced.
    • Paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of "Popularity" section are unreferenced.
    • Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of "Current trends" section are unreferenced.
    • Paragraphs 1 and 5 of "Rugby league and race" section are unreferenced.
    • No references in "Radio" section.  Done added BBC regional radio refs •Florrie•leave a note• 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No references in "Cinema" section.
    • No references in "National teams" section.
  • The article is not well written. It has too many short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. For example:
    • "The Northern Union made reforms to the laws in 1897 and again in 1906 in an effort make the game more exciting. This resulted in Northern Union football becoming a sport in its own right rather than a form of rugby union."
    • "The Challenge Cup began in 1897 with Batley beating St Helens to win the first title. The final was first broadcast by BBC radio in 1927. The Wemberley tradition was started in 1929 when Wigan beat Dewsbury 13-2 at the first Challenge Cup to be held at Wembley."
    • "During the Second World War professional rugby league was again discontinued, normal leagues were suspended, a War Emergency League was established, with clubs playing separate Yorkshire and Lancashire sections to reduce the need for travel."
    • "Attendances fell even further in the 1970s. Britain won the Ashes for the last time in 1970 with a 2-1 series win in Australia."
    • "Universities and Colleges Rugby League in 1969 and the British Amateur Rugby League Association in 1973 responded to the need to develop the game below professional level."
    • "The 1982 Kangaroos won all their tour games for first time ever, they became known as 'The Invincibles'. This was the time when the gap between English and Australian rugby league became apparent and has never been fully closed."
    • "The All-Party Parliamentary Rugby League Group was formed in 1987 to support the sport of rugby league and tackle the key issues facing the game in Parliament. Ian McCartney MP was the first chairman and David Hinchliffe MP the secretary."
    • "In the mid eighties Wigan began an era of domination of English rugby league that would end only with the formation of Super League. By 1995 they had won the Challenge Cup a record eighth consecutive times and the league title for a record seventh consecutive times."
    • "Touch rugby is governed by the ETA who are supported by the Federation of International Touch and are affiliate members of the Rugby Football Union. They are not affiliated to the RFL or BARLA."
    • "The winner of the Super League plays the winner of the Australian NRL competition in the World Club Challenge."
    • "At various times English clubs have either competed in a national Championship with a Second Division and sometimes a Third Division as well or had separate county leagues for Yorkshire and Lancashire."
    • "There were also county cups for Yorkshire and Lancashire between 1905 and 1993. The Regal Trophy and BBC2 Floodlit Trophy were two other knock-out tournaments. A Trans-Pennine Cup was played for a short-time but it was replaced by the National League Cup."
    • "The Rugby League Charity Shield was a one-off match at the beginning of each season between 1985 and 1995. It was contested by the Champions and the holders of the Challenge Cup."
    • "Some of the teams involved no longer play in the same league and so derby games are either arranged as pre-season friendlies or take place as part of the National League Cup."
    • "BARLA runs the Halifax Home Insurance National Youth League as well as the Yorkshire combination, Hull Youth and Junior and London Youth League."
    • "Though the game remains close to its working-class origins, changes in social demographics and attitudes have allowed many working class people to attend university where they have continued their association with the game."
    • "The Student Rugby League was founded in 1967 when a team was created at Leeds University by Andrew Cudbertson, Jack Abernathy and Cec Thompson, other teams soon joined in areas of the United Kingdom which lay outside of the games traditional heartlands."
    • "Rugby league sevens is particularly popular with pub teams drawn from the regulars at a pub, the reason for this is that it is often difficult for a single pub to form a full squad of 13 players and four substitutes."
    • "Wheelchair rugby league was first played in England in July 2007. There are no competitive leagues or regular fixtures established as yet."
    • "Although attendances outside Super League can be quite low, many of the teams play in small towns and the attendance figures represent a large percentage of the local population."
    • "The success of Super League in England and the return of competitive international matches with Australia and New Zealand have seen growth for the sport."
    • "The annual Powergen Schools Cup competition from 2003 onwards has increased the number of school teams from 300 to 1,500 and the participation levels to 25,000 from 6,000. Though these figures include participants from Wales."
    • "Whilst rugby union was officially an amateur sport, many rugby union players came to play rugby league. In recent years this trend has reversed and some rugby league players have crossed codes to play union."
    • "George Bennet became the first black player to play for Great Britain, Association football took another 44 years before Viv Anderson became the first black footballer to play for England."
    • "Clive Sullivan became the first black captain of Great Britain team in 1972, 21 years before Paul Ince became the first black captain of England's soccer team."
    • "The Great Britain side are also referred to as "the Lions" or "the British Lions". At international level the Women's Great Britain side is commonly referred to as the Great Britain Lionesses."
    • "England has historically provided the vast majority of players for the Great Britain team, one of the major national teams playing rugby league. They compete against Australia for The Ashes, and New Zealand for the Baskerville Shield."
    • "Great Britain also played in the 1999, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Tri-Nations against New Zealand and Australia. Although Great Britain never won the Tri- Nations, they finished top of the table in 2005 but lost to Australia in the final."
    • "In 2007 Great Britain will be replaced by separate England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales teams, there after, Great Britain will only play on special occasions and tours."
  • References 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 32 and 33 have formatting problems. References always go after a comma or full stop with no spaces in between and a space after the reference. : Done •Florrie•leave a note• 08:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should just give up making this an FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it won't make FA this time round (there's too much to do)and Kaypoh's detailed critique will help you, but Florrie, I'll tweak the "give up" advice. It's not a million miles off FA quality. Ask Raul to close this nom, work up the article, ask the RL WikiProject to help you improve it and take it back to Peer Review before coming back here. Just my 2p. Whatever you do, good luck. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to Gordy as it's his nom (and baby). I was just doing some drive-by editing to help out :) But I agree, an FA isn't out of reach in the future. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the page isn't ready to the FA-page. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:43, 27 December 2007.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk edit

Good article. I think it fulfills featured article requirements. My featured article Uannis (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a speedy fail, given one quickly glance at the categories; All pages needing cleanup | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since May 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy fail-I like how you (Hurricanehink) think.--Kiyarrllston 05:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many unreferenced sections and reference formatting problems, poorly organised. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is in good condition, but isn't at FA status yet. It needs lots more citations and a comprehensive copy-edit - I found all the repetitions of 'Mustafa Kemal' to be tiresome and the article has some awkward sentances. The 'Cultural references' section looks like trivia as well. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like Nick and Kaypoh. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:43, 27 December 2007.

Oxygen edit

Co-nomination between mav, Nergaal and WikiProject Elements

I believe the article in the present form is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive, and therefore should be an FA. It also just passed a GA review. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article had 26KB of prose before the FA push was started in mid-September. Since then I've added a bit over 20KB of prose and others have added more, making the total prose size 51KB. This amount of prose is necessary given the large scope of this article (it is part of 3 WikiProjects) and that it is a Vital Article. Nergaal has extensively copyedited, cited and reorganized the article to its current form and other members of WikiProject Elements, especially Sbharris, Pyrotec and Derek.cashman have helped. --mav (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Surprising that no-one has given any comments yet, so I'll give it a go. Overall I really like the article, it is very comprehensive, nicely illustrated and adequately referenced.
  • The first paragraph of the lead is very technical, and some of the details could perhaps be explained later - in order to give the lay-person a good overview first.
  • Do you have a specific example in mind? All the technical terms there are allready linked to other articles for detailed explanations. Shouldn't that be enough? Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 has a retrieval date of 2997-12-16, ref 4 a typo that should be fixed. Done
  • "In organic compounds" reads a bit choppy, perhaps the paragraphing could be improved? Done
  • The article is a bit on the large side at nearly 80kb. The long list of examples in "Compounds" could perhaps be trimmed?
  • What do you think of moving that section into a separate article and chopping down on the oxides and silicate subsections?Nergaal (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a good idea. The main compounds and "in organic compounds" could probably also be made a bit smaller. henrik•talk 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "Allotrope" may not be readily understood by everybody. Can the section header be replaced by a more common term?
  • From article on Allotropy: is a behavior exhibited by certain chemical elements: these elements can exist in two or more different forms, known as allotropes of that element. Somebody could switch "allotropes" with "forms" or something on this line, but then it would be confusing. I do not think that a term should not be used as a title only because it might be too technical. A similar example could be the term "isotope". Although it is more familiar, it might not be familiar to some people; nevertheless it would not be a good solution to replace it with another term (that could also be confusing).Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A billion degrees are required for two oxygen nuclei to undergo nuclear fusion to form the heavier nucleus of sulfur.". Degrees of what? Fahrenheit, Celsius? Done
  • Probably Celsius given that the ref is from a Brit so I put that in the article. It doesn't matter because the difference in Kelvin and Celsius is well under the amount of uncertainly in the figure. Meaning, a billion degrees Kelvin is no different than a billion degrees Celsius in the world of significant digits. --mav (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few one line paragraphs that should be merged. Done
Overall though, well done! henrik•talk 11:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further ref comments: The link in ref 21 is dead (404). Ref 50 currently gives a timeout. henrik•talk
  • Object for now - I've written about half the prose in this article and was in the process of finishing up. So I must object until I'm done. The points that still need to be addressed are transcluded here. --mav (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:43, 27 December 2007.

Tawfiq Canaan edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it passed a GA nomination and review with flying colours and this seems like the next logical step. Tiamut 15:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose just from a shallow skim I note
it depends heavily on a single source - of the institute of jerusalem - are there few other sources?
Should have a picture of him and a picture of one of the cover's of his published works.
- regarding your reasons for nominating it to FAC - but had you looked at the FACr and ensured that the article met the criteria? - that is the only true logical/procedural step preceding FAC nomination
--Kiyarrllston 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the FAC criteria and besides the lack of a picture, I believe the article meets the criteria outlined therein. I am looking for a picture on Canaan, but have been unable to find one as of yet. In terms of sources, while one source provides much of the biographical information on Canaan and is therefore used more than the others, there are a number of other reliable sources cited, establishing his notability and the importance of his work to many fields. I should mention I am also working on a sister article to this one on the Published works of Tawfiq Canaan at the suggestion of the GA reviewer. Perhaps the two should be merged to alleviate the concern over sourcing? Tiamut 11:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:43, 27 December 2007.

Mythology of Carnivàle edit

Self-nom Having learned a couple of things from previous FACs and GACs, I think I've made sure that most imaginable issues have been addressed before they come up here. This article is GA, has gone through a slight Peer Review (for the still ongoing Featured Topic candidacy of Carnivàle), and has received extensive copyedit passes (by me and User:Opark 77). The article has received so many encouraging compliments since that I'll just try for FAC now instead of later or never. I am reluctant to state the following, but too many bad experiences make it necessary: Please read the article instead of just skimming it and then opposing for "it doesn't look like the other FA character articles". Carnivàle is a very atypical TV show in several way, and this subarticle, as FAC-unusual as it is, strays from the norm accordingly. "These unreliable forum posts" are either directly by the creator of the show (I can easily dig up proof for this) or are chatlogs with him, and if he isn't considered reliable, I don't know who is. I vouch for the used sources being among the best that are available, as you'll probably see if you try looking for sources yourself. If this isn't enough for FA, then I give up, as losing these sources would raise major comprehensiveness issues. If you have any other concerns or suggestions, I'll try to address them as fast as possible. Thank you. (Unwikilike spoiler warning: It might be a good advice to not review this article if you ever plan on watching the show.) – sgeureka t•c 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For a featured article that relies strongly on internet postings by the show's creator, see Spoo, which recently survived a Featured Article Review. In my view internet posts by a show's creator are on a par with interviews with the creator in magazines (and DVD commentaries etc). They are perfectly acceptable sources for facts directly related to the show. (The essay Wikipedia:Reliable source examples takes the opposing view, with misgivings relating to the authenticity of the postings. However, if there is evidence that the postings are genuine, then it concludes that the sources are reliable) Bluap (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example forum post by Daniel Knauf, show creator of Carnivàle, at http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/CarnivaleHBO/message/16463 (registration required)

--- In CarnivaleHBO@yahoogroups.com, [name not copied] wrote:


> So, if say, Ben were about to die could he
> grab Jonsey and transfer? I wonder...

Nope. Avatars are born, not made.

As I've said before, the Avataric bloodline is widely dispersed. Like a royal bloodline, if one branch dies, the mantle falls to the closest kin. However, though tens of thousands are "of the blood," there is only one Avatar born per generation.

If a bloodline ends (a fairly common situation, incidentally; due to violent, premature deaths, an Avataric dynasty rarely runs more than three generations) a new dynasty springs from the first child who is born into the world with the most Avataric blood in his veins. This child could be in a completely different family, halfway around the world. Thus, a new Avataric dynasty is created.

Individuals can have Avataric blood without being Avatars. In fact, it's hardly uncommon. These individuals are known as the "Vectori." Iris is a perfect example of a Vectorus female. Often, the Vectori have some mild supernatural ability. Just as often, they are insane to some degree.

But once an individual is born, no matter what degree of Avataric blood one has in his line, he cannot *become* an Avatar. So, though Ben could willingly bestow a slight degree of his power to a mortal (as was the case of Scudder and Lodz), he cannot pass on his Avataric mantle.

D.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:43, 27 December 2007.

Herpes zoster edit

previous FAC

Renominating this article incorporating comments from the previous FAC. I've added a history section, added more information to the Prognosis section, added references, and cleaned up the lead. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a nice read, pretty--Keerllston 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that I disagree with you. Even the introduction reads wrong to me: "After chickenpox runs its course, varicella zoster virus remains dormant in some nerves of the infected person". I find simplification often misses the point in this article. I have not looked it up recently, but my recollection is that virus DNA is incorporated in the DNA of nerve cell bodies. The article may include a few good points, but it is far from a finished product. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn per Tony1--Kiyarrllston 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for a well-written, comprehensive and accurate article. It has excellent images and appropriate citations. It's just the right length for the subject and a pleasure to read. I have worked in this field for many years yet I learnt something from this article. It still requires some tweaks, but an article that Wikipedia can be proud of none the less! Well done.--GrahamColmTalk 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now discovered that the article requires more than some tweaks and following an intense team-effort on the article over the past few days many cracks have been revealed. I am sorry to have to withdraw my support for the article, particularly after having worked so hard on it. The lesson that I have learned is to ask for expert help before nominating.--GrahamColmTalk 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't know that Wikipedia had a requirement that an expert write the article. What is great about the project is that intelligent, interested, and hard-working individuals volunteer their time to create these articles. When I found the article, it was nothing but CAM cruft, mostly discussing how you can obtain treatments from African Witch Doctors. I kid you not. I did not think anyone needed a degree in viral biochemistry to help write it. But if I could impose, what is it that needs fixing? Can you bullet point them, which helps all of us work it out. My personal concern about these articles is that as Wikipedia becomes the #1 location for health care information (just check out google for this disease), they make assume they will be cured by African Witch Doctors. You, and some other editors, are seeking perfection (a problem with engineering that I rarely see in science), when all that is necessary is good enough. I don't think it's critical how the virus is latent (not that you yourself care). I don't care if it's transmitted 0.0004% of the time by sneezes. What the casual reader needs to know is 1) what is the disease, 2) how do you get it, 3) what are the consequences of the disease, 4) how do I treat it, and 5) what are the known effects. We are trying to do too much. But that's just my opinion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think (I may be wrong) that Graham meant "expert" in terms of experienced Wikipedia editors, not subject experts. We are very fortunate to have some of those but I agree with you in believing it is possible for non-experts to write an FA; I've seen it done. Most good FAs had one or two enthusiasts behind them, who then recruited some extra team help towards the end, prior to FAC. If I can be slightly critical (as much as one can on a volunteer project) its that I expected the nominator to be more active during FAC, responding to issues raised. But I see now you thought, and still think, the article was good enough. I disagree about the standard required of an encyclopaedia and the level for FA. The information you believe the reader "needs to know" is readily available, in lay-friendly form, at any *.gov or *.gov.uk site (NHS, CDC, NIH, whatever). Wrt to what is wrong, Eubulides provided an excellent summary, which I agree with. There are some basic WP issues like text agreeing with the sources. On the surface, the article looks reasonable, which is why I think it attracted initial support. Colin°Talk 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism was pointed towards me. I thought I was fairly active during the process. But I am almost certainly not a viral biochemist, and once the discussion turned towards the esoteric, and Una Smith became disruptive, my interest waned. I personally felt that the article was being demolished for unknown reasons, but because I do not own the article, I gave up. My suspicion is that this FAC will fail, all of you will go away, and I I can spend a couple of months reviewing some literature and slowly improving the article as I have done over the past 6 months. I'll slowly implement most of the criticisms and suggestions I see here, and it will round into shape, without edit conflicts. I'm quite patient about these things. I've just given up here. This was no fun at all. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, meets all the criteria. Its strongest side is its accessibility for the educated layman, which is a real compliment for a medical article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it could be a lot better, I think. A key image of the characteristic rash affecting an easily recognisable dermatome is missing. Snowman (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thorough and covering all bases. One minor point: perhaps we shouldn't lecture the audience about combining cimetidine and aciclovir (unless the reference already does that). JFW | T@lk 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do about that reference. Honestly, while rewriting the article a few months ago, I just left it in, using a reference that's probably 20 years old. I guess someone could go pick up a package of Tagamet, and treat HZ! I don't think Aciclovir was around when the reference was written. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no interaction listed in BNF 53 between acyclovir and cimetidine, but there are interactions listed between cimetidine and the anti AIDS drugs atazanavir and amprenavir. I guess that most mild interactions would be better placed on pages for the drugs rather than on this page. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Support - conditional on adding a sentence or two on lysine. If it works why isn't it used...or is it? I was bold and massaged it a bit. cheers, have to abstain until I read the whole thing again. I can see that my support was premature, sorry. Will try to do a bit of copyediting soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added something about lysine, but honestly, there isn't much good evidence that it works. Another case where so-called alternative medicine has hit the popular mindset, but no scientific proof has been shown. Frustrating. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, even just a few words on the strength of the evidence. Could always add that as it is just a lousy old amino acid no harm in taking some (or is there.....) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support At most needs some minor copy editting. I also would suggest wikilinking any journal names that have articles on Wikipedia already. Overall, extremely informative and interesting.--Filll (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The History section, an issue in the previous nomination, still is weak, and poorly referenced. But for me a larger problem is that the lead does not begin to explain the connection between chickenpox in childhood and shingles decades later. Chickenpox is introduced in the second paragraph in a manner that is telegraphic. Telegraphic here means that rather than explain, the article reminds the reader of something the reader is assumed to already know. I did fix one small point of confusion elsewhere in the article. --Una Smith (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a small change that makes it very clear that VZV infection is called chickenpox. I hope this satisfies your concern. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly better. The lead invites many questions not clearly answered in the article. Do all chickenpox infections leave behind virus in the spinal cord? What about the chickenpox attenuated live virus vaccine?Do any cases of shingles result from secondary infection, rather than a flare-up of virus left behind from the original infection? Is shingles ever seen in children? Is shingles really just a limited form of chickenpox (ie, does chickenpox also infect nerves, just unlike shingles it infects many nerves at once)? Or, if not, exactly how is it really different? --Una Smith (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, latency is a defining feature of the Herpesviridae all of them do it; CMV, HSV, EBV HHV8. I don't know about the vaccine and that's a very good question, (it's contra-indicated during pregnancy). No, shingles always follows the lines of the dermatomes, chickenpox does not. Shingles is not seen in children but neonatal zoster is deadly but I don't think this is within the scope of this article. VZV seems to retreat to the nerves post chickenpox symptoms. Una, I think it would not be helpful in this article to try to explain the latency phenomenon of Herpesviruses, this is not fully inderstood (well at least by me!). Of course the article must be accurate and comphrehensive but given the "lay" friendly comments already made about the article, are we in danger of going to far? Just my two English pennies worth.--GrahamColmTalk 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a completely lay reader, even I've heard the term "latency" used wrt herpes viruses. I was rather surprised that the word isn't mentioned at all. Colin°Talk 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Una, I'm not sure how to answer your questions. We don't know if all chickenpox infections leave behind virus, nor are there answers for the other questions. I guess an article could anticipate every question, but it would be difficult to answer. The problem here is that VZV and HZ are the exact same virus. No on knows how it goes from one to the other. In addition, the poorly written VZV article needs to be rewritten eventually to be a companion piece to this article. But this article is definitely not about chickenpox, so I don't think it's within the scope of the article to discuss what chickenpox does or does not do, especially since it is so poorly understood how one becomes the other. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem here is that VZV and HZ are the exact same virus." Exactly. That problem needs to be stated up front, in a manner that helps to define the scope of this article. I would prefer this article to be titled "Shingles", by the way, for that very reason. The article is not about Herpes zoster which includes shingles and chickenpox, but about shingles. This is a discussion for Talk:Herpes zoster, don't you think? --Una Smith (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have cleared-up this confusion, herpes zoster is a disease, not a virus. The disease is commonly called shingles; the virus is called Varicella zoster virus.--GrahamColmTalk 06:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That VZV article is on my "to be found wanting" Macbeth (William Shakespeare) list. Herpesvirus reactivation "No on knows how it goes from one to the other" is for Herpesviridae to embrace. Not this article.--GrahamColmTalk 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An enormous amount of work on this article has been completed, but still more work remains. Here are just two areas of work:
  1. History and etymology both have considerable interest but the History section remains weak and the etymology is limited to a sketch on the talk page.
  2. The problem has yet to be solved re how to describe, correctly and gracefully, the long time between chickenpox and herpes zoster. I think it would help to improve related pages (particularly varicella zoster virus, late effect, incubation period, and viral latency), then link those pages.
I have spent a lot of time on Herpes zoster and am willing to do more, but much of this work would be better done by someone who has access to a good medical research library. --Una Smith (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. I think this is a good article, generally very readable and lay friendly. However, it needs a little work IMO to take it to featured quality. The lead is not yet a comprehensive summary of the topic, nor answers all the basic questions a reader unfamiliar with shingles may have. Double and triplet footnote numbers are IMO unnecessary where the uncontroversial text could be sourced to one good review. Rather than approximate words (may/could/rarely/often/etc), some figures would be useful at times. The prose could be polished a bit more. The treatment section misses a few types of treatments. I've only read 2/3 of the article, so far. Rather than overload this FAC with detailed minor comments, I've added them to the article talk page. I'll update/continue later when I get the chance. Colin°Talk 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several editors, myself included, are working on your recommendations. I might disagree with one or two of those recommendations, however :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the article is currently being worked on but three serious issues have developed:
    • There are "verify" tags for some paragraphs
    • Some sections have been heavily rewritten (particularly the lead) and the prose quality has deteriorated. Copyediting required.
    • Most importantly, I have encountered some careless wording when expressing statistics:
      • "Herpes zoster occurs in about 50% of very elderly persons." The use of the present tense here can be read to mean 50% of elderly persons currently have herpes zoster, the disease! The source used doesn't seem to contain anything that might support a 50% figure.
      • "In the United States, herpes zoster affects about 10–20% of the population", again this implies 10-20% have active shingles.
      • "Herpes zoster ... occurs more often in persons who have reduced function of their immune system". More likely to occur is not the same as occurs more often.
      • "A subset of 50% of these patients" could be clearer. Is it the full 50% or a subset of the 50%?
      • "By the mid-1960s, several studies identified the gradual reduction in cellular immunity in old age by observing that in a cohort of 1000 people who lived to the age of 85, approximately 500 would have one attack of herpes zoster and 10 would have two attacks." The reference given contains no such cohort study of "1000 people who lived to the age of 85". The reference says "Should a cohort of 1000 people live to be 85 years old, ..." (my italics). The article tense changes from "lived to the age of 85" to "would have". The paragraph says that "several studies identified" XYZ "by observing that...". They didn't. The observation is based on the several studies, not the other way round. It is clear from a quick reading of the (old) paper, that this hypothetical cohort is based on little more than guesswork and extrapolation from small and conflicting studies.
I'm afraid that for now, I'll have to change to strong oppose. The above examples are probably not the only ones, I'll continue to review/investigate as I find time. Colin°Talk 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Colin, clearly there is some more work to be done, you are right, thanks; we will try to fix this. My best wishes to you.--GrahamColmTalk 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I'm pleased to report that the article is improving again. Several editors have contributed, GrahamColm in particular seemed to have spent most of Saturday on it. Issues remain but it is getting there.... Colin°Talk 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update2: Despite some great team effort, it now appears there is more work to do than we have the energy to maintain while at FAC. IMO, the nomination should be allowed to fail, and the article improved at a more gentle pace perhaps with less editors stepping on each other's toes. Remaining work has been detailed on the talk page and by Eubulides below. When those issues have been addressed, I recommend posting a notice at WikiProject Medicine for expert reviewers to check it over. Once the content is satisfactory, a copyedit by one of our suitably gifted editors would be nice. With that preparation, the next FAC should sail though. Colin°Talk 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and comprehensive. In my experience, the "History" section of medical articles is particularly difficult to expand with appropriate references. Here, the "History" section is okay. Axl (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Orangemarlin (who is now renominating this article for Feature status) suddenly archived all of the Talk page on December 10, 2007 (the same day he/she renominated the article), without any concensus or warning, which is against Wikipedia policy. There were many valuable and important discussions and issues and even consumer information being raised on the Talk page, yet now there are only posts from December 10, 2007 on. I don't support the featuring of any article whose discussion has been, if I may be so bold, virtually censored without concensus or warning. I would also like to request the restoration of the removed material. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all still there, I have just re-read it. It has been archived to make some room for the current discussions. It has not been deleted. --GrahamColmTalk 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll note, I said "archived" -- meaning removed from the page to an archive -- not "deleted." It was done against Wikipedia policy, which is to do so only after discussion and consensus. One result of the archiving is the absence any immediately visible discussions about any problems that existed with the article. I'm all for archiving that info given due notice and thorough consensus. Without consensus, it violates Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against which policy? I am not aware of any such policy. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (which is only a guideline, not policy) says: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it. There is no need to reach consensus. If you think any active discussions were moved to the archive, archiving can easily be undone. --WS (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposed because I archived a Talk section which makes it easier to read? I'm sure the FAC director will give lots of weight to this issue. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, Orangemarlin. There's no need to be sarcastic. For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with the archiving. Axl (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't I be sarcastic? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because, Orangemarlin, you are asking to get blocked, and then Wikipedia would be denied the benefit of your more constructive edits. Looking at your contributions, the edit summaries alone make me wonder why you have not already been blocked. --Una Smith (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Go for it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I took a first look at this article after Colin°Talk and GrahamColmTalk asked me to look at some of the confusing statistics in its Epidemiology section. I have now made so many changes in the last two days that I am no longer a neutral observer, but Colin just now asked me to weigh in here, so here's my opinion. My impression in making the changes so far is that the article still needs a lot of work. The article has a good deal of promise: its heart is clearly in the right place and it's a good topic. However, while editing I found several howlers where the sources did not at all support the article's text, or where the text relied on obsolete and now-incorrect sources; for details please see the talk page sections Stats (again), Lysine, Cimetidine, Corticosteroids as causes, and Hospitalization rate. I fear that many problems still remain. Here are some examples:
    • The Epidemiology section is now howler-free but it is still disjointed; it is not yet an example of the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
    • The Management section needs to be worked on as well: its coverage of corticosteroids is quite dated and its coverage of anticonvulsants, topical anesthetics, opioid analgesics, and tricyclic antidepressants is either wholly inadequate or entirely lacking. It should not have all those little subsections; it should be just one integrated text.
    • The article is missing sections on Classification, Mechanism, and Prognosis, sections that are all recommended by WP:MEDMOS and all of which would improve the article's structure. Much of the material is already there, but it could stand the reorganization.
    • The lead needs a severe rewrite. It contains some topics (e.g., etymology) that are not in the body, and it fails to mention crucial topics (e.g., diagnosis, complications, prevention) that are covered in the body.
    • Someone with a good deal of free time (i.e., not me) needs to verify all the citations in all the sections other than Prevention and Epidemiology. The rate of citation failures in the stuff that I checked was alarming: I think more of the citations were bogus than were correct!
    • I haven't had the time to read through all the sections carefully. No doubt there are more problems, but the set of problems described above is already way too large for a Featured Article.
At the current rate of editing the problems will be fixable in a couple of weeks, but I doubt that we'll keep the pace up. (I myself am running low on free time.) This is not an article that was almost ready for featured status and is just getting polished; it's an article that's getting rewritten and where it's not clear (to me, at least) when the rewrite will get done. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Treatment section inadequate without mention of tricyclic antidepressants. The last paragraph of the introduction on treatment is too oversimplified at best, and misleading at worst. Steroid treatment, morphine analgesia are too prominent and not in perspective. Badly written in parts, for example "Palliative care is often needed after postherpetic neuralgia occurs." Article seems western orientated in parts. Snowman (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see this succeed, but it still needs work. See my edits at the top, including a few inline queries, as an indication of how it's easy to find issues. Tony (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that an appose, support, "not yet support", a "do not know", or something else? Snowman (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot speak for Tony1 - however if a comment is not otherwise marked it is a comment. - given that Tony expressed a negative opinion - in the eyes of the directorship it might count as worse than an oppose from a generally disliked (imo) reviewer like me :D - Please, don't focus so much on counting votes, focus on improving the article--Kiyarrllston 23:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Yet SupportI agree with Tonyl and would like to see it work, having invested some time into it myself, at an early time. I know Orangemartin has invested much in it too. My major critisizms then and now is that the Article is predicated on the assumptions 1. that anti-virals are readily available throughout the English speaking world. 2. That they can be accessed by everyone within the very short lead time of 3 days. (I can't even get a doctors appointment in that time!) 3. The Article does not address (now) what to do if that lead time is missed. Some alternatives (ie earlier) treatment models need also to be included for these reasons, and in the circumstances I describe. See Archive 1 for suggestions. Jagra (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having copy-edited the lead a while ago (see above), I chanced a look at the first section.

  • Two MOS breaches: "after 1-2 days (but as long as 3 weeks)"—spell out single-digit numbers; en dash for ranges (but why not "after one to two days, although occasionally after as long as three weeks"?).
  • "The pain and rash most commonly occurs on the torso"—grammar.
  • "a stripe or belt-like pattern limited to one side of the body and not crossing the midline" --> "a stripe or belt-like pattern on one side of the body that does not cross the midline"?
  • "Over time, the rash evolves"—evolution does take time, so remove the first two words.
  • "further flu-like symptoms"—sorry, I'm trying to hunt down where you told us about the flu-like symptoms that have already occurred.
  • "After the crusts fall off, people are typically left with scarring and discolored skin."—"People", suddenly, is a bit awkward. What about "The crusts fall off to reveal scarring and discolored skin."—No indication of how permanent ...?
  • Then the remainder:

"Herpes zoster may have additional symptoms, depending on the dermatome involved. Herpes zoster ophthalmicus involves the orbit of the eye and occurs in approximately 10–25% of cases. It is caused by the virus reactivating in the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve. In a minority of affected people, symptoms may include conjunctivitis, keratitis, uveitis, and optic nerve palsies that can sometimes cause chronic ocular inflammation, loss of vision, and debilitating pain.[10]

Herpes zoster oticus, also known as Ramsay Hunt syndrome type II, involves the ear. It is thought to result from the virus spreading from the facial nerve to the vestibulocochlear nerve. Symptoms include hearing loss and vertigo (rotational dizziness).[1]

Zoster sine herpete describes a patient that has all symptoms of herpes zoster except the characteristic rash.[11]"

  • The last parastub is puzzling to me. "That" is wrong for a person.
  • Start: "Additional symptoms are associated with specific dermatomes."
  • I'd remove "approximately" for such a wide range.
  • "the virus reactivating" and "the virus spreading" are, strictly speaking, ungrammatical. "The reactivation of the virus" and "the spreading of the virus".
  • "Affected people"? = "Patients"? Remove "may" and clarify that not all of these symptoms occur in all patients. Remove "sometimes" ("can" is sufficient).

Now having given this nomination the benefit of the doubt earlier, I have to declare Oppose. I think it should be renominated after proper treatment. Tony (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:49, 27 December 2007.

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale edit

check links | peer review

Nomination on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I'm nominating this article for several reasons:

  1. This article is one of the most visible articles in the tropical cyclone area of Wikipedia, as {{infobox hurricane}}, {{infobox hurricane small}}, {{infobox hurricane current}} and their derivatives link to this page to clarify the intensity information in the infoboxes. It is also cataloged as {{High-Importance}} by the WikiProject.
  2. The article had a very productive peer review, linked above, and is generally regarded as being of high quality. Finishing touches can be given in this page.
  3. Most importantly, nominating this article before the end of the year forces Hurricanehink to work on another hurricane article...

For all these reasons, I'm submitting this article for your consideration. As for my opinion, it is support, as nominator. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with some comments. Since both the criticism and history sections are rather short, perhaps they should be merged? Also, since a reputable source gave reasons why it does not exist, perhaps Category 6 should be a sub-section of categories. "There is no such category on this scale, and any mention of a Category 6 tropical cyclone is fictitious or incorrect." - This sentence feels a bit out of place, also. One last question I've been thinking of; the storm description says that Category 1 hurricanes usually cause no real damage, but then it lists a few notable hurricanes of the category. Perhaps a sentence saying that Category 1 hurricanes can cause flooding or tornado damage? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that because the lack of a Category 6 can be construed as criticism, it perhaps could be merged with that section. I'll correct the Cat1 description. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good idea, that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it's okay! --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no comparison to other existing or historical scales, and all the sections are fairly short. History section is particularly stubby and has little about the report the scale was first published in, for instance. --Coredesat 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's outside the scope of the article; that article is Tropical cyclone scales. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, some comparative info with a see also link would not hurt. --Coredesat 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason the scales article was created was to get out all the non-hurricane information out of the SSHS article, and to leave all comparisons to the table on the scales article to avoid duplication of information. So, adding non-SSHS information is something that I'm rather hesitant to do. What do you think should be added, in particular? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, did this scale influence the development of other scales? If so, that should be mentioned. A little more history in general would also not hurt; how did the public react to the introduction of the scale? Are there any sources that detail this? Have any changes been made over the years? --Coredesat 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry to butt in here, but as I do agree, there are also things that are needed. I agree with Coredesat in that it needs more history of the scale. Aside from that, I think it is a very good article. :) Juliancolton (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The history section seems to suggest that it developed in a near-vacuum and when created was adopted by everyone instantly. How did the original form of the hurricane disaster potential scale differ from the latest version of the SSHS? When did the NHC, WMO, other nations and the public begin using the scale? Detailed comparison to other scales is not needed but there should be some info there. Beaufort scale says "Today, hurricanes are sometimes described as Beaufort scale 12 through 16, very roughly related to the standard Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale where Category 1 is equivalent to Beaufort 12." That is unsourced and weaselly, but if true should be included in SSHS. The Australians developed their own scale based on gusts as opposed to sustained winds. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does use it for some purposes (its included in best track). Did they examine and reject SSHS first and if so why? What, if any, attempts have there been to introduce SSHS (or its 10-min version) at the global scale or in other regions? There are variants to the scale, not just the disputable value of the "category 6". For instance, what about Category 0? In addition, its not really clear which is the defining property in the categories subsection; and the 1-min to 10-min conversion should be mentioned. The category 6 section needs renaming or moved to a subsection of criticism; in its current form the TOC is unbalanced.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should tropical storm category be included? Juliancolton (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written article. I certainly like the 3rd reason. Hope it passes.Mitch32contribs 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is kinda the reason it was put on FAC to start with...I think. Juliancolton (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I completely agree with Nilfanion and Coredesat. An FA should be expected to give a history of its topic with some detail.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -- I archived the peer review, per SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)'s request. The Criticism section has some sentences which are a bit too long, overuse of commas. These sentences could be split up into shorter sentences instead. Are there no lists for Categories 1, 2 and 3 like there are for 4 and 5 ? I agree that the History section could be expanded a bit more. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment If nothing else, it should be the "Saffir–Simpson scale", not the "Saffir-Simpson scale". I note that WP:DASH now says that en-dashes should be used in the title of the page where appropriate. Bluap (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you suggest this is an endash (which indicates range) rather than a hyphenated word? I don't see that; suggest asking Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Wikipedia:DASH#En dashes, 2nd bullet. It's a disjunction between two independent things (Saffir and Simpson). HTH Carre (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I believe it's one thing, and thus does not need the endash. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a scientific theory is named after two separate people, then it is normal to use an en-dash. The example given in WP:DASH is "Michelson–Morley experiment". Without an en-dash, it implies that the scale is named after a single person with a hyphenated name. Bluap (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title needs hyphen, not en dash. It's not a relationship between disjunct things, and is neither a range nor a movement from one to the other. Tony (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony - does that mean, in your opinion, the MOS (linked by me above) needs updating? Certainly the example Bluap gives, "Michelson–Morley experiment", seems to correspond well with this example. An experiment named after Messrs Michelson & Morley, versus a scale named after Messrs Saffir & Simpson. I have no strong opinion either way, but the MOS, as it stands, seems to contradict what you've said here. Course, that could be both me and Bluap misreading MOS, but if so that would imply tighter wording over there would be useful. This FAC isn't really the place to discuss, anyway. Carre (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps best addressed after the holidays at the MOS talk page; I suspect a lot of editors will be offline over the next few days, so I'm not going to be closing any close calls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd - I read the history section, and I have to agree that it's a little thin, and gives the impression (and Nilf says above) that it was developed in a vacuum. I'm hesitant to promote it just yet. Could you please expand this section a bit? Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tito has not edited since the 13th - do you think you could keep it open? --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of making allowances over the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a copy-edit by someone unfamiliar with the text. Please don't just correct these samples. Otherwise, it has merit.

  • You might consider not cluttering the opening sentence with "words as words" quotes, since both are highlighted by being linked. Ah, but I see it works with the last sentence of the lead—no one will complain if you remove all four pairs, but it's up to you. Why aren't the last two linked as well?
  • Pullease, not "in order to"—just "to".
  • "are intended primarily for use in measuring the"—this should be two words "to measure".
  • Causality a logical problem: "The classifications are intended primarily for use in measuring the potential damage and flooding a hurricane will cause upon landfall, although they have been criticized as being too simple." "Although" means there's a contradiction: there isn't.
  • Box: MOS breach—there must be a space after the ≥ and the >.
  • "defines sustained winds by average winds over a period of one minute"—verbose and wrong preposition. "defines sustained winds as average winds over a minute". Tony (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd still hasn't edited since December 13; closing the review. The FAC can be reinitiated if Tito returns to editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:49, 27 December 2007.

List of works by William Monahan edit

check links

Self-nomination I passed the article on screenwriter William Monahan through FAC early this year (2007) and have since worked on producing a list of his works. The article is heavily annotated and failed recently at WP:FLC because it resembled too much an article. I didn't want to remove the chunks of prose because it really helps to explain the list so I've submitted it here (now). I really just need more opinions on what to do here (had peer review here). Thanks and I hope you enjoy the read.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Has no one heard of an annotated bibliography? That's what this is. It is most definitely a list. There is actually a genre of scholarship like this - whole books are published like this. I'm really very concerned that this was failed at FLC simply because the reviewers seem unaware that this is a legitimate way to organize and explain a bibliography. Awadewit | talk 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually told to annotate the bibliography by someone back in May at FLC which I was happy to do. The annotations are all descriptive and non-evaluative so this should be the proper form of annotated bibliography for Wikipedia. Though I don't know if I should have the reception for the journalism in 1995 at New York Press hidden behind a hide button or not.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess an annotated bibliography could be considered a hybrid of an article and a list. Until more of these show up at Wikipedia, probably here at FAC is the best place for it. Either way FLC is not having this sort of list at the moment, considering it was not promoted for the sole reason that it came off as an article to them. I'm just looking for a barnstar and the prestige that an article gains with one.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - I can see why this would be shot-down at FLC, but the reverse of those arguments are something I can also see happening here at FAC. I'm not quite sure where this belongs, but it definitely is well-written, comprehensive, and well-cited. Accordingly, barring any comments by the FAC director or his deputy about the appropriateness of this nomination, I support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBK004 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is far and away the best list of works I have seen on Wikipedia. It is carefully sourced, it is comprehensive as far as I am aware (and I know that the editor has been working diligently to compile this list), and it provides the reader with a context for the list that makes it very useful. I can see no better model for a featured list of works. Since FLC saw fit to quash it, we should definitely feature it. I have just a few minor fixes to recommend:
  • "List of works of William Monahan" needs to be in lead. Currently "William Monahan" is bolded, but of course, the article is not about him.
  • In my opinion, the "classical ink-stained wretch" quote box is ill-placed. I would just remove it - it is cluttering up the page.
  • Done. It's a great quote but I guess it doesn't really belong.
  • Are there page numbers for The New York Press? I'm assuming no.
  • There are. But I didn't think to note that at the time. Going back through photocopies it's only possible to figure out a few of the page numbers. It wouldn't be hard to find the articles within the newspaper, but it would be good information to have available in the list; it tells you whether or not the article was a cover story. I'm not going to list only some of the page numbers, so maybe I should just add a note to those articles that were cover stories (p.1) as I've done with noting certain kinds of columns?
  • It is just standard information to have in a bibliographical listing. I would include it. Awadewit | talk 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will include a TODO on the LoW's talk page stating: "A second independent pass of New York Press issues from 1994 to 2001 is needed, possibly using a different collection other than the NYPL's stash of New York Press issues which are not entirely complete and improving the listings by including page numbers for all articles."-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan's first cover story of the year, titled "The Angel Factory", attacked the Catholic Church for exceeding its charter and emboldening aggressive anti-abortion activists such as John Salvi, the convicted murderer who carried out two fatal attacks on two abortion clinics in Massachusetts. - What year? Since this is a new section, best to tell the reader.
  • Done.
  • Note a - there is some sort of template that converts inches to centimeters that I think we are supposed to use in situations like this. It shows both measurements.
  • Done. I rounded 11-3/8 to 11.4 inches.
  • Notes c, e - These need a date to indicate when this information was acquired. Equivalent of "Retrieved" for a website.
  • Done.
  • Footnote 2 has the last name of the author first and other notes have the first name first (I was going to fix it, but you have used templates and I didn't want to mess things up.)
  • Fixed.
  • Not all Lexis-Nexis footnotes have "Retrieved" dates - either include such dates in all or delete from all (not strictly necessary if the original publication information is included).
  • Fixed. I just removed them.

Let me reiterate again what a stunning piece of work this is. Well done. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully one day someone publishes a collection of Monahan's journalism or a New Yorker-styled DVD is purchasable with all the NYPress issues available. It's too much work for someone with a passing interest in some of Monahan's articles to have to visit a city. Thanks for the copyedits and review.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article should be retitled "Works by William Monahan" to indicate that it should not be considered a list. I base this on the difference between articles titled "List of characters in..." and "Characters of...", both of which are used in the titles of certain Featured Lists and Featured Articles. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only at Wikipedia is this not considered a list. It's an annotated bibliography and belongs at WP:FLC although a lot of other people do believe this belongs here at FAC. Look at it this way: You can't remove the list component of this article, but you can remove the prose component. Neither of these removals should happen but that proves it's a list at its core. So I should probably go back to WP:FLC and make that process broaden its horizons to allow the list of works by William Monahan?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this could be considered at either FLC or FAC. I would personally recommend taking this back to FLC; I've seen a few lists removed for having too much prose, but these situations are typically where the list is really an independent article and list on one page (e.g., if Boston Marathon and List of winners of the Boston Marathon were on the same page), whereas in this case the prose and list are inseparable. However, if it remains at FAC it should be renamed for consistency purposes. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be named to best reflect what is in it - a list of works. I also think this should be nominated at FLC, but they just rejected it, so it is here - we must now deal with it. It is important that good work be recognized on wikipedia - editors should not be hounded from one bureaucratic process to another, as poor BillDeanCarter has repeatedly been (and not just over this list). This must really end. This is an excellent list of works that meets the qualifications for an annotated bibliography (I explain all of this above in my vote). I see no reason why it should not be featured. Awadewit | talk 08:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:49, 27 December 2007.

Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series edit

Nominating this article for FA status after the acquiring of more out-of-universe sources during the writing of Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, which recently achieved FA status. I feel that it qualifies under the featured article criteria, and I will endeavor to answer any and all questions, comments, and concerns. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I am impressed you were able to find all this information for this one Castlevania game, great addition to the Featured Article roles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure, just looking at the "Reception" section, most of the information is on the plot and not the actual characters. If we removed all the information on plot alone on this section, how much info would be on the actual characters? I know there's a close link between the two, but what is there could go in the main article, (reception only) if you know what I mean. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reviews, any comments on the characters are inevitably tied to the plot. Since the characters ultimately create, compose, and define the plot, it's relevant. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. Characters help define the plot, but in reverse order it doesn't really do anything for the characters in this way. This factor shouldn't be used as an excuse to write a "Reception" section on characters with more detail on the plot. My point is that you haven't included much reception on the actual characters at all; this section doesn't really lend anything to the subject of the article. I know that you probably can't find that info, but it seems as if this section is pretty bare, but has just been beefed up with information from the plot to make it look as if there's substance. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Quite frankly, I'm very impressed by how this article turned out as a result of others' work, as opposed to how the page was when I first created it a ways back. The aspects of the page I personally like are the Character Conception and Reception sections, and how the character list is divided between Recurring, AoS, and DoS sections. There's plenty of references, but not an overload of them, and I think it's great how half the references are from official sources and the other half in-game text citations. Another big plus in my books is the image setup; it's a great satisfaction of Wikipedia Fair Use to have one primary image that effectively showcases every character in the subseries, with the one character not showcased getting his own image later on. This is better than one portrait for every single character section. The only thing about the article I'm not too sure about is the See Also section, with just one bulleted link to the other Castlevania page and the Video games Portal link as its only content. While to me that seems a little awkwardly constructed, maybe I'm simply wrong and that See Also sections are part of the actual recommended structure that Featured Articles generally have. Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added links to the Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow pages, as they're both linked only once in the initial sentence, and are relevant. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As well as what I've said above, you use the same references consecutively, which is a no-no (I think). Another major problem is that besides the first section and the highly-dubious "Reception" section, it's written in an in-universe style. Seriously, all the character sections mention the plot only. Sorry, the article initially looks decent, but digging a little deeper presents greater problems. I'm not even convinced about the notability of this article. Sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with using the same references consecutively, notably when the relevant references are interviews, and the subject addressed is only mentioned in single interviews. As for the in-universe content, it follows WP:WAF, and frankly is supposed to be present. It describes the placement of the characters in the plot, their actions, and how they feature in the game. It's no different from the in-universe content in Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, and other similar character lists. There is little to none out-of-universe content there aside from their playability in the game simply because it doesn't exist. If it did, it would be there. In any case, the article would not be comprehensive if such in-universe information was not included, and again, is similar to the aforementioned character lists. As for the article's notability, its placement is fine per WP:FICT, which provides for the treatment of characters in a major list instead of their own articles, many of whom were originally merged into this list. As for the reception, you seem to dismiss the entire section based on two statements that were focused on the plot. Practically every other line concentrates on the characters, and as I mentioned before, their relevance and importance to the plot, as inexorably every review does so. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're taking notice now there's an "oppose". Sorry, but the article's superficial in the sense that I've menioned. For the "reception", it seems that you've quoted any small, generic reference to these characters, but mainly, the plot. I've never questioned that in-universe material is supposed to be present, but the whole prose for every character is written in an in-universe style, barring a fwe statements. No mention of each character's impact or any other info? It just seems that the out-of-universe info that you have found is very generic, leaving the individual characters with nothing. Also, just because the information doesn't exist shouldn't mean that we exempt the article from FA standards. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me for not being omniscient of all edits and not having other things to do. <_< Anyhow, when the reviews in question spend a paragraph or two talking about the characters, then the reception does not become superficial. As for the lack of out-of-universe information in the individual character sections, the fact that it does not exist does not disqualify the article from ever satisfying the "comprehensiveness" FA requirement. If the article is comprehensive in the scope that is allowed to it, and the article itself is notable, then it satisfies the said requirement. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, so you don't keep a watch on this page? <_< Since when did being comprehensiveness ever be the only thing needed for FA? It fails on the MoS since the majority of it is written in an in-universe style. The reviewers probably do talk about the characters, but what's the point when the individual characters don't get anything from it. I don't know much about these articles, but its out-of-universe info is surviving on some very generic comments and one or two developer interviews. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Looking at the article closer, I suppose some of the writing isn't up to par (is it really necessary to have half the sections make mention of one little scene of romantic tension at the end?). I'm not exactly a veteran FA reviewer, which is why I didn't really think of that earlier. ^^; So I should make clear my thoughts on why I think the page exists in the first place; If these were characters appearing in one single game, then what we would do is simply cover the characters in that game's article and be done with that. In the reality, however, these characters have been featured in two distinctive games, both rather high-profile compared to your typical handheld games, and I know that the differences in art style in between games was a major subject of debate everywhere, in publications and Internet sites alike. That seems to allow for the creating and maintenance of a character list that can at least remain GA... Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 08:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean; look at this in Mina's section: "She appears at the end of the game, and shares a tender moment with Soma." What? Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll start working on the prose. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images for every character were removed over fair use concerns. The single image contains every character except Graham, and is much better than each individual image. This isn't really a valid oppose. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotional art does not adequately capture the nature of the video game characters being described. It could be a comic or cartoon for all those images tell us. Would I be correct in assuming that the given image never appears in the game?--Nydas(Talk) 17:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The characters look exactly how they do in the game. I wouldn't use it if it wasn't accurate. Whether it appears in the game or not is irrelevant given that it accurately depicts every single character in the article except one, and that it trumps using individual screenshots over fair use concerns. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which uses concept art, or Characters of Kingdom Hearts, which also uses promotional art that depicts practically every significant character in that series. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in-game characters look a bit more pixely, don't they? Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts both suffer from the same problem of using cool-looking promotional artwork rather than in-game graphics. Characters from a visual medium (video games) should be displayed as they appear in that medium, rather than in ancillary stuff. Otherwise, we're just misleading the reader.--Nydas(Talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not misleading the reader so long as the material is official. If I was a reader in any case, I would drastically prefer concept art over the polygon representation of Squall in Final Fantasy VIII or in this case, the promotional art over Soma's tiny in-game sprite or the portrait image here (which looks just like the promotional art in any case, making your point irrelevant). For multiple fair use images to be included instead of a single one, especially when that single image represents every character and is official material released by Konami, since they are not a "proper" representation of the characters is ridiculous. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official material is often misleading. Video game adverts are well known for being coy about actual gameplay footage; a Wikipedia article should not do this, no matter how much you think the reader would 'drastically prefer' this..--Nydas(Talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that you've apparently missed my point that the promotional art accurately depicts the characters. Per here, the appearance is accurate. Not to mention that this image is on the game's cover anyhow. Your argument that we're misleading the reader is beginning to sound more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than anything else. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that a similar discussion has taken place at the KH Characters FA Nomination. The WP:FACR does not stipulate what type of images should be used for what type of articles. Character artwork is certainly appropriate to depict characters. Given that this article is about multiple characters from two games on two handheld systems, screenshots aren't always suitable since they normally feature very few characters. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • A single screenshot is essential to give the readers an idea of what the characters actually look like in-game. There's no need to have multiple characters, just one of the protagonist is sufficient.--Nydas(Talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that having one image of practically every single character gives the readers a much better understanding of the article beyond a single image of the protagonist, regardless of the medium that they are portrayed through. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a false dilemma. You can have both. Or at least, you can try.--Nydas(Talk) 10:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nydas, you're not giving a good reason for adding images in this article. Even though you think it's pretty, it's against fair use policy. Thus, you can't use images as an excuse for voting "Oppose". The Prince (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. I have never advocated 'pretty' as a reason. I advocate a screenshot for reasons of completeness and neutrality.--Nydas(Talk) 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't really see the big deal behind the promotional art vs. screenshots issue. However, I do think that the fair use concerns are overwrought. The art style is clearly relevant here, and moreover, having the images in two pictures or many is wholly irrelevant to the amount of copyrighted material actually used. As an extreme example, combining 10 images into one gallery picture doesn't reduce the true amount of copyrighted material used at all (though that isn't what happened here, as this is a good picture in its own right in the lead).
So. I would be in favor of adding (restoring?) more images to the article, though I see this as an editorial and style concern rather than a policy issue. The problem is that someone not familiar with the games is not necessarily going to be able to figure out who's who in the opening picture. Soma, Genya, and Mina are identified in the caption, but figuring out who's who among the others would require a bit of detective work. Individual images to distinguish, say, Dario from Dimitrii would be quite useful and add to the article. My two cents, though I wouldn't rest an FA oppose to it. SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the full list of characters in that image is mentioned in the image summary at Image:CharactersDawnofSorrow.jpg. I simply felt it was a little too long to clump all of it in the image summary in the article, though I will if you find it prudent. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did a copy edit of the article and I feel the article meets the Featured article criteria. A bit of tidying up in the character sections and further tweaking in the "Reception" sections to address the comments about the plot reception. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - per Nydas' comments, an image illustrating Soma's in-game appearance in both games has been added. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except every character is written in an in-universe style. Please, can we at least exercise discussion about this major factor? Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can absolutely talk about it. I feel that we may have different definitions of in-universe style. While the character sections obviously contain in-universe content, like the character's role in the plot, that info is needed to describe the characters. Right now I don't see how it is written in an in-universe style. In-universe style normally reads like a story instead of an article. Other than the "romantic moment" part, which as been addressed in the article, are their specific parts you are referring to? Something we may have missed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Firstly, let me state that I don't object to this information, just that there is nothing besides this information on the character sections. There is no out-of-universe info. As for the style, here's an example: "Julius accomplished this feat, as in 1999, he was part of a group that was able to kill Dracula and prevent him from reincarnating by sealing his castle within a solar eclipse.[19] However, he lost his memory after this incident, only remembering that his name started with "J," and searched for clues to his identity.[20] He comes to Dracula's castle in 2035, drawn by the prophecy stating that Dracula's reincarnation will receive all of his powers. He encounters Soma Cruz, and Soma's dark power awakens Julius' memories". I hope I haven't taken this out of context, but there's no clear distinguishment that these represent a timeline in the fictional universe. A readermay believe that "1999" is referring to a game that he appeared in this game. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like you're saying the intro to each character should begin differently; with info less related to plot to better frame the content for the reader. Is that correct? (Guyinblack25 talk 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
...kind of. It's a great idea, but I was referring more to the content in general. Another example: "One year later in Dawn of Sorrow". This is like a conflict of universes, because it mentions the game by its name (out-of-universe), yet follows the chronlogical timeline within the series. Yet again, the reader may assume that DoS was released a year after the other game. Overall, it seems most is written in an out-of-universe style (with exceptions); however, let's not forget that there's no out-of-universe information in these sections as well. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tidied up a bit. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose—1a. Here are examples of why the entire text needs a good massage.
    • Opening sentence is a huge snake. Recast into two sentences, or at least allow us a pause at a semicolon.
    • "Aftereffects" is not one word.
    • "Lead" is on the periodic table (Pb).
    • "Both games", please.
    • "sold over 158,000 units in the United States three months after its release"—what about between its release and three months after?
    • "release" vs "initial release"—are they different?

Then I looked below the lead and saw "Due to the game being set in the future", which is grammatically clumsy.

This is not written to the required professional standard. Please find collaborators who can lift it. Tony (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The prose is quite lacking in places, and is often more tortuous than it ought to be. Needs a thorough copy-edit to make this FA standard. Unfortunately, the issues are not limited to simple, small grammar mistakes that are easily fixed. Take, for example, the "Character conception" section, which by itself has numerous problems:
    • "Her drawings are made in a dark, gothic style, and borrow...". Why the sudden switch to present tense? "made in a...style" is more wordy than it needs to be. A more succinct and stronger version is: "Her dark, gothic drawings borrow..."
    • "The placing of the game in the future was a decision made by producer Koji Igarashi, who asserted that he wished to explore a "different route" for the series by using a futuristic setting." Again, way too many words for this rather simple idea; makes this sentence rather clumsy. Passive voice is weak. Try something along the lines of, "Producer Koji Igarashi decided to set the game in the future because he wished to explore a "different route" for the series". Clean and efficient.
    • "As the game is set in the future, Kojima's designs are notably more contemporary, utilizing modern clothing, in contrast to the medieval attire that characters from previous games are featured with." We were just told the game is set in the future, so there's no need to repeat that information. The last part of that sentence is quite awkward. How are characters "featured with" attire?
    • The two uses of "character designs" so close to each other is a bit repetitive.
    • "In favor of her style of drawings, the characters were drawn in an anime style." What? To what does "in favor of her style" refer? Misplaced modifier suggests that the characters were in favor of her style.
    • "This character would be a manager in a Japanese firm and have a family as well, a character type Igarashi referred to as a "general Japanese worker."" "And" and "as well" mean the same thing. Second clause can be combined: "This charachter, which Igarashi referred to..."
  • Sometimes, the in-game descriptions assume a certain level of familiarity with a game, which is not very friendly to readers unfamiliar with the game. For example, the article describes Julius Belmont as "sealing his castle within a solar eclipse" without any explanation or clarification for that confusing image. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:55, 23 December 2007.

Liverpool F.C. edit

previous FAC

After the last FAC there has been a thorough revision of the article and I now feel it is ready to be considered for FA status NapHit (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose several key reasons jump out.
as per WP:MOS, there are inconsistencies between the use of numerals or words for numbers. I've seen eighteen, fifteen and sixty-eight. Yet also 39, 96 and 19. Even a 3 has crept in. I'd simply opt for one to nine, (and maybe ten) then 11 onwards in numerals. But certainly have a consistent cut-off point at any rate.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some poor sentences, e.g. However, Liverpool have never won the Intercontinental Cup nor the FIFA Club World Cup as of yet despite all the European Cups with many instances involving refusal to take part. as of yet is redundant and the rest of the sentence doesn't appear to make sense.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say done, but can you go through and check the rest of the article. I only gave that example as one example and a very poor one. Not that you had to delete the entire sentence unless you thought it best to. Peanut4 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
problems with WP:POV, like unreferenced sentence their greatest achievement was an FA Cup final appearance in 1996
I cannot find this sentence in the article
In the Liverpool Ladies F.C. section. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistencies with dates, e.g. 20s and 30s, yet also 1960s, etc.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistencies with capped words. Is it double or Double?
 Done
inconsistencies of date format between date first and month first.
a few examples would be helpful
There's too many to list individually. I would pick an option either 16 December 2007 or December 16 2007 and go through and make sure they're all the same. Whether this is also maintained into the references section, I'm not sure, a more-experienced editor than myself may help out here. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
problems with British English. Equalizer should be equaliser.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the first line of the history section. I presume Everton played at Anfield but it doesn't say so.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The colours section says all red. Is it really all red and nothing but red? Maybe I'm being finnicky here, sorry if so.
Apart from the sponsors livery it is all red so you probably are being finnicky NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good don't get me wrong, very good in parts, just needs a lot of brushing up. Peanut4 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment

  • Oppose: The article is not neutral since it does not significantly mention acts of hooliganism that has taken place in matches involving Liverpool F.C.
    • Two web-links are not functioning as per links checker. This needs to be corrected
    • History section is too big, can it be broken down in smaller sections/sub-sections for better reading
      •  Done shortened it quite a lot
    • Section 6 contains only 2 lines, making the section very small. This section needs to be expanded or the contents have to be merged to any other section.
      •  Done removed the section
    • The article needs to be thoroughly copy-edited for punctuations and other prose issues. As an example I can see "In 1891 John Houlding", "In 1962, his", "In 1985 Kenny Dalglish", "In 1964, then" showing an inconsistent use of comma following the year number.
      •  Done
    • Some sentences start with a numerical figure like "14 of their fans", can they be re-written. As per WP:MOSNUM, sentences starting with a number have to be avoided.
      •  Done
    • Can the article throw some more light on football hooliganism surrounding Liverpool F.C. Hooliganism results in loss of life/property and are major incidents and hence they have to be covered in the article. Some of these that I could find are here, here and here.
Apart from Heysel there is not really much more that is relevant to talk about so I will leave it as it is
I don't think Heysel captures the entire gamut of hooliganism surrounding Liverpool F.C. There is sufficient material available from the web to write an entire section surrounding it. We can't write a mushy, mushy article on Liverpool F.C. and its successes, without significantly mentioning the darker side of it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be clearer on what you're suggesting should be included that particularly characterises Liverpool F.C. and its supporters? Are we now going to trawl google and include every mention of every incident of some fans misbehaving in every football club article? Because that would mean including a new section on hooliganism on every club article. There is an article on football hooliganism for more general coverage of this. I agree with naphit that the specific issues which are notable for a general overview of the topic of Liverpool F.C. are the events at heysel and the subsequent ban. This has been included. Robotforaday (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That there is sufficient coverage on Liverpool F.C. and related hooliganism in various forms of media is a good enough reason for it to be included in the article. While it is foolish to include all such incidents, sufficient article space must be devoted to it. This article is being pitched for an FA. Hence, it is imperative that it includes comprehensive information related to the Liverpool F. C. Specifically, I would like to see more incidents of hooliganism mentioned and what has been the outcome and the club's response to that. Some of the things that I could find were: "Liverpool fans were responsible for many train wrecks in the 1960s", the Michael Shields affair, Three Liverpool fans convicted and serving four-month jail sentences in France, Liverpool fans arrested for FA cup violence, Liverpool supporters accused of stealing tickets from children and causing a catalogue of trouble in Europe by a report compiled on behalf of Uefa. The Heysel incident too has been mentioned in the article as more of an accident rather than an act of hooliganism. That also needs to be corrected. I would say any article on an English football club is incomplete without significantly mentioning associated acts of hooliganism. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think an agenda is being pushed here; something that's not relevant to the nomination. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only agenda I am seeing here is that people are trying to brush the issue of hooliganism under the carpet. That the article does not even contain the word hooligan (something which is frequently associated with Liverpool) is ample testimony to the fact. I have provided so many citations above related to it but still it is being ignored. May I remind you that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a fan site on Liverpool F.C. Rather than speculating about my intentions, why don't the editors be practical and come up with explanations on why it is irrelevant to write about the long history of hooliganism that Liverpool is associated with. Since User:ArtVandelay13 has questioned the relevancy of this to the nomination, I would like to clarify that the article as it stands today violates 1b and 1d of the featured article criteria. Fails 1b (Comprehensive - does not address hooliganism) and 1d (Neutral - for the same reason) -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google searching does not good research make. The key question here is, given an article of finite length, how we should decide what is relevant and what is not relevant for an article which is meant to cover over a hundred and ten years of a football clubs existance. I absolutely refute the idea that the article is imbalanced, given that the major tragedies of the 1980s and their consequences are well covered both in the lead and in the history section. I don't think that any article which deals with those incidents can be described as "mushy" in any sense. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further that you have provided here is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, although some may argue that the "Michael Shields affair", as you call it, is, although I personally feel that would be gross recentism. Robotforaday (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you here. According to WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All sources that I have mentioned are from reputable sources and significantly covered and hence notable. When the article can include speculative sentences like "Local folklore claimed that the fans in the Kop could "suck the ball into the goal" if Liverpool were playing towards that end — and in most games, Liverpool play the second half towards the Kop.", I see no reason why the article cannot devote space to talk about the bigger issue of hooliganism -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If interpreted literally as applying to what should be included in this article (rather than being worthy of note elsewhere, but not necessarily in this article) that guideline would imply that this article should mention every transfer in and out of Liverpool, every match, and, yes, every incident of crime in or around stadiums where Liverpool F.C. were playing. Robotforaday (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) You still have not answered my question, let me re-iterate "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". You convince me on that and I am outta here. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if this is a sticking point for FA then a Supporters section could be created like other articles that optionally covers the following - the City (and sometimes families) being segregated into Red vs Blue, the 'liverpool for life' ethos of some fans, supporters trust's and associations if any, charitable work, worldwide fanbase, mention of controversies that appear to paint the fans as hooligans and any refutations, such as the sun's front page about hillsborough and the UEFA claim of 'worst fans in europe' (and it's refutation by platini), banning orders and crime statistics from the home office, liverpool fc's policy on ejection/banning of anti-social supporters and a couple of examples of violence between supporter groups. By no means do i think that any of this is necessary, just trying to come up with a compromise that doesn't involve creating an enormous section on hooliganism (may take some work tho). (BTW, see this for an article that gives way to much weight to this topic). Nanonic (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The major event related to hooliganism in Liverpool's history is Heysel. The article already mentions Heysel, and not in softly-softly terms. With the possible exception of Michael Shields, the other incidents mentioned above are either minor or refuted. In the annual police statistics about football-related arrests, the figures for Liverpool are nothing out of the ordinary ([www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/football-arrests-0506?view=Binary see this UK Home Office pdf for an example]) Generally speaking, when it comes to hooliganism, myths and exaggerated stories frequently outnumber facts, the infamous Sun story being a particularly notorious example; quite a few books on hooliganism would probably be more appropriate inclusions for the fiction section than the non-fiction. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets look at it from the view of a layman reader who encounters this article and is interested in it. He/she sees this Heysel incident being mentioned and this being a significant event, the reader would be interested to know if this is a one-off incident or has there been a history of such hooliganism incidents related to Liverpool F. C. Also, of interest would be the club's response to such incidents and what steps has the club taken to prevent a recurrence of such events. This info is lacking in the article. While a section can be written on this, the minimum that is required is atleast a paragraph covering this. Hooliganism is no joke, else it sounds foolish to see Merseyside police working alongside Rome's police to prevent hooliganism in a match involving AS Roma and Liverpool. The reluctance of the editors to even touch this topic is baffling. It is easy to come up with cliches like "Google searching does not good research make.", which makes me wonder whether the 30-odd web citations that exist in the article just appeared out of magic, huh... Editors of the Swindon Town F.C. article have done a good job in writing a detailed section on this topic. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making assumptions about Liverpool F.C. based upon hearsay, which you are then backing up with google searches. I could do the same about any stereotype. You are clearly pushing an agenda. Robotforaday (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is not me who is talking of it. It is the sources that I am pointing out to you. Why dont you talk about them? So, you feel BBC and Telegraph and all others are trying to push some unseen agenda against Liverpool F.C. I have assumed good faith till now but I have had enough. So this is the last time I am hearing this agenda stuff from you, next time it will be a WP:NPA warning on your talk page. You still have not answered my question "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". Since that is the basic point of these argument, request you to keep your responses limited to the question and keep aside the speculation of any agenda from my end. BTW, when did reliable sources from the web become classified as hearsay. Many of the citations in the Liverpool F.C. article are from websites, are they hearsay as well?. If that is the case, why are they existing in the article? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you seem unable to understand is that the article, in order to be balanced, cannot include every reference to Liverpool F.C. which appears on the web. A google search for "Liverpool F.C." gives me 3,510,000 hits. Very few of those are of a level of significance to appear in this article, as it is an overview of the topic. You therefore have to select those things of most significance; hence things like European cup victories, League Championships and Heysel are referred to. Charity Shield victories, transfers, and individual arrests are not; not because they are not significant per se, but because they are not significant enough to be mentioned in a general overview. My belief (and it is simply that) is that you have assumed that Liverpool has a particular hooligan problem, and you have done google searches to back up your assertions. (You have clearly misunderstood my point about hearsay - I think your assumption that hooliganism is an issue is based on hearsay, and that you have google searched for individual incidents in order to back up that hearsay.) That is your prerogative, however, I am pointing out we need to have stricter criteria of significance for inclusion on this article than simply "I saw this somewhere on the web; don't you think it should be included?". Yes, web citations are used in this article, but the crucial point is that not everything on the web pertaining to Liverpool F.C. can be included. Rest assured that if someone was insisting that the history section mention every time Liverpool have won the European Super Cup (and somebody has done this in the past) I would say that they are being ridiculous then as well. As for whether or not you are pushing an agenda, you can stick whatever you want on my talk page, I'm a grown-up and I can take it. I simply don't like people pushing stereotypes of any sort. Robotforaday (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problems (as I see it) come in a few different forms, firstly the use of the word "hooliganism" is a very emotionally charged word that implies pre-meditated violence and proving that such a culture exists around any club without objective sources isn't easy. Violence between fans in English football itself is nothing new, usually in heat of the moment exchanges pre and post match. It can be (and has been) argued in the wider football community that the elements of "supporters" who actively arrange and engage in pre-meditated fights is slim compared to the overall fanbase of a club, therefore it is seen by some that the labelling of a club as having problems or an association with hooliganism is therefore painting all fans as such. Each act of violence draws its own wide press attention for being notable, and yes none should be ignored when considering what to add, but on inclusion; a balance must be struck in the article between both "good" supporters and "bad" supporters to avoid accusations of bias. In a lot of cases the acts themselves are few and far between, but when they do happen they get a fair amount of press. In some cases it is another club that commits the acts of violence such as in the BBC story you linked above about Liverpool vs AS Roma, should this appear in the Liverpool article because some of the clubs fans were stabbed or in the AS Roma article as club-related hooliganism? It is also widely perceived amongst football fans that some hooligan "firms" exist purely for violence and their attachment to the club is only a means to achieve this, the comment oft quoted is that they are not "true fans" of a particular club and tarnish the image of a club by association with it. Do we include groups and acts that are in some cases only tangentially associated with a club in an article? And lastly the latest arrest statistics don't seem to point to any problems with "hooliganism" per se, of the 78 arrests of Liverpool fans made during the 2005-06 premier league season - 51 were related to non-violent acts (mainly alcohol related offences), 16 were for public disorder, 4 for violent disorder, 1 for vandalism, 2 for carrying offensive weapons and 1 was for racist chanting (with 3 miscellaneous). That's only 78 arrests in 38 games with an average attendance of 44,000 per game (approx 1,672,000 supporters). It all really boils down to is there a significant hooliganism culture associated with the club? and if there is can it be presented in a balanced way that doesn't over weigh the article? Nanonic (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • The current tenants Everton F.C. refused to meet his demands and moved to Goodison Park.[1] Everton F.C. moved to Goodison Park after a seven year tenancy. - ugly prose, needs tightening up.
    • Liverpool won their first Football League championship in 1901, and were champions again in 1906 - use season format and wikify, please.
    • Image:Kop_ynwa_banner.jpg is not licenced by the original creator under a GFDL-compatible licence.
    • Over the next 15 years he [Shankly] transformed Liverpool into one of the top club sides in Europe. - WP:PEACOCK - no disrespect to Shankly or his achievements, but he never won a European Cup and this casts doubt on that statement.
      •  Done - removed without any real loss to the article Robotforaday (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourteen of their fans received convictions for involuntary manslaughter. - citation needed for completeness' sake.
      •  Done, although it's just a repetition of the citation earlier in that paragraph. Robotforaday (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ninety-Four fans died that day - use numerals
    • Final two paragraphs of the History section cover just three and a half years, which is too recentist - this should be reduced to be in proportion with the rest of the section.
    • Image:Liverpool Champions League.jpg is not GFDL-compatible and not, in my view a unique picture - I find it hard to believe, for such a recent event, that it is not possible to find a good quality fans' photo of that night that can be licenced as such.
    • Notable players - as notability is quite subjective, I would scratch this section entirely in line with other club FAs such as Arsenal F.C. and Chelsea F.C. and replace either with a list of players of the year or nothing at all.
      • May I please make a plea for this section (expressing my interest as the creator of it a year ago). The reason I added it was precisely because the subjectivity made a list untenable, as people were adding and removing people from the list arbitrarily. The prose section is well sourced and has remained largely stable (save for some peer-review based improvements). Each individual added has a particular sourced claim for inclusion, and I believe it reads better and is more managable than a simple list, while removing it entirely would mean only the loss of useful and referenced imformation about key individuals in the club's history. Robotforaday (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local folklore claimed that the fans in the Kop could "suck the ball into the goal" if Liverpool were playing towards that end - uncitable, should be removed.
    • Image:Anfield The Kop 2005-01-15.JPG is just about OK but I bet a better freely-licenced photo of the Kop could be found.
    • Under Rafael Benítez, Liverpool FC has gained a Spanish influence... - this entire paragraph is spurious, Liverpool are not a Spanish club in any real sense nor is their any evidence that the Spanish staff have had an influence on the club's (or their supporters') culture.
    • Liverpool's victory on November 6, 2007 against Beşiktaş JK in the Champions League is the record win in the competition. The 8–0 is the biggest winning margin ever achieved in the Champions League. - unnecessary repetition
  • On the whole though, it is a good article and generally well sourced. The pose just needs a little tightening and resolution of image copyrights required. Qwghlm (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - unless I'm being very thick, this sentence in one the references is just plain wrong: "They have won more Football League titles, European Cups, UEFA Cups, League Cups and European Super Cups than any other English team, equalling the amount won by every other English club put together." Adding up the total number of times that Liverpool have won those five trophies does not come to the same figure as the total won by all other English clubs, because, for starters, clubs other than Liverpool have won over 100 Football League titles. Am I misreading what it's meant to say, or is it just wrong/poorly written......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hooliganism facts do not directly regard a football club history. What a football club does is to play games and possibly win trophies; in my opinion, notable hooliganism events should not deserve more than a short and quick citation in a paragraph about supporters. --Angelo (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Article is massively recentist. About 30% of the history in about the 20th century. Also the list of notable players is also massively recentist. Yes Gerrard and Owen are very well known, but I'm sure that Liverpool produced better players than Carragher who are not included. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't quite understand your objection here (especially the second sentence), could you please explain a little more, so I can think about taking steps to resolve the issue? Robotforaday (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also in teh club culture part, there is an unsourced paragraph and a one sentence paragraph.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose: look at it-wiki. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
    • I like the Italian wiki article, BUT there are many aspects to it which would clearly be objected to in a En-wiki FA nomination; it is quite recentist, there are NPOV issues, especially in the section headings, and it has very few citations. Having said that, I do like it! So could you please elaborate; what is it that you see in that article which is missing here? Robotforaday (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -No references in intro -still in need of a thorough copyedit. As pointed out above several of the statements are misleading and not written from neutral viewpoint. Potentially an FA with a bit of work though but a long way to go yet. Keep at it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is something which interests me. We USED to have a fully sourced lead for this article, but someone removed all of the citations, citing WP:LEAD, which seemed reasonable. So should leads be fully cited even when everything in the lead will be cited later? Could someone please clarify this, as the previous editor was clearly acting in good faith. Robotforaday (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a seperate point, could you please clarify what exactly you feel it is which is not written from a neutral viewpoint in the current version of the article? Robotforaday (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citations from the lead, because all of them were sourced later in the aticle, and based on WP:LEAD it is pointless to repeat the sources, and there is not any controversial topics in the lead' NapHit (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:17, 22 December 2007.

Gregory House edit

previous FAC

This is article seems to furfill the FA requirements. It went through a peer review and is also a GA. Nergaal (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: While in my humble opinion the article measures up to GA criteria, I'd like to see more meaningful/reliable sources in the character biography section (or any other for that matter) that doesn't refer to other Wikipedia articles. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any specific examples in mind? Nergaal (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure what may look like using other Wikipedia articles as references is actually referring to the TV episode (No. 5, Season 2, e.g.). They're just linked because we have articles on them. That being said, some of the references should be fleshed out more. Just having a URL or a link is certainly not enough info. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, you simultaneously nominated two FACs (Oxygen below); have you read the instructions at WP:FAC regarding multiple noms? "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Would you like to withdraw Oxygen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:39, 22 December 2007.

Tila Tequila edit

An article about the most friended person on MySpace. A versatile singer, actress, and model. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm concerned that we don't have consensus on name usage yet per the talk page. Benjiboi 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I don't think this article is quite ready for featured status yet. It looks like a very large number of the references are to Tila Tequila's own Web sites. In order for our sources to be reliable, they need to be written by somebody independent of Tila. (It's quite possible that she doesn't always tell the complete truth about her life, for example.) She's been written about by newspapers and magazines that have good records with the facts, so it won't be impossible to find better sources. Once you've found the sources, you'll want to review Wikipedia:Citing sources to make sure they are formatted correctly. Then you'll also want to look over Wikipedia:Lead section to get an idea on how to start the article off. You'll want to include more information about her rise to fame and how she used MySpace to accomplish that. Also, a lot has been written about Tila Tequila's place in popular culture (she's a celebrity who could never have become famous 20 years ago), and it'd be great to have a section that talks about what critics have said about her. You'll also definitely want to work out a consensus on the talk page about her name. I think you're off to a good start, but still have some work to do (seems like that's always the case at Wikipedia, doesn't it?) Good luck! --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the point of having a quality article is to blend in the critisism seamlessly so it sounds neutral? --wL<speak·check> 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: there isn't the bibliography, fundamental object for a FA+too short article. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
  • Strong oppose, as the article is currently in an naming conflict that has an WP:RFC, and there are too many first-party sources. The lead section does not summarize the article as it should. --wL<speak·check> 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not be simultaneously listed at WP:PR and WP:FAC; please choose. You can close and archive the peer review, or ask that this FAC be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask that this FAC be withdrawn, then. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with it, Lady Galazy. Please wait for the bot to update the article talk page, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:22, 21 December 2007.

North American Free Trade Agreement edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all the criteria. If not, please state why? Thanks. Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Multiple citation needed tags, external link farm, refs aren't formatted correctly and the lead is too short. Also it is not comprehensive - all sections need to be much more thorough. --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: like Peter. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the external link farm? And I can remove the citations needed tags :) --Obsolete.fax (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Some references are malformed (refs 5,6 missing dates and publishers) and there is a lack of consistency to the formatting.
    • Far too many external links. - check through the criteria on WP:EL
    • Unreferenced sections, some tagged as citation needed. The "Chapter 19", "Mexico and the United States", "Trade", "Industry" sections in particular are under or un-referenced.
    • NPOV - much of the "Criticism and controversies" section does not read as neutral.
    • The lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article per the WP:LEAD guidlines.
    • A image of trade before/after would be good. I would expect that there are US government Public-Domain charts/images available.
    • per the style manual headings should not start with "The"
    • There are weasel words and terms in the article that should not be there. "Some have", "Most agree" ,"Trade has increased dramatically" etc... - please read through Avoiding weasel terms

- Peripitus (Talk) 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Not ready for an FA. I agree with the comments given above. The article should be peer-reviewed and may be tried for GA, before a push to FA -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Lead section sucks and there are many unreferenced paragraphs and short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. Why do people always nominate horrible articles like this for FA? --Kaypoh (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I wasn't going to bother piling on, but seeing as Sandy is waiting for a stronger consensus. References are not filled out properly etc. and per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:22, 21 December 2007.

Here I Am (Eve album) edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I mean come on it has literally a hundred plus references!!! SoapTime (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I do not believe that this is a serious nomination as it was made by a brand new user with a history of disruptive edits who had just added tens of empty references to the article. [1] nancy (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose! - too short. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 08:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Contains uncited content, several red links, chaotic referencing (e.g. footnotes containing non-described URLs). JFW | T@lk 09:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball oppose Album isn't out until January 2008, so cannot even be nominated yet due to instability issues. My objection is per 1b, 1e, 2a and 2b of the FA criteria. This FAC needs archiving, or (the better option) deleting by an administrator. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per LuciferMorgan. Even if the nomination was serious, this article is currently nothing more than a track listing. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Lucifer Morgan. The request for deletion makes little sense to me however.--Keerllston 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose A hundred plus references? I think you fail primary school Maths. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose HAHAHAHAHA.....you're kidding right? I agree with instability issues, and as for what you claimed the article to have, I checked one of the previous revisions of it and I saw the so called "hundred plus references" which mainly consisted of #'s. Who are you tring to fool over here? As for the article, IT'S CRAP; it looks like the the work of many of those unsigned users who always fuck up the articles that are in good condition. "One of the best articles on Wikipedia"...I mean, seriously? In any way, it fails all of the criteria, period. (SUDUSER)85 06:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Choppy, poor prose. Could I remind reviewers that "too short" is not a valid oppose. Please consult the FA Criteria. Tony (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:57, 20 December 2007.

Name of Turkey edit

Support: This article grew from a partially developed stub into a full-blown study on the historical development of Turkish nationhood. Please actually read the article to give your final judgment. If it is not yet a candidate for this week, it will be, from the way it is being developed. Wish it the best of luck. Bestlyriccollection (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Inconsistent formatting, numerous {{stub section}}s, virtually no references, and is even currently ranked a stub. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Almost no references, a few short sections. Not even a GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Faaaar away from FA status. Sorry ...--Yannismarou (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Very very far from FA even GA, this article is stub or start class. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bad writing, rename "Etymology of Turkey", doesn't even have reference/citation section and has 2 citations - lack of verification, Bizarre organization.--Keerllston 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this a proper nomination? I claim negligence on the part of the nominator in that he did not ensure it met FACr. - in fact he seems to know "it is not yet a [serious] candidate for [FA status] this week" - making it intentional negligence of duty. Dost the holy directorship wish to prefer that this not happen?--Keerllston 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think what you're looking for is peer review. They can help you develop this article so it can reach FA status eventually.-Wafulz (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object I wasn't going to bother, but since Sandy just did the latest round of closures without shutting this one down I might as well make the consensus stronger. No refs, no MOS, wikilinks etc.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually at least four days is allowed, but this was listed at PR today as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Lack of referencing and structure would make me rank the current article start-class (ie not even B, let alone GA or FA). Arnoutf (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:58, 20 December 2007.

Harrow School edit

previous FAC

I've recently done a major reorganisation and rewrite of this article by introducing footnotes and removing trivial information. All information and statements are now verified, the article is of decent size and is easy to read, and where appropriate is supplemented by appropriate images. However I don't think I've formatted the access dates on the footnotes correctly, could somebody please re-format them for me, because I don't know how to --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - agree with nomination, verified statements, concise, well-written article --Brent Ward (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a very good article with sourced statements, well-written prose and pictures to add to the comprehensive and overall encyclopedic tone of an already well written article Brendan44 • (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Brendan44 and Brent Ward appear to be same user. They both came here to support the FAC after last editing on September 5. Also, Brent Ward's boyfriend is Hadseys. It strongly looks like there was canvassing involved. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object - Article is not comprehensive, article fails 1a, eg see the newspaper section. Refs are not formatted properly and basically all of the refs are self-sourced and are not RS. The slang section is very unencyclopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree if ever you were a pupil at Harrow you'd know that the jargon is what sets its apart from other schools
  • Oppose - References need proper formatting ({{cite web}} style is recommended), and need be sourced to reliable sources, not the school's website. This page contains a few good suggestions, as will examples in this category. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also this FAC's talk page for a large number of automated suggestions. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Major referencing, verifiability and reliable sources issues in the article. Please find other sources, and use the {{cite web}} template as Dihydrogen Monoxide suggested. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You need to find more sources, not just the school website. The article is not comprehensive. Don't put "Harrow" in the section names. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't want to pile-on an oppose, but I strongly (if not very humbly) recommend you read User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you guys give me a couple of weeks I'll try and get some references for the article, thanks, sometimes though the school's website is the only source for such information --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Poor article. Not comprehensive. Harrow School has a lot of printed references / sources available. The further reading is only the tip of the iceberg. Check out a library. Check out the books in the library. There is no reason to rely on the school's website for such a well known school. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as it stands now has about 1200 words excluding the table and lead. Personally, I think an article on Harrow School should be about 3000 words. The school is about 500 years old. It has many notable alumni. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than insulting my hard work why dont you suggest how to make it larger and more comprehensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to be combative. You have had several good suggestions on how to improve the article, and here is another: withdraw your nomination, take a few weeks to do some proper research (beginning with the literature that is listed on the article), go over various style guidelines -- especially MOS for citations, and then try for GAC and/or a Peer Review. That way you will be ready for FAC next time. For now, with the poor state that the article is in at the moment, I will have to oppose along with the majority. It just does not fulfill the FA requirements, I'm afraid. María (habla conmigo) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't being combative i was just noting that he provided criticism and no suggestions for improvement at all, hardly helpful given that i put a lot of work into the article. I'm only 17 after all, i'm doing my best. I'm currently collating resources from my local library, but they have to come from the british library so i withdraw the nomination for now --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Green Wing Special edit

This article is currently a GA, and I now believe it to be of FA status. I have put the article through a peer review, and tried to impliment which recommendations were most useful for this article. I have tried to model the style of the article on some of The Simpsons FA episode articles, and I believe that this article is now the correct standard. ISD (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Several comments:

  • "the" before dates is redundant.
  • Surely "Britain" should be the United Kingdom?
  • Is The British Sitcom Guide a reliable source? Wider input from other reviewers welcomed.
  • Timing of comments on the "Green Wing Special" DVD would be welcome (as it's easier to verify the facts then). I think {{cite video}} can handle this.
  • I can see plenty of one sentence (i.e. one or two line) paragraphs throughout the article. These need expansion or merging.
  • With the "Alternative ending" section, I don't think you need those subsections. Merging it into one or two paras should be enough.
  • The "Production" section's {{main}} should be "For further information" (per WP:SS, as "Production" is not a summary section).
  • "While this is good for a Channel 4 programme" is a little POV; I don't think you need to include it.
  • The main issue with this article is prose; it's a little unclear and awkward. A random sample:
  • "Whilst" is a little archiac; "while" should suffice.
  • "Mac returns to work, after a month's leave". Comma is not needed.
  • "Caroline confronts Mac about not wanting marry her". to marry surely. There's also a repeated "the" or two throughout.
  • "Soon, they have to go to a garage, to get the van checked for faults". Both commas are unnecessary.
  • "The exterior scenes are however more notable and were harder to shoot." How can a scene be "more notable"?
  • I'll be watching this page for updates. CloudNine (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repsonse to Oppose: I've tried to impliment the changes you asked for. I need to go through the DVD to check the times, but I can do that soon enough. I'll double check the prose of the article as well. As far as the British Sitcom Guide is a reliable source, as it is the website that gives Green Wing the most coverage, having a large section on the site about the sitcom, and also having newsletters. I'll try and have a look for other reviews as well. ISD (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued response: I've added the DVD times, tried to improve the prose of the article, merged paragraphs and added more reviews. As far as I've been able to find out, the British Sitcom Guide appears to have the only complete plot overview of the episode (at least as a reliable source), so I would claim that this source is the most reliable. ISD (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with Comments -- Overall, well-written and sourced. Use <ref name=""></ref> to consolidate duplicate citations in the References section. Also, the DVD release section is too short, it could be merged back into the Reception section, or better yet, into the Production section. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Response to Comment: I've moved the DVD section into "Production". By the way, most of the references which I think you are refering to are not repeated. If you are refering to references made to the DVD, they each refer to a different time in the DVD. ISD (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, quite thorough of you, I had not noticed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit- prose still sounds awkward in places, and there are mistakes (missing words etc.). Try the League of Copyeditors Lurker (said · done) 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Oppose: I've put it forward to the LoCE. ISD (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Alice in Chains edit

check links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a current good article, and it has come a long way since I started working on it. I started working on it about a month ago, and it is considerably larger and has about 45 more citations.
Thank you,
Skeeker [Talk] 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection - hmmm... mainly copy-editing concerns?
    " In fact, the band took six attempts at "Sludge Factory" " please remove "in fact"
    "Staley spiraled deeper into depression" I'm guessing the source is not his clinical psychologist?
    " At the concert they performed their own songs, "Would?" (with Pantera/Down vocalist Phil Anselmo) and "Rooster" (with William DuVall and Ann Wilson)" - could the parenthesis be done away with in favor of nicer formatting? - something like "Would" with the participation of Phil Anselmo from Pantera and Down, if this information is not really relevant/notable obviously it shouldn't be in the article in the first place.
    "The band plan to release their first studio album since the 1995 album Alice in Chains, by the end of 2008." -bad grammar -the bandmembers plan, the band plans.
    Didn't they get notable bad reviews ever? - seems comprehensibility and NPOV are both at play here.
    please don't cut my comment into pieces - respond in a paragraph of your own. - might I suggest using Friendly Notices to get more reviews for this candidateship?
    --Keerllston 09:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approval - The article is considerably more informative than it used to be. "Staley spiraled into deeper depression" - this is a fact!!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he was having problems; they got progressively worse as the band's career went on and his heroin addiction grew more out of control.

Dark Executioner (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

  • Fact? - was he clinically diagnosed? otherwise it's not fact - and I asked if the source was his clinical psychologist - it can be said that he said and that others said that he was depressed, but not that he was depressed unless it's properly verified - as in- by a psychologist--Keerllston 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that he WAS officially diagnosed. Somebody with more time than myself should Google it. But yes, I agree that there could be a lot more descriptions about the albums. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
Maybe "google news" might be useful to find some breaking news story about the first discovery or confession of said condition if such did happen?--Keerllston 01:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I have too many concerns with this article to endorse it: Not a fan of the band's logo being included in the infobox; its a non-free image that has not been critically addressed in the article. The article isn't nearly comprehensive enough: The musical style section isa mess, maybe a song sample that is critically assessed will give the reader a better idea about what their music is about. Also, each section in the history section could be expanded - more should be included each album, including musical style and critical response. Not too sure about some of the sources: the bit about the "lost" AIC album seems iffy. Also, one of the sources is to a torrent site to download Dirt!! The discography section, with the chart positions etc, should be in the main discography article. A section about musicians (apart from Godsmack) influenced by the band is completely missing. The prose could do with a copy-edit but first comprehensiveness issues need to be addressed - Surely a band that was so influential in the alternative metal category would have been talked about a lot in the media. Tommy Stardust (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. A number of issues (I've provided the relevant criteria for each objection):
  • Lead doesn't summarise all aspects of the article. For example, there's no information on the band's members or musical style. (2a)
  • Not everyone knows who the RIAA are, so expand the acronym and link to the appropriate article. You may not even need to mention the organisation in the first place. (2)
  • The first paragraph of the "Styles and influences" section features quite a few grammatical errors. One example is "such as; Godsmack, and Staind", where a colon should be used in place of a semi-colon. To add to that, the second and third paragraphs are virtually all quotes. In short, the prose just isn't engaging in this section. (1)
Please let me know when you've addressed these issues, and I'll be happy to rereview. CloudNine (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I will close this FAC (once I find out how). I didn't really see how much I still needed, I thought since the Godsmack FAC is going so well that this would be good, but I kind of sliped thinking these guys have twice the history of Smack. I am going to add to the article and then try this again.
Thank you,
Skeeker [Talk] 05:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeker, if you would like to withdraw the FAC, just say so here or leave a note on my talk page, and I will archive it correctly. Please be sure to see WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way this could be put on hold? I am currently working on it by section in my sandbox. If anyone would like to coach me on my talkpage that would be awesome.
Thank you,
Skeeker [Talk] 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With consensus so far indicating the article isn't FA ready, a new nomination when it is ready would be more practical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Wal-Mart edit

previous FAC 1 | 2

Article promoted to WP:GA on April 20, 2007. Has recently underwent a copyedit by the League of Copyeditors in October, cleaning up many grammatical issues and other areas. I think at the time it's well-referenced and well-written, and should meet the featured article criteria. Article was once the target of a major edit war about two years ago, but this has pretty much subsided into the ancient history of wikipedia by now; it is very stable, other than minor cases of anonymous IP vandalism. Dr. Cash 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I find the very first sentence somewhat peculiar. Fortune 500 doesn't say anything about the company being one of the worlds largest companies - only that it is the largest American company. For all we know there might be a thousand larger companies in the rest of the world. Wouldn't it make more sense to either say it is the largest American company or use another source?--Peter Andersen 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point out a company that has a higher revenue or more employees than Wal-Mart?
Peter Isotalo 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Aramco comes to mind!--Peter Andersen 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortune magazine has two lists, a regular Fortune 500, as well as a Fortune Global 500 list, the latter of which covers the largest 500 corporations in the world by revenue. I've updated the reference in the article. Dr. Cash 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the sentence so that it clearly states that it is the largest public corporation in the world, which is what the Fortune Global 500 actually says. For the record I will also say that it worries me that it is apparently so hard to get such a simple fact correct - Is the rest of the article as sloppy with the facts?!--Peter Andersen 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • In 2002, Wal-Mart was listed for the first time on the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest corporations - does this mean it was listed first for the first time? Surely it was on the list before 2002... just not in the #1 ranking. --W.marsh 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence amended to more clearly state that Wal-Mart was listed at #1 (america's largest corporation). The list is the domestic fortune 500 list, not the global one. "In 2002, Wal-Mart was listed for the first time as America's largest corporation on the Fortune 500 list, with revenues of $219.8 billion and profits of $6.7 billion." Dr. Cash 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently no mention of the common criticism of Wal*Mart about moving into towns and quickly putting most of the small, local shops out of business. Not a criticism I agree with for the record, but it was an important early part of Walmart criticism that still survives to some extent. I think it's notable enough for a mention.
This is actually covered in pretty excruciating detail in the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. But I've also added some details on this to this article now. It seems to fit best in the 'history' section, near where we're talking about the company's rapid growth. I've also added two more descriptive subsections to the history section to help separate some of this information a bit better for clarity. Dr. Cash 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writing is just not very good... I know this is not actionable, but I'm usually the last person to complain about an article needing a copy edit. There seem to be a lot of sentences in the passive voice, with all kinds of weird phrases and fragments... they just make for a very cumbersome read. From the intro: "It is also the largest toy seller in the U.S., with an estimated 45% of the retail toy business, having surpassed Toys "R" Us in the late 1990s." also... with... having... all of these phrases just seem awkward to me. There's gotta be more direct way to say a lot of this stuff. I dunno. I'd support if someone copy edits this into easier readability. I know comments like this suck... sorry. --W.marsh 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed mention of Toys R Us from the sentence you mentioned in the lead. For one, the sentence was rather awkward, and I don't think it's necessary in the lead; it is mentioned in the history section, specifically when it surpassed Toys R Us. I'll go through the article looking for other things to fix, but I'm not sure exactly what to look for. The article has undergone a pretty thorough copy edit by the LoCE, as well as others, fixing a lot of the grammar. Since I've been one of the primary editors on this article, I'm not sure if I'd be the best to spot some of these awkward sentences, since they may not be awkward to me, but I'll do my best. If you can provide some other examples to help, that would be appreciated. Dr. Cash 06:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over the entire article, copyediting again. This time, I was mainly looking at some of these sentence structure and passive voice issues that you refer to. Hopefully, the article is a better and easier read now. Dr. Cash 05:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support my concerns seem to have been addressed. Weak support because I haven't read the entire article since the recent edits, just looked at the diffs. --W.marsh 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as it minimally meets criteria. The prose aren't quite brilliant throughout but are serviceable. It's a shame to see that the business model section isn't better developed and that the article hardly mentions Wal*Mart's recent doldrums expressed by spotty financial performance from 2005 to present. And what about the company's many retail innovations? Barely a peep about them in the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection [organization] Why is Criticism not in it's own section? there is praise of wal-mart as well - for being a part of the US's cause for growth by standardizing, distributing, at a lower price meaning to a larger audience, etcetera.--Keerllston 13:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism section, or more specifically, a section entitled 'criticism', was removed from the article several months ago in favor of following the guidelines under WP:CRITICISM (e.g. criticism sections are discouraged). Specific criticisms are integrated into other areas of the article, mostly under 'employee and labor relations', as well as in great detail in Criticism of Wal-Mart. Adding a 'praise' section would not be a good idea, as (a) it would very likely violate WP:NPOV, and (b) would almost certainly incite a flame war that you probably don't want to see. Plus, there's already plenty of "praise" in the article as it is (mainly read the history section, specifically under 'recent initiatives). Dr. Cash 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:criticism is not policy - I don't think it should be either - You can put it under "public opinion" or whatever you want if you dislike the heading name "criticism".--Keerllston 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it isn't policy, but see what the Manual of Style has to say in the section on article structure:
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. (Manual of Style)
"Criticism" sections are usually not the best way to structure an article. Majoreditor 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Response to bureocraticness that doesn't address concerns--Keerllston 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]No no no.... public opinion of wikipedia is not controversial information. Many people love it and many people don't. the MOS is talking about something completely and utterly different - having a section called "controversial".--Keerllston 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

  • Comment There is nothing in the lead that says what Wal-Mart stores are, fundamentally. I see "public corporation" and "utility or commercial employer"; it is alluded to as a "grocery retailer," but that's only part of their business; and we know they are a "toy seller." I think you need something along the lines of "Wal-Mart is an American public corporation that runs a chain of large, discount department stores..." Dylan 15:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could do with some tightening up. In the lead, it's easy to find things like this at the top:
    • "The company has been very successful with operations in South America and China, but sold its retail operations in South Korea and Germany in 2006 due to sustained losses and a highly competitive market." Make it:
    • "The company's operations in South America and China are highly successful, but it sold its retail operations in South Korea and Germany in 2006 due to sustained losses in highly competitive markets."
    • Lead: no hyphen after "-ly"—see MOS.
    • Subset terms doubled up: "Specific criticisms include the company's extensive foreign product sourcing, low rates of employee health insurance enrollment, resistance to union representation, and alleged sexism, among other things."
    • but called it "Walton's Five and Dime."—No, see MOS on punctuation in Quotations.
    • "a market price of $47"—was is exactly $47.00? The surrounding values are to one decimal point. Might be OK, but it does raise the question of precision (could be anywhere between $46.50 and $47.49).
Source #8 (the wal-mart timeline web page) just states $47, with no cents, and no extra precision. Dr. Cash 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone further, but this suggests that a thorough run-through is required. This nomination might finally be ready for promotion then. Please don't correct just these issues. Bring on board someone new. Tony (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tony was right about the need for a prose tightening-up. It seemed that "about" was never used when the monstrosity "approximately" could be used instead; and I changed the hilarious "a more affluent demographic" to "richer people" (which is all that it means, though I suspect that "people willing to spend more money" would be more accurate). And there was a lot of other stuff too. I've gone through it and fixed what I could (and incidentally stuck in a fair number of VAGUE and DUBIOUS tags and hidden comments on these) but somebody with a healthy disrespect for corporatespeak should print it out and go through it with a red pen. Not that the prose is bad; in fact it's excellent by Wikipedia standards. Morenoodles 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that "richer people" is any more accurate than what was there previously. One thing that I've always thought retailing articles lacked in general were more information on their target demographics, since it's a major part when considering where a unit gets built. "Affluent" usually refers to the middle-upper class, although I need to see the source to find out the context it is used in. Tuxide 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tuxide on the "richer people" issue. "A more affluent demographic" is just simply better and more professional writing; "richer people" might be acceptable in a fifth grade essay,... Dr. Cash 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a chamber of commerce, so let's call a shovel a shovel. So what does "A more affluent demographic" actually mean? To me, it means "richer people". I could be wrong; persuade me that it means something else. It has nine syllables; "richer people" (if this does mean the same) has three: if "professional writing" is paid for by the syllable, then yes of course "A more affluent demographic" wins hands down. But to me it stinks of press-release-speak, designed to impress rather than to inform. WP isn't professional but instead amateur and sometimes the better for this. Morenoodles (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with just "middle-upper class" (and I know I'm making an assumption over context) since it's a demographics we're talking about? My argument against "richer people" is that it's way too ambiguous. Tuxide (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the term "middle-upper class". If it means "upper or middle class," then I'd guess plain "middle class" would be OK as the Maybach-driving classes would be unlikely to bother with Wal-Mart (though they might send their servants there). Morenoodles (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Upper-middle class", whatever it's called. See American middle class#The professional/managerial middle class; basically when I read "a more affluent demographic", to me it means the type of people Target Corporation goes after. Tuxide (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still keen for the oddness to be ironed out. First things I happened on a minute ago were:
    • "By 2000, H. Lee Scott became President"—"By"? Like, 1999? 1998?
    • Remove "In fact", particularly at the start of a sentence.
    • "both positive and negative effects" twice in a paragraph.
    • Unresolved "vague" tag.

So that was in one section. Suggests that there are 20–30 glitches still to clear up. Tony (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - There is no mention whatsoever of Wal-Mart's numerous anti-trust and anti-competitive lawsuits and criticism regarding anti-competitive behavior (merely a paragraph about how Wal-mart is sometimes seen as a threat to mom-and-pop stores). Although I don't expect an exhaustive section devoted to this (per WP:Undue weight), it needs to at least be mentioned in order to meet the comprehensiveness criteria for featured articles. There are numerous paragraphs on these issues (predatory pricing, manipulating suppliers through monopoly power, etc) in Criticism of Wal-Mart. Surely it is significant enough to at least warrant mentioning in the main article. For example, the Wal-Mart article mentions that Wal-Mart withdrew from Germany in 2006, but mentions nothing about the fact that Wal-mart lost a major anti-competitive practices lawsuit there in 2003 and was forced to change their pricing policies because of it (likely a significant reason for their withdrawal from Germany). Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What anti-trust and anti-competitive lawsuits and criticism regarding anti-competitive behavior?--Obsolete.fax (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Start of the history section could do with a little more context, like who Sam Walton was and his background. (i.e. Sam Walton, a businessman from ... "). CloudNine (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that this is nearly there, but still requires a thorough run-through by a good copy-editor. I took a sample in "Incorporation and growth".
    • Also begins a paragraph. No, that defies the very reason for starting a new para. Consider merging with the previous para (and the subsequent parastub); this would be on the long side, but I can't see how else to clean up the structure.
    • While we're on my hobby-horse, also, can you weed out the redundant instances throughout? The para starting "During the 1980s" has one redundant example and one necessary.
    • small-town shops—hyphen easier for our readers.
    • Logical punctuation after "locates"—see MOS on quotations. Tony (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: previous comment's concerns not addressed--Keerllston 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The specteculare failure to get a share of German market in 8 years which is due to the only 19 shops and the bad press due to the lost law suits because of: the contracts which forbide relationships with coworkers , the hotline for workers to denounce coworkers if thea where not following the rules News from the Tagesschau should be covered in more than two sentences.--Stone (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just reading a few sections shows some obvious issues (not commenting on the comprehensiveness nor POV as I lack the knowledge base). I think that there are far too many copyediting issues at the moment and the reliance on web-references is worrying.
    • The "Incorporation and growth" section has five sucessive paragraphs starting "in <year>" or similar. There are poor phrases there like "Also in 1988", . Many sentences begin "in <year>" and this section reads like a dot-point list with the dots removed
    • For such a widely written about corporation, only two non-web references seem to be used.... according to google books there are over 300 on the subject. With web-only references it is hard to see how the article is not afflicted by recentism.
    • lots of bits of redundancy in the article
      • fifteen-member Board of Directors, which is elected annually by shareholders
      • Other members of the board include -> The board comprises (either this or "The board includes"). I've done a nose count and the entire 15-member board seems to be covered
      • Notable former members of the board -> Notable former board members
      • Unlike many other retailers,
      • Instead, they focus on selling more popular products and often pressure store managers to drop unpopular products in favor of more popular ones, as well as asking manufacturers to supply more popular products.... four populars, vague qualifier like "much", lots of repetitiveness/redundancy ?
    Try something like "They focus on selling popular products, pressuring store managers to drop unpopular ones". The bit about manufacturers does not add anything to the sentence
    • A factual/style issue - "In 2006, Wal-Mart was number 67 of the 100 largest corporations in terms of profitability (profits divided by total revenue), behind retailers Home Depot, Dell, and Target, and ahead of Costco and Kroger." Is this worldwide or just the US that they are 67th ? Surely "the 67th largest corporation" is better than "number 67 of the 100 largest corporations"
-Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Parâkramabâhu I edit

previous FAC, peer review I, peer review II.

Failed initial FA nomination mainly due to manual of style issues. Extensive suggestions in the first peer review have been corrected, it has undergone major copy editing and the few suggestions from the second peer review have been incorporated. I believe the article now satisfies all featured article criteria. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the previous FAC does not indicate the candidacy failed for manual of style issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I made that assumption since most users opposed the previous nom due to the peer review not been complete, where most issues were related to WP:MoS, and User:AndyZ indicated he opposed "mostly due to WP:WIAFA 1(a) and 2)". In any case, I think all the issues brought up at both peer reviews have been resolved. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Most of the claims already have been addressed and I see no further reasons to held back this this excellent article from being a FA.Iwazaki 会話。討論 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't reviewed the article in its entirety yet, but a quick overview on it looked promising, and well written. The images need some more attention. Royal palce and Image:Polonnaruwa samudra images are split across different sections. Also certain images have bigger size than the remaining. See if you can make them consistent. More later.. - KNM Talk 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All the images no longer have the size attribute set, and it'll depend on user preference. Also images no longer break across sections and I moved some of them to more appropriate sections.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well written, but needs some work. For instance,
1)the Table of content is too long. So, some sub-sections can be merged. Example: The birth, childhood and coronation can all be in one section, perhaps with the type of formating that does not enlarge the TOC.
 Done TOC is now considerably shorter, with only the major sub-sections of the article appearing in it.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2)The images should be in their default sizes to accomodate easy viewing in all browsers.
 Done Size attribute has been removed from all the images. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3)There are multiple paragraphs in quotations. While they are cited well, can one more more of this be converted into simple prose?
 Done I removed the which contained descriptions of happenings only and converted them to text. I however left two direct quotations, one from Parakramabahu to his generals and the other from the King of Bagan to Sri Lanka envoys, as they directly indicate the feelings of the two individuals. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More later......Dineshkannambadi 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will do some copy edits as I go through the article. This will help in fully screening the article. If I inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence, feel free to revert.Dineshkannambadi 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions should be as short as possible and no more than 3-4 lines.Dineshkannambadi 19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Captions significantly shortened, leaving important info in place. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a King great is fine. But including the term "great" in his name can be controversial, unless significant number of scholars use that terminology.Dineshkannambadi 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is known in Sinhalese as "Maha Parakramabahu (which translated means "Parakramabahu the Great") kind of like Richard the Lion Heat or Ivan the Terrible. Most Sinhalese literature refers to him as "Maha Parakramabau, not "Parakramabahu I" (example chapter XI of Paranavitana's History of Ceylon is titled "Civil War and the Emergence of Parakramabahu the Great"). I cited that in the intro. It's not really saying he was great, it's just a name he is known by. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of the term "maha" is very common in Indian history as well. Inscriptions and Literatures written as eulogy of kings often used the term "maha". For instance the 1158 inscription of Bijjala II which called him Mahabhuja Parakramashali which literally means in Kannada language "King with great arms and valour", just as an example. Very often, kings have been even compared to gods, such as the comparison of King Ranadheera Kanteerava Narasaraja Wodeyar of the Kingdom of Mysore by his court poet Govinda Vaidya in the writing Narasaraja Kanteerava Vijayam, or the comparison of king Durvinita to Yudhishtira and Manu in the Nallala grant etc. However this high eulogy is best left to the literatures and inscriptions and not brought into encyclopedia material. However it is okay to write a few sentences indicating that such and such inscription or literature called him "Parakramabahu the Great". This is very acceptable and encyclopediaic. This is also what I have done in various FA's. Just my opinion.Dineshkannambadi 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I agree that simply because ancient literature uses such terms they should not be used in the article. I don't believe the article text explicitly call him "great", the only place the word is used is in the intro where his Sinhalese name "Maha Parakramabahu" is translated to English. So I unbolded the translation and bolded the Sinhalese name. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Youth" section, please clarify in brackets what is Kalinga and Arya.Dineshkannambadi 15:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It's mentioned in a previous section,
Furthermore all three were the descendants of Vijayabahu's sister, and thus had a strong claim to the throne; they are referred to in the Culavamsa as the Arya branch of the royal dynasty, whilst Vikramabâhu I is of the Kalinga branch.
so I changed the text to clarify that "Kalinga" and "Arya" are two branches of the royal family. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few issues:
1) The article is almost entirely sourced to the Culavamsa, which is not considered entirely reliable or credible. See, for example, Geiger's introduction to his translation of the Culavamsa, where he argues that the Dhammakitti's approach to history makes it at best a distorted source.
As such, I'm not sure the article in its present form quite meets criterion 1(c).
2) In addition, the Culavamsa is a primary source and, given that Wikipedia policy prefers secondary sources, I'm not sure it is appropriate for an FA to base itself so much on one single primary source. There are a few promising secondary sources in the footnotes - would it be possible to cite more of the article to them? -- Arvind 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Culavamsa is not a primary source, it was compiled using primary source (inscription etc.) around the 13th century and is backed up by other contemporary records. It is regarded (sadly other than by your usual quota of racists) as an authoritative source, and most Sri Lankan history is compiled through its accounts. Any other book you find will be based off the Culavamsa. Also, where the authors' of the Culavamsa's opinions are expressed, they are directly attributed as such (note the sections like "according to the Culavamsa ...") --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of the Culavamsa (it is a primary source for the same reason Herodotus' history of the war with Persia is a primary source). Is your only response to Geiger's criticism to call him a racist? Anyway, if you're not inclined to change the article, I'll leave it to the other editors here to be the judges as to whether it meets WP:FACR. -- Arvind 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geiger did not say anywhere that the Culavamsa was inaccurate. He pointed out that the opinions of the author may have bias in them, which is why such opinions are directly attributed to the author of the Culavamsa in the article. Also, all text in this article is cited from the first part of the Culavamsa, which was written around the 13th century. To quote Paranavitana on the matter,
"The historical facts of this part of the Culavamsa are repeatedly conformed by a large volume of epigraphical evidence found here (in Sri Lanka) and in South India, as well as by archeological evidence. The second and third part of the Culavamsa ... are of little historical value ...and fall short of the standards of the Mahavamsa and the first part of the Culavamsa."
Compare it to whatever you like, but all authorities on Sri Lankan history, from Codrington to de Silva to Paranavitana to Blaze use it as the main source for their accounts of this part of Sri Lankan history.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the passage from Geiger I was thinking of:
"Now if we look closely at the figure of Parakkamabahu as it meets us in the Culavamsa, especially at the period before he achieved universal sovereignty, we find ourselves faced by a series of contradictions and improbabilities. We are convinced that things did not happen historically in that way. Nor is it possible to form a harmonious and credible picture of the single acts attributed to the youthful Parakkama. The explanation lies in Dhammakitt's conception of the way in which his task was to be achieved. From literary sources, from what he had read he drew an ideal picture of an Indian king. The man whose glorification was his aim must correspond to this picture. He must have all the qualities belonging to an Indian king and employ all the methods of statecraft which political science prescribes or recommends. All these individual traits the compiler combines with the data furnished by tradition, without question as to the probability or improbability of these."
This is precisely why I am concerned about relying almost exclusively on the Culavamsa. That the history narrated in the section of the Culavamsa dealing with Parakramabahu's reign is based on fact isn't in dispute, nor is anyone saying that the author of the Culavamsa tried to distort history; the issue is that the manner in which the Culavamsa is presented doesn't quite give us a complete picture. Secondary sources which use the Culavamsa are able, as it were, to provide for these drawbacks by comparing its narrative against epigraphical and other evidence, and our knowledge of Sri Lankan history generally. Geiger himself does something of that sort through the footnotes to his translation. Which is why we should be basing the article on them, rather than on the Culavamsa. Is this really so difficult to do? -- Arvind 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. There are two maps that show the extent of the Chola Empire, the first from the time of around Raja Raja Chola, the next from the time of Kulotunga Chola. The second map conveys only part of the information that is required. While the alliance between Parakramabahu and Pandyas may have defeated the Cholas in Sri Lanka and driven them out of that region, the defeat of the Cholas to Western Chalukya Vikramaditya VI in battle of Vengi in 1093 and again in 1118, and again the defeat of the Cholas to the then Chalukya feudatory, the Hoysalas of Belur in 1114 expelled them from the Kannada speaking regions and Coastal Andhra. There was also a strong Sri Lanka - Chalukya alliance during the early 12th century when Viramaditya VI described the Island kingdom "a natural ally". Just some interesting information.
I will continue to read this article this week. So far looks good.Dineshkannambadi 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Well written and interesting reading. Just one more issue. There is no need to write "the Culavamsa mentions" when the citation itself references the Culavamsa. You could just write, It is mentioned, or written or known.Dineshkannambadi 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Death and legacy" section has its last sentence uncited and is currently has {{fact}} tag. The "See also" section just has two articles listed, and if those articles are already covered as part of the article content, this section can be removed. If not, more relevant articles, which are closely related to this article may need to be mentioned. - KNM Talk 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cited the requested quote. See also section contains articles about 2 kings of Sri Lanka who rival Parakramabahu in notability. They aren't mentioned in the article (because they ruled many years apart) so I think it's best if we leave the section. I'll try to find additional related articles to add to it. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The monarch's importance extends beyond Sri Lanka. It is well written, easy to read. I strongly support featuring this article.Bodhi dhana 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All the concerns I had brought up have been addressed. Well written, well referenced and informative. Meets FA criteria. - KNM Talk 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Objection per Arvind. While the article has been better dressed up, Arvind has made an exceptional point that the article is merely a 'container' of accounts of the contradictory Culavamsa. The accounts in the Culavamsa should not be taken literally and merely adds mythological significance. That alone is not a problem since there are articles on myths, but this article is a biography on a king and can't just rely on mythical accounts (historical propaganda) as its mains source. This fails FACs criteria and I think is poorly sourced, much like a school text book. Some of the disclaimer raised in Arvind's comments need to be dealt with, before I can change my mind. Sinhala freedom (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Arvind's point. Culavamsa is part of the Mahavamsa creation myth. I have nothing against myths, but this article is meant to be a biography not a myth. Sinhala freedom (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, cite that with reliable sources. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is written from propagandic material of Culavamsa. Culavamsa , like the Mahavamsa, are NOT RS. These are books are Mythological (like Sinhala Freedom says) and cannot be used as RS. These are the same books that say that a race evolved from "Lions" and that these ethnic people are of "Lion Blood". Watchdogb (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any RS that says that Culavamsa and Mahavamsa are RS and does not glorify a certain group of people? How about RS that says these are not Myth ? How about RS that says this is not Primary source? Watchdogb (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this article fails FA Criteria (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.. This article glorifies this particular person. The whole article reflects this persons image as god. Of course, according to Chaluvamsa and Mahavamsa, he was a grate King. This article is like writing about God using Religious text. Watchdogb (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already mentioned this, per Paranavitana,
"The historical facts of this part of the Culavamsa are repeatedly conformed by a large volume of epigraphical evidence found here (in Sri Lanka) and in South India, as well as by archeological evidence."
By the way, the last time I submitted this article to be Peer Reviewed, weren't you blocked by User:Blnguyen for trying to disrupt the article? Is this just a continuation? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only blocked unfairly by Blyguyn. Noting that Blynguyn claimed something that was offending the whole Tamil Race I am not too worried about his blocks. Also where did your quote for the reliability from ? As far as I see anything that says that any race of people evolved from the Lions (mated by human) there is nothing that makes it RS. Go ahead bring some RS that says that this is RS and not some citations from people like "Rohan gunaratna". Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This monarch has done great service to Sri Lanka in all areas including irrigation, agriculture and defense. It is interesting and valuable info, and anyone who reads it will enjoy and learn. I strongly support featuring this article. Supermod (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mahavamsa and Culavamsa are reliable historic documents, The original scriptures are in Pali, sometimes people have misinterpreted the mention of race evolved from Lions as actual Lions, rather it implies a race that evolved from "People who are as brave as Lions" , to elaborate more "Richard the Lion heart" does not mean king Richard had a Lions heart, rather it implies he was very brave, fierce etc (this is open to lot of interpretations again). Most of Sri Lanka's history is from these scriptures. And Professor Paranavithana's archaeological discoveries have further strengthened whatever said in these sources. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let make statements and intepretations as we want. Do you have reliable evidence indicate what you have said Sinhala freedom (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article reads well and is uncomplicated.. but some areas seem to require a couple of rounds of copyedit. Has the WP:League of copyeditors been requested to go through the article already? If not, I think it would be a good idea to bring them in for a quick makeover. Sarvagnya 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request was submitted to WP:LOCE. Seams they are pretty backlogged at the moment [2]. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be a good idea to harvardize the refs. For pointers about how to go about it, please check India article and do the needful.
  • Comment of the 96 citations 43 are Culavamsa - Large sections seem to have only Culavamsa as a source (OR?). Is this due to it being the only source available? Perhaps a better way to organize would be "according to culavambsa" and "according to archeologists"? Some note should be in the article about recent discoveries, scholarly activity, on who he was, etcetera.--Keerllston 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, how can Culvamsa-Mahavamsa (called the Mahavamsa) be considered a biographical source, when it defies modern science and claims people descended from lions. The Culvamsa section should perhaps say this is a mythical account of the king. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should read Primary sources for clarification regarding using Culavamsa this many times in a to be featured article Taprobanus (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A well-referenced, informative article. Its also unique, considering we do not have too much information on Sri Lanka.Bakaman 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well references with Primary sources, I might add Taprobanus (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We lack coverage on both Sinhala people and Sri Lankan Tamils. This article is not just a good article, but a beacon for better edits in the future, and for expanding the community.Bakaman 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a good article in that it glorifies someone with a help of non-RS sources that is full of myths. Watchdogb (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I dont have a problem with articles such as these becoming featured. We need more of our history, conflict and just plain living properly documented fit for an encylopedia, except those who are pushing for this to be featured are being lazy, because there are number of secondary sources by very emmminent historians that deal with this subject matter. All what they have to do is look it up and cite it properly instead of relying on a primary source for 75% of the article. Taprobanus (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection -[1c] lacking reliable secondary sources in large parts of article.
"According to the ancient chronicle Culavamsa, Parâkramabâhu's birth was predicted by a figure akin to a god seen in a dream by his father, King Manabharana of Dhakkinadesa" does not seem quite encyclopedic in tone and clearly shows the problem at hand. --Keerllston 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your point here. The story of his life is derived mostly from accounts in the Chulavamsa, a historic chronicle written centuries after his death. It is not a primary source as defined by Wikipedia. Accounts in any recent book which I believe you refer to as "reliable secondary sources", for example Paranavitana's "History of Ceylon", will be derived mostly from the Chulavamsa. That's what makes this article so good. Instead of referencing books that selectively chose parts of the Chulavamsa, most of the article is directly cited to the source of those books. For example, instead of the Chulavamsa saying "Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata in 1153", Paranavitana quoting from the Chulavamsa to say "in 1153 Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata" and us then citing from Paranavitana's book, the article directly cites the Chulavamsa for such facts. Other sentences, like archaeological finds and opinions of historians, are referenced from modern day books. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to mislead editors here. Culavamsa is as primary a source as using Illiad for wrting an article about Ancient Troy. Enough said, hit a library and get some secondary sources, a featured article is not a link farm. Do the hard work and then this will be featured Taprobanus (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The research seems to have already been done, Taprobanus. I don't have the subject expertise to check the veracity of every single fact in the article that's attributed to the Culavamsa, but I do know that there are three main areas where the Culavamsa's account is generally considered misleading - namely, its suppression of the defeat of Parakramabahu's army in Tamil Nadu, its gross exaggeration of the Burma campaign, and its attribution of the construction of a whole lot of tanks to Parakramabahu which were actually built by others, and with which often had no connection whatsoever. The article duly acknowledges all of these, and sets out the scholarly consensus on what really happened, which wouldn't have been possible if at least one of the authors hadn't reviewed the key secondary sources. I think the real issue here is not that the contributors don't want to do the work - they've done it - but that they genuinely think that it's better to cite the Culavamsa than Codrington, de Silva, L.E. Blaze and others. Once again, I would urge the contributors to read Geiger's 1930 article "The Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa" (the section on the Culavamsa begins on page 212), and especially the paragraph starting at the bottom of p. 215 where he points out that the Culavamsa is a legitimate source for writing history, but must be used with "cautious criticism" to "find out the actual course of the events." That sort of cautious criticism isn't something we can use our own judgment over on Wikipedia - we must rely on secondary sources, and since you've obviously consulted the secondary sources, why not just cite them? -- Arvind (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, my point was perhaps unintentionally unclear, due to it's concise nature.
Whether a father foretold a birth or not is the kind of thing that would be part of a myth, not part of an encyclopedia, especially since such a tale comes from an unreliable source, and given that such is common in mythology - "omens preceding birth" - myths rather than facts.
From the article the Trustworthiness of Mahavamsa:
"It is, therefore, clear that Parakkamabahu I was the favourite hero of the compiler of the first portion of the Culavamsa" does not seem to say that the first part is trustworthy - in fact it seems to say it is biased.
"There is a good number of fables, legends and tales of marvels in the Mahavamsa, and we must in each particular case attempt to find out whether there is in the narrative an historical kernel or not." seems rather supporting of the idea of the source as a primary source.
I read only till page 210 - I may have missed other parts that certify it's trustworthiness, however the article does not treat it as a trustworthy source, just as a source that has "some basis" in fact.
--Keerllston 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns not Addressed Citations 14-46 are all Culavamsa - a primary source
from "the trustworthiness of culavamsa
"It is clear that in the passages where the chronicler deals with the deeds of his favourite hero, scepticism is justified, for the panegyrist is always prone to make exaggerations, suppress facts or even to invent stories."
--Keerllston 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided previous reviewer's concerns over 1c are resolved. Tony (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More on 1c. Ref 71 has no date accessed. Who on earth is the author? His/her name appears on that single, rather slender page, but is this person authoritative? I can't find the cited title on the site. It doesn't seem to support the caption to which it is appended. Unsatisfactory. Ref 81, no author's name is specified on the site. Who wrote it? Why is it to be regarded as reliable? In fact, none of the web references appears to be at all satisfactory. Tony (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I am also concerned of the quantity of information from a single primary source and the support received by people who appear to be from that region of the world (I'm not saying the region is untrustworthy, but "I liked it" is hardly good support for an FA article; furthermore, this is common for any article that attracts a group of viewers who like a certain subject).
— BQZip01 — talk 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First: The book Early History of Ceylon from G.C. Mendis (1932) gives only 12 lines for the history of Parâkramabâhu I, but it would qualify for a reference which is not Culavamsa. Second: The article CW Nicholas (1954). "The irrigation works of king Parakramabahu I". The Ceylon Historical Jour. IV. would be a good addition, as it is one of the few direct mentionings of Parâkramabâhu I in science articles. The two other articles on irigantion projects in Cylon R. A. L. H. Gunawardana (1971). "Irrigation and Hydraulic Society in Early Medieval Ceylon". Past and Present (53): 3–27. doi:10.1093/past/53.1.3.Rhoads Murphey (1957). "The Ruin of Ancient Ceylon". The Journal of Asian Studies. 16 (2): 181–200. doi:10.2307/2941377. JSTOR 2941377.

also credit Parâkramabâhu I with major distributions. This references should be part of the article and also the achivements in irrigation.--Stone (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:19, 20 December 2007.

Ayyavazhi edit

check links

Self Nom, (Partly). After a long time I personally feel now the article is fit to be a featured one. Thanks White Dot...!!!® 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I already see two huge no-nos in an FAC.
    • References section is not allowed to have a scroll box or anything that hides part of it in some way. They must be expanded and clearly visible at all times. Additionally, what is a non-contextual image doing at the top of that section anyway?
    • Contractions outside of quotations are used. Another basic no-no.
    • Even though the article is summary styled, it is still too large (92 KB).
    • Million in the lead should not be linked, as it is not jargon.
    • Combine the numerous stubby paragraphs found in this article. Paragraphs should have at least three to four sentences.
    • The last three sections need to be reordered so that it complies with the order set at WP:GTL.
    • …and more. Please give this article a proper copyedit so that the prose is up to par, and additionally complies with the MOS. 哦，是吗？(review O) 09:09, 14 December 2007 (GMT)
      • Agree with User:O's comment on scroll mechanism in citations - you're supposed to be able to click on [923] and get to the citation - the scroll impedes that. (and I don't believe that space taken up by citations is anything to worry about in terms of FA)--Keerllston 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also agree that scrolling references should be avoided. However, the rest of this is a waste of the nominator's time, and our patience. In particular, WP:GTL says that It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "See also" above "Further reading" or "Notes and references" above "See also". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Concur with the above: there is absolutely no MOS requirement for these sections to follow any particular order, and in fact specifically states that there is not. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be an improvement to the article to have the books listed separately, and the notes in short form. (e.g, if there were a bibliography containing "Dr. R.Ponnu: Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and the Struggle for Social Equality in South India, Madurai Kamaraj University, 2000", then the last footnote could read "Ponnu (2000), p. 100" or "Ponnu, Sri Vaikunda Swamigal, p.100" Either would be more readable.)
  • Citations should not contain "'s", i.e "Ponnu", as above, not "Ponnu's"; but this is not a matter so serious as to warrant opposing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is overlinked. The problem is not million, which is defensible as an effort to avoid ambiguity, but religion, revolution, reformation, and feudal. The last is doubly undesirable, since this is not Western European feudalism, and the word is being abused. The rest of the article looks fine in that respect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can the lead-editors comment on the reliability of citations from websites like: nairs.org, cinesouth.com, nadar.kuttyjapan.com, kheper.net, poongaa.com, vaikunt.org, ayyavazhi.org, tamilstar.com. We also have a citation in the article from a blog: www.youthcurry.blogspot.com. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has six citations with dead links - this needs addressing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object publisher details and isbns etc need to be clearly laid out. Who are the people who wrote these books. Also the other non-RS raised by Amarrg. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:19, 20 December 2007.

Phi Delta Theta edit

check links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...this article is very clear and well written. It covers many topics extremely well and sources all facts. There are great uses of pictures, quotes, and is stylized to make it easy to find information. I think this article was ready for FA status when it was passed as a GA. Acidskater (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - most pictures in copyright don't have fair use guidelines. Miranda 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones exactly? I looked through all the pictures and found Fair Use Rational for all the copyrighted pictures. Acidskater (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Robert_Wise_Initiation_-_PDT.jpg and Image:Neil_Armstrong_-_PDT.jpg Would also like to see pages of founders (following the guideline of Alpha Phi Alpha, a Greek FA. Miranda 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several unsourced statements in this section. Also there is not a space between the citation and the number (i.e. the citation comes after the period - see Alpha Kappa Alpha for details). Years aren't wikilinked, per MOS in this section. Before you have nominated this article for an FA, you should have undergone a peer review. Miranda 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badge doesn't have a fair use rationale. Why isn't there a template at the bottom of the page about the conference that the organization belongs to? Why is the Infobox fraternity template not on the page, and a custom made one is? Why does cit. #28 not have an access date? Miranda 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Had no idea this was nominated. I have way too much on my watchlist to see. But anyway I'll try and handle the pictures since I'm the one who uploaded them. As for other concerns, Phi Delta Theta does not belong to any organizations. They left the NIC which is why there isn't a template. I never thought about creating pages to the founders of fear and reluctance that they may not pass WP:N and that priority should be placed on the organization itself. The infobox template is the original template that was used when fraternity and sorority pages were first created on Wikipedia. The majority of fraternity and sorority articles use a different one but others such as Pi Kappa Alpha, Beta Theta Pi, Kappa Sigma and Kappa Alpha Order still have custom infoboxes, because though there was a discussion there was also no official consensus on this issue. People are always free to change the infobox including the one for Phi Delta Theta.----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Too many things are wrong with the lead to even think of promoting this one yet. Do you know where/how to locate good copy-editors to run through the whole article?

  • Spot the redundant word at the opening: "Its headquarters is located on the Miami University campus."
  • (Personal preference): "about", not the hedgehog "approximately".
  • A pair of commas would help our readers: "Phi Delta Theta along with Beta Theta Pi and Sigma Chi form the Miami Triad."
  • "in over 40 United States"—OMG, one is enough. Can you imagine 40 of them derailing the post-Kyoto negotiations? Make it "more than 40 US states and six Canadian provinces, and ..."? Note comma where there are two "ands" hanging around.
  • I find the chartered house sentence uncomfortably jammed into that sequence of ideas.
  • "... Drake, collectively ...". Again, a comma is easier on our readers. Can you get someone to audit the whole text for commas? We don't want too many, but there are obvious places for them.
  • "Among the most well known members of the fraternity include ..."—Nope, you've got two subset words there ("among" and "include"). My US dictionary says to hyphenate "well-known". Tony (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The prose needs to be cleaned up, there are too many images, several areas lack citations, and many of the citations are to the fraternity's website.
    • You need to use nonbreaking spaces (& nbsp; or {{nowrap}}) between numbers and their units or qualifiers (example: {{nowrap|40 U.S. States}}
    • I don't think it is necessary to include images of all 6 of the founders in this article. if you decide to keep them, they shouldbe moved down to be under the paragraph talking about them.
    • Founders should not be capitalized if it is not the first word in the sentence
    • The prose could use a great deal of tightening. Examples:
      • "A year later, after the president expelled most of the students involved in the uprising, Phi Delta Theta was formed. Six men staying in a dormitory the day after Christmas formed the Greek-letter society" could become "The president expelled most of the students involved in the uprising. While staying in a dormitory the day after Christmas, senior Robert Morrison proposed to...."
      • "A housing movement began to form during this time. The movement arose out of necessity because it was pointed out that chapter meetings were being conducted in rented halls. Even though the housing movement had been gaining momentum, it was not until the 1892 convention that a resolution was passed that advocated that all chapters rent or own at least one house" could become "After realizing that chapter meetings were being conducted in rented halls, a housing movement commenced. It was not until 1892, however, that a resolution passed advocating that all chapters rent or own at least one house."
    • Captions should not end with periods unless they are full sentences.
    • "college administrators urged its undergraduate members to stay in school." Which college administrators are we refering to here? the pronoun should be "their" instead of "its"
    • Much of the article is written in passive voice. Changing some of this to active voice would help to tighten the prose and would read better.
    • Need citations for last 2 paragraphs that talk about WWII
    • Need citations for "Fearing punishment from the university,...."
    • Change "The War Between the States" to the American Civil War; the former is used primarily by confederate states, and Ohio was not one of those
    • Need citation for fact that Miller has served the longest term as executive vice president
    • The section Famous firsts needs to be turned into prose rather than a list
    • I don't think the Current Issues section needs subsections; These are all very short.
    • By the numbers section needs to be turned into prose rather than a list
    • The sports awards section should be eliminated, and the men should instead be mentioned in the notable alumni section
    • References section should come after Footnotes section
    • Can you find independent sources for the references Phi Delta Theta website and the past manuals published by the fraternity?

Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:19, 20 December 2007.

Muskrat edit

check links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...I think it is a well-written article about an interesting subject, about which most people (in North America anyway) know a little but probably have some misunderstandings. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Lead section is too short. Many unreferenced sections. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I only have a limited amount of time to comment at present so I hope to get back with additional points at a later time. Although I have been watching this article and have contributed a bit to it, it's in no shape to be a featured article. --Aranae (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost nothing is made comparing this animal to other arvicolines. Instead, it talks about muskrats as "rats", which I suppose it is if you call a rat any large muroid, but the comparison serves no purpose. It's the largest arvicoline, shares a convergent morphology with several other arvicolines such as Arvicola and Neofiber, and is generally a very interesting and unusual arvicoline. Even the population fluctuations should be discussed in the context of its relatives. Discussion of evolution and relationships should be included. --Aranae (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the basics of what needs to be covered are here, but almost all of it needs more detail. Citations for whole paragraphs should also be more directly attributed to statements. --Aranae (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not yet ready for an FA due to the following reasons:
  • Lack of citations to individual sentences in the article.
  • MoS issues like conversion of units and use of emdash and endash, need to be addressed.
  • Lead section would need to be expanded to provide more context.
  • The article needs a thorough copy-edit. Sentences like: "To trap a muskrat one must find a body of water with a reasonable quantity of muskrats huts. Muskrats live in huts made of reeds or cattails. The trapper uses an axe to chop out a plug from the hut and places a trap in the hut. He leaves and returns 4-12 hours later to often find a muskrat in the trap. Success rate is about 50%.", can definitely be written with a better prose. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the suggestions. I took off the uncited "hunting and trapping" section. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on how much a person wants to know about muskrats. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severe(ly) Minor Objection grams instead of kg presumably for consistency yet ounces instead of .x lb??? - Makes me doubt the entire article's worksmanship...--Keerllston 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the weights for adult animals to kg and lb, but left the birth weight of the babies in grams and ounces. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Many of the problems in the article would be fixed if it went through GA status and had a peer review. Get those done first before coming back here. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I can't find things wrong with it - perhaps needs copy-editing (per well-written), perhaps needs rehashing of citation/referencing (per standard usage), perhaps needs expansion (per comprehension)... because of the above needs I won't support - but I don't feel that they add up to an oppose for me either - I like the article as it is, even though it could improve.--Keerllston 13:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.

International Speedway Corporation edit

A GA that I think meets the FA criteria. Recury (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, logo needs fair use rationale. 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.100.144 (talk)
    • Could have sworn I had already done that. Oh well, it's fixed now. Recury (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Objection it is hard for me to decipher what -(image) Map_of_Washington_highlighting_Kitsap_County.svg - is supposed to describe.--Keerllston 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just supposed to show where in the state it is for people who don't know the geography of Washington. Recury (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.

Dick Rifenburg edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was quickly promoted to WP:GA and has improved since then. I think this is an interesting Bio. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • in 1944 and1946-1948. red links are distracting and there is a missing space
    • I fixed the space, but I believe we are expecting articles for most of these season, which I think suggests we should leave them linked. If this is not the case let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is ironic that - is an awful way to start a section, you havent told us where and when he was born in the body Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • High School - should the s be capitalized? You use "high school" in the article Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Wben-logo.jpg needs a fair use rationale
    • I have done what I can. I am waiting for User:Cbl62 to fill in the source, since he found the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC
      • It is not looking good for this image. Cbl62 does not know anything about the source. I have put a call into his son about getting an image for the page. I ended up getting his daughter-in-law on the phone and hope the message got through.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rifenburg died in December 1994 at age 68. - how? old age? heart attack? accident? M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The date ranges should use unspaced endashes, not hyphens - I spotted at least 2 (in the lead and the infobox), but there could be more.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox still has a hyphen, but that's in the template, not the article, so I see no reason for the template's fault to detract from this. The template could be fixed easily enough - I didn't do so, since consensus would probably be needed among its users. Carre (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In College, I don't think "12 -to-7" is the usual way of expressing scores. Isn't it normally something like "12–7"?
You are referring to a direct quote. See the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, so it is - apologies. Annoyingly, I spotted that "6-ft. 4" was in the quote, and didn't comment on it... Carre (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversions from US units to metric: the article does the conversions in the High School section, but not elsewhere.
It is common in sport not to convert between yards and meters. American football is a case where WP:UNITS might say "conversion would make a common expression awkward".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Carre (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed a couple of typos, so a quick run through checking for more would be worthwhile, I think.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In College again, is "All-All American teams" another typo? I haven't the faintest idea, so I didn't change it.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, sportswriters of that era had a bias against Michigan at that time" - "of that era" and "at that time" seems redundant.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth looking at the repetition of "Rifenburg" throughout the Family section - 4 times in the first 5 sentences? Carre (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments I had have been addressed. Carre (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  • Is there a reason we do not have a photo of the person in the article?
  • Can we avoid terms like glowing praise
  • It is not clear why Rifenburg did not finish higher. However, sportswriters of that era had a bias against Michigan. - This is a POV
  • Did he always perform well on the field? I am no expert on his game but I find it intriguing to see no negative criticisms on his performance in the article -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 17 December 2007.

2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team edit

This article has been a GA for quite some time. A couple months ago, I went through and added a lot refs that the article was lacking. This has had two peer reviews, but the PR process does not really work past a certain point. So, I'm putting this up for FA to see what else needs to be done, if anything, to get this to FA. I have tried to follow the feedback given here first.NMajdan•talk 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — A very good article with excellent citations. I've got just a few things that jumped out at me:
  • In the individual game subsections, would it be possible to use the team name rather than the nickname in the linescores?
  • Every other yearly article I've seen does it this way. We already use the university name as the section header so why use it twice?↔NMajdan•talk
My thought was that new/less-familiar readers would understand the name of the school easier than the nickname of the team. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any more pictures that could be used? Ideally, I think each game subsection should have at least one picture, and it might be nice to have a few more scattered around.
  • In an ideal world, getting a picture for every section would be great. But its hard, especially now that a year has passed since the events took place. I'll look around but I'm pretty sure I've got all the images I can off of Flickr.↔NMajdan•talk
Yeah, I know how tough that can be. No big deal. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those individual game subsections, it'd probably be a good idea to stack the pictures on top of or below the linescores. Right now, the text for some of the game sections is squeezed between the linescore and the picture and doesn't show up well on smaller-resolution screens. In particular, the 2007 Fiesta Bowl section seems a bit squeezed. It looks great on a cinema-style screen, but on a low-resolution screen, it looks a bit crowded.
  • I've moved the image in the Fiesta Bowl section below the linescore.↔NMajdan•talk
Looks good to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some text in the coaching staff section would be good, just as an explanation of who these guys are, what their history is, and any major events that effected them before/during/after the season. Forex, did any leave for new jobs after the season? Did they assume new responsibilities? Did they miss any games? Were any new in 2006 — Patton says one year of experience, but is that one year going into 2006, or one year after 2006?
  • Some color might be nice in the statistics infoboxes. They seem a bit gray, and a red/white color scheme, if done correctly, could look really nice.
  • Eh, I'm typically against using team-specific colors too liberally like that. I don't even know what I would change. If more reviewers feel the same, then maybe I'll consider it.↔NMajdan•talk
I think the main thing I was thinking of with this suggestion was back in 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, where I had two infoboxes with the same headings but for different teams. There, it made sense to use team colors in order to help differentiate. Here, I guess, you don't have that problem. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are deal-breakers, and none are really in-depth, but they're things that just came to mind after a read-through of the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments.↔NMajdan•talk 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — See below.

  • This isn't encyclopedic: "The previous year's team did not quite reach to the expectations that head coach Bob Stoops has set for his teams."
  • "This season saw the Sooners re-emerge to the forefront of college football." Who says so?
    •  Done Removed.
  • Do these really belong? If so they need cites: "Some of 2006 signees will make an impact in coming years but several were given the chance of making an immediate impact on the 2006 season. Signees from 2005's number one recruiting class made even more of an impact this year."
  • I think you need citations for the win/loss box.
    • Can this not be covered by the numerous references in the Game Notes section?↔NMajdan•talk
      • If you think that references in the games notes cover all the information in box fine. If they do not you need to add sources. Check and let me know if they cover everything.
        • Yes, I know for a fact there is at least one source in every game summary that gives the final score.↔NMajdan•talk
  • The tense is wrong in this sentence: "Of the 72 players listed on the latest roster, only nine of them are scholarship seniors".
  • You need to go through the entire article and fix the tense. This is last season so it should be in the past tense.
  • Nonencyclopedic: "While Stoops decided to stay in Norman, the Oklahoma coaching staff did get a bit of a shuffle."
    • It's a transitional sentences. Is it really that bad?↔NMajdan•talk
      • Yes, a bit of a shuffle is no good.
  • The game notes sections need a lot of work. Citations are needed for all the opinions and claims made. I went through the first one adding fact tags.
  • From just a quick glance at the citations I noticed a number of access dates missing.
  • I added fact tags from the beginning of the article until the game notes section

I am going to oppose for now because I think you have a lot of work left to do still. If you feel that you have adequately addressed all of these issues drop me a note and I will reevaluate. Also, have all the suggestions on the talk page been addressed? KnightLago (talk)

  • I addressed some issues. Will try to work on others.↔NMajdan•talk 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, keep working on it. KnightLago (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:31, 16 December 2007.

Belfast edit

(Self nomination, with other collaborators) Belfast is a well written, comprehensive and well sourced article. It has recently been peer reviewed and passed a GA review. Despite the current problems with Ireland related articles, this has always been stable. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Think about breaking up long stretches of text with subheadings. Are there city politics? I am sure there are. The motorway sounds unusual, being 10 lanes. Any editors who live nearby that can take a photo? Mrs.EasterBunny 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Hi, thanks for the input. There were more subsections in, but I removed some as per the automated peer review suggestions. I'll look at adding some back and using the TOClimit template. Politics is covered under the Governance section, do you think anything else needs to be mentioned? I'll try to think of a good place to take a photo of the 10 lane section of the M2. This is the best I can see on a Google search, quite hard to reproduce! Stu ’Bout ye! 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a city council article. Perhaps either there or in Belfast, a short paragraph could be added about the controversies in government. Do they discuss housing, traffic, crime, flooding, or is there some other major problem that the local government is trying to solve?Mrs.EasterBunny 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work on the writing. Here are random examples.

  • Can you make the infoblot narrower? It squashes the text to the side, and only one item needs to wrap to a second line to achieve this. Why is some of the text impossibly tiny in the infoblot?
  • "He imagined that it resembled the shape of a sleeping giant safeguarding the city."—Can this be put into the Geography section rather than the lead?
  • now often termed 'republican' and 'loyalist' respectively—we'd use double quotes, but italics are more usual on WP. In any case, probably the linking is enough to dispense with further formatting-marking.
  • Inconsistent metrics and old-speak as main units.
  • "Since 2001, boosted by increasing numbers of tourists, the city has also developed a number of cultural "quarters":"—Here, "quarters" has double quotes, but is linked, which is enough. Remove "also" as redundant (even ambiguous), and audit all other uses of "also".
  • Remove "in fact", which is redundant in formal written text. Tony (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, I've addressed all your points with the exception of the infobox width. This is due to the Northern Ireland Assembly field I think, so I've asked on the template talk page how I can fix it. I had no idea I used the word "also" so much! Stu ’Bout ye! 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • Request: On the Economy section, please place recent first and history after. Thanks. Learnedo 08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't sure about this as I thought the section flowed better being chronological, but havig looked at other featured city articles I agree. Changed now. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Climate change is affecting Belfast, with July,[32] September 2006[33] and April 2007[34] breaking records for the warmest such months on record, and June 2007 being one of the wettest months ever." - Not sure that the sources back up the claim that observation of three months within a two year span are evidence of climate change in Belfast. This a narrow, short view, and probably should be removed.Ceoil 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I'll replace it with somthing about the floods in June. Stu ’Bout ye! 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stu, I'll have another read later tonight. Ceoil 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work. Two minor comments:
  • "Belfast is the anglicised version of the area's Irish name, meaning "mouth of the Farset River"." - What is the irish word? - found it Ceoil 09:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superseded by the River Lagan as the more important river" - in Belfast or in Northern Ireland? Ceoil 09:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Belfast, the Bann and possibly the Foyle would be equally important. Clarified this in the article. Decided to omit the section on the June floods, per Wikipedia:Recentism. Stu ’Bout ye! 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, happy to Support now. Ceoil 23:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Objections/Comment- I saw two requests for comments on the fac talk page, I believe this article can improve quite a bit.
    I believe Etymology and History should be separated, they are different topics.
    rather specific information about 2005 election results in local government, is this wp:recentism?
    does the coat of arms and motto belong in "governance"? are the topics of the etymology and of the coat of arms and motto of the city are related enough to be under the same heading?
    in geography there is no need for "(from the Irish: Béal Feirste meaning "The sandy ford at the river mouth"[1])." especially within parenthesis and given that the original statement is already cited.
    "(known as “peace lines”)" - may I suggest instead doing away with this and substituting with "commonly known as ..."
    "Since 2001, boosted by increasing numbers of tourists, the city has developed a number of cultural quarters:" deserves a citation.
    I have a minor NPOV concern about "Ongoing sectarian violence has made it difficult for Belfast to compete with Dublin's Celtic Tiger economy" - I'm sure other things were significant - Dublin's economy was not built on the lack of sectarian violence.
    I have a personal and perhaps arbitrary dislike for the gallery under Architecture.
    --Keerllston 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'll take each point one by one. The etymology paragraph is part etymology, part history. So I think keeping under the history section is better. Etymology on its own would be a very short section. On the 2005 results, I think they are useful as they show the current makeup of the council. Will come back to the other points later, pressed for time. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely would like you to respond to the other comments - you seem a rather good contributor.
Etymology on it's own might be a short section - but Etymology is definitely a different subject than history - one is the history of the name and the other is the history of the city.
The 2005 results might show the current make up of the council but perhaps this would be better adressed in WikiNews rather than in WikiPedia - maybe a link to 2007 Belfast politics or similar would serve that purpose better?
--Keerllston 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I went over this article when it was at Peer Review and now here. Concerning one of Keerllston's points, I found the local government election result useful. Would framing it less like an election result and more like the compostion of the Belfast City Council work? --maclean 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the nominator still following this nomination; I left sample edits several days ago that haven't been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, see my comments on the 5th. I'll hopefully get some time to work on this over the weekend, riduculously busy at the minute. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great; I refactored Tony's comment (above) because I missed (several times) seeing it buried in italics on the end of your sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Oppose - Mainly due to the history and law and government sections, which are poorly-written in comparison to the rest of the article, which is excellent.
    • Good images, thorough referencing
    • Mostly excellent prose
    • Good lead, but is the fact that Cavehill was believed to be an inspiration for Gulliver's Travels really important enough to put in the lead? Just a minor observation.
    • History section needs some work. Some copy-edting is needed, such as the sentence "Bank Street in the city centre refers not to banking, but to the river bank and Bridge Street was the site of an early a bridge across the Farset." On second thought, is that sentence even needed? Also, is there any particular reason why the city became such an important industrial center? I think this is very important and needs to be addressed. Finally, the last half of it reads too much like a news analysis of the city during The Troubles and not enough like a historical overview. A mention could also be given to the fact that the Titanic was built here; in addition to the obvious popularity of it, it also highlights its importance as a shipbuilding city.
    • Too much focus on the latest elections; we don't need to know exactly how many seats were elected from each party. Nobody who lives outside of the UK, or maybe even Northern Ireland, will really take any meaning out of it; I certainly didn't. Perhaps the makeup of the council should be put into a table?
    • I like the separate section on the coat of arms and motto.
    • The climate section could use some expansion, but this isn't a necessity.
    • Areas and districts section is well-written; the bulleted descriptions of the city districts should be merged into a paragraph.
    • There's some repeat of information regarding tourism in the culture section that is already described in the economy section.
    • Sports section is too list-oriented when referring to the teams.

Overall it's very close, though. Just some minor editing will make me change my vote to support. bob rulz (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Several comments so far:
  • Regarding the "(from the Irish: Béal Feirste meaning "The sandy ford at the river mouth)" clause, I'd remove it and save it for the body of the article; you currently introduce the origin of the word before anything else, which may confuse readers.
  • To clarify, I mean remove it from the lead and leave it in the first section, where it flows better. (I definitely agree that the Irish meaning should stay in the article itself) CloudNine (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth expanding the paragraph about Belfast Metropolitan College in the "Education" section (when was it founded? How many students? etc.).
Comment. This has taken a lot longer than I expected. I thought it was done and dusted in the middle of November, but there have been several new comments since the end of November. There's been some excellent input, and to do it justice deserves more time than I can dedicate at the minute. I'm doing three people's jobs in work at the minute and have exams in early January. So either someone else will have to take it over, or I'll have to withdraw the nomination until after January 12. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hum... I'd like to step up and help - I've very little experience and it seems following up on candidate-ship comments is very hard work.. I'd like to try--Keerllston 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:22, 16 December 2007.

Trent Reznor edit

check links LuciferMorgan (talk 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a fairly straight-forward GA nomination, I am confident in the article's quality, and would like to give FA a shot. That said, I'd like to note right off the bat that an article such as this one might be a difficult one to review, mainly since it is a fine line between Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor. I've done my best to focus the article specifically on the person rather than the one-man band, especially when dealing with any NIN-related content, but if anyone has any suggestions along those lines I'll do my best to incorporate them. As always, any general comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The body of the article is meant to contain everything the intro has, yet doesn't mention Reznor's date of birth. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good catch, didn't notice that. Drewcifer (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • A photo of the young Reznor would be nice, if possible (although this is by no means required.)
  • "Split with Interscope Records" really doesn't need to be its own subsection. There's like, a total of two sentences in the whole section.
  • The "Nine Inch Nails" section of the article could be a lot more expansive. It doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) huge, but it seems a bit small as it is considering that it is certainly the most important part of Reznor's life.
  • The article would benefit from a section detailing Reznor's musical and lyrical writing style.
  • I feel like a lot more space could be spent on Reznor's interactions and relationship with Marilyn Manson. They've worked pretty closely together, and they also had that feud - I mean, wasn't "Starfuckers, Inc." basically about Manson? Seems noteworthy.
  • The paragraph about David Bowie in "Personal life" should probably be in "Work outside of Nine Inch Nails"
  • Saul Williams remixed some songs for Year Zero Remixed, which should be included in the Saul paragraph
  • There isn't a whole lot on Reznor's political views, or his views on file sharing (OiNK and the "steal my music" speech come to mind). A lot of Nine Inch Nails#Corporate entanglements could be copied to here. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm afraid, per comprehensiveness concerns. It's a solid Good Article, but I think this is rushing to FAC. As Brandt Luke Zorn pointed out, there are a number of areas that could be and should be expanded. There are more sources available on Reznor that you should consult to develop the article further (for example, I've got a 1994 Guitar World article and a 2005 Spin article with good information on Reznor), especially given how comprehensive and well-referenced Nine Inch Nails is. I think with another month or two of good research this could be a well-developed and authoritative biographical FA, but right now it's just not ready. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the odd Nine Inch Nails bio that might contain extra info. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone! All of your suggestions are very helpful, and I'll do my best to take them all into consideration. For the meantime, I'd say it's impossible for me to get the article up to snuff soon enough, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. But the article will be back soon, stronger than ever! Drewcifer (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to archive; please wait for the bot to update the article talk page, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Hindu-German Conspiracy edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this I believe is a comprehensive article and well referenced article, and I have tried to put due weight and ground on the aspects it covers, namely the German Global effort during Word War I, the Indian independence movement, Asian immigration to North America and other aspects. Any suggestions where this article falls short will be welcome and I will try to correct these. Any help will be welcome. Rueben lys (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment – Much obvious thought and effort has gone into this interesting article but I'm afraid the English lets it down. Here are a few examples:

  • Typos etc: vice-counsel, vice-consul; most expensive trial, most expensive trials; German Foregin office, German foreign ministry; Dayals, Dayal's.
  • Style: inconsistent use of capitals/hypens: Consul General, Consul-General; Head Quarters, headquarters; Middle Class, middle class.
  • From China, Gupta proceeded to Japan to try and procure arms, as well as try and enlist Japanese support for the Indian movement. (From China, Gupta went to Japan to try to procure arms and enlist support for the Indian movement.?)
  • The proposed agreement offered China German military assistance and right to one-tenth of the materiel shipped to India if she allowed her borders to be used for shipping arms to India. However, this negotiations were also unsuccessful on he face of Sun Yat Sen's opposition to an alliance with Germany.
  • In the meantime, Early 1900s also saw large scale movement of Punjabi immigrants to Australia and North America, including Canada and United States in the midst of a depressing economic scenario in India especially after 1907. However, this influx was soon met by the Canadian government by a series of draconian and racist legislations that sought to limit the entry of South Asians into the country and limit the political rights of those already resident.
Please do not fix these examples and ask me to change to support. They are examples of weaknesses in the article as a whole. It needs a complete close copy-edit by an uninvolved editor familiar with MoS. Otherwise, it really is excellent.
--ROGER DAVIES talk —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's this in the External links section Feb 26, 1961. Pp 34-35; March 5, 1961 P. 45; March 12, 1961 P.41? KnowledgeHegemony 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • reply to comment That is actually the citation for the issue of the Illustrated Weekly of India when it was printed back in the sixties. It seems not to fit, although I am trying quite hard to stop it from being unruly.Rueben lys (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support: If all the [citation needed] tags I have added are replaced with sources. KnowledgeHegemony 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. KnowledgeHegemony 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Too many unreferenced claims; for example the entire 'World War II' section has not a single reference.There are several big unreferenced chunks throughout the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done:WW II section is now referenced. Please put a {{cn}} where you think needs cited, and these will be inserted. I didn't wish to overcrowd with citations (there are 108 or so already), so I gave general references at the end of the paragraphs.Rueben lys (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Needs a lot of work:

  • Referencing is not FA standard. First paragraph of "Background" section, the "Procuring arms" section and second paragraph of "Note on the name" section has no references. Some long paragraphs need more than 1 or 2 references.
  • References 9, 10, 16, 21, 32, 33, 52, 53, 66, 67, 75, 88, 89 and 90 have formatting problems. Always put the references after a comma or full stop.
  • My English is not very good but I can see the article is not well written and the English needs to be improved. These examples are only from the "Background" section. I did not look at the other sections but I think they also need work.
    • "Early 1900s also saw" sounds wrong. Add a "the" before "early".
 Done
    • "those already resident" Huh?
 Done
    • "its subjects commitment" Maybe you need to add an inverted commas.
 Done Now changed
    • "comprised of immigrant Indian population" A word is missing, between "of" and "immigrant".
 Done
    • "This included labourers, security guards, students, etc." and "These included seditionist, socialist and revolutionary literature...and others" sounds wrong. First, is it "this" or "these"? And I think you should not use "etc." and "and others".
 Done
    • The comma between "circulating" and "it" should be changed to a full stop or something else.
 Done
    • "Ghadar philosophy was end of" Missing word between "was" and "end".
 Done
    • "rural and Military" Why is "military" capital?
 Done
    • "by the time that WW I opened" I think "open" is the wrong word.
 Done
    • "The collaborations evolved at least six or seven years before the war, and survived the war." "the war"..."the war"...and "survived" the war?
 Done
    • "came to be friends" is too wordy.
 Done
    • Again, "as well as a number of others" is too wordy.
 Done
    • "For this, the links...was used to tap into the Indo-Irish network in the United States." Something's wrong, I don't know what, but I can feel it.
 Done
    • "Intelligence bureau" Capital problem.
 Done
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to oppose: The referencing is done per the Harvard style done in a number of articles including in Satyajit Ray. Only one reference falls outside this style, and this is because I cannot find the ISBN number. The formatting problem raised is getting sorted now, everything else seems to be working perfectly. I dont know how this can be improved further unless you wish to suggest something. The references themselves are peer reviewed journal articles in reknowned journals and I think are the best references obtainable amongst wikipedia history article (see Reliable sources)
The language problem has already been raised in the first comment and is currently getting sorted. I have already asked that you put a {{cn}} tag where you think need cited. The one or two references given in long paragraphs are themselves journal articles (between 15 and 19 pages long if not more) on those specialised topics and addresses what is contained in the paragraphs, see reply to previous ibject.Rueben lys (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK if a paragraph has 4 sentences and you put a reference after the last sentence. But there are some paragraphs where you have two sentences, then a reference, then two more sentences. The last two sentences are unreferenced. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply I think those were to reference a specific claim as opposed to a general reference, I am going through the article at the moment, please let me know if find anything else, cheers.Rueben lys (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add I think Kaypoh's formatting concerns have been addressed now. I couldn't find any fault with the refs no. 52,53,66,88 and 90, otherwise have tried to address the points raised. I will start on the other problems mentioned now.Rueben lys (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done', the specific points raised in Kaypoh's first edits have now been adressed.Rueben lys (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit notes from Maralia

  • Hindu-German Conspiracy#Ghadar Party
    • The sentence about Berkeley implies that the names listed are all from Berkeley, but V.G. Pingle is described in the next paragraph as having been contacted in India, so I removed him from the Berkeley sentence.
    • Barkat Ullah is also in the Berkeley sentence but doesn't appear to have been from Berkeley; can you clarify?
    • The sentence about the Indian National Congress needs some context; its relevance to the surrounding content is not clear.
    • I changed the name of the 'Ghadar Newspaper' to Hindustan Ghadar to reflect the name used in the linked article.
    • I have changed a name from Barkat Ullah to Maulavi Barkatullah, as you refer to him by 'Barkatullah' later, and this is in agreement with the article named for him.
  • Hindu-German Conspiracy#Irish involvement
    • The sentence about the SS Moraitis doesn't seem to belong in this section—it's not tied in to Irish support for the movement, so it either needs more context, or perhaps it belongs elsewhere.Maralia (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hindu-German Conspiracy#Conspiracy
    • I have commented out a phrase about what Har Dayal did in Switzerland, because it was an incomplete sentence that I could not fix.
    • I find it very strange that this section contains only one cryptic sentence about the Komagata Maru, but exhaustive details about the Korea incident. My (extremely inexpert) opinion is that Komagata Maru warrants at least as much focus here as Korea; if you agree, can you try to balance the coverage of the two incidents?
  • Hindu-German Conspiracy#Pan-Indian mutiny
    • Can you clarify what 'the Rodda company' is?
    • I've italicized the word 'dacoities' as it's an unfamiliar foreign term. In context, it reads like some form of fundraising; I was quite surprised when I followed the link and read the actual meaning. Could you find a way to tweak the sentence to hint at the meaning?
Reply
  • V.G Pingle was a student of Berkeley who returned to India in 1914 as a part of the conspiracy.
  • Barkatullah held chairs in Japan and Tokyo before joining UCB.
  • The Indian National Congress led the mainstream, constitutional movement for dominion status through peaceful means, the conspiracy was totally opposed to this.
  • SS Moraitis was the first effort to ship arms into India and was planned between Ghadarites and the Irish republicans and was thwarted by W.C Hopkinsons work.
Hope this clarifies.Rueben lys (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Donereply to Maralia on Komagata Maru and other things.. Not a problem, I will add this first thing tomorrow morning (honest, gotta catch up with real life).Commenting out Har Dayal's swiss endevaours is fine, it is not very important to the conspiracy itself.Rueben lys (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneAddressed Rodda company, dacoities, SS moraitis now addressed.Rueben lys (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well written article. Some comments --

  • To make it even better and to ensure FA quality, can someone check the relevance of these Auto PR comments and address those that are relevant.
  • Shouldn't the word Conspiracy in the article title be conspiracy that is with a small 'c' instead of a capital C.?
  • "with a series of Canadian government with a series of draconian and racist legislations" is POV. What is draconian and racist according to one point of view, may be perfectly valid from another point of view. Can this be changed?
  • "Discontent and protests grew within the Punjabi community, hitherto an important and loyal force of the British Empire who expected the government to honour its subjects' commitment." This sentence has confusing grammar especially the last part. Can it be reworded?
  • "A large number also moved to the United States, and soon faced similar problems". What problems?
  • "The American State Department was pressured to suppress Indian revolutionary activities and Ghadarite publications emanating from California, especially from San Francisco". This sentence does not seem to be formed well. Do we need the word California here, since the publications were mostly from San Francisco. How about Ghadarite publications which emanated mostly from San Francisco?
  • "The SS Korea debacle led, on the insistence of Zimmermann, to the US organisation's transfer to Herambalal Gupta". Which is this US organisation?
  • "In India, a still optimistic Bagha Jatin went to his death in a desperate last stand against the armed police at Balasore in September 1915 while awaiting the arrival of the same shipment." - Not clear what this means
  • "News reports Later investigations by the Directorate of Naval Intelligence is known to have found extensive links to the Irish movement, the Indian Movement, as well as the Communist elements" - Malformed sentence
  • The article is quite big at around 100 KB which makes it difficult to read. Can it be summarised in smaller sections with sub-articles containing more details. Please see this guideline on article size. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment- Addressed
  • The word "Conspiracy" here is a noun and not a verb so it should be Capital (Per OED).
  •  DoneDraconian and racist now removed. Problem clarified as political and social.
  •  Done*Ghadar publication word now changed.
  •  DoneBagha Jatin removed from top sentence since it has a seperate section on it.
  •  DoneMalformed sentence on directorate of naval intelligence now removed .
  • On Article size: I know this one is pretty big, but the problem is that the event itself was so long, (nearly eight years), involved so many different people and resources (I have actually put down condensed version of history). Moreover, some of the individual parts require the context of this article and dont stand out to actually make new sub articles encyclopaedic (like the arms efforts in China and Japan, or the counter intelligence, etc). I will try to merge the Kabul Mission and Middle east since they have the common thread of the Silk Letter conspiracy. Otherwise, I dont see how it can be condensed significantly. I will point out though that some FAs are actually just as long (eg Battle of Normandy).Rueben lys (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100kb is including templates and photos. Its fine if its less than 10,000 words. Can someone use user:Dr pda's tool to check the 'actual' article size. KnowledgeHegemony 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is 11047 words (67kb; text only).Rueben lys (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request: Can all the editors who leave comments or opposes the nomination please revisit at somepoint to check if their concerns have been addressed. Cheers.Rueben lys (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on opposing reviewers The opposing reviewers Piotrus and Kaypoh have been requested to review their oppositions on two occasions each (here, here, here and here), they have not returned to the nomination page to revisit the improvements.Rueben lys (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose—To receive our gold star, the writing must be rather good, yes? I've looked at the lead and was disappointed to find that a lot of improvements are necessary. For example:

  • "Among a number of plots planned, the most prominent one was to ferment unrest"—Spot the redundant word. Also, "was to" is ambiguous—does it mean "was intended to" or is it this narrative past tense people seem to use (= "the most prominent would ferment unrest")? And you might consider dropping "planned" from the subsequent sentence.
    • The the most prominent plan was to... I dont see how you can confuse this. Besides, this is how Karl Hoover as well as Giles Brown introduces the topic in their journal articles. Nonetheless if this still needs clarified, I will do so.
 Done
  • "The February mutiny was ultimately thwarted at the last moment as British intelligence successfully infiltrated the Ghadarite movement and arrested key figures." Do be careful of "as", which can mean "while" or "because". I'm still not sure which meaning is intended here.
    •  Done
  • "The Indo-Irish-German alliance and the conspiracy caused a worldwide British intelligence effort, which was ultimately successful in preventing further attempts. It also resulted in the arrest of key figures by American intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen affair in 1917." Caused effort? Is "ultimately" necessary? We can avoid my hated "also" (yep, PMA's right, I'm having a war against it), by a neater sentence structure: "The Indo-Irish-German alliance and the conspiracy prompted worldwide British intelligence activity, which was ultimately successful in preventing further attempts and resulted in the arrest of key figures by American intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen affair in 1917." That's my hunch.
I am a bit reluctant to use the entire prose that you suggest merely because the conspiracy did not cause the intelligence effort, the presence of Indian nationalists in foreign countries (even beofre the conspiracy formally started) did. The '"also" was neccessary because those two weren't the only things the British intelligence did with relation to the conspiracy, and"ultimately" was neccessary because American intelligence agencies were initially reluctant to arrest the Indians (not the Germans), the British intelligence managed to convince the americans and that was the last major event that spelled the end of the conspiracy. This bit is going to take a bit more of time.
 DoneChanged prose, please review.
  • "The conspiracy led to legal trials like the Lahore conspiracy case in India and the Hindu German Conspiracy Trial in the United States, the latter being one of the longest and most expensive trials in the country at that time." I have a personal preference for "such as" rather than "like" in a formal register (and for although). You don't have to follow it. No hyphen for "Hindu-German"? Does "the latter" refer to the US? "that" --> "the"; because the item is so easy to identify from the context, the stronger back-reference is uncomfortable.
    • "Such as" would be wrong, because the Lahore conspiracy trials and Hindu-Geman Conspiracy trial were the only two major trials on the conspiracy. "Such as" will suggest there were more.

"The latter" refers to the "Hindu-German Conspiracy trial" (the latter of Lahore conspiracy trial and Hindu-German Conspiract trial in the preceding sentence) in the US (the country, I dont see why this is a problem. I will change "that" to "the".

  • Do we need both "subdued" and "suppressed"? They're subtley different, but ...
  • "... the Indian National Army. The activities of the Indian National Army ..."—ungainly repetition, and both are linked!
    • I know the differences are subtle, but difference is there, and that is what is meant.
  • "The activities of the Indian National Army and the events surrounding it were crucial in uncovering the details and impact of the conspiracy." I'm going to be difficult and picky: so the army helped to reveal the impact of the conspiracy? And do events do the uncovering, or people?
    •  Done Changed.

This indicates the need for a thorough copy-editing. Is User:Fowler&Fowler around? Or User:Snalwibma or User:Samir? Some of those who helped on the Ahmedabad article did a good job.

Fascinating topic. Tony (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • First of all the article has undergone (and still undergoing) quite an extensive look through and c/e, mostly by Maralia and Amarrg, since I nominated it last week. The problem is, the prose of one editor is seen as unsuitable by some others, which is a bit frustrating. I had invited Fowler&fowler earlier to help write the article, but dont think he had the time. If you suggest somemore, I will try to put it through.Rueben lys (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

History of evolutionary thought edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... This article has improved greatly over the past several months while it has been the history of science collaboration of the month. A month ago it passed GA and I along with a couple of other editors have continued to improve it since then. I now believe it is FA worthy. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know there are no specific rules on citations, but a "scientific" article (yeah, I know it could be a history article too) should have easier to use references. I think the best articles (say Evolution) stick with WP:CITET making it very easy to click on an article and confirm that it meets the statements. To make any type of confirmation of what is written will take forever. If the editor wants to take it to FA, then spend a few hours making it an easy-to-use article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I was afraid this issue would come up. As far as I can tell there is no consensus on this topic. Some FA aritcles such as Evolution and Charles Darwin in science and history of science use these clickable references and a number such as History of biology and Alfred Russel Wallace don't. My biggest complaint is that they don't work (at least they didn't last time I checked) with the standard cite book, cite journal and cite web templates which are so widely used on wikipedia, and which I always try and use for references. If this has been changed please let me know and I will adapt. If there is a clear consensus among commenters to switch I will do so even if it means moving away from the standard templates and returning to the harvard template, which I stoped using because I thought it had been deprecated. One final point I would make on this subject is that this article has 19 listed references. So I don't think the clickable references would be as useful/important as they are for an article like Charles Darwin that has more than 50. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I took a closer look at evolution and I see that the clickable references now work with cite book, so I will go ahead and convert to using them. It will take me a day or 2 to complete.Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has got me really puzzled. As far as I can tell, evolution simply makes each cite a separate footnote. This works well when most cites are to different sources, but when there's a lot of repeated cites to different pages of a book, as here, harvard referencing using the citation template shown at WP:CITET has the advantage. The clickable effect as used at Charles Darwin now works with the citation template, but not with the cite book template. The last place I used the citation template was at HMS Beagle which shows the principle, though the cites and references there are all in a combined section. I'm willing to help out with getting all the refs. into the citation format, with harvnb inline refs. Is it agreed that's what's wanted? .. dave souza, talk 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 77 in Evolution refers to a citation of Gould's SET. The footnote is clickable yet the reference it points to uses the cite book template. So it appears it does now work with cite book. I think the key may be using the year field rather than the date field in cite book. I am not going to have time to experiment with it much until tonight (4 or 5 hours from now), but I would like to see if I can make it work, not just for this article but for others as well. Cite book is widely used. If it can't be made to work I would welcome your help in converting the templates. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm anal retentive about it. I like the fact that if I read something controversial, say someone writes, "It is now confirmed that Charles Darwin was possessed by aliens," I can then click on the number, it brings me down to the reference, and I can then see if it's a reliable one, or it's from Real Tales of Abduction, Volume 428. OK, what is this Cite Book thing? I'm going to have to read about how to use it, because CITET doesn't allow for multiple pages for one reference. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Charles Darwin for an extreme example of harvard referencing (using the old template, but the effect's the same). Rusty, the evolution article confused me because the references are listed above the cites, as further reading. The link there is working as the inline ref uses {{wikiref |id=Gould-2002 |text=Gould 2002, pp. 657–658}}, while I've been using {{harvnb|Gould|2002|pp.=657–658}} Returns to being baffled. .. dave souza, talk 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like {{wikiref}} works well enough with cite book. I have converted a few of the cites and I will do the rest tomorrow. The only trick is you have to use the "year" field instead of the "date" field in cite book to make it all work. I kind of like wikiref and I may convert some other articles like History of paleontology and Alfred Russel Wallace over to using clickable references just to make OrangeMarlin happy :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like another editor (Gimmetrow I think) has fixed the last ones.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The section headers will have to be shortened a fair amount. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point. Some of the section headings were too wordy. I think I have fixed the problem.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good now. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The phylogenetic tree dates from the late 1990s and is wrong in several areas (such as halophiles being classed as archaea, lacking nanoarchaeota, separating the Trichomonads and Diplomonads from the other flagellates, etc) A more modern tree is this image that is based on a 2006 Science article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I switched to the newer diagram.Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Unconventional extensions to evolutionary ideas" section has only one "extension" - the "Gaia hypothesis". It needs to be expanded with other or renamed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Let's take the opening: "Evolutionary thought has roots in antiquity as philosophical ideas known to the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Muslims. Until the 18th century, however, Western biological thought was dominated by essentialism, the idea that living forms are static and unchanging in time." Why "however"? You haven't explained enough for us to swallow that.
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and naturalists such as Maupertuis and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon focused on the variability of species." The comma doesn't make sense.
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put forth"—bit pompous nowadays: put forward.
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and discussed in detail in On the Origin of Species, published by Darwin in 1859." Neater as "and discussed in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859)."
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a space before a comma.
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the synthesis and the rise of evolutionary biology as a formal scientific discipline, evolutionary thought developed in several directions." Can you give us an idea of the decades you're referring to here?
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is verging on being too long.
I tightened it a little. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) TimVickers has tightened it a lot more.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead. It suggests that a good copy-edit by someone unfamiliar with the text is required. I'd like to see this promoted, but it will need lots of work. In the meantime, you could read MOS and fix up the breaches: read about logical punctuation in quotations, en dashes for ranges (some are hyphens), period after proper sentence in caption, hyphen used as an interrupter (read em dashes). Tony (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

USS Illinois (BB-65) edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has passed a Military History WikiProject A-class review, and meets all established featured article criteria. Unlike previous battleship FACs by TomStar81 (talk · contribs), with the exception of USS Kentucky (BB-66), this one is for a battleship that was never completed, therefore the material presented is a little short due to the lack of service history. This can be compensated for if you think of this article as the third in a series of three: the articles Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship discuss in much more detail the history of the class design and construction and the weapons and combat systems proposed to be installed aboard Illinois respectively. This is a self nomination. -MBK004 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: I have been experiencing temporary Internet service outages and may not respond immediately. -MBK004 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It meets all established criteria, and my logic for the FAC on Kentucky still stands. For an incompleted battleship never considered for a rebuild of any kind this is rather well cited I think. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For being a pretty much obscure subject, and an unfinished battleship on top of it, I must say I found this article to be very good even if it is a bit short. Also, considering the rather short life of the ship, having 9 notes and 2 references is good.--Kranar drogin (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it I need to check the rules before deciding. I must say that this article is extremely interesting and I am not a fan of ships. It is a bit short. If article length (within reason) not a requirement then that's a major problem out of the way. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the requirements from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria related to article length:
      • 1(b): "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
      • 4: It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see Wikipedia:Summary style). -MBK004 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I like it" is not a good reason to support a FAC. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ready for FA:
  • One reference per paragraph is GA standard referencing, not FA standard referencing.
  • The article is not comprehensive. It is less than 10 kB. It does not say why the ship was never completed.
  • The lead section is too short.
  • The prose is not brilliant. My English is not very good, so I may be wrong, but:
    • "but the hulk remained until 1958 when it was broken up" Is it "the hulk" or "her hulk"? Maybe change it to "remained until it was broken up in 1958"
    • "She was to be the fifth of the six authorized ships of the Iowa class of battleships." of...of...of....
    • What is a "all welded construction"?
    • "combination riveted/welded hull" I think you are not supposed to use the / this way. If this is a technical term, please wikilink it.
    • "There was thought of" is too wordy.
    • "began in response to" is also wordy.
    • "She was conceived" Huh?
    • I think "at the time" should be "at that time".
    • "the need to gain and maintain" You can remove "gain and".
    • "allied" should be capital.
    • "builders ways" sounds funny.
    • "the bell has been a welcome addition to the football team" is POV.
    • "when the football team scores points in a game." Huh?
  • Why use two units each time, like "inch (mm)" and "miles (km)"?
  • No need to wikilink "battleship" thrice and "fast battleship" twice.
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A class articles are generally, and certainly within WP:MILHIST, considered to be beyond GA; MilHist folks tend to see A Class as a stepping-stone to FA. Carre (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the MILHIST A-class review requires three supports for advancement, while GA is only reviewed by one editor. A-class is reviewed using the featured article criteria instead of the good article criteria. Overall, an A-class review is tougher to pass than GA review. -MBK004 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After these issues were addressed below, Kaypoh (talk · contribs) was approached on two occasions to revisit his objections.

Respectively:

  • According the MILHIST MoS, one cite per paragraph is acceptable if the information in the paragraph is drawn form one source predominantly.
  • "Like her sister ships Kentucky, Illinois was caught up in the post war draw down of the armed services" How much clearer can we be about why she canceled? And remember, this is essentially the third article in a series of three; the parent class page and the armament page go in to great detail about the weapons that all of the ships were to use and the history surrounding the birth of the class as a whole. When those two pages are combined with this page the total amount of information comes out to over 100kb of information with over 100 citations. Thats well cited.
  • The lead should be comprehensive and inform one of the major points of the article, which Illinois’ introduction does encompass all points of the ships construction, cancellation, and breaking up.
  • Changed to her hulk per your suggestion.
  • All other FA-class Iowa class article use the "x of y of the Iowa class battleships to be completed" format, this article should be no exception; however, if it bother you that much it can be changed to disagree with the other articles.
  • The Iowas were built entirely with a riveted hull design, while Illinois and Kentucky were to be constructed using rivets and welding to increase the overall strength of the ships. If I remember correctly this information is on the class article page, although I could be mistaken. The "/" is appropriate here, because it is not a technical term (although the two terms independently may have articles here, I will check)
  • Changed per your suggestion
  • "began in response to" is appropriate here, I can't think of any way to say that in less than four words and still preserve the meaning.
  • Can't address "she was conceived", as "huh?" indicates cluelessness and not an objection. Decide what you don't like about "she was conceived" and then get back to me :)
  • "At the time" and "at that time" both convey the same meaning, so I see no need to change it, although I will if you insist upon it
  • You have to gain air supremacy before you can maintain air supremacy, and at the time the Japanese still had air supremacy over the Pacific islands. Removing "gain" from the sentence would undermine the role carriers played in the Second World War since it was the Essex class that help the allies gain the air supremacy, and at the same time undermine the role that the battleships played in gaining air supremacy by defending the carriers. Thus tweaking this sentence would reduce the wording at the expense of historical accuracy, which I am understandably loathe to do since this is an encyclopedia and thus should stick to the facts.
  • Changed per your suggestion.
  • Changed Per your suggestion.
  • Changed per your suggestion.
  • Again, "Huh?" is not an objection I can address. Decide what you don't like about it and get back to me.
  • Two units are used for the benefit of our non US members who long ago converted from the standard system to the metric system. This is, if I remember correctly, part of the MoS; units of measurement are suppose to be given in both metric and standard units.
  • Changed per your suggestion.
  • As noted above the A-class review for MILHIST is considered a higher placement than Wikipedia's GA-class review, therefore if an article clears A-class it is conidered a prime candidate for FA-class.
  • If you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to place them here or drop a message on my talk page and I will see about addressing them. Happy Thanksgiving! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tom, Kaypoh's comment on "It does not say why the ship was never completed." is pretty valid - it's mentioned in the lead, but not in the body. You should certainly know, given your previous excellent articles, that the lead shouldn't contain anything that's not included in the main text. Of course, this is a trivial matter to fix - all it needs is a sentence in Fate.
Love the comment on us non-US users moving away from the "standard system"! Made me chuckle, anyway!
Hope you didn't eat too much turkey on Thanksgiving! Carre (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on why the ship wasn't completed, its been addressed. And why we haven't changed to metric is anyone's guess.
...And yes, I did over do it on the turkey (hello, pepto bismal... ;-) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to publicly thank User:TomStar81 for addressing the issues seen above in my absence over the American Thanksgiving holidays. -MBK004 02:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned up some minor issues. This article could really benefit from a reread for 'what goes where': the Background section is actually half construction info; the Construction section doesn't get to actual construction till the second paragraph and contains fate info as well. Additionally, the first sentence of the Fate section doesn't make sense. Let me know if I need to clarify any of this. Maralia 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WAY too short (four paragraphs?), missing important details, skips others.I'm not saying this isn't A-class material, but it is not comprehensive;a requirement of an FA. — BQZip01 — talk 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not aware of a requirement on length that pertains to FAs. Which important details are missing and which ones were skipped? Also note that this article is one of a series on the entire topic. Most are already FAs. See TomStar81's comments above for more on that. -MBK004 05:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below is the FA criteria:
Criteria omitted by — BQZip01 — talk for the sake of brevity Wikilink above provides the same information and does not clutter up the talk page.
Now, if you can find the minimum size requirement for any article here to be featured I will expand the article to meet the requirement forthwith (I would even sacrafice studying for this, becuase it means that much to me). Also, this page explicitly states that objections here should be based on something that can be adressed, otherwise the objecting vote can be disregarded. Now I respect your opinion on the length of the article, but as I keep pointing out this is part of a series; the articles Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship discuss in great length and detail the history of the class, the circumstances sourrounding the approval of contruction of Illinois and her sisters, and the weapon systems whe would have been equipped with. Ten citations for a battleship that was 22% complete at the time of her cancellation is rather good I think, and the article doesn't omit any major points of the battleship's history. If you still insist on objecting to the article then cite examples that me and MBK004 can adress, or better yet, change you object to comment and suggest things we could include to improve the article; however, from where I read the criteria, this article is meets all established criteria to be an FA. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please don't get so offended.
  2. I know the FA criteria (I've helped on 5 FAs [all successful] and reviewed several score more)
  4. My objection falls under several parts. The first is that this article may be part of a series, but it should be able to stand alone without those other components. I shouldn't have to look at two other articles to learn the history of the Iowa-class battleships and their armament. That said, an appropriate summary (2-3 paragraphs) of the other articles would be very useful to this article to give it some perspective. Additionally, some more information about the designer, the shipbuilders, the schedule, etc. would be very useful since this ship was never completed.
  5. Why are the references not cited anywhere? Are they even used as references. If not, why put them in? If they are, why not give footnotes as to where they were used?
  6. This may simply be one of those articles that doesn't have enough information available to reach FA status. You should not be upset at that if it turns out to be true.
Specifically, IMHO it does not meet:
1b - the article neglects major facts and details (history of the class of ship and the name at a minimum)
1c - the footnotes should include information about the publishers as well
2
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61&nbsp;cl.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 700 lb.
2a - The article does not expand upon the naming conventions, what the other 3 ships were in the series, the USS Kentucky, etc. Furthermore, the article's Lead is too short IMHO and does not provide a summary of the text below
2b - missing a "table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming"
2c - citations are missing pertinent information (like publisher and date) and are not formatted IAW WP:CITE (mostly italicized titles)
3 - a single image outside of the main image. Is this all you could find?
4 - it is not of an appropriate length and needs to be expanded substantially


Lastly, do NOT sacrifice your studies for this. You need to study and do well on your exams. I support keeping this nomination open until 31 December (at LEAST) in order to give you time to do both your exams and this article. Your efforts are not unnoticed and certainly merit extra time to complete this (when was the last time your professors said that?!?). — BQZip01 — talk 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on your studies. You can let the FAC fail and file another FAC after your exams. Also, I know this article is part of a group of ship articles but do not assume that people who read this article already read the other ship articles. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me apologize for my above comments; they were not ment to be rude, but apperently they came off as rude, and that was not my intention. Secondly, if you are willing to keep this open til 31 December then I would be thrilled to adress these concerns after finals; and I do apreciate this bending to my schedualling needs. I hate to impose on users like that, but it is hard for me to effectively split my time between school and wikipedia, and knowing I have time to work on this after finals would certainly put my mind at ease on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Rewrite

After recieving objections from the FAC community regarding the length of the article I have attempted to rewrite the article to better meet our FAC criteria. During the research for the rewrite I stumbled across information that conclusivly proved the U.S.N hull number 65 was originally the mighty Montana, so new material was installed in the article to cover the aspect of Illinoiss life. There are most likely spelling and grammar errors in the article; for these, I apologize; my spelling was never very good. If anyone has questions about the material or the citing add [citation needed] tags to the material and I will see about citing the information forthwith.

I encourage everyone who voted or comment earlier to look at this new, expanded version; your opinion on the article may or may not have shifted as a result of the rewrite. Lastly, I wish to thank everyone who waited for me to finish finals before closing this FAC, although it was not nessicary to do so I apreciated the gesture more than I can possibly hope to impart with simple english words. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Bonaparte Crossing the Alps edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it covers the topic well, is fairly well-written, and corners all aspects of the topic. I also think that it makes good use of images, formatting techniques, and is well-referenced. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reads nicely, but I feel it could do with many more sources. There's a lot of parts that are wholly unreferenced. Redrocketboy 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as? All paragraphs have at least one cite, and most have more than three. Please be precise when making constructive criticism. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry - the first paragraph of the second section has none. Does the one reference cover everything in an entire paragraph? Redrocketboy 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, my apologies - I will cite that. And yes, when I use one cite for a whole paragraph, it infers that the one cite is for the whole thing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (And apologies for length in advance) I realize that I am not a regular here, and I freely admit that I do not know as much about FAC as the regulars, but I do watch AD's talk page, and it led me here. I would like to make a couple notes, and I realize they are lower-priority, but for FAC, I think that the little issues should be worked out, when possible. Wikipedia:Accessibility would be an issue with this article, for a couple reasons:
  • Editors with very poor vision, have to read Wikipedia with large fonts, and low resolutions, and this results in display issues when images are forced oversized, as all the images in this article are. The first image takes up nearly the entire width of the article for someone using a low (600x800) resolution, and if one increases font size, it leaves no more than one word to the sides of images. While the introductory image is often oversized, I think this size is just a bit too large. This is in part, due to the Infobox's settings, however, and not the article itself.
  • The Image manual of style also discourages forcing oversizing, as it over-rides an editor's preferences.
  • MOS also discourages using left-aligned images under second level (===) headers, for this reason, as the text for some readers can be hidden behind the image. The image in "Historical background" is left aligned under a second level header. (To see this in action, see Mount_St._Helens, which is a featured article, but for me, much of the text is hidden behind the left-aligned images in the "General" section (for the record, I run 1680x1050 on a 22" widescreen, and use default font size).
  • The excessive citing in the "Historical background" section, third paragraph, first sentence. Six references to cite the date and number of army members? Could some of these citations be moved to another sentence, or removed without harming the verifiability?
  • The only other thing I can think that would help, is to remove the two refs that are in the middle of the last sentence in the "Contrast to David's depiction" section, to the end of the sentence. They are placed in the middle (after "mule") without any punctuation, and are a bit distracting. Since the sentence ends with "rather than a horse", moving the citations that verify it was a mule to the end of this sentence, would not change the information cited, and would move them from the middle of a sentence.
  • And, on a personal aesthetic note, I'd like to see the gallery centered for visual page balance.

I really like this article, which is one of the reasons I decided to comment here, because I'd like to see it accessible to all visually, as well as become a FA. Ariel♥Gold 07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you so much for commenting, Ariel, and for identifying those issues. I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns - I have made the first image smaller (please: is it small enough? Please, please tell me if it is still too large), I have placed the said image in the Historical background section under the first level (==) header (not sure if this actually does remedy the said issue - give me a yell if the problem with overlapping image persists), reduced the 5 cites to three (the "fourth""cite"is, in fact, a note, not a ref), moved the outsnading refs in the Contrast section to the end of the sentence, and centred the gallery. Was there anything else? Thanks again, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AD! Great job fixing all that, and thanks for understanding why they present issues to some readers. I would still suggest removing the forced oversizing of all the images, and allowing them to be standard, by not specifying any image size. This allows users who wish to see images smaller to not have them huge, and allows editors who set their preferences to display images larger, to see them as they intend. Most of the images are forced to 250px, and default is 180. The full images can, of course, be simply viewed by those who want to by clicking on them. That would be my only concern, otherwise it looks excellent! I hope it makes it to FA! Ariel♥Gold 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All accessibility issues addressed, article is a fine read, a good resource, and well sourced by a wide variety of references, both online and offline. It is visually pleasant to both the average reader, and to those with visual difficulties. The issues with sourcing have been addressed, and I now think it would make a great addition to the Featured Article lineup. Ariel♥Gold 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The issue of the mule, a rather large part of this article, needs some work. First, link to mule. Second, the comparison of mule vs horse conflates two other, separate comparisons: ordinary animal with magnificent animal (grade horse vs thoroughbred), and cheaply rented/"borrowed" from a peasant vs expensively bred, bought, trained, and tended. Some mules are magnificent animals, many horses are one step away from dog meat. I am not sure what the real story is here, but the discussion as it stands seems to reflect more prejudice about mules than insight into the cultural significance of Bonaparte's mount. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought about this. The paintings were made in an era when the education of a gentleman included horsemanship. I suggest recruiting some horse people (besides myself) to weigh in on the significance of Bonaparte's mount. Reading the little bit of text about where the mule came from, my first thought is that it is a wise man who, when riding across mountains, chooses to ride an experienced mountain-hardy working mule rather than a war horse that has lived most of its life indoors. --Una Smith (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be happy to more clearly explain why Bonaparte chose a mule, but I will not go into immense detail; please remember that the article refers to the painting, not Bonaparte or his mule. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added more relevant information about the mule, and why it was used over a horse, in a note in the "Notes" section. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, User:Anonymous Dissident, you have misunderstood the point of my objection re the mule. The issue relevant to this article is not the man's choice of mount, but rather the social context in which the various painters depict that choice, and the meaning conveyed by the depicted qualities of the chosen animal. --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry to emerge from retirement to do this, but I still read the articles, and this one isn't FA quality. Among other things, it isn't comprehensive and needs a copyedit. Some factual errors, omissions, or misrepresentations picked at random:
    • we are never told that Delaroche is usually known as Paul (to distinguish him from his father).
    • the painting is also sometimes called Napoleon Bonaparte Crossing the Alps.
    • what is the original French title (or titles)? Or was it always titled in English?
    • nowhere does it mention that Napoleon was dead at the time the painting was produced.
    • there are at least three copies of the painting in existence, yet we don't get any history at all.
    • which copy of David's painting was in the Louvre? Almost certainly not the one illustrated, which was owned by the family of Joseph Bonaparte at the time
    • why does the info box put the location as Musée du Louvre when the original is almost certainly the version held by the Walker Art Gallery (purchased from Onslow's estate)?
    • David's painting weren't a series but five versions of the same portrait
    • considering that the reason for the commission was that David's painting was unrealistic some decent analysis of the differences is necessary.
    • why aren't we told that the reason that Napoleon is depicted on a magnificent steed in David's painting is because he requested to portrayed like that?
    • most of the elements of David's picture are "irrefutably untrue", why pick on the horse?
    • the line about the light and Napoleon's pigeon chest is referenced to a source which in fact discusses the composition of Jean-Baptiste Isabey and Claude Vernet's Revue de Quintidi and mentions David's picture only in passing and Delaroche's not at all.
    • no mention of 18 Brumaire in the historical background? I'd rate it as more important than the amount of cheese that was eaten by the troops.
    • the mule wasn't borrowed from a peasant but from the convent (as the article later states when it contradicts itself).
    • how do we know Napoleon's concealed hand is ungloved?
    • David, not Delaroche, was named First Painter (another misquoted reference) - Delaroche would have been seven at the time of Napoleon's coronation. On a similar note, Delaroche was born during the Revolution, so it is also unlikely that he was frequently commissioned to create banners for revolutionary parades. I assume this is a result of the same confusion between David and Delaroche. This error is compounded by your own statement of opinion in the last line of the article.
    • the quote from The Atheneum is reused which indicates to me that you are grasping for sources.
    • what is the purpose of the images in the gallery? Why a detail of Napoleon's face from David's portrait? How does that help?
    • many of the points raised in the initial GA review are still unaddressed, as are many of the suggestions I made when you first started work on it.
    • there are many unreferenced claims or statements assigned a reference that does not support the claim: Delaroche's attention to detail and literal precision in this painting evidences and demonstrates the slow but steady evolution of realism in art during the 19th century, and how its popularity began to rise for example is cited to a source which makes no such claim (what is literal precision anyway?).
It also needs copyediting. There are doubled words, redundancies, poor word choices, and vague, awkwardly constructed sentences. This could be an FA if you can find some decent discussion of the painting, but even if you correct the points mentioned above, it simply isn't thorough enough at the moment. I only look in occasionally; I'll try to look at this again but feel free to email me (though I doubt I'd change my opinion without a complete rewrite using additional sources). Yomanganitalk 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Yomangani (to Yomangani) wow - great comment--Keerllston 09:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Metroid Prime edit

previous FAC

Self-nomination. I've been editing this article since February 2006 (before I even owned a GameCube!), organizing the information already there, adding references, creating sections such as development and reception, and doing every possible move to improve the article: Wikiproject Assessment, GA nomination (passed), peer review and one failed FA candidacy. And now seems the article is good enough for trying the FA status. igordebraga ≠ 18:49, 3 December 2007

  • Support Chensiyuan (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lacks reliable references, and the prose is not as good as it could be. It also seems to be unstable. Redrocketboy 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain better the first, give me examples of the second, the third isn't much true (the only problem are somewhat sparse vandals). igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By reliable I mean ones that are accessible to everyone, not dead links and review sites. The prose could do with a copyedit if it hasn't already, some sentences are overly long. Thanks. Redrocketboy 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umm...review sites are generally considered to be reliable. What is your idea of a reliable source for this topic? bibliomaniac15 05:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Specially because besides reviews, news which involve interviews, FAQs (and a similarly written page on version differences) and some sites used only as secondary sources, most sources are reliable. But you're right about one dead link - Nintendo removed the GameCube games from their page, and now I'm searching archive.org or similar ways to reach that "Developer interview". igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure how the "bonuses" section fits in. It seems a little guidish to me. Other than that everything else looks fine. bibliomaniac15 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments More needs to be done before this becomes an FA.
    • Nitpicky things about refs (but hey, this is FAC ;) ): refs should go immediately after punctuation with no space in between.
      •  Done
    • The pull quote on wide monitors looks weird (it gets placed to the left of the Style guide sketches image. Is there any way to place it so that it appears immediately below the image no matter what the width of the monitor?
      •  Done See if it works now.
    • You introduce terms specific to the video game without describing them well for people such as myself who are unfamiliar with it ("Morph Ball mode", which isn't described until later, "Scan Visor", "gravity suit", "have sealed off Metroid Prime" <-- a short description of this character is needed ...I shouldn't have to click on the link and read another article to discover that this is the main antagonist of the video game).
      •  Done, but I don't know if I should translate "Scan Visor": "Gameplay" mentions The display can be altered by exchanging visors, with (...) one with a scanner that searches for enemy weaknesses and interferes with some mechanisms such as force fields and elevators..
    • Needs another copyedit, as I spotted some minor grammar errors (using between instead of among, inconsistency of "Retro Studios": is it singular ["Retro Studios was created"], or plural ["After establishing their offices"]?, comma abuse: "separated by doors, that can be opened", "Retro Studios was created in 1998, by an alliance") and awkward and confusing sentences ("that provides the player with a general idea of where to go, such as indicating "seismic activity" in a certain room"...how are these two ideas related?). "During the final cutscene, a dying Metroid Prime steals Samus's Phazon Suit, which then downgrades her back to the gravity suit, and, unbeknownst to her, becomes Dark Samus." Who becomes Dark Samus? Currently the grammar of this sentence indicates that the Phazon Suit does.
    • Gameplay section is weak and confusing for those unfamiliar with the game. Ex: "...Grapple Beam, which latches onto special hooks, called grapple nodes"...not a very helpful description. What does the Grapple Beam actually do? The second paragraph of the section is confusing, and seems a bit plot-heavy to be in the "Gameplay" section.
      •  Done
    • ...because "they couldn't come out with any concrete ideas". Who's they? Who said this?
      •  Done
    • I assume at least some of the articles used as refs have authors. Why isn't that information given in the refs? 140.247.131.86 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the citations are incomplete and there is inconsistent formatting. Some web refs have "accessed" and others have "retrieved". Jay32183 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
    • I've also noticed that the "Gameplay" section refers to Samus doing things. This section should be written as the player controlling Samus. As long as it explains how the game works rather than how to play the game, it isn't a game guide. The way it is written now makes Samus seem like part of the game that acts on its own, rather than the player controlled character. Jay32183 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done, unless you think it's not enough. igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plot contains what I consider to be buzzwords: in-universe phrases that are not explained and leave the reader scratching their head and having to click on links to figure out what it is, which is poor prose. For instance, it mentions the Varia Suit, but never explains what that is or why it's important to mention it (note: found it in the beginning, gameplay). What is the purpose of the Magmoor Caverns if there are no bosses? From the description, it sounds like that it's the equivlant to the castle in Super Mario 64, but I could be totally wrong. What is the Gravity Suit? Is it the first suit she wears? Can it be mentioned in the first paragraph of the plot?
  • Finally, it seems that the underlying point of the game is to find all the artifacts to beat this Metroid Prime – this single entity – but to me at least it was a bit ambigious and required several readings in order to understand that, which shouldn't happen. For instance, I had to scroll up to the gameplay to find out what the artifacts were; I think they should have been mentioned in the second paragraph of the plot. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Edited Gameplay, and expanded/changed Plot with the Scan Visor logs. igordebraga ≠ 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

S.S. Lazio edit

It's an important voice It's an important voice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laziale93 (talk • contribs) 21:23, December 8, 2007 UTC

  • Strong Oppose Sorry, if you think this is an FA, you should quit Wikipedia and go play football. This is not even a GA.
  • The article is not comprehensive. It needs a "Stadium" section and a section about the reserves/ladies team. "Lazio participate in thirty-seven sports disciplines in total", so can I have a section about the other sports?
  • Many sections and paragraphs have no references.
  • References 2, 3, 5, 17, 21 and the one after "In 1901" have formatting problems.
  • Not well-written. "Foundation to post-World War II (1900-1949)" and "1950s and 60s" sections have too many short paragraphs. Tomorrow I will look for spelling and grammar errors.
  • --Kaypoh (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are problematic. Not only do they lack critical details (like who took it), but at face value they appear to be publicity shots whose GFDL tag is questionable. Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • you should quit Wikipedia and go play football. Ouch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose there are loads of issues to be solved first. No way, not even a GA as Kaypoh noted: if you really want this article to become a FA, please consider a peer review first. Pictures are clearly not GFDLs, but quite blatant copyvio, so I am going to delete them. I also suggest to speedy close this nomination. --Angelo (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just take a look how much better the Italian version is, and I don't even speak Italian. Peanut4 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support Excelently written, defintely deserves FA status. 38.106.99.202 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note this is not a vote. --Angelo (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Macau edit

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for featured article. This article has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors. "Support" is welcome. "Object" or "Oppose" is more welcome as this article can be improved continuously in this way. I will surely put it back here over and over again for nomination even there are more than 100 times failing to be nominated for FA. Thanks! Guia Hill 07:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

  • I think the tourism section is redundant, given that tourism is well-described in the economy section. Shiva Evolved (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm still learning about featured articles, but to me it seems (1) 67kb is too long - I suspect the primary cause is the excess external links, the sections "Tourism," "Sister cities," "See also" - if you can combine "Tourism" within "Economy," and merge "Sister cities" and "See also" into a common "Related Topics" template, it may solve the problem. (2) As per WP:WIAFA, the prose should be compelling, but there are many rudimentary grammar mistakes, disjointed sentences. Shiva Evolved (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but don't you think you are opposing youself? most copyedits were done by you afterwards. Coloane (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I have done is the kind of stuff that needs to be done. I am objecting to the continued existence of such problems. Shiva Evolved (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Coloane (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of issues here.
    • Lead is too short for an article of this size. Furthermore, it does not cite any sources.
    • Consider fixing the first sentence of the lead, as it should use "is" instead of "was". Common sense; compare Hong Kong and Blaise Pascal for the differences of tense.
    • Please use British English consistently in this article.
    • Portuguese traders first settled in Macau in the 16th century. Subsequently administered by Portugal until the handover in 1999, it was the oldest European colony in China.—Run-on.
    • That was only a taste of the problems in this article; please arrange for the article to be properly copy-edited. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 18:29, 08 December 2007 (GMT)
      • Is it a must to provide sources in the lead? did you actually check the talk page and figure out if British English was already used consistently? what do you mean by "taste of problems"? Coloane (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every section must have sources, believe it or not. The article has inconsistencies like "organization" and "organisation". A "taste of problems" means that I have provided a lot less than what is actually there in the article. I am not obligated to mention every problem or edit the article in any way. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 21:00, 08 December 2007 (GMT)
          • I strongly recommend you that "get away" or doing something that are more constructive if you are going to write nonsense here. What do you think? Coloane (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Coloane) I'm not sure why you are being rude, but it won't help this FAC that's for sure. I suggest you cool down and respect others, Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take particular care that if you are going to write sth here, you should prepare for this comment. Coloane (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being rude ever gets any point across, whatever yours may be. Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rude? well, whatever! Coloane (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, whatever. The prose issues start at the top, with "notable" tourist industry: that epithet is unusual here; try "thriving" or something like that. "Macau has developed industries ..."—"Developed" is ambiguous: is it part of a verb ("has developed") or is it an epithet (i.e., it's industries are developed ones, like "developed economies")?
  • "THE handover"—you haven't properly established this fact, so "the" can't be used.
  • Ref 5 squashed in.
  • We do speak English, so "natural disaster" should not be linked; nor should "saga" (which needs "the" before it). Please audit overlinking throughout.
  • Imperial era section: en dash used for the first range: you need to pipe the link after it to correct the hyphen.
  • "Sixteenth" or "16th"—probably the number, but it must be consistent. And why is a century linked?
  • MOS breach: ampersand.

Plus plus. Object. Tony (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per above. Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs. You said "I will surely put it back here over and over again for nomination even there are more than 100 times failing to be nominated for FA." Please don't waste our time. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will surely keep wasting your time! I/somebody else will put the article here 1000 times, million times until this topic reach the FA standard. Coloane (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very pretty, very nice writing
    minor issues: Etymology is myothological rather than scientific, Riot account seems under referenced, Demographics should be improved to include more percentage,
    --Keerllston 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support! your opinion will be managed accordingly. Coloane (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdrawn (at Coloane) Why-fore art thine acts lacking in civility?--Keerllston 14:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No matter you support or oppose, it doesn't matter indeed. It will not actually affect the "high number of views" or "high rate of clicks" of this famous article. Hundreds and thousands of FA articles have very low number of views. That is why I don't care very much! I put this article right here so that I can have free labours (even not cheap labours) like "Tony" or others to help me to improve this article. Coloane (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • not all paragraphs in this article need citation. If so, then why not every word? "Woman is female." Do I need citation? common sense doesn't citation. Coloane (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:V. The very first line in the policy states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There should be a couple citations in each paragraph at the least, especially to verify claims that are likely to be challenged. Therefore, this article requires additional referencing. Besides, not all women are genetically or anatomically female, so I'd ask for a citation for that statement. ;) María (habla conmigo) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object there are couple citations in each paragraph. I also read through the WP:V this. You didn't show me anything. If it is a common sense, it is not that necessary for every sentense having citation. If this topic is mainly covering pathological anatomy or medical genetics or even somebody going through the procedure of surgery (like removal of uterus or gonad), then it is quite necessary for me to add citation in certain cases. In normal case, women are female. The composition of genetic material in normal case will be expressed in the same way except mutation or others (and I even never heard about spont. mutation will change one's gender).Coloane (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe you fully understand the concept of verifiability. No, not every sentence requires a citation, but what is "common sense" for you may not be "common sense" for another (for example, take your misunderstanding of sex vs. gender). Facts and figures usually require a reference or two as does any information that may be contested. I would also like to point out that at the moment you have five opposing !votes; if you wish for a promotion to FA, I would take people's well meaning advice and work on improving the article rather than being needlessly combative. María (habla conmigo) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
same as above. Coloane (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It doesn't mean I am rude and I don't want to improve this article. I don't know who they are above. I am not interested in fighting with anyone. Actually I do want to do something for this article. But I doubt if these are qualfied people/editors who can give valuable opinion and vote! I personally object this kind of system in Wiki. I hope Wiki can make some reforms and change this procedure ASAP. 14-year old school boy who dropped out from school can vote here; people who don't have first-class honour degrees can vote here, etc for example. If someone who graduated from a good university with PhD (or other doctoral degrees), plus with 5-6 years of editorial experience in wiki as an admin., then I may respect his/her opinions. And also I think these people having these qualfication and experience can vote. This system will surely eliminate "Tony", "Shiva" and other people who are similar with low quality in education (Australian education is bad and I don't respect this) and little work experience. Coloane (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its being a while since I wrote an article I felt was worthy enough. Also, it has a good number of links within the article which should be of interest to anyone curious on more aspects of this subject. Fergananim (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, sorry, but you should really consider sending this article to peer review first. A couple of things to consider: WP:WIAFA requires inline citations/footnotes, the lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD, and there are a couple of WP:MOS problems (for example, see headings). AZ t 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agreed, definitely needs to go through a peer review. I would like to see an infobox if at all possible since this is a person. Most of your sections are too short so those could be combined. And then, what AZ mentioned. Inline citations, longer lead, incorrect heading format and thats without even really reading the article. Get a Peer Review, maybe even put it up for GA first, then come back here.↔NMajdan•talk 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No references, short lead, no images and a lot of other problems. Not even close to GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bad quality--Keerllston 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Lance Bass edit

Self-nomination. This article has gone through extensive editing throughout the past 6 months, and I finally feel like it's up to FA status. It is "well written" in the sense that many pairs of eyes have made style suggestions, most of which were implemented. It is "comprehensive". It is "factually accurate", with over 100 mostly different references, many very high quality: New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, etc. It is neutral and doesn't present any bias... it is "stable", with no major ongoing edits - with the obvious exception of vandalism reverts. It has a summary lead section of the appropriate length covering all major topics in the rest of the article. It has a hierarchical system of headings and table of contents, and contains both free and fair use images. --MgCupcake 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Uncomprehensive, needs a copyedit, needless trivia and fancruft. Way too much emphasis on space travel and sexual orientation politics and not enough on 'N Sync. Madcoverboy 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subsequently, Bass's romantic life became regular blog and tabloid fodder." - POV, uncited, probably unverifiable
Removed. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bass's great uncle, Julius E. Bass, was a World War II pilot who was a prisoner of war in the German Stalag Luft I camp,[1][14] and a second great uncle, Clizzy Asco Bass, Jr., was a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War." - While interesting, non-notable in the context of a biography
Ouch. Okay, removed it. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bass joined Justin Timberlake, JC Chasez, Chris Kirkpatrick and Joey Fatone in the boy band 'N Sync, after the original bass singer, Jason Watkins, quit the group. In need of a replacement, the group began searching. Timberlake and his mother called Bass, following a recommendation by their mutual vocal coach, Westbrook." - Didn't I already read this in early life? Yes: "One of Bass's vocal coaches in the Mississippi Show Stoppers was Bob Westbrook, a professional vocal coach who had previously worked with young performers Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears.[12] Westbrook's connection to Timberlake would later play a large role in Bass joining 'N Sync." - Copyedit for repetition, flow
Removed repetition, will try and get it copyedited... --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bass was an outgoing student who frequently hosted parties in his home and was elected vice president of his junior class. Bass has said that he was "extremely popular" among the female contingent of his high school[18] and was sexually active with girls during this time." - Take out the emphasis on the popularity fluff can go.
Removed it. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After flying to Orlando, Florida .... my own innocence" - That's all there is to write about the N'Sync years, one paragraph?
I think if a reader really wanted to learn all about the 'N Sync years, they would read the 'N Sync article, wouldn't they? I'll work on adding 'N Sync stuff that directly affected Bass.--MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information regarding the band's early success and legal battles has been added. --MgCupcake (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a November 2007 interview with GQ magazine, Bass revealed that the last time he ever spoke to Pearlman was in court." - Trivia. It's enough to say they're estranged and provide a cite.
Done. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole flying around, sexual experimentation section is unencyclopedic trivia.
Removed. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...recording Celebrity, their last album before hiatus," - it's been 6 years, can we call it a break up? Or at least most recent album?
While Bass himself has said the band is broken up, he's the only member who has said that. The band never released an official statement. Does the term "permanent hiatus" work better? --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bass branched out into acting, and received"
Done. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who were seen only in the end credits" - fancruft
Removed.--MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miramax marketed the film heavily towards 'N Sync's teen fans, and The film's soundtrack featured songs by fellow teen pop sensations Mandy Moore and BB Mak, along with previously unreleased tracks by 'N Sync and Britney Spears." -> "Although Miramax marketed the film heavily towards 'N Sync's teen fans, the film was a box-office flop, and grossed only $4.2 million domestically compared to its production budget of $10 million.
Done. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite criticisms on his acting, ... the pre-teen crowd." -> "Critics had mixed reviews on Bass's acting."
Done. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has gone on to make several other film appearances, with cameos" - redundant
Done. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the film, telvision, theater, producing sections all need to be stripped of trivia & cruft and copyedited
Yikes. Working on this... --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spaceflight plans goes overboard describing the training. First and third paragraphs could be combined.
Done. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coming out section is vastly bloated and overwrought
Working on this. Do you have any suggestions on what to cut out of it? --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religious faith section should be condensed, split and/or collapsed into early life and coming out. Same for section on personal life.
I've condensed both. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting. --MgCupcake 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue to oppose The article has improved markedly, but I remain concerned with the style of the article and continued presence of fancruft. The quotes interspersed throughout the article come across as journalistic or biographic instead of encyclopedic.
    • he feels 'N Sync is "definitely broken up.
    • he felt "completely betrayed"
    • "That was it - our film was finished... once the country went to war, there was no way our film was going to be on anyone's top-priority list."
    • "I’ve always wanted to do Broadway. I think every entertainer’s dream is to eventually do some kind of theater in New York."
    • "Lance is a very happy person and I'm sure he's got more in his life than this trip, so I'd be very surprised if he got that upset about it all."
    • "It was heartbreaking; there is no other word for it."
    • and so on...
  • Also, the pictures of Bass are all dated 2007 (exceptions being space & movie poster) which likewise seems unencyclopedic in coverage.
  • All of the press coverage and micro-drama surrounding who-knew-what-when and what he said in what magazine in response is borderline not-notable - it shouldn't be in a FA. Likewise the LGBT reaction to his comments could be pared down as well as his response to the criticism could also be condensed - something to the effect of "Bass asserted in the People interview that he still acted straight which drew criticism from LGBT groups about reinforcing stereotypes of effiminate gays. Bass later said his statements were misunderstood. He received a Human Rights Campaign visibility award on..."
  • I still see lots of fancruft about who he did or didn't date or have sex with, didn't marry, went to prom with, or so on spread throughout. You wouldn't see this in an article on Richard Feynman or Winston Churchill, so it shouldn't be here either. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't see how we can do anything about the pictures being from 2007 - those are the only free images available at Commons. It's either that or no pictures at all. As for his romantic involvements being "fancruft", I beg to differ, seeing as other FA articles about pop singers, such as Mandy Moore, include a lot of information about the subject's romantic involvements. If it's talked about in the press, there's no reason it should be considered fancruft. But thanks. --MgCupcake (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Autobiography does not fit in where you have put it, given the paragraph almost entirely refers to hs tales of being gay. Either more details about the book should be given (how many copies did it sell, for example?) or it should be added to the Coming Out section. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There's only half of a sentence in the whole paragraph that refers to his being gay. However, the section has been moved. --MgCupcake 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference 12, from the Clarion Ledger, doesn't work. LuciferMorgan (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with a working ref. --MgCupcake (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Hrant Dink edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because even though it is relatively new, it is greatly sourced and written. The only problem is that assasination and below take up more than half the article, but the article can't get much bigger. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might I recommend that the assassination section be split into a separate article? Some sections, namely the reactions from countries/individuals, would be better off in an article titled the Assassination of Hrant Dink. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not well written. A few short paragraphs with only one sentence, too many quotes, "Reactions" should not be a list. "Trial" section has a tag saying it needs expansion. I see two [citation needed] tags and a couple of unreferenced paragraphs: "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed that the alleged assassin Ogün Samast had been captured, with the assassination weapon on him." and "Columns in Turkish newspapers included Armenian in transliteration: Ahparik, Ahparik! [Armenian for "brother, brother!"] by Hadi Uluengin in Hürriyet, and Tsidesutyun Paregamis! [Farewell My Friend!] by Can Dundar in Milliyet." --Kaypoh (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query seems well written, but what can you tell me about NPOV concerns?--Keerllston 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Degrassi: The Next Generation edit

SELF-NOMINATION I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it is of equal quality to other FAs about television series. Before I started working on the article, it was basically a character list with a trivia section. I used Lost (TV series) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) as guidelines to rewrite the page, it now includes production info, actor details, a response subsection, etc. All statements are now backed up by fully formatted references.

The article is pretty stable with regards to vandalism, considering the age of the article's subject's fanbase, any vandalism is removed immediately, as is incorrect information.

Any comments and suggestions to further better the article are welcome, but they may take a day or 2 to implement because I'm now forced to access the internet using a PDA. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now Oppose. Just from a quick skim, the layout and writing need work. I see several paragraphs made up of one sentence, and one paragraph that takes up two-thirds of my page. There's a lot of repetition in the "special episode" sections with regards to the opening statement in each paragraph. After this is taken care of I'll give it a deeper read.-Wafulz 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wafulz. Hmmm... I copied the layout from the FAs mentioned above, so I'm not sure what's wrong there. I rewrote the intros for the paragraphs in the "special episodes..." subsection, and renamed it to "complementary media". With regards to the one sentence paragraphs, and the one that takes up two-thirds of your page, welll, I'm using a PDA, so it's hard for me to know which ones you're referring to. Can you point them out to me perhaps? If there's any other writing needs working on, please advise. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is the issue. I think this may be one of those times where a chart works better than prose. Also, it uses a contraction ("don't"), so that should be changed to "do not".-Wafulz 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to use a list or a paragraph is actually personal preference, and in my opinion that paragraph is not an issue. If it was converted into a chart, I feel that would be worse. However, this is all personal preference, and isn't supported by the FA criteria. Therefore, the paragraph isn't a legitimate concern. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "don't" to "do not", as for that paragraph, I'll wait and see if there are any other comments on it before making a table. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing your mind, Wafulz, is there anything (other than that table) that I can do to the article to get your support? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has a few problems:
  • I see a few short paragraphs with only one sentence. This suggests it is not well written.
  • Many unreferenced paragraphs in "Main and recurring roles" section. One unreferenced paragraph in "Concept" section.
  • IMDB and message boards are not reliable sources.
  • References 4, 15, 58, 93 and 113 have formatting problems. References always go after a comma or full stop with no space in between.
  • Links like http://www.degrassi.tv and PAX should not be in the article except in references or the "External links" section.
  • Improve the article and try GA first.

--Kaypoh (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed some that were able to be merged into others, there are some I just can't think a way to fix.
  • The paragraph in the concept section is the last one, right? would the cite episode template suffice, citing the first ep? As for the main and recurring roles section, the reference is the series itself, isn't it?
  • All I can say is that other FAs like buffy use imdb in the same context this article (ie producers previous work). The messageboard is at the official site, and the only cited pieces are from "ExecProducer", confirmed as Stephen Stohn in the series' official guidebook.
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • Thanks for your comments, so far. I've fixed what I can, please advise on anything else -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a few short paragraphs with only one sentence. Some of them are unreferenced. I don't think the "Main and recurrent roles" is like the "Plot" section - if it is like the Plot section you can assume the show is the reference. The article needs a copy-edit but I cannot help you with that because my English is not that good. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well thanks for all your comments. I'll keep working on it of course, references aren't a problem; my skills in writing in-so-far-as expanding those paragraphs is! -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Satellite Instructional Television Experiment edit

I've been working on Satellite Instructional Television Experiment for over an year now. I feel that this is a very interesting and important subject in the history of the Indian space programme. The article covers all the points listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. this article is explained to the tiniest detail. I have plenty of more information about SITE, but it is all mundane information like the complete TV schedules, the names of all films featured during SITE, the format for all feedback forms used, etc. Adding those details would not justify point 4 - "staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". The article covers all the important points of SITE and does not neglect any major fact. The article is well referenced. A UN report on the project has been my main reference for the article. The article is a bit on the shorter side (21k). I do not feel that length is a criteria for FA though. Indian Standard Time was featured at 16k. The only point where I feel the article is lacking is on the image front. But I cannot help it as there are no free images available. There is an image which could be used - [5]. The owner of the image has agreed to let wikipedia use the image. When I contacted her to release the image under a free license, I did not get a reply. That image will be added whenever it is released under GFDL or an appropriate CC license. Aksi_great (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The size of the article does not matter in this case. The topic seems to cover just the very required issues and is generally well presented. More images would be nice, but not mandatory. A basic image of an dish antenna would look nice, does not have to be a chickenmesh dish (which normally get filled with sparrows nests).

  • In the lead, you may want to change the phrase "unfriendly democracies" into something more diplomatic.
  • Throwing in a few more citations wont hurt.
  • Brazil, The People's Republic of China and India – which were geographically and socially suitable for such a project. A little detail (a line or two) describing why they were geographically suitable will be helpful. This may have to do with the type of orbit chosen and such.
  • Usage of the terms "Uplink" and "Downlink" is helpful and clarifying to a reader in the

"Technical details" section.

  • The statement According to the 1971 census, the most backward states in India were Orissa, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Karnataka. Is this accurate? Could you be refering to backward districts? Do your sources discuss this in slightly more detail?
  • In the section "Village selection" , the first and second paragraphs have some repeat info on states. The two para's should be interchaged and cpedited to avoid repetition of state names. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been heavily copyedited by Blnguyen and ImpuMozhi. I have explained why Brazil, India and China were geographically suitable. Also clarified the point about backwardness. The states with the most backward districts were chosen, not the most backward states. The "unfriendly democracies" sentence has been removed from the lead for now. I will try and add 1-2 sentences to the lead as it looks a bit short right now. The village selection section has been fixed in the copyedits. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ready for FA:
  • One reference per paragraph is GA standard referencing, not FA standard referencing. Some paragraphs have no references at all.
  • The lead section is too short.
  • Some sentences are POV or not in formal encyclopediac tone. For example:
    • "The program was highly successful in that it was a tale of technological cooperation between unfriendly democracies."
    • "There were demands from villagers and journalists to continue the revolutionary experiment. Even Arthur C. Clarke, who had been presented with a SITE television set in Sri Lanka, pleaded with NASA to continue the experiment. But in the end, the SITE program came to an end in July 1976."
    • "The impact of the SITE transmissions was tremendous. For the entire year, thousands of villagers gathered around the TV set and watched the shows."
    • "The phenomenal success of the Satellite Instructional Television Experiment followed by similar experiments conducted elsewhere in the Appalachian Region, Rocky Mountains, Alaska, Canada, China and Latin America in the mid seventies and early eighties, clearly established the tremendous potential of using satellite TV for educational purposes."
  • The prose does not flow well. Don't start sentences with "but". Don't use "also" and "even" so many times.
  • The article has a few English mistakes. For example:
    • What is "The fist stage"? A stage where people fight with fists?
    • "aims of the experiment for the study the potential of TV as a medium for development" I think one word is missing.
    • Why a space in between "general objectives and specific objectives" and the full stop? Why put reference 7 between two full stops?
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the above recommendations by Kaypoh are minor and can be implemented right here. No need to remove from FAC.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will start working on all the points that both of you have mentioned. But one point that I would like to make is that I don't understand the point of references. References should not be counted as "1 per paragraph" or "some paragraphs have no references". I have referenced absolutely everything in the article. For example, there is only 1 reference after the objectives section because the entire section is referenced from one source. Please give me examples of something which you would like to see referenced and I can work on that. But just a vague objection like not enough references is not something I can help with. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that there is no set rule how often a citation should occur, which is why I casually mentioned that adding a few more refs wont hurt. This way, future readers will not hastily tag the article and cause inconvinience to you. This is only from my previous experiences. As such, in a technical article such as this, there is hardly room for POV.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote counting and citation density aren't valid opposes. A footnote should cover everything up to the next footnote, and if everything in a paragraph is covered by the same note, one note will suffice. However. In an article that is heavy with hard data (as opposed to straightforward, fairly uncontroversial prose), specific data should be cited. I wouldn't worry about counting citations here, but would cite the hard data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Kaypoh - The article has been heavily copyedited in the last 2 days by Blnguyen and ImpuMozhi. I think most of your points regarding english usage are taken care of. I have also toned down the POV adjectives. The only point left to address is the lead. I am working on the problem right now, but this being a short article, the lead will probably be on the shorter side too. I still am not sure about the references though. See my comments above. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article, both informative and well-written. I have just made some changes, uncontroversial ones (I can only hope). Some further points:
  1. "The television signal had two audio channels with different dialects." I suppose "dialects" is a specific, professional term here? Can it be explained better?
  2. "However, it did not provide for small towns where the existing TV set density was fairly high but not as extensive as in a city." I find "high density but not extensive" somewhat self-contradictory. I don't get the meaning, could it be reworded?
  3. "The UNDP.....helped set up the Centre for Educational Technology." If possible, we should have 2-3 words on what the CET did.
  4. "...(evaluated) the change brought by TV in rural structures." Rural society, perhaps? I would do this myself, but I am not sure of the scope of the actual study. Please check and amend if necessary.
On the whole, an excellent article, deserving of FA status. Regards, ImpuMozhi (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained the point about audio channels and about the town TV density. The sentence about CET has been removed by me. On a re-read of the UN report, I got the feeling that it wasn't related to SITE but was just mentioned as a project UNDP would be involved with in the months after SITE. I couldn't find out much about the purpose of CET too as it seems that it has been merged into another organisation now. Rural structures has been changed to society. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Two other points: (1) The districts of Raipur, Bilaspur and Durg now lie in Chhatisgarh (2) Karnataka was known as "Mysore" before 1973. Regards, ImpuMozhi (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the districts. I have put a note below the table. Karnataka is not a problem as the experiment started in 1975, an Karnataka was already Karnataka by that time. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I will take one more look at the article before supporting it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A well written FAC on a new topic. Will hopefully inspire other development/technology related FAC's pertaining to India and other developing countires.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well written and comprehensively covers the topic. -- Naveen (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I think this is something that could pass the FAC criteria (specifically, criterion 1a) after a thorough copyedit. I haven't looked through the entire article, but judging from my copyedit of the lead, I could only presume the rest of the article has prose issues. Also, I request more citations be added to the article. The "International collaboration" has only one source, and "Technical details" has three sources for three paragraphs of text. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Nishkid - I expanded the lead after Blnguyen, Dinesh and Impumozhi copyedited the article as you can see from the history. That may be the reason why the lead had problems. As for the references, I still do not understand why the number of references is so important. The article is quite a short article and all the facts and figures are sourced. I've had a look at the article twice now but I couldn't find anything more to source. The paragraphs have one source as they are all sourced from a single UN report which is the best and only good source about this experiment on the internet and probably elsewhere too. (I've searched both Google scholar and books, but couldn't find anything better). If you have a problem with something which you feel is not sourced adequately, then please tell me. Just counting the no. of refs/paragraph without going through the article is a bit unfair. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are using one source, could you please use reference IDs and duplicate the reference every few lines? It's just a personal preference. Also, I'm only referring to the number of references, because I'm a bit short on time to point out specific issues. I could add {{fact}} tags a dozen or so times, due to the current referencing state. I can help out with referencing. My university library has some materials on SITE available. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    • This resulted in a lot of interaction between film-makers and folk-artists. Shyam Benegal went on to include many of these artists in his children's feature film Charandas Chor (1975). - These sentences are irrelevant to the article's subject matter
    • failure in electricity supply - This contradicts an earlier statement, that specially designed solar powered TV sets were used in the experiment
    • It is not very clear from this article as to how India got into this experiment. The article talks of a core ministerial group which sat together to discuss possible uses of a synchronous communications satellite for India and recommended ATS-6. Was this recommendation more of a coincidence? How did India come to know of SITE? Did NASA send any feelers to India, that it was looking at a collaboration? From the last paragraph, it appears that NASA was twiddling its thumbs waiting for India to make a first move. How was this deadlock broken? This is important.
    • Impact on the rural population was highest in the fields of agriculture and family planning - This needs objective citation
    • For the entire year, thousands of villagers gathered around the TV set and watched the shows. - This is a very generic statement and can be removed since actual viewership numbers are provided in the next few sentences.
    • Was there an agreement that the SITE program would last for only an year. This needs to be mentioned because the closure of the SITE program appears abruptly in the article and confuses the user on why such a successful program was closed.
    • This was done firstly using a spacecraft simulator from NASA, then using the Indian Ocean INTELSAT satellite and finally using the ATS-6 satellite before SITE was launched. The last part of the sentence is confusing...
    • I agree with User:Nishkid64, that the article needs citations. Will try to find some myself
    • Section 7 and 8 contradict each other. While 7 says that thorough testing of all stages were undertaken to ensure objective evaluation, 8 says that viewership dropped because of faulty hardware and television sets. A consistent picture needs to be presented.
    • MoS issues related to Emdash and Endash needs to be checked and corrected.
Was the article formally peer-reviewed? That would have helped solve many of the issues -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits

Reply to Amar

  • I find the information about Benegal quite interesting and relevant as it demonstrates the unforeseen effect that SITE had on a notable film-maker of India.
  • OK. A clarification that the programmes produced by Shyam Benegal for SITE, were folk-based would improve readability. Currently, the "folk-artists" just drop into the article without any prior statement on how they are relevant to the article. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have clarified that only 150 villages were provided with the solar powered and battery operated sets. All others ran on electricity.
  • I am trying to read more about how NASA and ISRO got together for SITE. Will make that point clear soon.
  • I don't have objective citations for the "impact on rural population" statement. But a planning commission report says that, and I have provided with proper citation at the end of the paragraph.
  • Well, it would ideal to provide objective measures for impact because that would add credibility to the statement. Moreover, it is mentioned that the evaluation of SITE was done very thoroughly and hence some data should be available to corroborate it. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the agreement was for 1 year. I have added that info to the beginning of the sentence to make it sound less abrupt.
  • The sentence has been modified. I hope its meaning is more clear now. The testing was done in 3 stages before SITE - simulator, INTELSAT and finally using the ATS-6.
  • User:Priyanath has sent me a paper on SITE from JSTOR. I will try to cite more stuff from that. But at first glance, most of the information in the paper is the same as in the UN report.
  • 7 and 8 don't contradict to me. 7 says that all necessary testing was done prior to SITE while 8 says that some faults were developed during SITE which can happen to any electrical equipment.
  • OK. If Section 7 deals with evaluation done prior to SITE, the sections are OK. I have striked off my comment above -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going through the article once again for the MOS issues, though SandyGeorgia has taken care of most of the dash issues.
  • Finally, I will also take a look at the auto-pr suggestions. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AutoPR
Per discussion below, the review comments of AutoPR are moved to the article's talk page here -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amar, would you mind adding the peer review scripts to the article talk pages instead? The automated script can be helpful, but its feedback isn't always accurate to each article; while it's useful at peer review, it could be misleading at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ideally, it should have been in a peer-review page of the article. Since I could not find it, I added it here. While I agree, that the script may contain some inaccurate feedbacks, it does highlight some points worth taking note of. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like this article very much. Very unique topic. K a r n a (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice in passing (won't affect my support) that it is mentioned that the U. S. "maintained only" diplomatic relations with Communist China - if you are talking about the 1960s, this is not true. Diplomatic ties were established only in 1979. Also, the first section reads a little un-professional, like someone narrating a story. K a r n a (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I'm sorry I haven't been responding for the last 2 days. I've been busy due to some RL issues. I'll start working on the comments immediately. I'm hoping that Priyanath can send me another paper written about SITE so that I can provide a few more citations. - Aksi_great (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not yet ready for FA, citations are very less and please change the list into prose in the Objective section. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicely written! Could be improved in terms of having more sub-headings and references/citations and context, but FA quality.--Keerllston 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. 1a. Redundant wording and assumptions of knowledge or facts that haven't been announced earlier in the text. Repeated patterns of these two issues.
    • "The project was supported by various international agencies such as"—Subset terms are doubled up. Remove "various" and keep "such as". Then "SITE was followed by similar experiments in various countries"—Just "other" countries; why stress their variousness? Audit the whole article for this "various" word. It's in the first para too.
    • What is "also" doing in the first para?
    • Does the logic—the causality resting on "as"—hold up here? "The experiment was successful, as it played a major role in helping develop India's own satellite programme". The assumptions implicit in "as" haven't yet been unpacked so close to the top of the article.
    • "NASA sought to field test the direct broadcast of television programs to terrestrial receivers via satellite and shortlisted India, Brazil and the People's Republic of China as potential sites to stage the test. The country which would receive these broadcasts would have to be large enough and also close to the equator for testing a direct-broadcast satellite." Remove the last four words in the first sentence. See why? Again, knowledge is unreasonably assumed in the wording; this time, it's "the country to receive these broadcasts ..." (Note my tweaks). It's a sudden jerk for the reader that only one country would be chosen.
    • Yet another sudden jerk: "While the communist regime of China was not recognised at the time by the U.S., Brazil was also ruled out as ..." But you haven't said that China was ruled out. Then we have to reverse-realise that the fact that the US doesn't "recognise" China = it wasn't chosen. Hmmmm .... The sentence "As a consequence,... " makes the reader work too hard.
    • MOS recommends against spaced em dashes. If you want to space interrupters, use en dashes.
    • "At the same time, India was trying to launch its national space program ..."—Gives what I'm sure is the wrong impression, that India was huffing and puffing without much success. I think "planning to launch" is what you mean.
    • "... U.S. prevented the U.S. ..."-Ungainly repetition. (Love those you dot es dot periods: quaint! Not actionable, though.).

I appreciate the hard work, and would like to see this resubmitted after thorough, careful copy-editing by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.

History of Northwest Territories capital cities edit

previous FAC

I am nominating this article for a second time, I have done significant work, to add citations references and clean up the prose --Cloveious 04:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article and worthy for me to review it later. One suggestion comes to mind. How about different red maps. Not all the ones are shown. How about the one just before Nunavut was created? Mrs.EasterBunny 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your comments, Your suggestion is a good idea, I considered putting the 1912 map in a couple years ago, but could not make fit at the time, things have changed and I forgot all about it. I have added the appropriate map in, and, I believe I have added an appropriate caption to make it relevant. --Cloveious 08:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support After reading the article, I see no reason why this article should be knocked back in my opinion. I didn't see the previous FAC but because this article is very good, I don't doubt your word that you have done lots of hard work! Well done. Aflumpire 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagrashtak 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing those items to my attention, I have added the appropriate tags --Cloveious 03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was this you? Do you hold the copyright to that image? You've marked Image:Fort Smith 1920s.jpg as published before 1923, but I can't find the date of publication. Can you point me to that? Pagrashtak 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright and information for the Fort Smith photo, is linked from the photo [6] It says [1920's] / Fort Smith, N.W.T. — 1 item Copyright: Expired. Credit: Canada. Post Office Department / Library and Archives Canada / C-003268. The Flag in the template I am presuming Caleb Moore drew it and uploaded it, It was originally a jpg uploaded by somebody and then that was deleted and converted to svg for what ever reason and uploaded by User:Jeltz who marked it with the PD tag. I had nothing ever to do with the flags uploading or drawing, I just picked what I thought would be best tag because I thought the person that was drew it was releasing it. This tag non sense is frustrates me and if you can fix it then please do. --Cloveious 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original uploader of the Image:Fort Smith 1920s.jpg image. It was 2 years ago when I was finding my way through the copyright maze that entangles so many. In my defense it was before the {{PD-Canada}} was created. I removed the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template. The {{PD-Canada}} alone should be sufficient. --maclean 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Canada is not enough—the image could still be considered copyrighted in the US. Pagrashtak 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image. Not an important image, don't want it to bog down the FAC. --maclean 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you you mean {{PD-Canada}} is not enough? please explain, there are Images in the article Canada that passed FA such as Image:Canadian tank and soldiers Vimy 1917.jpg for example with that tag --Cloveious 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said above, the image could still be considered copyrighted in the US. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are based in the US, so it is important that we respect US copyright. You'll notice that {{PD-Canada}} says "[The image page] should also have a rationale explaining the copyright status of the work in the U.S." Right now, that image does not. However, since it has been removed from the article, it doesn't affect this FAC. If you'd like to discuss further, we should probably take it to our talk pages or Wikipedia talk:Public domain. Pagrashtak 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass & support. On the basis that it's fine and it appears that's enough to pass. Leranedo 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unique topic nicely put together. --maclean 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Well, I hope it's unique, or it shouldn't be an article at all on WP. Prose needs attention throughout; please ask someone else to do it—that's what I'd do. Here are random examples.
  • Flicking through at random, I see glitches in the prose. Examples are:
    • "co-joined" --> "conjoined".
    • "modern day Canada"—hyphen? Read MOS.
    • "comprised of"—no. Here are the choices: "comprised", "consisted of", and "composed of". See Fowler for the nuances, although they're mostly used interchangeably nowadays. Tony (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ordered the outpost to be packed up"—That's what I do before travelling to the airport.
Hi, thank you for your comments, I will do my best to bring the prose up to a level that will satisfy you. I do not understand your reference to "Fowler" --Cloveious (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H. W. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage - considered by many to be the bible as far as good written English is concerned. Carre (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of it before --Cloveious (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hoary puts it this way: he was mesmerised by Fowler at age 13 (but soon moved on). It does contain a lot of useful advice, if you can cope with the pompous, class-ridden, sexist assumptions. It's grammar as a moral vehicle. And Fowler's own writing is just over the top—like playing Twister and doing a hoola dance at once. Now, some of my pet hates are emblazoned in the lead, such as "outside of" and numerous other redundancies. Take the first para:

The history of Northwest Territories capital cities begins with the purchase of the Territories by Canada from the Hudson's Bay Company in 1869 and includes a varied and often difficult evolution. Northwest Territories is unique amongst the Canadian province or territory in that it has had seven capital cities in its history. The territory has changed the seat of government for numerous reasons, including

    • "Began" and "has included"? Past tense used elsewhere.
    • "in having had seven capital cities."
    • "the" --> "its s o g for reasons including ..."
    • "£300,000 British pounds"—symbol and name?
    • "After the purchase, the Government decided to merge both of the properties into a single jurisdiction and appoint a single territorial government to run both. The purchase of the two territories added a sizable portion of the current Canadian landmass." "Properties" might confuse—usually refers to smaller areas. "Both" x 2. The second is undesirable on logical grounds, anyway. They'd been merged already.
    • Ref 10: I had to work too hard to realise that this is part of a local-government web site; I'm still not quite sure, actually. No author, doesn't look authoritative, and the assertion that it supports could surely be backed up by another of your references. Audit the references as a whole, please.

I still think this needs too much work to become an FA. Not yet, anyway. Tony (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Tony1--Keerllston 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Coffee Hag albums edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is one of the larger articles in the heraldry section, deals with different countries and has historical value; the albums were collected by thousands of people all over Europe. Still, its history is very poorly documented, even the Coffee Hag Archives in Bremen, Germany have not much information on the topic. The Wikipedia article is thus one of the best sources. Knorrepoes (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the moment. Most content is unsourced, or relies on inline external links for reference rather than footnotes. Large pieces of the text are unwikified. Some key related articles (e.g. Kaffee HAG) are redlinks. No indication it has been through peer review. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to lack of sources. It is unclear how this can be fixed, as it appears to consist largely of original research.--Grahame (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:WIAFA. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clunky English, lots of one-sentence paragraphs, no references. This may indeed be an important heraldry article, but it still needs a lot of work! MeegsC | Talk 09:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve(reluctantly), English may be improved by native speaker. Author may wikify more. As stated above, it is original research, there are (or seem to be) no better or other sources (try Google...), so with some small changes I can agree. It is an intersting topic and we have never had something like this as FA before.137.224.252.10 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would this perhaps be better framed as a list? See WP:FLC. It seems listy. It also needs a lot of work.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton edit

Significant additions and alterations have been made to this article since it receive A-class status. The article has been stable for quite a number of months; all facts seem to be properly cited, and, as someone who has taught American history and who has done much research on ECS, I believe the article to be factually sound and comprehensive. I would happily see this article used as a source on the subject by a student. I should also note that I have contributed substantially to this article, as have various other editors.Jancarhart (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uhh ... Right now the article is in a totally botched state. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that many of Stanton's motivations are sourced to her autobiography. I think that all of these statements have to be explicitly tagged as such in the prose. For example, "Even as a young girl, she enjoyed perusing her father's law library and debating legal issues with his law clerks. It was this early exposure to law that, in part, caused Stanton to realize how disproportionately the law favored men over women, particularly over married women. Her realization that married women had virtually no property, income, employment, or even custody rights over their own children, helped set her course toward changing these inequities." - This statement is sourced to the autobiography. I think it would be better to say that Stanton later said in her Reminiscences that it was this early exposure to law that, etc. The same goes for similar statements. Awadewit | talk 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would, of course, be nice if the "Bibliography" were in a familiar citation style, such as Chicago or MLA. Awadewit | talk 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support This is a solid article on an important feminist (we always need more of those!). There are just a few things that need sprucing up for FA:
  • Her Declaration of Sentiments, presented at the first women's rights convention held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, is often credited with initiating the first organized woman's rights and woman's suffrage movements in the United States. - This is one of the most important facts about Stanton. It should be sourced to one of the most reliable sources we can find, not a 1902 obituary from the NYT.
  • In my opinion, the infobox is a bit out of control. The long lists of children make it unwieldly. Why not try a table, if they are important? See, for example, Sarah Trimmer. I would delete the infobox since all the rest of the information is in the article and it detracts from her portrait.
  • Footnotes need to be standardized - all "p" and "pp" need to have periods after them, for example.
  • More links - Episcopal, Continental Army, for example. See WP:MOS-L for advice on linking.
  • Could the primary Seneca Falls paragraph have some more citations than just the biography of Frederick Douglass? It would seem such a central event should be referenced to books about Stanton as well.
  • I feel like there might be an overemphasis on Ken Burns at the end. The major biographies of Stanton were published pre-Burns.
  • Mutually supporting footnotes would be a nice thing to add in the future (see Mary Wollstonecraft). This ensures that the article is presenting a scholarly consensus and not just one historian's view of Stanton. (I just note this as a suggestion for after the FAC.)

This article was a pleasure to read. Thank you for taking the time to put together such a complete and well-written article! Awadewit | talk 13:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Bibliography is a bit lengthy and doesn't seem to conform to any specific citation style. Kaldari 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Is anybody working on this nomination? Awadewit | talk 13:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Linkin Park edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...this is a neutral article, there aren't any edit wars and it follows style guidelines. Bentu (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support. The link which follows the sentence "Chester Bennington is most known for..." should be converted to ref, the whole sentence may be splitted into two. Also is there any place for Jay-Z in associated acts? Pretty nice overall impression anyway. --Brand спойт 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Fixed the reference, I'm not really sure if Jay-Z is really considered one of LP Assc. Acts. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Enter Sandman edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. I worked in the article a lot in August and September, expanded it and I think it is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral. I'll address any issues raised. Thanks in advance. Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 23:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: So what does the title mean? OK, I know; but some people, especially non-native English speakers, may not have a clue what the Sandman is. I can't aven find a link to Sandman. — Kpalion(talk) 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added this: "The title is a reference to the sandman, a folklore character that makes children sleep.[1]" to the music and lyrics section. Is it ok now? Thanks for addressing this point, it was an obvious miss while expanding the article.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine now. Thanks for adding that. — Kpalion(talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A few points:
    • The lengthy orchestral outro in the S&M performance should be described.
    • There are a few places where album titles need to be put into italics.
    • A (fair use) snippet of the lyrics should be included somewhere.
    • The use for Mariano Rivera should be expanded upon. This is by far one of most well-known entrance music associations in all of U.S. sports, and has added considerably to Rivera's mystique. The irony that he's clueless about Metallica and metal can be added, as well as a brief mention of Yankee fan unhappiness with Billy Wagner's use of the song when he came to NY as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general, this is a very well made article. However, a few things need to be addressed before I can support:
  • The lead should include a description of what the song sounds like.
  • Gold certification does not mean that a single/album/etc has necessarily sold 500,000 copies, but that 500,000 copies have been shipped in that particular country. This error appears in the lead and the "Release and reception" section.
  • The two last paragraphs of the "Music video" section are extremely short - they should be merged and expanded into a full paragraph about reception to the video.
  • "Information retrieved from Metallica's official site" doesn't need to be included - no citation is ever necessary for track listings.
  • The "Accolades" section really needs some clean-up. The section really should be organized by year, and quite a few need to be removed. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the gold certification, merged music video section, removed "Information retrieved from Metallica's official site", removed some non-notable accolades but it still needs to be re-organized. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: [perhaps you should] Request [a] comment from Copy-editor's league
    "Metallica's way of writing songs consisted of lead guitarist Kirk Hammett and bassist Jason Newsted submitting tapes with ideas for songs to rhythm guitarist James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich, who would then combine them with their own and write songs in Ulrich's house in Berkeley, California." - run on? bad phrasing?
    --Keerllston 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Confusion and substandard prose. Here are random samples.
    • " Originally, the riff had two bars, until Ulrich suggested that the first bar should be played three times.[1] The song was quickly finished,[2] but Hetfield did not come up with vocal melodies and lyrics for a long time ...". The first sentence has to be unpacked by the poor reader; so the original repeated the first bar once to make up the two bars, yes? "quickly finished" is a bit loose—are you referrring to the compositional process? And by "song", you mean the music sans lyrics, I guess. "For a long time" is unencyclopedic. See MOS on vague chronological items. "Come up with" is on the informal side in this register.
    • "Ulrich, Hetfield and Rock did also a week of recording in Vancouver"—word order; get a native speaker to look at the whole article (the lead is OK, though). And recruit a copy-editor or two from other similar articles, based on their history of editing those articles. Tony (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some prose and flow issues detract from what is a comprehensive and well-referenced article. Some random samples:
  • "The song achieved gold status for more than 500,000 copies shipped in the US, in part due to the fact that the album in which it is featured on sold over 15 million copies and helped propel Metallica to worldwide popularity." is too awkward a construction. Try splitting the sentence and rephrasing.
  • "Lyrically, the song has been said to be about "nightmares and all that come with them" by Chris True of All Music Guide" would read better as "All Music Guide's Chris True stated the song's lyrics were about "nightmares and all that come with them".
  • On another note, do we need so many references to Chris True? His name is mentioned four times in the article. Try looking for other reviews of the song; there must be a "Enter Sandman" review in a guitar magazine somewhere.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudNine (talk • contribs) 23:29, December 8, 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Belarus edit

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I have contacted the League of Copyeditors again about the grammar and prose. However, is there anything else that should be fixed? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting but it sure is a long read! I've done a copyedit of the first half of the article, through the Geography section.

Some overall issues:

  • The article switches between the possessive forms Belarus' and Belarus's.
  • There seems to be a mishmash of italicized and un-italicized foreign terms throughout the article.
  • Both double quotes and single quotes have been used when referring to words as words.
  • The acronym CIS is used long before it is introduced in the article.
  • The acronym BSSR is introduced, but is never used; the long-form 'Byelorussian SSR' is still used throughout the entire article.
  • Image placement in the History section results in some text squeezing on widescreen; I can try to tweak this if it's not apparent.
  • The students' banner image is not mentioned in the main article, and the image caption does not clarify how it is relevant to the article topic.

Specific issues:

  • "although the discussions have stalled for several years" : It's not clear whether discussions started several years ago and remain stalled, or discussions are held regularly but stall each time. Can you clarify the wording?
  • "The Latin term for the area, Russia Alba, is derived from the area of present-day Albania, where the inhabitants had very white skin and dogs that could kill large animals." : This needs explanation; the average reader will not be able to infer what "very white skin" and "dogs" have to do with this. Expanded : This is still not explained; what does Albania legendarily being populated by people with very white skin and big dogs have to do with "Russia Alba" or the etymology of the word Belarus?
  • "became independent principalities, including Polatsk." : Why is this one principality singled out?
  • "forming the Belarusian People's Republic. The Germans supported the BNR," : Is BNR a typo? The next sentence refers to BPR.
  • "Byelorussia was hardest hit in the war and remained in Nazi hands until 1944." : Hardest hit in comparison with what?
  • "During that time, 209 out of 290 cities in the republic were destroyed, the Nazis destroyed or removed to Germany 85% of the republic industry, over one million buildings were destroyed" : Either vary your verbs here, or rewrite as a list (During that time, Germany destroyed...).
  • "Some contend that this discovery was proof that the Soviet government was trying to erase the Belarusian people, and caused some to seek independence." : It is not clear what the second part of this sentence modifies. What caused some to seek independence?

Statements that should probably be supported with citations:

  • "The first known use of the term "White Russia" to refer to Belarus was in the late sixteenth century by Englishman Sir Jerome Horsey."
  • "While the pro-independence Belarusian Popular Front took only 10 percent of the seats, the populace was content with the selection of the delegates."

Thanks for an interesting read! I will try to give the second half of the article the same treatment, but it may take me some time to finish. Maralia 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I did a bit of copyediting, which the article still needs a good dose of. I found the culture section to be rather lacking, however. Compare the public-domain text that I just posted in the Belarusian culture page, which ties together the culture as a whole rather than just arbitrarily naming writers and musicians (which is what the culture section seems like now). 140.247.243.169 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About what Maralia was getting at, I fixed every but the foreign terms. I was told to get rid of those linked terms, though I probably need to have them italicized. The problem with the culture text is that I am not sure how to work that in. Just take the whole thing? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked a few phrases that were affected by your edits today. Struck out the items I'm sure are resolved. Expanded on one item above (see bold). Looking pretty good - will try to get to the second half of the article shortly. Maralia 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the MOS issues, I am lost. When I read the MOS page, I felt very confused about it and I am not sure what to do with it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think India is a good example for Etymology section formatting. Basically, use italics rather than quote marks for foreign terms. As a side note, the etymology section would be much more clear if you followed India's example by starting with "The name Belarus is derived from". Maralia 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not make the etymology section shorter, but I tried your tricks out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One major concern I have about this article is its frequent misstating of source material. When I go through the sources, I very often have to correct the text to reflect what they actually say. Examples:
    • The stats about how many belarusians are employed by which type of company (state, private) used to say that those proportions applied to the number of companies themselves (incorrect).
    • A source merely indicating economic disruption caused by an oil crisis is used to support the general statement that "The country is relatively stable economically, but depends to a large extent on import resources"
    • A source listing six or seven agricultural products is used to support the statement that meat and potatoes (two of the listed products) dominate Belarusian agriculture.
    • A source that says the biggest exports are heavy machinery, agricultural products, and energy products was previously used to support the statement "The biggest export of Belarus is machinery, such as tractors and defense equipment."
    • A source that documents the languages of a 150-work library is used to support the statement that "Many of the works [between the 11th and 13th centuries] were written in one of the following languages: Old Belarusian, Latin, Polish and Church-Slavic." - far too broad a conclusion that 200 years of literature from a 150-work collection
    • A source saying that demographic decreases in the number of conscription-age Belarusians will increase the importance of contract soldiers is used to support "The number of the conscripted soldiers have been decreasing; 2006 estimates had conscripted soldiers at 85,000. Further cuts in conscriptions have been planned to only needing approximately 60,000 soldiers by 2016." (Note that those figures are used in the source as the number of people who will be eligible for conscription in those years, not as a statement of policy.)
  • I am very concerned about the accuracy of the article because of this and urge that a thorough review of the sources be done before it is considered for FA. 140.247.243.169 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those that you have now fixed, I am fixing now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of those citation needed templates were dealt with too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is good, but my concern remains about citations that I didn't check. I had to rewrite a significant portion (a quarter? a third? higher?) of the sentences that I checked, but I didn't check all of them. Generally the misstatements were minor, but that sort of error rate is alarming.... It also makes me nervous about sources in Belarusian/Russian that I can't verify. 140.247.243.169 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the economy between 1995 (when GDP declined over 10%) and 1997 (when GDP increased by 12%)? That isn't explained in the economy section, but it seems extremely important... The article leaves off at a plunge in exports in the 1990s, but then cites ridiculously huge present growth rates without explaining them. 140.247.243.169 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have a source saying exactly what happened that caused the changes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other than just putting the GDP into use of the social welfare sphere, I do not know what caused the GDP to rise. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other affairs related to the economy was added to the infobox. Plus, I am still lost on the MoS issues listed at the top. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I have tried for 2 years; if it is not going to pass now, it never will. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - This is an exceptionally done Wikipedia entry. It reads well; any claims are supported with references. It has plenty of visual coverage and has a natural flow to it. Belarus would make a great addition as an FA.--Riurik(discuss) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - basically problems from above mentioned didn't fix well. For the external link, if English language available, it doesn't really need to write down "Russian" or "Belarusian". It is also not necessary for you to write down "main article(s)" like culture in case "See also" already covered it/them. By the way, why "media" should be a sub-topic of culture but not cuisine, Belarusian dress, music, etc? Coloane (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on the link part, but I still need help for the MoS issues that some raised. I am still confused by the MoS in general. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the see also issues, I noticed that Japan, a featured article on a country, still has the "main article" links at the top of their headings while still having a similar template at the bottom. I request to keep that formatting in the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel bad objecting, because the author has worked so hard to improve this text. I looked at one little section (Demographics), and found lots of little MOS glitches, and problems of redundancy such as
    • "Over 99% of Belarusians (both male and female) are literate"—spot the redundant phrase?
    • "A small minority (about 1%) belong to"—spot the redundant phrase?
  • "Belarus was also about 10% Jewish until World War II, being a major center of European Jewry, but during the war Jews were reduced by war, starvation, and the Holocaust to a tiny minority of about 1% or less." Remove "also"; reverse the first two phrases; "but" should contradict the previous statement; "the Jewish population was reduced"; war x 2; "to less than 1% of the population". Not good.

Indicates that a lot of careful work is needed; please bring on board others, or even find a non-WPian who's a word-nerd to come onto the project. Good way of attracting skilled editors? Tony (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, and read MOS on numbers, please. Leading zeros, consistent decimal places, no slash in conversion; percent or % (choose one, please). Tony (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the league again for copyedits, but I have not heard anything recent from them after I answered their questions. I decided to use % instead of percent. I tried to fix the Jewish statement, I hope it works. However, I ask what do you mean by "no slash in conversion." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I fixed it on my own. I just needed to read. I got the number issues taken care here, but I will see if it needs to be applied elsewhere. If that is one thing I notice this time around it is more of MoS issues. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As promised on my talk page, I will work on cleaning up the Etymology section per MOS. I've copyedited the rest of the article again this morning. It's looking better, but there are a few sentences I want to have another go at—and a copyedit from someone with fresh eyes would be wise also. One specific thing you can fix: the lead description of which countries border on Belarus is slightly different from the description given in the Geography section (does Russia border on the east, or on the north and east?). Maralia 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed that in the lead (I added north to it). I also dealt with the citation issues at the geography section; a lot of the information about the geography I had to find from a website owned by the National Government, but the validity of that source was challenged. So instead of having "fact" tags everywhere, I just nuked what I could not cite. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Queries:
    Could you improve the heading system? Do you think the following suggestions would?
    (a)could "Politics", "Foreign relations and military" "Provinces and districts" go under a single "over" heading? called government perhaps-
    (b)could "Demographics" and "Culture" go under a single "over heading? called society perhaps-
    Belarus is considered to be in Western Europe - and some consider it to be a part of "Russia" or Russian Civilization -right? are either noted in the article? Perhaps these could be noted within "Geography" or "Demographics"?
    --Keerllston 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mostly seen Belarus considered Eastern Europe, since they were part of the Soviet block. However, I do not have a source to back either claim, so instead of having a glaring fact tag, I keep it out. About the headings, I was asked the last time to split the headings into that format. Even if I did take your suggestions, I would have put the subnational division sections under geography. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to sourcing had you visited the article on Eastern Europe? - how about Central Europe? it seems both the CIA factbook and the UN have definitions of Eastern Europe -
        It seems there are different opinions on whether to have subheadings or not in articles about certain things... I would not want you to do anything you consider too controversial to the article.
        I guess there's both internal divisions in terms of geography and in terms of politics/administration, no?
        --Keerllston 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep sitting down to clean up the Etymology section for MOS, but the content is giving me a hard time. My problem is that the section, as written, is more about 'names the country has been called' than it is actually about the origin of the word 'Belarus'. In my opinion, the other text— especially on 'White Russia' and on 'Ruthenia' vs 'Russia'—confuses the issue, although of course I see how it's somewhat relevant. I would like to see the section reworked to truly focus on the etymology of the word 'Belarus', with a brief mention of/link to White Russia (and of course, your research on that should not be lost, but rather moved to that article). Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had it simplified earlier, but people wanted to have it expanded more during this FAC process. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry; it must be really frustrating to get contradictory requests. Can you point me in the direction of that conversation? I looked but couldn't find it. Maralia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Prairie Avenue edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an important historical street in the city of Chicago and as WP:CHICAGO director, I am trying to balance out the types of WP:FAs that we have in the project. I have researched most related topics in the Encyclopedia of Chicago and feel this is a fairly broad and extensive representation of the street. I feel it is well written and well sourced. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FAC instructions, "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." You've still got South Side (Chicago) in the oven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw this nomination if it is requested. The other one I thought was about finished as it had been up for 3.5 weeks when I nominated this one. I did not anticipate it being restarted. The other one is more a WP:CHICAGO nomination. I even needed help from coeditors responding to certain queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could use more information on the indian trail its name derives from; I looked at Prairie Avenue on Google Maps and couldn't see where said trail would have left the route. --NE2 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Short, sweet, and well sourced. However, the Lead/Intro's last paragraph is a bit short, clocking in at only two sentences, this should be merged to the prior paragraph, or expanded. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose—MOS (Cr 2) and prose (Cr 1a)
    • "north-south"—See MOS on en dashes.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy ways of improving the prose, for example, the second sentence: "This street has a rich history in which it began as an important trail for horseback riders and carriages." Why not "The street has a rich history from its origins as a major trail for horseback riders and carriages."? I replaced "important" with "major" because the former hits you again shortly.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, "this" is too strong a back-reference; "the" is better: "a 6 block section of this street"—see MOS on hyphens and spelling out numbers. Subsequent sentences same deal. Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweak the wording and pipe the link to avoid ugly repetition: "historical figures in the history of Chicago".Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loving care required. The nominator could fix all of the MOS issues, leaving a run-through of the prose throughout to someone with strategic distance from the text. Tony (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS Ref. 4—I can cope without the author's name, but where exactly on that site is the supporting info about the National Register? Help our readers? Tony (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. the ref following the sentence that says "Now, historic northern section of the street is part of the Chicago Landmark Prairie Avenue District that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." merely confirms that it is a Chicago Landmark. Note that Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL. I don't know of a direct link for historic districts in the NRHP program.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More eeny-meeny-miney-mo samples:
    • "During the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s, upper Prairie Avenue residence were central to cultural and social fabric of the city"—"residence"?Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Light industry and vacant lots overtook Prairie Avenue by the mid and late twentieth century."—"and"? Better "during the second half of the"Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A few of the mansions of the heyday still remain in the 1800-block including the National Historic landmark designated John J. Glessner House designed in 1886 by architect Henry H. Richardson.[6] These provide some sense of the street's former character."—"Some" --> "a". Link with a semicolon instead of the period.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This district also includes two other houses from the late nineteenth century as well as the Henry B. Clarke House,"—Remove "also". "Two other houses from the late 19th century? I can only see one; the other is in the 1800s block, but not previously labelled as late 19th century. Logic.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyphens missing here and there.

Needs work throughout. Someone else as collaborator? Tony (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:27, 8 December 2007.

Lombo Pocket Watch edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this horse is the greatest thing to happen to Australian Harness Racing in years, his record breaking ways speak for themselves. LPWRHR (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, the subject matter of an article is not grounds for becoming a featured article. Featured articles have certain guidelines at WP:WIAFA which need to be met. I recommend that you withdraw this for now, and send the article to peer review first. Some examples of things that need to be fixed include WP:MOS errors (namely headings, for example, avoid using the one = headings in articles, as well as avoiding links in headings), WP:GTL, the WP:FOOTNOTEs are missing critical information which can be provided if you use {{Cite web}}, and the prose needs a lot of work and copyediting. AZ t 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to withdraw this nom, just request it here or on my talk page. If you want to submit it to peer review, that's here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I reckon go for that.LPWRHR (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove it from here shortly, and you can submit to peer review. Please wait for a bot to update the article talk page, per WP:FAC/ar. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

Odex's actions against file-sharing edit

Self-nomination. This article is about a saga that mostly took place during the month of August 2007 in Singapore, with extensive coverage by the local and international media. It has undergone a peer review and copyedit request. Any suggestions for improvement is certainly welcomed. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- although i do think some portions of the article need an update. E.g. "By 16 August 2007, up to S$3,200 have been pledged for the campaign." -- not so contemporaneous now? Another comment: slightly copious use of "also". Chensiyuan 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Thanks, replaced/paraphrased and deleted some uses of "also" and time-sensitive phrases. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor point: is it "a", or "an", NUS law professor...? Chensiyuan 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is sorely not ready for the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. You should try GAC first, but take note that:
    • The controversy occured only two months ago, and the outcome of the company's appeal has yet to be determined. Is the article stable?
      • All-or-nothing. Unfortunately, I don't believe in going through GAC first. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is reasonably stable given little additions being made for the past month, and that the existing content is not going to change significantly even with the appeal. (which will be on an add-on basis) If an outstanding lawsuit is enough to render the whole article unstable, then the article is never going to be stable. This is a non-actionable factor. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, no instability here. Chensiyuan 06:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article desperately needs a copy-edit. If I didn't have an E Maths paper in half an hour, I would help you look through it for language errors.
      • I've put up a copyedit request, went it through myself, and looking for copy-editiors. Do point out what errors are in the article, so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't see how is this actually actionable other than what is already done unless the copyediting errors are specifically pointed out. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section is a little weak.
      • Would appreciate that you point out in what sense the lead is weak. Please elaborate so that I can improve it. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disappearance of the "Anti-piracy alliance" section (all it need was references) and the lack of information about the reactions of international media (despite the first sentence of the Reaction section proudly claiming that Odex's actions "attracted international media") suggest the article is not comprehensive, although it probably is broad in its coverage.
      • The alliance's text, currently in a separate article does not have much to do with the incident itself, and hence split. I will, however, be drafting a few relevant lines on the alliance's role in the incident. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Downgraded' to national; it is surely covered extensively by the local media. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put it back as 'international', as it appears that now the C&D emails are hitting internationally and gaining attention from the world. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid self-references, such as the wikilink in "several criticisms of Odex were added to its article on Wikipedia".
Have a nice day! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Quite a gem really, but I have to say occasionally I get the feeling I'm reading a well organized collection of newspaper reports! Manderiko 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • It's fine and readable. Leranedo 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Few things but not sure how you would want to handle them. First, Reference 2 (Kicking kids for profit?) is just a blog entry that as far as I can see doesn't add anything that the professional new articles don't already cover - might want to just remove it. Second, reference 56 to Salon.com's Asian Kung-Fu Generation doesn't lead anywhere (dead link?). Third, in "Modus operandi" it says "...in all three cases." but at that point in the article only the first two cases have been introduced - the third case isn't mentioned until the next section. --maclean 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Ref 2 removed. (no implications, covered by other sources). - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 56 is live and working. Appears perfectly fine in Internet Explorer, might work erratically under FireFox for some reason. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Added the suit against PacNet in said point of article. The lead-in also introduces the third case in a brief summary format to give the reader what to expect in the following sections. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article, well written. Meets all criteria for FA. Terence 13:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "This data is then used to subpoena the courts to require that ISPs reveal the personal information associated with the given IP addresses." appears to sound wrong -- I mean if you click on the wikilink to "subpoena" one wonders how does one subpoena the courts? Could there be an error here? Chensiyuan 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking aloud again. "letters of legal threat" in first para of lead -- is a letter threatening legal action condensed legitimately into a "letter of legal threat"? Chensiyuan 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I've changed subpoena to request. It should sound a lot better now. For "letter of legal threat", according to Ars Technica article the term they have used in the context to compare with RIAA is "pre-litigation letters", so I've adapted to that accordingly as well. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Gosh, the opening is a blooper: you shove "the company" in there under the assumption that we already know what you're referring to. Then, you tell us that it's Odex, and provide a little context for the company. "Odex alleges"—present tense is when? Will this last for readers in a year's time? "Out-of-court"—hyphens not required unless attributive. "RIAA"—do we have to interrupt our reading and hit the link to find out what it is? You spell out ISP earlier. "Criticisms towards"—no, "of". "exacerbated by one of its directors' poor response towards the situation"—POV even with the reference (couch it in better wording); "towards" should be "to"; check this word throughout the article. "which ... which". Is this article going to be updated? "Pending an outcome". It's a kind of unstable topic; unsure that it's suitable for FA status on that basis. Now that's just picking random samples from the lead. The whole article needs careful work. Tony (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you shove "the company" in there under the assumption that we already know what you're referring to. Then, you tell us that it's Odex, and provide a little context for the company.
    •  Done Company context inserted in first sentence. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Odex alleges"—present tense is when? Will this last for readers in a year's time?
    • Now. The enforcement action is still ongoing. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Out-of-court"—hyphens not required unless attributive.
    •  Done Fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, in legal parlance, hyphens are the norm, but never mind. Chensiyuan 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RIAA"—do we have to interrupt our reading and hit the link to find out what it is? You spell out ISP earlier.
    •  Done RIAA -> Recording Industry Association of America. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticisms towards"—no, "of".
  • "exacerbated by one of its directors' poor response towards the situation"—POV even with the reference (couch it in better wording); "towards" should be "to"; check this word throughout the article.
    •  Done Removed.
  • "which ... which".
  • Is this article going to be updated? "Pending an outcome". It's a kind of unstable topic; unsure that it's suitable for FA status on that basis.
    • The arguments by both parties are summed up. It is now pending decision by the judge. I would reiterate per above, the article is stable even with this lawsuit. It can be updated accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's just picking random samples from the lead. The whole article needs careful work.
    • Okay, it goes through the League of Copyeditors then. There's just simply not enough copyeditors around; feel free to point out what needs more to be done so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Mailer Diablo (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection [1b and organization] It's well written, very well referenced, very nice in general, I think it was smart to move it straight into FAC.
    it's organization is in need of substancial improvement - no "history section" and no "media coverage" section and "illegal downloader reaction" instead some kind of mix between all three. Suggest better organization.
    "modus operandi" should be mostly integrated into history section, kept as separate however, perhaps renamed into a less criminal investigation sounding term.
    Suggestion: "Context" section speaking about the surrounding actions of RIAA, MPAA
    --Keerllston 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your suggestion, but this proposed structure looks very odd to me to be implementable, were you having another particular article in mind? Even if implemented it will require stripping and rewriting the entire article top-down. Other comments :
  • Odex's actions are currently ongoing, and to have a "history" section would sound like the whole operation is already over.
  • "Illegal downloader reaction" is essentially the current "reaction" section as its current form.
  • "Modus operandi" is justifiable being it is considered widely as a form of clampdown or enforcement action. (As indicated within article)
  • Please guide me on how the "Media coverage" should be written; To describe the extent of media coverage would constitute original research. Same goes for "Context", as Odex and RIAA are not directly related in their respective enforcements, just the similarity, I have not even heard of MPAA in any of my sources.
  • If we were to reorganize it into the three sections, what should be done with "Odex v. Pacific Internet"?
Thanks, - Mailer Diablo (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of many countries is currently ongoing, I'm sure you agree, and includes proceedings such as the making of treaties and famous trials (including in this history the case vs. Ocean and other IP providers)
  • "Reaction" - could be more precise than that, could be more NPOV-ly than "Illegal downloader reaction" - may I suggest "P2P community reaction" or similar?
  • split away new section "media coverage" from "Reaction"- by which I did not mean the extent but rather the coverage by newspapers and what they said - like one of japan that it notes was pro-Odex and in fact wanted more.
  • "Modus Operandi" is also latin, and this is an english-language wikipedia, doesn't that encourage you to change it? I think a good option is "Methodology" or "Method"
- Latin is often used where there is an english translation by the Catholic Church and by intellectuals who have learnt latin or want to pretend that they have, it's also used used by Legal and Police authorities in such as "in loco parentis" and "ergo" and "modus operandi", I don't believe Wikipedia is any of the above.
--Keerllston 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I still do not see what a "History" section would contain or would be of use to this article? Also, please explain "History of many countries"? - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Modus Operandi" changed to "Methodology". - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't just the P2P community, but it is the Anime community in general. How about that, having the one "Reaction" section further subdivided into "Anime community", "Media coverage", and "Legal opinons" would be better? - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Work!
History is basically "Chronology" - we are alive in history - we are making history (not that we are heroes or anything) - so far Chronology is not really treated very well in my opinion. and somewhat divided into Methodology, Cases, Reaction - which is perhaps strange but not necessarily objectionable
I like Reaction being split into Anime Community Reaction and Media Coverage.
I like the existence of the section called legal opinions
I also suggested a section on "Context" - how do you feel about the hypothetical section?
--Keerllston 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's enough content to make up a separate "context" section. For the rest, working on it. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder My previous post comprised just random examples. Please find others with strategic distance to copy-edit it. Research the edit summaries on the history pages of similar good articles in this field. Ask them nicely. Tony (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

Russia edit

previous FAC

Self nomination. I have been working on this article for quite a while now and believe it now meets all of the criteria. The main problem at the last FA nomination was the insufficient number of citations. Since the last FA nomination the article has passed GA and the amount of references has doubled while the body of the article has been substantially reduced.--Miyokan 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I see many of the same issues raised in the last FAC: readable prose size is still 66KB, it still relies heavily on Encyclopaedia Britannica, and citations are not fully and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). The citation level is improved, but one can still easily pick out uncited opinion (example: Others have acknowledged that despite its inertia and repression ...) There are many good candidate sections for better use of summary style to shorten the article (for example, Geography and climate and others). Also, see MOS:CAPS#All caps on reducing caps in citations, and see WP:OVERLINK about reducing links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers. External links might be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. There are also external website jumps within the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have pruned the external links, reduced links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers, fixed the caps in citations, fixed that external website jump within the text. I am starting to replace the Britannica references I have whittled down the number of Britannica references from 20 to 5. If more people think that the article needs to be reduced I will start doing that.--Miyokan 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, well, it became much better, but many of the issues raised during the previous discussion are not addressed. BTW (a minor point), as for The Fabergé Eggs have become a synonym for luxury and are regarded as masterpieces of the jeweler's art, it is POV. They are often considered kitsch (for a good reason), played marginal role in the Russian art, and at any rate I have never heard of them as masterpieces. Something other would fit better, e.g. a picture of Kizhi, or if it shouldn’t represent architecture, something like early Soviet posters (they are likely to be PD).
  • Reply Perhaps they are not art but they are indeed the pinnacle of craftsmanship - According to author and Fabergé expert, Géza von Habsburg, "They are the absolute summit of craftsmanship. They are unbelievably made. They were the sort of apogee of what Fabergé was able to do, and he lavished everything he could on them."[7]. (I can also give you many examples where they are referred to as masterpieces- Fabergé Eggs: Masterpieces from Czarist Russia by Susanna Pfeffer[8] Each egg was a masterpiece.[9]"The discovery of this masterpiece is the most exciting of my 40-year career."[10]masterpiece creator Carl Faberge...[11] - perhaps the word "masterpiece" could be replaced with "the pinnacle of craftsmanship" if you prefer?--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture of taiga is not really that of taiga, it is a grove of young larches near tree line.
  • Reply  Done Yes I agree, I have been trying to find a picture of real Russian taiga for quite a while now, but I will rename the caption to just its location.--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF, with disastrous results, remove disastrous results at least. It is a blatant POV violation. The issue is complex (too complex for a summary-style article). After all, thanks to them Russia was rescued from the verge of starvation. Colchicum 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG, this is awful. The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in the economy being shattered, with tens of millions plunging into poverty and a severe fall in the standard of living, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organised crime. The removal of price controls caused hyperinflation and people's savings were wiped out. Russia took up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, even though its population made up just half of the population of the USSR at the time of its dissolution. Guys, this is a controversial issue. And at least hyperinflation was not caused by the removal of price controls, it merely became evident (well, even this is not entirely correct). The causal link between the policies and corruption is also far from obvious. even though -- kak plaksivaya baba, excuse me. POVish concatenation of facts. Colchicum 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply  Done I replaced the opening phrase, "The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in..", with "The dismantling of the planned economy towards a market based one resulted in"--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • for far less than they were worth – this is meaningless at best. The value is not an inherent objective property. It emerges as parties exchange. It is impossible to sell something voluntarily for less than it is worth. Colchicum 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, only cons are presented concerning Yeltsin's era, only pros are there as to Putin's rule. This is POV. Corrpution and nepotism are still rampant, but for some reason the article is silent about it, while painting Yeltsin all black. It could be more even. Colchicum 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I think you misread. The article clearly says Corruption and nepotism has run rampant -ie present tense, not had run rampant. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat this statement again in the Putin era to save space. Indeed the article does not say that all these problems were fixed in the Putin era. If it still bothers you I could change it.
  • Corruption and nepotism has run rampant, including within the Yeltsin government—for example, Yeltsin's son-in-law became the CEO of Aeroflot, Russia's largest airline.- the including within the Yeltsin government—for example, Yeltsin's son-in-law became the CEO of Aeroflot, Russia's largest airline. - the second part could be removed to remove the 'anti-Yeltsin bias' if you wish so it simply reads Corruption and nepotism has run rampant Done--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a problem with the size of the article—Russia, after all, is huge, and there is only so much material that can be trimmed down without having to compromise article's quality. I do, however, have a problem with excessive number of Britannica quotations, as I do not believe that a feature-quality article should rely on summaries in tertiary sources at all. I also agree with SandyGeorgia on that there are still quite a few things that can and should be referenced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I added about 15 20 new references and removed unreferenced information. I am starting to replace the Britannica references I have whittled down the number of Britannica references from 20 to 5.--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
I think one should review the references in order to make sure that the authors are non-partisan and that the issues are not controversial. Ideally, the article should summarize more specific articles. It is not always possible, because the latter are often in poor shape, but when there is some disagreement, the information shouldn't be included (it is technically impossible to represent all POVs in the summary-style article). I am still not entirely satisfied with the description of 1991-1993. Maybe it would benefit from contributions of other users.
Statements of the Russian government absolutely cannot be taken as non-partisan, yet now an address by Putin is used to substantiate that during Putin's presidency there have been improvements in the Russian standard of living. True as it may be, such sources are inappropriate. If something is sourced from the Constitution or other prescriptive documents (I mean the section on government and politics), it should be explicitely mentioned, because the reality doesn't necessarily correspond to legislation (cf. studies referred to in Judiciary of Russia). BTW, Russian transliterations (Federalnoye Sobraniye, Gosudarstvennaya Duma) are unnecessary here.
It is strange that the 1993 constitutional crisis and the referendum on the Constitution of Russia are not mentioned in the sections on the Russian Federation or on Government and politics.
I am worried that Russian Orthodoxy is confused with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is wrong. There are many other orthodox denominations in Russia. The Act of Canonical Communion is an event in the history of that specific church, I am not sure that it is significant enough for the general article.
nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions – Very dubious statement misrepresenting the source [12] As a general rule, ethnic groups united in their own statehoods live in compact groups within their respective republics, regions and autonomous areas (except for Jews and Evenks). And yet, 70.8% of the Mordovians, 68% of the Tatars, and 49.6% of the Maris live beyond the borders of their ethnic republics. I think it has too many exceptions and can safely be omitted.
Colchicum 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply  Done I removed the Putin address reference, made clear what was from the Constitution, mentioned the 1993 constitutional crisis in the Russian Federation section and mentioned the referendum on the Constitution in the Government and Politics section, removed the statement about the Act of Canonical Communion and removed the statement nearly all groups live compactly in their respective regions.--Miyokan 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, congratulations on writing an FA quality article on a very controversial topic. However, i have some things i'd like to see improved. First of all i find the Subdivisions section to be quite confusing. After reading it two times, i still have trouble understanding the subdivision structure of the Russian Federation. More specifically, I am confused about the differences between the different types of Federal subjects, and how the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is different from the other oblasts. Also, looking at the map it appears that some areas are governed directly by the Federal district government, and not by a Federal subject, is this correct? Reading the text didn't alleviate my confusion. Secondly, parts of the Culture, Sports and Imperial Russia sections appear to me like "walls of text"; dividing them into more paragraphs would, in my opinion, make reading them easier. Anyway, good luck on the FAC - I'm prepared to support it you respond to my suggestions. :) --Aqwis 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a high-quality article. The summaries are well written, high quality references, and it appears to be NPOV. --Aqwis 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support! - Really an obvious example to a feature article. Reliable references, important information, images. An exellent article! Infact, it is so good that i was shure it's already a feature article. No Free Nickname Left 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment - As to the economy section, I would suggest to get rid of forecasts and expectations. They are useless. Noone has been able to produce accurate long-term predictions so far. Instead, some information on taxation would be really appropriate in this section. Colchicum 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry but the article seems to be too unstable and still gets too many radical changes from time to time for a FA. Avala 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Too unstable"? Looking at the edit history, this article is very stable. There aren't daily edit wars. In fact, there hasn't been an edit war for months. Also, vandalism is virtually non-existant on this article. And what "radical changes" are you referring to?--Miyokan 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not well-written; tons of MOS breaches. Tony (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) PS plus POV: for example, the section on religion has no mention of the ways in which the Russian Orthodox Church has had itself massively favoured over other denominations since the Soviet period. "in-depth educational system"! Even if it's the CIA Factbook that says it, I start to want more than a single source for sweeping attitudinal statements such as "is one of the best mass education systems in the world". "expenses on education took a big blow"—this is not formal English, BTW. It's all very fancrufty. Publicity brochure? Written by the Russian Ministry of Information? Same for this clanger: "Russia's economy has adapted relatively quickly from the world's largest centrally planned economy to a market economy." Hmmmm. There are issues in every paragraph. Tony (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I removed the, "is one of the best mass education systems in the world", "Russia's economy has adapted relatively quickly from the world's largest centrally planned economy to a market economy" and "expenses on education took a big blow" comments. I am surprised that someone has said that the article is not well written - Aqwis disagrees with you and says that the summaries are well written. The prevalence of the Russian Orthodox Church is already discussed through the statements which establish that the huge majority of Russians are part of that faith, and that "the church is widely respected by both believers and nonbelievers, who see it as a symbol of Russian heritage and culture". It goes without saying that the Russian Orthodox Church is favoured when "63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslim and less than 1% considered themselves either Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Jewish".--Miyokan 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is the only the Soviet Section in History divided into four pieces where all the other sections are undivided?--Dwarf Kirlston 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply  Done It was because the Soviet Russia section is the largest one. You are right in that it should not be divided if the others are not. I removed the divisions.--Miyokan 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak Oppose - The section of history need to summarise a bit first.Coloane —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly-independent Russian Federation emerged as a great powerand is also considered to be an energy superpower. are you sure? the great depreciation of rouble; great cut in military part, relatively high rate of inflation after the breakup of the Soviet Union didn't make me believe it is/was a great power. Energy superpower? how about Brazil or S. Arabia? what do you mean exactly? can you quantify these figures compare to other oil-production countries? I think it is much better (i.e. NPOV) for you to depict Russia as one of the biggest suppliers of natural resources (e.g. crude oil / natural gas or whatsoever, actually it doesn't matter).
The part (sub-topics) of Ancient Russia, Early East Slavs and Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow should be merged. For general readers, who really cares the nitty-gritty and differences between these two. Look at the first sentense from the paragraph of sub-topic of Grand Duchy of Moscow: The most powerful successor state to Kievan Rus' was Moscow. It seems to me it is still talking about something from the above sub-topic, isn't it? Tsardom of Russia and Imperial Russia should be merged. The last paragraph from Imperial Russia should be moved to Soviet Russia, didn't it talked about the revolution and establisment of Soviet Russia? The history section needs to write a bit shorter. It's too long indeed!!!
For the health section, are traffic accidents, violent crimes catergorised as preventable diseases? do you think they are suitably putting under the category of preventable diseases? are you sure violent crimes were mostly induced by psychiatric causes? The primary causes of Russia's population decrease are a high death rate and low birth rate.(i.e. misleading) well, maybe! but who knows? tons of Russian every year were moved to the United States, Canada, the UK (mostly for wealthy Russian) and Australia for good, to name a few. Why didn't you mention them?
7 pieces of photos were forcibly put into the sub-topic of culture, don't you think it is too much? Coloane 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The history section fails NPOV really badly because of similar concerns to those that led to History of Russia losing its FA status. In the light of my experience on the previous article, I doubt whether it would be worth my time trying to make this article more neutral since most of the same problems are all present and correct here too (plus some new ones). Let's just take one example from the current article under discussion: "[Lenin] was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the rights of women, and teaching all Russian people to read and write". Source? Lenin himself. But that fits with the general "nice Lenin, bad Stalin" tone of the page (a long-exploded myth). No Cheka, no War Communism, all the Bolsheviks' opponents are "anti-socialist monarchist and bourgeois forces" or foreigners (what happened to the Socialist Revolutionaries or the mass of Russian peasants who rebelled against Bolshevik control?). Another underlying canard: this article seems to follow the old Russian nationalist line that Moscow had a manifest destiny to "gather in the Russian lands". The bit about Georgia is laughably distorted (I'm not even sure why it's there in the first place). Russia's role in the Napoleonic Wars begins in 1812 and so on and so on...There's also the same reliance on 19th century Russian sources which is really unacceptable. There's no way you could put this on the front page as an example of our best work. --Folantin 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Folantin 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(NB: Oh my God! I've just realised this has already received Good Article status! I never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this...) --Folantin 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I still oppose per criterion 1 (e). NPOV issues apparently unresolvable. This page, like most national histories (which tend to get delisted), is inherently unstable. Plus, it's badly written (e.g. the section about World War One and the 1917 Revolutions is particularly confused) and there seems to be a failure to understand criterion 4 ("summary style"). --Folantin 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, strongly. I share Tony's concerns, and also those of Folantin. The Chechnyan conflict, although briefly mentioned, is probably not given enough space, and events under Putin are presented in altogether too positive a light; yes, he's done well with the economy, but significant social problems remain (this is not really mentioned) and the issues of increasingly limited civil liberties and restrictions on freedom of speech that have been raised during Putin's presidency are brushed under the carpet; this topic has received significant commentary in recent times. Moreschi Talk 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I added information about criticism about Putin, and I added a counterbalance in the form of his strong domestic support and the world public opinion poll. I also added a sentence saying that significant problems remain with corruption, infrastructure and health (plus the health problems are already detailed in the "Education and health" section and there was already a sentence, "corruption and nepotism has run rampant"). Deeper discussion of these topics should remain in the relevant articles as this is, after all, meant to be a summary article about Russia, and there is a lot of ground to cover.--Miyokan 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly Oppose-Dwarf Kirlston
Badly organized: beginning of Topography -not "The Russian Federation stretches across much of the north of the supercontinent of Eurasia. " but details on the two fathest points from each other still in Russia. Focus on "Foreign Relations" in on NATO and EU, when Foreign relations of Russia is much clearer and talks about relationships with ex-soviet countries. Furthermore attempts have been made to keep the TOC small, despite it not being that long as compared to the article - Education and Health are completely different topics in the article yet remain under one heading. Climate is part of the study of the earth and topic does not need to be called "Geography and climate". When I compare this English language GA Russia to the portuguese FA Rúsia the difference in formatting is shocking. Especially in Culture where six images are bunched up together in the English version and it is divided into sections in the portuguese.
History NPOV: the article would be better off in this respect as only about the Federation of Russia rather than about "Russia". No real mention of the effect of purges, of lowering population of Russia from the most populated european country, from 250 million, to 150 million. No real mention of recent economic history including the financial crisis of 1998. Why is Ivan IV and not the terrible and the great and not Ivan III?
Economy: "The average salary has increased to $540 (about $920 PPP) per month in August 2007, from $65 per month in August 1999, at the worst of the collapse" what was the average salary in 1994 before the financial crisis? What was the size of the economy at the end of the Soviet Era?
The articles it links to are many times in bad shape, to improve those would help the main Russia article.
I think Miyokan has been extremely diligent and hardworking in improving Russia.--Dwarf Kirlston 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued in my talk page -Dwarf Kirlston —Preceding comment was added at 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this a top level article summarizing literally tens of thousand articles. Many of them been quite controversial. There is always some trade off between the size of the article and the breadth of the illustrated topics, between size and the depth of explanation of controversies. I think the article is a good compromise between those trade-offs. I think lumping together realated topics like Health and Education is one of those trade-offs. Despite many topics been controversial the article is reasonably stable. I do not see a lot of sins against MOS but if they are identified they could be fixed. Alex Bakharev 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I thought about reading the article through to give decent review. But the first section is already so overwhelmed by peacock terms and obvious nationalism/patriotism that I don't even bother to continue reading. Like this one: Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering almost twice the total area of the next-largest country, Canada, and has enormous mineral and energy resources... I am not saying this is only occurence in intro. The article doesn't seem to be written from neutral point of view aswell. Suva Чего? 07:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Intro seems to be mostly cleaned up now. I need to check rest of the article as well for more constructive comments or vote change. Suva Чего? 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. I have my doubts about some of the remarks up here, and I am afraid they are going to be fixed. Silly remark? Seriously, folks, too much history? --Paul Pieniezny 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid they're gonna be fixed? This article has had 250 edits since it's nomination - I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are. The fact is though that these are the ones found right now, in its current state. It's nomination was for it at it's current state, not for what it could be. If the necessary edits are not made during this nomination, it will not deserve FA status during this nomination.--Dwarf Kirlston 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I fail to see why this article is subject to a POV. Because it doesn't mention Georgia? Please... It highlights both facts that Russians can be proud of and facts that aren't so pleasant to the Russian people. For example, "significant problems remain with corruption, infrastructure and health". Completely agree with Alex Bakharev. This article is very controversial and covers thousands of even more controversial topics (Chechen War, Cold War, Communism, Lenin, Stalin etc..), and it does a very good job of keeping it all in a neutral perspective. I've read over about half the article and I didn't notice any MoS gaps, which is probably because I'm not a native English speaker. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of the language could actually go over the article instead of just "Opposing" the promotion and doing nothing about it. Miyokan has done a wonderful job bringing this article up to FAC status, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be promoted.
PS, Just by reading his comments, it seems to me that Folantin just doesn't want this article in the FA category. (" never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this", " I doubt whether it would be worth my time..."). I honestly don't get what your problem is...Regards, Bogdan 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An FA article is an Outstanding, thorough article and a great source for encyclopedic information on which no further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Somehow It seems people have forgotten this.--Dwarf Kirlston 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Dwarf Kirlston said. Is this really an example of our best work? Of course, nasty old Folantin just wants to spoil everybody's fun...--Folantin 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is happening is that russian nationalism comes to the fore, and supporting this candidacy is akin to supporting Russia's current state, and objecting is akin to persecuting those who support Russia. It is further complicated by --Dwarf Kirlston
(You forgot to finish your sentence!) Yep. I have friends who are Russian (some of them might even define themselves as "nationalist") but they've studied history and they wouldn't put up with some of the things going on in this article. It's been a few years since I dealt with mainstream Russian history but I did read some pretty solid books on the subject. I can make a pretty good guess at what an expert's reaction this page would be. An editor who makes statements like "most peasants were pro-Bolshevik" doesn't inspire confidence. I get the impression most of the research for this article went no further than cobbling together a few encyclopaedia or newspaper articles found online. I'd expect more background reading to produce an FA candidate. Some editors - mostly Russians or Russophones - seem to be trying to hustle this article through to FA status as fast as possible rather than solving the underlying problems. --Folantin 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I did... only to remember now... I suppose I was going to say it's further complicated by the fact that people appropriate pages, and also consider it a personal affont to them if criticism is done to it.) the Great Purges according to my historical knowledge had killed at least 20 million people and possible way more - but that article notes at least 2 million and for the western reaction notes "minimization of the extent of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and small but passionate groups of modern-day Stalinists." -did revisionist scholars and stalinists edit great purge? --Dwarf Kirlston 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Russia has a revered and recognised tradition of ballet." - revered?
"The Russian language, renowned for its richness and flexibility" - renowned?
Left out in Foreign relations: relations with other ex-soviet countries
  • Reply The relationship with ex-Soviet countries is too complicated to fit into this article (and the Foreign relations of Russia article is filled with inaccuracies). Organisations with ex-Soviet states are mentioned.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left out in Culture: Architecture, crafts-making - it's not because there's not enough room, there's more information on the rather not very notable Russian cuisine than on Russian Ballet, Architecture, Crafts making put together, despite there being 3 pictures of famous russian architecture and one of the fabrege eggs, (which are not talked about at all). And there are strangely no images for cuisine and cinema, despite the plethora of images.
  • Reply I replaced the Bolshoi image with a 'cinema' image. There IS not enough room. We can't add all aspects of Russian culture, there has to be a compromise somewhere. (btw The Bolshoi and Winter Palace weren't meant to represent architecture - The Bolshoi Theatre image represents theatre and ballet, the Winter Palace represents cultural institutions) but (Sergei Eisenstein).--Miyokan 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is too long, yet "Russian cuisine represents a bouquet" deserves a place? Russian culture#Cuisine is in all ways better in talking about cuisine
"While in the industrialised nations of the West, motion pictures had first been accepted as a form of cheap recreation and leisure for the working class" POV and bloat, the article can do without, should do without in order for succinctness yet it is there.
  • Reply It's not POV, that is exactly what Encyclopedia Britannica says [13].--Miyokan 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am objecting because it is the first sentence on Russian Film in the article, it is not POV if in proper context, as introduction it is POV - to elaborate: one can start the article on France by saying "The French-men have lost many more wars than the Americans" even if the facts are true, it is POV. To say that "Russian Film was not produced as entertainment as in Western countries" is concise and remarkably more NPOV.--Dwarf Kirlston 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inexpensive by the way is not cheap I would further refer you to wiktionary:cheap. (cont.) cheap means: of bad quality, of little worth, and inexpensive. Is this article saying that cinema in the west was of bad quality and little worth? Or does it attempt to say that the tickets were inexpensive and isntead use an unencyclopedic term?--Dwarf Kirlston
It is too long because it is bloated. it doesn't treat these things not because there's not enough room, it's because notability and succinctness are ignored in general.--Dwarf Kirlston 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left out in Economy: Any discussion of the Soviet Economy or Financial Crisis. The article had been saying that 'Oil had been decreasing in importance in Russia economically since 2003' before this hour, it is still 80% of the exports, (the difference in the amount of imports and exports was what led to the collapse).
  • Reply Its decreased in importance because the economy is less dependant on exports.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left out in Demographics: Any discussion of the Deathtoll from Civil War, WWI, WWII, Purges and the effect on lowering population.--Dwarf Kirlston 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Demographics is not a history section, wars and such are left to the 'History' sction. Affecting of population numbers throughout history is never done in the Demographics section.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Bloat in Culture:Cuisine: "Traditional Russian cuisine is an important part of Russian national culture." as opposed to the unimportant architecture which is not even mentioned?

Its foundations were laid by the peasant food of the rural population in an often harsh climate, with a combination of plentiful fish, poultry, game, mushrooms, berries, and honey.Flavourful soups and stews centred on seasonal or storable produce, fish, and meats how is this notable? this does not belong in a Russia article, this is detail!
"Large areas covered by woods and forests were abundant in berries and mushrooms." maybe this belongs in geography?
Russian cuisine was renowned for diverse delicacies, especially refreshments (zakuski), made of fish, yielded by Russian rivers, lakes and seas.
"Soups and stews, made from the poultry and meats that were hunted," really? they were hunted? why that is interesting, perhaps both relevant to the fauna still existent, to hunting the sport, to endangered species perhaps... but is it really so notable and relevant to Russian culture that it is more important than one statement on Russian Architecture?
"Bread is a staple of Russian cuisine" I wouldn't be surprised, but it this notable?
"Russian cuisine represents a bouquet of many cultural traditions and influences that have been absorbed over many centuries." I didn't know that Russian Cuisine represented a bouquet. furthermore, it should stop at influences, even better at cultural traditions.
Furthermore the issue of the formatting of the images remain. Images are NOT next to their respective topics in Cuisine. They are isntead arranged at the top like this:
Image:St Basils Cathedral-500px.jpg|right|thumb|Saint Basil's Cathedral (1555–1561) is a showcase of medieval Russian architecture]]
Image:Ilya Efimovich Repin (1844-1930) - Portrait of Leo Tolstoy (1887).jpg|thumb|upright|left|Leo Tolstoy]]
Image:Peter Tschaikowski.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]]
Image:Coronation Egg.jpg|right|thumb|The Fabergé Eggs have become a synonym for luxury and are regarded as masterpieces of the jeweler's art]]
Image:MayaPlisetskaya.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Maya Plisetskaya in Swan Lake]]
Image:Sergei Eisenstein with skull.jpg|thumb|right|Sergei Eisenstein]]
Image:Winterpalast zwei seiten2.JPG|thumb|right|The Winter Palace, part of the Hermitage Museum]]
  • As a result of this comment the section on cuisine was entirely deleted. four photos were deleted.
--Dwarf Kirlston 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't as a result of your comment, the culture section needed trimming.--Miyokan 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean that the comment had any unreasonable effect, merely that it was reasonable, and that it had an effect, and this effect was, in short, the trimming. Or are you saying that you the editor that deleted it did not read my comment? I posted my comment on 15:58, 7 November 2007 and on 05:55, 8 November 2007 the section on cuisine was deleted. If the culture section needed trimming it needed trimming always, why was it only done after I posted the comment? It is my personal opinion that it was done because of my comment, I believe the facts point to this interpretation.--Dwarf Kirlston 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let me congratulate you guys first. The history section has improved considerably over the last days. I'd have few comments. The Dual Power: the soviets versus Russian Provisional Government and Alexander Kerensky after the February revolution are not mentioned, instead it reads ...Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called soviets. The statement is misleading, the fact is the first fully democratic elections in Russian history were held on November 12, 1917 as scheduled by the Provisional Government even though the communists had sieged the power by that time. The elected Russian Constituent Assembly was dissolved by the Bolshevik government after it became clear that the communists didn't win the elections. One might argue that the act fueled further the Russian Civil War. Also, the execution of the Romanov family on July 17, 1918 might be worth mentioning. One key factor seems to be also forgotten. The Soviet Land reform that redistributed the land between landless peasants that made them support the Communist government and helped the Communists to win the civil war. --Termer 07:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS.The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia...eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship sounds like a POV of a disappointed revolutionary I think. I'd avoid statements like that. Also, the "October revolution" itself might need something more neutral as the event has been called the bolshevik/communist Coup d'Etat of 1917 by many sources [14] that was in fact a counterrevolution to the democratic revolution in February.--Termer 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..sounds like a POV of a disappointed revolutionary I think." - not a disappointed revolutionary, MSN Encarta [15].--Miyokan 09:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSN Encarta can and constaly is improved upon, and seem to have different policies in regards to tone. You linked to a rather long article and the backing you sought was at the very least not in the introduction. Could you clarify it's location?--Dwarf Kirlston 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second revolution led to the rise of the modern Communist movement and to the transformation of the Russian Empire into what became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia. However, the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship, which lasted until 1991.

was the editor copying directly? he should have put it in quotes, this is currently a direct copy of non-free copyrighted material on wikipedia
"The communist ideal was democracy and equality, the communist reality was bureaucratic dictatorship" is also true, but it doesn't seem to fit NPOV either.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is true? excuse me but this can only be an opinion of the editor who wrote the entrance into Encarta. The fact is , the political goal of the communists since Marx up to Lenin was the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and that one was what turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship. Again, for some reason I don't see this fact mentioned in the article, instead it gives political commentary written as it appeared by an Encarta editor. I'd suggest to keep the article factual and avoid such opinionated commentaries in the text.--Termer 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is not what is written in the Encarta article, it's what Dwarf Kirlston said, I don't know why he put it in quotation marks.--Miyokan 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the only thing that matters here is what the article on WP says. And it still says The goal was...social equality and economic democracy in Russia etc. this is waht you'd call a judgemental statment meaning bias. an alternative biased statment would be: the goal of the October communist coup was to seize power by all means. The point is, once such opinionated statments are used, it should clearly at least say: accoding to who? Now, once such bias has been included into the article it should also list the opposing views. But currently the opinion reads like a fact and therefore it's not appropriate for a featured article on WP. That was the point.--Termer 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Dwarf Kirlston agree with Termer, I'm glad he understood my comment, I strive for clarity. -note: I have altered my signature slightly as you can see.--Keerllston 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely a feature article. This guy made hell of a work. The more people like him Wikipedia has, the better it will work. No Free Nickname Left 20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Review Time?--I believe you "voted" already-- perhaps you thought it had been renominated after no consensus?
--I believe you are refering User:Miyokan, he has done a pretty good job: he has been persistent, hard working, and in this candidateship he has shown an ability to take some criticism and change things - all these qualities are great and beneficial to the working of wikipedia.
However:he informs on his userpage"This user is a paid member of the KGB Internet troll squad.", and various pro greater russia opinions as well.
He seems to be political aka anti-NPOV-His actions are what you'd expect to some extent of a nationalist russian. To the extent that he goes against NPOV he is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia.
KGB "troll" - troll refers to the type of communication with others. Whether there is actual dialogue or whether it revolves around debate of superficial points. Wikipedia is neither a bureocracy nor a battleground and therefore a troll is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia. To the extent that he is a troll he is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia.
There is good and there is bad. He is not a troll, he is not political, he is not beneficial, he is not antagonistic. He's somewhere in between. Judging from this FAC I would say closer to beneficial.
--Keerllston 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Forgive any procedural error - I am new here) As I have proposed to Miyokan himself, I suggest the merger of the "Armed Forces" section into the "Government" section, as well as "Foreign Relations." Most of the FAs I've read here of different countries do not seem to emphasize such sections. I feel that both these sections contain information that is not pertinent to the general description of Russia. I think the "History" section can be reduced in the same way - merge and reduce the first three sections and focus instead on the Imperial, Soviet and modern eras, which is more pertinent to general Russian history. An example is at user:Miyokan/Sandbox (the size there has fallen from 115k to 98k). I also feel that multiple citations should be removed, for the sake of the size. K a r n a (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support K a r n a (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The article still needs work. It is currently overlinked, prose and sources need some improvement also. As an example of this problems here are some comments on the first subsection of the History section:

  • Why such a long title for the first subsection ("Ancient Russia, Early East Slavs and Kievan Rus'"), it seems to me "Ancient Russia" encompasses all the rest. Also the main articles linked at the top of this subsection are already linked in the text below. I don't see the point of having repeated links, specially as some of them are pretty specific.
  • In the first paragraph, second sentence, what does the word "steppes" refers to? To the Eurasian Steppe as a whole or only to the "vast lands of southern Russia" referred to in the preceding sentence?
  • In the same sentence, the clause "which would often move on to Europe" seems out of place and even redundant. Is it necessary?
  • In the third paragraph, the first sentence talks about Khazars and then, without further intro, the second sentence talks about Varangians. Some info is needed on why the Varangians are relevant to Russian history.
  • There's no mention on when and why the Slavs arrived to what is now Russian territory. That needs to be rectified.
  • The sentence "In the tenth to eleventh centuries this state of Kievan Rus became the largest in Europe and one of the most prosperous because of diversified trade with both Europe and Asia" looks like POV, it needs to be sourced. The following sentence about the Rus' decline could also use an inline citation.
  • The text does not say when did Russians as such appear. It just talks about "Russian principalities" without saying where did they come from.
  • The website http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml does not look like a serioues enough source for a featured article, specially if used to source controversial statements such as "About half of the Russian population died during the Mongol invasion". It should be replaced by more scholarly sources.

The whole article should be checked for this kind of problems. --Victor12 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked issues already dealt with. Here are some observations from this section:

  • The phrase "Prior to the first century" refers to the 1st century BCE or CE?
  • Why the link to Bosporan Kingdom as a main article at the start of the section? This entity is not mentioned in the text and it was not located in what is now Russian territory.
  • The section "Early East Slavs" is quite short (one paragraph), it would be better to merge it with the preceding one.
  • The reference to http://www.state.gov/t/pm/64851.htm in the statement of the Kievan Rus' as the most powerful state in Europe doesn't seem adequate to me. It is not an scholarly reference about Russian (or Ukranian) history, just an abstract from the CIA World Factbook. Could you replace it with a more scholarly source? For instance, a History book.
  • Still no explanation for the change from Slavic people to Russian people (Russian principalities are mentioned without any introduction). --Victor12 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. user:K a r n a has listed a number of missing issues which need to be rectified at the bottom of Miyokan's talk page. Brief mentions of things like the rich/poor gap and corruption, gangs etc would make this article much more balanced, and thus potentially FA worthy. Buckshot06 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The large number of "strongly oppose" comments and the quantity of the work thus proposed present an adequate challenge for any team of contributors. Many opposes have not been adressed. And it will take a long time - not within the scope of FAC in my opinion - to address the current opposes.
    My comments in particular, regarding the culture section's exessive trimming and lack of comprehensability, have not been adressed.
    --Keerllston 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

In Rainbows edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very comprehensive, well-written article on the history of the In Rainbows album by Radiohead. The article does an excellent job of discussing the history of production, the music and lyrics, critical reaction, and its unique method of distribution. In addition, pictures and audio files make the article more multi-faceted. No citations are currently needed, as all claims and references are accurately cited. Especially since this recently released album has generated much discussion amongst fans and the music industry, the article provides a fair, balanced, and complete overview of the album.Mentzabides 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think this is very early for an FAC nomination for this page. I mean, it hasn't even seen release on CD yet. I believe that some major editors of this article withdrew a good article nomination for the same reason. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerned regarding Stability.--Keerllston 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think its too early at all - the discbox, from what I can see, won't contain anything more than lyrics and artwork. Will (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just the discbox; The actual CD hasn't been released yet. This is a great article, but the whole story hasn't played out yet, and this shouldn't be featured yet regardless of quality. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also like to voice my concern that this is too early for an FAC. Even though the digital version of this album has been released, surely its impact on the music world has not been entirely decided on yet? Let us give the album more than four weeks to have an impact on other artists, shall we? Also, let us at least wait until all versions of it have been released. What happens if a CD release has a wildly different impact (for whatever reason) - that would drastically change the article. This topic is inherently unstable at the moment. I would expect the editors to want this article to be in the best shape it can be when nominating it here. Let us wait for that time. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, seems to be really comprehensive, well-written and well referenced, but as pointed out the fact that it hasn't seen a CD release yet could be problematic and could mean that significant changes would need to be made after the promotion to FA. Other than that though, it looks really good to me.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Is the playlist ranking on Last.fm all that notable? I'd feel better if there was a news article noting the album's ranking on Last.fm, but as it stands it doesn't seem suitable for an encyclopedia article. Also, more attention should be given to professional, mainstream media reviews of the album. Most of the ones mentioned in the prose are websites that haven't quite established their notability as important voices in music criticism, or small regional/city newpapers. Stick with the likes of Rolling Stone, All Music Guide, The New York Times, NME, Q, etc. Compared to those publications/sites, what Tiny Mix Tapes and The Hartford Courant think of the album is irrelevant. Frankly the article is not comprehensive enough in ackowledging appropriate sources to be FA material, or even GA class (in contrast, the album has technically been released--albeit in an unusual format--so the whole "hasn't been released on CD" aspect isn't a point of contention for me). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

Windows Vista edit

You may be looking for a different FAC: see correcting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC

The Windows Vista article has been improved since its previous FAC and has references for all of its statements and no "citation needed" templates. Since Windows Vista has been released it is no longer subject to massive changes. The Previous FAC can be found here. Alexfusco5 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The second and third paragraphs of the first section run without references. That's too long a run perhaps? And for the new features, rather than provide a "laundry-list", perhaps a neat summary of the most significant features makes for easier reading? Manderiko (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with Manderiko on both counts, and have indicated additional places where references are needed in the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Me too agree with Manderiko... The section 2 is very long. Should be summarized instead of a "laundry-list"...Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if; Vista is an exceptional Operating System in that it has unusually poor public reception for a version of Windows, and unusually high nbers of consumers and business say (in polls) that they would rather use XP or Mac instead of Vista. If this information is in the article, I would support making it featured. If this significant aspect is lacking, I would not support it as being a featured article. Althepal 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I added the information I felt was needed in the article, so I change my vote to support. Althepal 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I guess I have to, since some people are supporting in spite of the severe lack of references in some areas. The tags are there, let me know when you've addressed them. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a fairly well-written article, but it definately needs to be more adequately cited, especially in the first half of the article. Thingg (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

Fugazi edit

This is a well-written, well-sourced article about an influential band. It meets the criteria of a featured article and contains information on history, genres, ethic, albums, etc. There accounts on each member and there side-projects and much about the band themselves. There is also much in this article about the history of Fugazi and accounts of them. W123 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Many concerns with the article (I've contributed to the article in the past during the alt. music collaboration):
  • Stub sections. "Campaigning and activism" comprises one sentence: "Fugazi have campaigned and engaged in activism." See the Pearl Jam equivalent.
  • Lack of sources. "Business practice and ethics" is almost completely unsourced.
  • "Hiatus" is full of one or two-line paragraphs, which isn't acceptable for a potential FA.
  • Lead is insufficient. It doesn't summarise the history of the band or its campaigning and activism for instance.
The article, while it's a good start, needs quite a bit of work still. CloudNine (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The 'Campaigning and activism' section only has one sentence. Martin B 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominator appears not to be addressing objections; his only edit subsequent to nominating this article has been to remove the Activism section, which will no longer make the article comprehensive. CloudNine (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Holden edit

previous FAC, December 3

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because after successfully passing the article through the good article process, I was recomended that I take it further. Thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expectation is that concerns in previous featured article candidacies be addressed before an article returns to FAC; this FAC was just archived because of concerns about comprehensiveness (reflected in the article organization) and copyediting. Please take enough time between nominations to address the prior concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, could do with better prose and sourcing. Redrocketboy 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better prose and sourcing! The article has already been copyedited by myself, the League of Copyeditors, as well as User:Kane5187 and User:TKD (both members of LOC). And better sourcing, aren't 83 references enough? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, some sentences read very long for me. Some of the references are broken, and (to me) seem unreliable. Fix them up and I'll happily support. Cheers Redrocketboy 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up the broken references, and replaced some. Please state which references are unreliable and which sentences are too long. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: is it normal to bold names? I always thought italics looked better, but perhaps that's just my personal preference over Wikipedia policies. Redrocketboy 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one, but because they are former names, I would think that you would want them to stand out. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the issues with prose and comprehensiveness from the FA closed this week have not yet been addressed. Just a few examples below (not that this is not from a close view but just things that stand out)
  • Article does not mention that Holden had exclusive rights to GM production in Australia from 1924
Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement Although it is widely accepted that General Motors was the only automaker to accept the challenge to build "Australia's Own Car", is not backed up by the citation
Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing on what and how Holden built from about 1931 to 1948.
Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing information on the factories they built and closed.
Done OSX (talk • contributions) 09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A graph of something like market share, production, sales $, exports would be great. How many cars per day do they make except for 2005 (684 in 2003). What proportion of sales are imported, assembled in Australia and fully Australian manufactured.
Per my comments on the last review there is a wealth of information out there. The editors of this article have written a good one but strategic distance is required as much more than just trimming around the edges is required to make it Wikipedia's best work - Peripitus (Talk) 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There's an error in citation 9.
  • To cite different pages of the same work multiple times, you should set up separate "Notes" and "References" sections, putting the full citation (e.g. "Robinson, Peter L (2006)...") in the References and putting the abbreviated citation ("Robinson, 22–23") and all the other cites in the "Notes." See The Green (Dartmouth College) as an example. (I'm not sure if this is required per MoS, but the way it's set up now is confusing, because the reader doesn't know where to go to find the full Robinson citation as it's buried with all the others). Dylan 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: Please allow at least two weeks before re-nominating at FAC; seeking a peer review or third party assistance may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Harry and the Potters edit

previous FAC

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because.. it is of good article status, it has undergone a peer review and recently was not promoted as a featured article candidate. I have taken all comments and suggestions from these reviews and edited the article accordingly. Hpfan9374 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The article needs further copyedit. {1} Repetition in paragraph1: "formed in... 2002" and "Formed in 2002"; {2) Within para1 and para2, the band is italicized, then not, then it is. (3) "Wizard rock" is wikilinked in para1, so doesn't need to be in para2. (4) at least one year is missing a comma directly afterwards: " Almost three years later in February 2002 the band". (5) "easy likeability"; is there such a thing as "difficult likeability"? (6) "the band's musical style was goofy inept pop-punk". (7) "Harry and the Potters lyrics' contain...". (8) "They have also they have co-founded..." Wishing you well in the FAC process. Rosiestephenson 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has recently requested a copyedit by Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Hpfan9374 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The previous FAC closed November 26th, 4 days before you renominated this article. FAC is not a revolving door. Go work on the article and address the problems and take your time. Also, the references are a mess, see WP:CIT, and use the proper templates and all the information you can find about the source and include them in the article. KnightLago 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have worked on the article and addressed all problems, using wikipedians suggestions from GA reviews, peer reviews and FAC candidate comments. Also, the article is using the correct reference templates. Hpfan9374 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed all problems since it closed four days ago because they are still there. The lead is still choppy and redundant. The prose is not brilliant nor written from a strategic distance. When reading this article I get the impression it was written by a band member. Also, I suggested you check the citation templates so you could find out what you are missing, which includes access dates and publishers among other things. KnightLago 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very well, I shall edit accordingly. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The prose needs a lot of work before this can be made an FA.
    • "formed in Norwood, Massachusetts in 2002"..."Formed in 2002"
    • "Harry and the Potters music"
    • The band alternates between being a plural and singular entity.
    • The prose in general is clunky and choppy, and sprinkled with grammatical errors. The tone also seems unencyclopedic at times.
    • Per MOS, a band should not be italicized.
    • Careful of overlinking.
    • Fully flesh out your refs. 140.247.131.86 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Rosiestephenson (talk · contribs) and KnightLago (talk · contribs), specifically, about the need for formatting the references. Especially if some citations are standardized and others are not, best to use WP:CIT for all citations in the entire article. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Closing note: Please allow several weeks before re-nominating at FAC; seeking a peer review or third party assistance may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Ambulance edit

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it represents significant work by myself and several other excellent editors, has GA status, has been peer reviewed, and I believe it now represents an excellent subject resource. Care has been taken to maintain international perspective, and to ensure references are included as appropriate. I await any comments you may have. Regards, Owain.davies (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review is quite old, not very complete, and there is a lot of basic MOS cleanup needed. Without even reading beyond the lead, I see incorrect capitalization in image captions, WP:DASH issues, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, a rambling out of control Table of Contents (see WP:WIAFA), and the article is very listy. There is a separate section created for numerous one-paragraph issues; perhaps something like a War heading could be used to tame the TOC. Oh, I see you already have a Military use section, which makes all the other sections even more confusing. Citations are unformatted (see WP:CITE/ES) and almost no publishers are identified; See also is out of control (see WP:GTL). There is incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD. The article doesn't stay tightly focused on its subject, verring into the technology of the flashing lights, for example. There are numerous short, stubby paragraphs. The article has broad sections with no citations. A copy edit is needed (notice this "sentence": The scene was very popular, and its fame spread — During the year 1870, the ambulances attended 1401 emergency calls, but twenty one years later, this had more than tripled to 4392 ... which also has WP:MOSNUM issues). Commons links belong in External links. I don't recommend trying to bring this article to status during a FAC because there is frankly a lot of work to be done, and I suggest a more thorough peer review would be helpful. A lot of these kinds of issues should have been addressed via peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I see your points, and I was disappointed with the poor Peer Review response, but I think it might be surmountable during FAC, although I have a few points and questions which might help me do it.
  • WP:DASH – All the dashes in the lists are En dashes, which I believe is correct, although I have reinserted them all just in case. Was this what you meant?
  • Captions – Fixed so far as I think is correct for capitals and WP:MOS. Anything I missed?
  • TOC - Is your issue with the TOC itself (if so i can suppress the hierarchy) or with the headings themselves?
  • Cites - all refs use the CITE template, so are in the correct format, and i have now added publishers where missing
  • See also - cleared up and reduced to directly related articles
  • MOSBOLD - I can't see the incorrect use - it is used in the lists, which is one of the reasons you can use it
  • Offending 'sentence' - must of missed that, now fixed
  • MOSNUM - I have reread this, and i'm not immediately seeing the problem, any further advice?
  • 'Listy' article - I'm not sure there is any way round this given the variations which occur worldwide. If this was entirely rewritten to prose, it would be much harder to read, and more difficult to find salient information.
  • Subject focus - I think this does stay quite well focused, given that sub headings, such as lights, are integrally linked to ambulances to the majority of readers.
Thanks in advance for your help. Owain.davies (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a lot of work has gone into producing this article, so I hope my comments are constructive and do not cause upset. The article is unpleasent to read because of those lists. There seems to be no begining, middle and end. For a start, I would bring the very interesting History section to the top of the article, instead of those two lists. The article is too long and would benefit from some radical editing. I found it a struggle to get to the end. Lastly, the references need some attention. Sorry to sound negative. There is an excellent article buried in here.--GrahamColmTalk 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Amanita ocreata edit

≈≈ warning:deadly fungus alert in California ≈≈...I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it fulfils FA criteria. It is thoroughly referenced, is comprehensive, has images with appropriate licencing, and has prose at least as good as other successful Featured Article Candidates I've worked on. Let me know how I can improve this one cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is jumping the gun a bit. The first step would be to see if the article meets the criteria for WP:GA status and bring it up to that if not, then see about bringing it up to Featured Article status. Also, I could be wrong, but since this is a relatively short article on a specific topic, I'm not sure if it qualifies to be a featured article. (The latter is the reason I've never tried putting Myco-heterotrophy or Galerina forward as FA candidates.) Also, I think that quite a bit of the toxicity info really belongs in another article, since this information on amanitin and phalloidin poisoning is not at all specific to this species. Peter G Werner 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up the idea of Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, or more specifically this essay. If this were a paper book, We'd have a poisoning section, with details under A. phalloides, or general, and then under A. bisporiga, A. ocreata etc. we'd have poisoning section - see A. phalloides or as for A. phalloides. One could also argue that the fungus has these poisons so this is what would happen if you eat it. In terms of coverage, then the most exact way to cover it would be to make a Amanita sect. phalloideae page and reserve all the detailed stuff on amatoxins for that page given that is the group of fungi which has all the toxic members (not the genus Amanita. However, one does not ingest or is poisoned by a taxonomic group of fungi.
As far as GA/FA, I have often bypassed one stage successfully - it is not seen as a two stage process. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. GA is not a condition for FA. Regards, Separa 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA is not part of the FA process and is not necessary for FA status or candidacy; also, short articles are FA-eligible if they are comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRT Featured Article length, Amanita ocreata is 23 kb, Make Way for Ducklings is 17 kb, Hurricane Irene (2005) is 8 kb. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also a shorter article means it is more convenient to have all the relevant information on one page (namely this one). For reasons good or bad, the species unit is the standard 'currency' of almost all biological books for laypeople, whether they be birdwatching, mushroom picking, wildflower collecting or whatever, and that is what has developed here on WP - it is now big enough that we can do it. If you feel there is anything on the page that doesn't apply to this species I can remove it but I'd propose the lethality and treatment are pretty important and most accessible where they are. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see a distribution map. It may take care of the rather stubby-looking "distribution" section. 82.71.48.158 (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - I'll see what I can do.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 2nd thoughts this may be a little tricky due to mushrooms being less visible than plants or animals but i promise I am looking into it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that the lead has no citations - including for it's deadliness- which is then disproven in the body?--Keerllston 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I am not sure where you get the idea it is disproven in the text as I hadn't consciously written anything along those lines in the body. In essence, it appears to be of similar or possibly even more toxicity than the much more widespread and accidentally eaten death cap Amanita phalloides which has a mortality of around 10-15% even with hospital intervention as described. Both are actually pretty dangerous fungi if you eat them. In regards to refs in leads, there are several points of view, with many FAs having none as the lead summarises the body and some writers proposing that inline reffing in the body is sufficient. The other extreme is reffing everything in the lead which I think could look rather messy. OTOH MOS does suggest that reffing controversial points maybe a happy compromise. In which case I am happy to place 2 refs in the 2nd para - one for toxicity and one for amanitins. Let me know if this is sufficient or whether tehre are other bits likely to be challenged you'd like reffed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

James Strang edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I've been following the progress of this article. I think it meets all the criteria of an FA. It's a great article. Elliskev 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, please close and archive the peer review to oldpeerreview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC) checkY Done by Allen 3 on 11/11 -- Ecjmartin 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have many paragraphs of very small size, some that are only two sentences long. I would condense paragraphs to make a few, larger ones. Let me know when you do and I may support. Perspicacite 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your feedback; I could clearly see your point after I examined the article with that in mind. I have combo'd some of the shorter paragraphs and expanded some others; check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks again for your feedback! - Ecjmartin 02:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jose João 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is definitely a good article, but probably needs a bit of work to get it into FA shape. The footnote style is inconsistent. See FA Criterion 2(c). It's not a good idea to use two different footnote styles in the same article. Moreover, the meta:cite format is preferred. Also, many important points in the article are not cited. In addition, I'm not convinced that mormonbeliefs.com is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. There are also citations to blogs. I would also work on fleshing out the citations, being careful to note who the author of each cited article is and other bibliographic information ({{Citation}} is a helpful template). COGDEN 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your feedback! (1) Footnotes are not my strong suit, but I can look into this. The footnotes were reformatted and corrected by another editor (for which I was very grateful!), but I added to them after she was done, so that may explain the inconsistancy. I'll see what I can do about that. (2) I believe mormonbeliefs.com is as reliable a source on Strangite beliefs as one can find, being a Strangite website. The citations I make from that site are to published Strangite materials or to Strangite beliefs which they present and/or elaborate on. In my opinion, a Strangite website is as reliable a site for information on their beliefs anywhere else on the internet. Might I ask you to elaborate on your specific objections to this particular site? (3) If I'm thinking of the right one, the blog citation was from the footnote on Emma Smith and her alleged support of Strang; I have pulled all reference to Emma (including the blog citation) from the article, since I couldn't find a better source to cite, and the info on Emma neither adds nor detracts significantly from the article itself. (4) Which "important points" in the article weren't cited? I'd be glad to get citations for any that I can. (5) I've compared the citations in this article to other recent feature articles, and I can't see where they are deficient compared to those in other feature articles I've looked at (Honoré de Balzac, Matthew Brettingham, Henry, Bishop of Uppsala, just to name a few). Of course, some other articles' footnotes are indeed "fleshed out" more, but I'm not sure these compare all that poorly to others. Thanks again for your consideration and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the one that did the references initially. I didn't consider it two different formats, really. WP:LAYOUT states "'Notes' is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). 'References' is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise 'Notes and references' should be combined." In this article, there is "Footnotes" and "Citations". But, as is my understanding, WP allows for various titles to be used. That's an easy fix, if not, however. Also, Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes is where I got the idea from. Although, rather than use Harvard style referencing with the reflist style, I used lettered footnotes. I believe it looks better and works better to pull the notes out of the references and place them in their own section. I don't believe that violates criteria 2c, but I could be wrong. Lara❤Love 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Jane Zhang edit

This article has recently passed through the WP:GA and it has been peer reviewed by Dihydrogen Monoxide which I am grateful for. Through the peer review, I am confident that this article will satisfy the WP:FA criteria. σмgнgσмg 10:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think it would be interesting that you add a sample of one of her song to the article in order to picture her voice. CG 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How do I include music samples? I never done it before. Also, the copyright laws would apply as she has not released any samples of her songs. The only music samples I can provide is the entire song, which is not allowed. σмgнgσмg 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
"Foreign Language Department where she was majoring in English" she dropped out? graduated with honorary diploma? this is important missing information.
sources:a Fan Club is a reliable source? 13 sources are episodes of Supergirl Season 2. 9 sources are from various articles from "CRIEnglish.com" or "crienglish" or "CRI English" - what is the real name of the web site?
It seems too short. Incomplete - Lacking depth - but some topics have little depth to go into.--Keerllston 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I addressed the main concerns raised in your queries. However, the 13 sources of SuperGirl episodes are highlighting that her performances can be verified. We can have it there or we don't need to. But it just provides some indication where the information has come from. σмgнgσмg 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CRI English is the English version of news coming from China Radio International. Pandacomics 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Might I ask how is it too short? This is as much information that can be provided. I've expanded all the information regarding certain areas of her biography, her early years, the competition, the production of her two albums, her vocal ability and personal life. She has been in the media spotlight for only two years, and the information avaliable is hard to come across. So, could you provide me advice on how to expand it? The article fits in with all of the criteria, including WP:SIZE. I'm rambling on, but my main query is a) What do you mean when it is too short, incomplete and lacking depth? and b) If you still feel that it is too short, how should I go about expanding it? σмgнgσмg 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With things like her Image, or Musical Style, or how the media perceives her (and how she reacts to such media response)...things like that. Pandacomics 04:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely said Pandacomics.--Keerllston 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for not expanding, I don't believe comments have to be as complete as objections, but I might be wrong. Let me clarify what I meant.--Keerllston 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose[due to 1b][Lacking information unavailable]
Missing: Life before Supergirl competition, any personal life other than single scandal, family other than one family member...--Keerllston 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is already mentioned in the article. Mind you, Zhang has only been in the media spotlight for 2 years and information is pretty hard to come by. Her personal life only involves the scandal. Her early life was... I guess you can say, ordinary. Finally, she only has her mother and herself due to a) one child policy and b) her dad died (which is mentioned in the article already) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omghgomg (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is hard to come by, but either "personal life" is titled erroneously and should be called Huang Jianxiang Scandal, or it should contain more information.
"During her childhood she performed at her parents' workplace" yet what were her parents profession? were the acoustics of the (factory? monastery? office building?) very good?
The article shows a lot of information about Zhang's performance in Super Girl, but even that could use work towards a better writing style.--Keerllston 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I have addressed your concerns. If it still needs fixing, please leave further information on how I should go about it. Cheers, σмgнgσмg 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry about that, didn't see that it was a blog. My mistake. Anyway, I found a reliable souce, although it is in Chinese. Took me awhile to find and decipher as I'm not really that good anyway. σмgнgσмg 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One or two > 30-second examples, maybe, if the accompanying text throws light on the lyrics/musical style. See WP:NFC. Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, audio samples are quite hard to come by, and I don't know how to make one which does not infringe any copyright law. σмgнgσмg 09:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QueryWas she characterized in any major newspaper as compared to the other candidates in the Super Girl contest as worse or less voted on than the others for a specific reason?--Keerllston 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not at all. The winner was Li Yuchun who "broke" away from the typical Chinese female popstar stereotype. σмgнgσмg 12:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zhang was a "typical popstar stereotype"?
        let me explain why I am asking - public opinion on her, why she lost, who she was perceived as, is the kind of information that would make this an article of greater interest for a would be reader.
        This is (debatably?) included in the criteria as "writing style" and/or "comprehensiveness"
        --Keerllston 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment' And I'm sure you can dig up something on the Baidu news search engine. Pandacomics 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Addressed the topic. Although it could do with a bit of copy-editing. σмgнgσмg 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WOW! I really like the bringing in of controversial material (are we sure it's being properly treated for NPOV?), Controversy leads to interest. Can you get more like this?--Keerllston 14:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-WOW and oppose. Not thrilled to find this in the first sentence: "who came to prominence when she placed third in the 2005 season of the Super Girl contest, a national all-female singing competition held in the People's Republic of China." WAS placed. Remove "held". And more:
  • "She was given the nickname "The Dolphin Princess" during the competition[3] due to her ability to sing the whistle register.[4] They had given her this nickname because Chinese musicians refer to the whistle register as the ..." Nicer to write "for her ability". "sing IN"? Who is "they"?
  • "Her next album, Update, broke away from the Chinese pop scene and had instead combined elements of R&B and jazz.[7]" "... scene BY COMBINING elements of ...".
  • MOS says to avoid "currently" in this context: how can you be sure that it will soon be updated? "Currently, she is participating in a World Peace One concert ...".
  • "Other artists that are participating include U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd and Green Day." Are they robots? "who", not "that"; but better to improve the wording: "Other participating artists include ...". I hope there are others, since "include" means that it's a partial list.
  • I hate all of the Chinese script. This is the English-language WP, so what's the use? Especially in the table, where it looks so messy. [However, this is not part of my objection.]

So this needs serious copy-editing; I'm sorry to come in so late. Can you find someone else to do it, since an author is usually too close to the text to see the problems (me included). Research edit histories/summaries to locate someone who's in this area and a good copy-editor. Act quickly, please. The director may or may not think it better that you resubmit. Tony (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anti WOW??? but... but... but... I really really really like WOW :(....--Keerllston 09:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:01, 6 December 2007.

In Your House 1 edit

Article recently passed GA. I have since added a load more sources to the article (see here), and I feel it is now ready for FA status. If there are any problems, I will sort them out. Thanks, Davnel03 13:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have a question: Why did the WWF launched into "IYH?" I think this needs to be explained in the article. K a r n a (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, good question. I think it should be explained in the main In Your House article. Davnel03 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - this being the 1st such PPV, I think it should be (briefly) made clear in the article. Its not a serious issue, but I think somewhat necessary. K a r n a (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're probably right. I'll try and look for sources, and I'd like one or two more opinions on the point you've raised. Davnel03 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if the reader wants to know, there is a link to the main In your House article. Feedback ☎ 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Support; the article is looking great. Feedback ☎ 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not a Feature Article level article in it’s current state, failing on a number of areas.
  • Sources – uses questionable sources such as TWNP, the Wrestling Information Archive (a 100Megsfree.com site that looks like a personal site) and The Other Arena, yes they’re “just” for results but in an FA article these things matter.
  • Yes, sources are a bit of a problem. There aren't many big reliable sources for a PPV like this that are outside the wrestling world. I will keep looking for other sources though. Surely the ones in the article at the moment are OK? Its not like their telling "a lie" as such, they are telling "fact". Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well “surely” is the problem – since they’re not really reliable sources how do we know for a fact that they’re not telling a lie? That’s the point of being “reliable” MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They ain't telling a lie though. The shows happened, no one can change it. It can be easily verified by different sources. That source is only used for the results. Davnel03 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just providing my feedback, if you or anyone else working on the article disagree with it then that's your/their choice. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, OK. Your feedback has been very good in helping me with the article so far. Davnel03 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of “Wrestling Slang” – best example I can give you is the word “Kayfabe”, to a non-wrestling fan what is that? It’s a made up word really, an “Insider term” which can easily be replaced with more commonly known words and phrases that are more instantly recognizable. This isn’t a wrestling fan article, but an Encylopedic entry, possibly featured on the front page one day – it needs to be more accessible to non-wrestling fans. I’m not crazy about the way it’s done but it’s not a problem, just a personal preference so issue is removed. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a user wants to know what a certain word means, why can't they just click on the link to find out more details? If I didn't use these words, surely it would sound completely in-universe? Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree and so did the person reviewing Bobby Eaton for FA – if a non-wrestling slang word such as “storyline” etc is used instead of the totally made up word “Kayfabe” it’s more accessible. Clicking a link is okay if a reader wants to know more – not if they want to know WHAT it means at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I did remove the use of "kayfabe", someone else may think its real, and in come the in-universe issues again. Davnel03 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing something here, I said replace the word kayfabe with something that's not a word made up by wrestlers and wrestling fans. Not just removing it, it's not that hard to do. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, what could I replace it with though. In these two examples, I think it would be better removing kayfabe and not replacing it: "...however, Sid interrupted and kayfabe turned on Michaels, powerbombing him three times." and "Hart and Yokozuna interfered in the contest, kayfabe attacking the New Headshrinkers, signalling a disqualification." I think it would be better just removing kayfabe. However, if I was to replace it, what/how could I reword it? Davnel03 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative is that the first time you use a slang word, you define it. Then the reader know what the word means, and you are free to use it in the article afterward. Is that a good compromise? Then: "Sid, in what was a work (a scripted moment made to look real), interrupted and turned on Michaels, powerbombing him three times." and "Hart and Yokozuna, as part of a worked storyline, interfered in the contest, attacking the New Headshrinkers, signalling a disqualification." I hope that gives you some ideas. I'm just rushing right now, so my feelings won't be hurt if you change the wording around or reject this idea outright. Nikki311 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a good compromise? In my view it is. I'll make one or two changes to the article based on the above. Davnel03 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In so many places this article blurs the line of reality and storyline too much, presenting wrestling storylines as too real, too “in universe”
  • Any specific places in the article where this happens? Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still hasn’t been addressed, I’ll try to give you a list of places I see problems. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Citation listed in [3] needs to be improved, since the page is a long list of results each time it’s used the “date” should be listed to help readers find it instead of giving a blanket reference to the page and effectively say “Here you go search for it”. I’m having a hard time finding the specific details on some events so it really should list the date it happened to make it easier to find & verify.
  • I would direct it to the specific place, but the website doesn't allow you to do that, so not much I can do there. Everything that has [3] next to it did come from there. If there is anything that seems questionable, leave a note of it. Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you can do, and what I’ve had to do is use the “date =” portion of the citation and then put the date of the show, it’s an easy fixpoint to search for on the page and it ensures that anyone can quite easily verify the citations. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done – You cited the date of the first and the last citation – still leaves over 20 citations without a specific date that someone has to go hunt for. What I’d like to see were SEPARATE citations with the specific date each time. Yes they’re almost identical but this way we can actually CONFIRM all the citations without having to play Sherlock Holmes. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done now. I've put it for the date the show was taped, as the website has it listed in the order they were taped. Davnel03 09:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is very short and has no flow, reads almost like a bullet list without the bullet points.
  • Its not that short for a lead. Any way I could improve it? Lead's are meant to outline an article, and I feel it does it's job properly. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s still very short, especially for a FA where the lead is more or less the text that’ll appear on the main page. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little bit, but don't really know what else to improve. Davnel03 10:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead has been expanded due to Screwball's comments below. Davnel03 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several places the text has very little flow, it’s just short almost “telegram like” sentences with little flow or connection to each other.
  • Any specific parts that I could improve on? Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ll try and put a list together of issues MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • admitting that it was Sid who told Shawn Michaels to get a bodyguard – that’s wrong, it was Dibiase not Sid.
  • DiBiase announced that he and Sid were working together for a while – granted I’m no English major but shouldn’t that be “Had been working together” here?
  • Correct. My mistake there. Changed. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of Sid & Dibiase staring Diesel down during an interview segment seems totally pointless and trivial since – NOTHING HAPPENED.
  • Um, our probably correct. I've removed it. I guess its trivial as he never actually got in the ring and attacked Sid. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Hakushi, who was with manager Shinja for most of the rivalry – Why is it important to mention that he was with Shinja for most of the rivalry? He was his manager, Shinja wasn’t dropped as a manager until after the IYH so this just seems strange to mention and hurt the sentence in general.
  • I think its important to note that Hakushi had a manager. Nethertheless I've removed it. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn’t object to noting that he had a manager, that’s file – but “for most of the rivalry” indicates that it changed over the course of the feud and that it was important.
  • (accompanied by The Roadie and Hakushi, who was again with Shinja). , the end parenthesis should probably be after Roadie. And the use of “Again” makes it seem like Shinja was gone for a while, then returned and that this is actually important to the angle.
  • Something wrong with that sentence as a whole. It reads like Bret and Ramon were facing Jarrett in a Handicap match.
  • According to [16] :
  • QUOTE: Action Zone - 4/23/95: Jacob & Eli Blu (w/ Uncle Zebakiah) fought the New Headshrinkers (w/ Capt. Lou Albano) to a double disqualification at 7:34 when the Smoking Gunns made the save for the Headshrinkers against the Blu Twins after Fatu was double teamed on the floor by WWF Tag Team Champions Owen Hart & Yokozuna, who appeared ringside late in the match; after the bout, the Headshrinkers cleared Owen & Yoko from the ring before posing with the tag title belts and celebrating with the Gunns. Bret Hart & Razor Ramon defeated WWF IC Champion Jeff Jarrett (w/ the Roadie) & Hakushi (w/ Shinja) at 12:09 when Bret reversed a small package by Jarrett, putting Razor on top for the pin
  • The article is incorrect, and I have therefore changed the sentence. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramon [[pinning Jarrett. – check out the bolded part.
  • While the short feud with Hakushi gets a lot of text the much longer, much more developed and heated storyline with Jerry Lawler is summed up in one line basically? If you’re going to go to the trouble of recapping the lead up to the match at IYH you really need to give more details than this.
  • The Lawler-Hart storyline was much more spread out in terms of time - starting in 1993 and ending in 1995. Their wasn't much of a lead-up for that match unlike there was with the Hakushi match. I'll double-check with "The Other Arena" sources, and see whether there was more of a backstory leading into IYH 1. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a bit more on that. Davnel03 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bret dedicated the match to his mother… why? What led to this? What’s the significance of this? I don’t remember why but it wasn’t just pulled out of the blue.
  • The pay-per-view took place on Mother's Day, so I believe that is the reason Bret dedicated the match to his mother. I've added it to the article. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • after kayfabe accidentally making Montoya pin himself – Montoya pulled a Colin “Bomber” Harris and pinned himself? I’m thinking that it was Jarrett that was pinned, not Montoya himself am I right? If so then the sentence is very unclear.
  • According to [17]:
  • QUOTE: Aldo Montoya pinned WWF IC Champion Jeff Jarrett (w/ the Roadie) in a non-title match at around 5:30 when the champion pinned himself by not lifting his shoulder out of a back suplex; Jarrett was originally announced as the winner and his music played until the referee raised Aldo's hand.
  • I've changed it to go with the source, but something still seems weird. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No love for the tag team title match that actually had a bit of history to it as well? At least as much as the Bret/Hakushi match.
  • I'll add a little bit later. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a pragraph on that. Davnel03 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt Stephanie Wiand will ever get her own article, why not just leave it delinked instead of redlinked?
  • Having not watched WWF at the time, I thought she would be notable. I've delinked it. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's still redlinked in the table though. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Lawler’s “Mother” is presented as totally legit and really his mother is laughable, come on now
  • I didn't watch the PPV, and don't know whether it was Lawler's mother or not. I'm guessing it wasn't Lawler's mother, and have thus added the word "kayfabe" just before the bit about his match with Hart. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite thehistoryofwwe.com – go there and read their report on the PPV you’ll see that it wasn’t a “storyline mother” in the way Shelton Benjamin’s mama was but some young chick about half of Lawler’s age, I think that’s an important detail. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “Aftermath” section is a bit weak, doesn’t mention the Diesel/Sid return match that Diesel won or anything.
  • Added info on that. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that MPJ-DK, I appreciate it. Could you possibly strike out the things that are now resolved, so I know what I need to look at in more detail. Thanks, Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added a few quick comments, gives you something to start with, I’ll round out the comments when I get more time. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I think the article has improved quite a bit since it was nominated, I still think it needs more information on how the Hart-Lawler feud played into the In Your House storyline (Lawler convincing Hakushi that Hart was racist, waiting until a match was signed between those two, then criticizing Hart for not facing him [Lawler]). It was a big part of the event, so it should be mentioned. Aside from that, I just wanted to give my view of a couple of sources. The Other Arena seems okay to me. It's an edited site, and all of the pay-per-view recaps that I've read have been very accurate. In addition, Wrestling Information Archive is a quality site. It's run by one person (as far as I know), but it's a great source for reliable wrestling information. It's cited in many articles as a reliable source. It doesn't report news (aside from updating results or reporting deaths), so it's definitely not a dirtsheet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a bit about Lawler/Hart racist thing. Davnel03 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern has been addressed. I will change my vote to Support. The article is thorough and cites reliable sources. GaryColemanFan 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename? as per articles like WWE No Mercy, etc., I think this article should be titled "WWE In Your House 1" to indicate that its part of the program series made by the WWE. The current title doesn't convey what the subject is. Can this be done? K a r n a 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck a few items, but I’m still opposed based on the language, flow and blurry lines of “In Universe” problems. I will try to provide you with some examples as best I can. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Chance

I'll be very clear. This article has zero chance of showing up on the Featured Article pages of Wikipedia. If the Montreal Screwjob couldn't make it to the FA of the day, this has no shot whatsoever.

I only have to take the first lead paragraph to explain: In Your House 1 was the first of the In Your House professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event series produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). It took place on 14 May 1995 at the Onondaga War Memorial in Syracuse, New York.[1][3]Ok, I get it. This is starting on rough facts. First, it states that it was the first of the In Your House event series, not the first-ever PPV. To an outsider, or even to a wrestling fan skimming through, that would not be clear. As a headline, starting the article, it presents no interest for the reader to read whatsoever. So it's the first, so what? Summarize something. Create a lead sentence.

That is the lead-sentence. I see nothing wrong with it. A similar sentence is used on December to Dismember (2006). I cannot see what the problem is. Davnel03 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main event that was shown on PPV was a WWF Championship match between Diesel and Sycho Sid, which Sid won by disqualification after Tatanka interfered on Sid's behalf. No, no, no. The main event between the two makes sense. Someone can understand that. then, when you say Sid won by disqualification, you need some explanation. Expand on that. Not everyone knows what a DQ is. Not everyone knows exactly what interference Tatanka was involved in, either. This is way too in-universe. You would need another few sentences to make it readable.

Linked disqualification and have added a bit. Davnel03 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main matches on the undercard were Bret Hart versus Hakushi and Hart versus Jerry Lawler.Two matches, but the wording is jumbled. Was it a tag team match? Why did you mention all four wrestlers at once? Who even said these were the main matches on the undercard? You?

I've reworded it fully. Davnel03 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hart defeated Hakushi with a Victory Roll, but lost to Lawler after Hakushi, along with Shinja interfered, helping Lawler to win.[3] Same prolems as before, Who is Shinja, what did he do? Simplify it.

Shinja is Hakushi's manager. I've explained that a little now. Davnel03 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other main match on the undercard was a Handicap match with Razor Ramon versus Jeff Jarrett and The Roadie. There were three matches that took place after the PPV had finished.[1][3] The PPV received a 0.83 buyrate, equivalent to about 332,000 buys.[4] The other main match? Who cares? Main match is not a wrestling term. Main event is. Undercard is. Make up your mind. To keep standard, you would add a highlight about the match, similar to the other two. You stated there was a match between Razor Ramon and JJ and Roadie. Ok, what happened? Why did you lose focus from what you were writing about each one before?

Addded a bit about the result of the contest. Davnel03 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last one concerning buyrate is fine. No complaints, except it is in a paragraph on the wrestling matches! Keep clear and keep in-perspective.

Yes, OK. I've added bits as a result. Davnel03 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've been rough, but you won't get a Featured Article or even a Good Article is no one is honest. I only focused here on the first paragraph; the rest is probably just as horrendous.

--Screwball23 talk 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples would help. Davnel03 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object- I had so many problems with the first few lines. To-whit:
  1. "In your house" name is not explained. Is such an explanation available somewhere?
  • I haven't found an expalantion unfortunately. Davnel03 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Opening sentence really should explain that it was an event. Then you can go on to say it was the first of a series
  1. I know nothing about wrestling, but in your lead, you seem to outline a dichotomy between the "main match" and the "undercard". That's fine, until the puzzling "The other main match on the undercard was..." Eh?
  • I've removed "main". I'm guessing that's the confusing word considering that "main match" and "main event" sound alarmingly similar. Davnel03 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "There were three matches that took place after the PPV had finished" interesting, but not really interesting enough for the Lead that should summarise the main elements of the whole article
  1. "The PPV received a 0.83 buyrate, equivalent to about 332,000 buys" English is my first language, but I didn't understand what that meant
  • I'm not very good at explaining things like that, but I'll give it a go. Right, the reference next to it goes down to the particular part, and I've (deliberately) put a quote next to it, which reads: The buyrate reflects the number of homes which purchased a pay-per-view broadcast; 1.0 roughly equates to 400,000 separate homes ordering the event.” This means basically that 1.0 = 400,000 buys. Therefore, 0.83 is about 332,000 buys. This means that 332,000 people bought the pay-per-view when it aired. Hope I've made that clearer for you! :) Davnel03 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Report"? Not encylopedic language. Wikipedia is not a repository of match reports.
  1. "The pay-per-view was the first ever under the In Your House banner, which signalled the beginning of the WWF's monthly pay-per-views." Sentence needs a lot of work I'd expect an event called xxxxxx 1 to be the first under that banner, so "first ever" seems overkill. "The pay-per-view" - are you using that as an odd euphemism to refer to the event, or are you specifically referring to the purchasing mechanism, (in which case it doesn't really flow)? In what way does a marketing banner that makes no reference to payment or months signify the start of a new monthly method of payment?
  • Yep pay-per-view is referring to the purchasing mechanism. I've reworded the sentence anyhow. Davnel03 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of an article lovingly worked on by devotee(s). I strongly suggest you take it to Peer Review or the league of copywriters for non expert review, as it's currently in poor state for non afficianados. Sorry, because you've clearly worked hard on it. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, while I'm glad you're improving the article (and happy to have been the prompt for some small part of it) the above are examples of problems I've found, rather than a checklist of things to fix to gain my support. I'd be happy to do the latter if the article were closer to FA quality, but IMHO FAC is not for fixing articles with so many basic copy issues that need fixing. I urge you to request Raul to close this nom, work with a copyeditor (or several) who know nothing about wrestling and then come back here. I know FAC can be annoying... I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt... but the advice given here is well-intentioned and usually, once you can stand back from the candidate article, you'll agree it was on the nail. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I would prefer it if you looked at the remainder of the article. Davnel03 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clearly fails criteria 1a - "well-written" as it is not well-written.
    I further note the opposition by experienced editors.
    I further note the insatisfaction of the experienced editors with the response given by the nominator.
    I suggest the nominator ask for help from the copy-editing league and peer review and more in order to improve the quality of the writing style.
    I further note that articles recently off GA are often not FA status worthy.
    --Keerllston 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but instead of criticising without foundation, here are some pointers...
    • Opening para, three really short sentences. And "It took..." "It was..." makes for poor prose and would put a lot of people off straight away. It immediately indicates a copyedit would be of use. I suggest asking at WP:LOCE for some assistance.
    • "...interfered on Sid's behalf, signalling a disqualification,..." this is really "in-universe" if you like. I know not a lot about pro wrestling but a featured article must appeal to all-comers so you're going to need to either explain or de-jargonise the article.
      • Um. That's partly the reason that there is link to disqualification. Yes, it does need work though. Davnel03 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The PPV received a 0.83 buyrate, equivalent to about 332,000 buys.[4]" - I have got absolutely no idea whatsoever what this means.
      • Copied from above as someone else asked the exact same question: Right, the reference next to it goes down to the particular part, and I've (deliberately) put a quote next to it, which reads: The buyrate reflects the number of homes which purchased a pay-per-view broadcast; 1.0 roughly equates to 400,000 separate homes ordering the event.” This means basically that 1.0 = 400,000 buys. Therefore, 0.83 is about 332,000 buys. This means that 332,000 people bought the pay-per-view when it aired. Hope I've made that clearer for you! :) Davnel03 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In Your House" series is either in italics or not, but be consistent.
      • Not in italics. I've changed the mentions so that they are no longer in italics. Davnel03 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • " This was done at an attempt to ..." as an attempt?
      • Remove "at an attempt". Davnel03 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Powerbomb" or "powerbomb" - don't care but be consistent.
      • Changed all powerbomb mentions so they have a big "P". Davnel03 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid there's simply too much jargon for the article to be accessible. As I've said, you really need a non-wrestling savvy copyeditor. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is pretty clear this article needs a ton of work doing to it, so I think that its for the best that it is closed early, so I can improve the article. Thanks, Davnel03 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:37, 3 December 2007.

Darfur conflict edit

I'm nominating this article as I feel it brings a large amount of information on a topic that can be hard to comprehend. It does a nice job of giving the information without being biased which is hard on this topic. Gtstricky (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose: Article has numerous problems. First is stability. Others are presence of too many red links, MOS issues, not proper formatting of references etc. I can see some 'Citation needed tags' also hanging in the middle. DSachan (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [1a] Just having read the TOC, the History section needs more heading organization and more appropriately named subheadings than November XX - "beginning" "middle" "end" is the general premise - have there been no turning points in any way? the beginning of the media attention? any major political diplomatic action, etcetera--Keerllston 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per all above. Especially the problem of stability, with too many moves for a FA. — Rudget contributions 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:37, 3 December 2007.

Holden edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because after successfully passing the article through the good article process, I was recomended that I take it further. Thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing based on things from just a cursory read

  • 1(b) - comprehensiveness. From my limited knowledge there appears to be missing information. According to - Holden Barina - the early models were rebadged Suzuki Swifts but this is not noted in the article. There is no mention of the Adventura, Rodeo or other significant models. Mostly though there is little on the company, factories and people. The article is written about cars and models. The closure of many factories and the reduction in workforce from over 30,000 to 6,000 (numbers may be wrong) is of great note and must be covered more broadly. There is nothing on the company structure, any published financial information and little that I would expect to see in an article about a corporation.
  • 1(d) - NPOV. The section titles need some thought.
  • 2(a) - the Lead does not adequately summarise the article per WP:LEAD

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved part of "1(b)" and there is now more information on key models. As for the company structure, it does not belong in the Holden article because Holden is not a company, it is a subsidiary of General Motors. When you buy a Holden you are not buying a Holden, but rather a General Motors badged as a Holden. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree strongly on this. Holden is a separate company owned by General Motors. They have a structure, management, financial results, impact etc.. that are separate to GM (although financially the accounts are combined in the US). The article is about a company called GM Holden Ltd yet contains little on the company. BAE Systems is a good example of a corporate article that does talk about what they make/made. If the article on Holden , as you say, does not require information as below then where does it belong ? I expect an article on a company to tell me about the company thenthe things they make, if required in a separate article. This article mentions nothing from the public record on significant things for Holden like:

  • Market share - mentioned as 15.4% in 2006 (down from 17.8% in 2005) from the GM company reports
  • The opening of the new V6 engine plant at Fishermen's Bend
  • That they were the first company in Australia (1992) to introduce ABS brakes
  • What their sales of vehicles (and $) have been over time ($301M USD in 2006 I think)
  • Done I have reported their revenue/losses for 2002-2006 instead. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The significance of the company to the South Australian and Victorian economies
  • Government subsidies received (particularly in relation to the closure of factories and the 3rd shift (last few years))
  • Their public attitude to the removal of Import Tarrifs
  • That in 1966 they were claim to be the first Australian company to introduce seat belts as a standard.
  • Holden was a Sydney 2000 Olympics partner (don't know what they did though)
  • What did they do during WWII ? (Try War record, September 1939-August 1945 (GMH 1946))
  • Union/wage disputes (many of these to chose from)
  • Done Unions mentioned with the proposal to decrease tariffs on imported cars OSX (talk • contributions) 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells you little about Holden but is more the History of Holden Models ?- Peripitus (Talk) 02:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is spreading into Peer Review territory but there are books on the subject that would shed a lot of light that I cannot see used as a reference. Holden: The First 25 Years(1973 by General Motors-Holden), perhaps The FJ Holden: A Favourite Australian Car( 2004 by Don Loffler), The Golden Holden: The Story of General Motors in Australia( 1965 by George Zangalis and John Arrowsmith), Holden: Everybody's Car (2000 by Wayne Stevenson), Holden in Australia 1948-1991 : the exciting story of Australia's most popular car : Holdens on the road and at the track (1990), General Motors-Holden's and the Australian automobile industry in economic perspective. (1972 by Swan, Peter L.) and perhaps The Holden heritage (1990 GMH) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the books, I have cited Still Holden Together: Stories of the First Holden Model, The FJ Holden: A Favorite Australian Car, AutoBiography and The Holden Heritage, which in now available as a free PDF from the GM website. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would like to add Aussie Cars, Automobile Year 2006/7 and Information, Opportunism and Economic Coordination. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not comprehensive. Talks too much about history. Not enough information about products the company makes, corporate culture, any controversy the company got in and other things. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done But I cannot think of any major controversy the company has got into in the last few years except the job losses, however this has been discussed under the "2000s" section. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting but can be improved Who thought of the titles after each decade? I think these can be improved. The timeline also needs to be re-evaluated to make sure that the timeline reflects a theme or idea and not just a list of events in sentence form. Will a chart with the models of cars be a good addition. Dodge has one. Adding current models would help, too. Don't they make engines for other GM cars? My opinion is to either put the FAC on hold for 2-3 weeks while reconstruction is done or hold open this FAC while improvement is made. Good luck! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I've removed the titles after each decade, but I do not think the timeline needs to be reevaluated. The history goes in chronological order, except when two or more lots of information are related. A chart of models is pointless, as we already have a list of Holden vehicles which is now linked in the "See also" section. As for engine exports, Holden produce GM Family II and GM High Feature engines for other GM cars, and this has now been discussed. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 1a. Here are examples from the top that indicate the need for thorough revision throughout, preferably by a fresh eyes.
    • Opening sentence: instead of "now", say "since 19??". We want to know.
    • "Holden cars are manufactured at Elizabeth, South Australia, while engines are produced at Port Melbourne, Victoria."—Category problem: engines are part of cars.
    • The consolidation. No telegram language.
    • "While Holden has had a fluctuating involvement in exports since the 1950s, the declining sales of large cars in Australia has led the brand to look to export markets to increase profitability, with exports accounting for over AU$1.2 billion in earnings for 2003 alone." Very clumsy opening clause: "While H's inv. in exports has fluctuated since the ..." Have, not has. The "brand" doesn't look for markets; the company does. Have you no more recent data than four or five years back?
    • MOS: don't use bolding except at the start.
    • Do we really need to link "United States"? Check overlinking, esp. repeated links and other commonly known nations.
    • Use "AU" the first time, then drop it unless there's possible confustion with other currencies. (I don't see it.)

Lots more. Tony (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done The above examples have been fixed, but I have already had the article copyedited by the League of Copyeditors, so I don't know what else to do here. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a thorny question that really can't be answered here. Apart from my issues with the thrust of the article there are significant issues in the text still to be addressed. From the article history it took some effort to get it over the GA line and, except for a very few writers, there is a lot of work after this to become Wikipedia's best work. Some cherry-picked prose examples from another read

  • After the completion of Holden's first full-scale factory in 1936, World War II intervened,.... Surely the war started in 1939 and the rest of the sentence gives a possibly false impression about why the Government actively intervened in industry after the war.
    • After reading the reference I think the pair of sentences should be Holden's first full-scale factory was completed in 1936 but World War II delayed car production until April 1948.. The reference seems to support just this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peripitus (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • to accept the challenge to build "Australia's Own Car". Was this challenge external or internal to Holden. THe next few sentences show it's an internal marketing slogan and so this sentence reads as out of a brochure
  • This decade saw Holden's transformation continue. (in the 1990s section). Not a good way of saying "The company changed"
  • Holden's total market share in Australia was 21.0% in 1991. By the end of the decade, Holden's dominance had risen to 28.2%,. Perhaps "Holden's total Australian market share was 21.0% in 1991 and 28.2% by the end of the decade". Dominance does not add to the sentence
  • During the 1990s, pressure was put on the Australian Government by not only Holden, but other Australian automakers as well as trade unionists regarding the lowering of tariffs put on imported cars. Perhaps *"During the 1990s Holden, other Australian automakers and trade unionists applied pressure on the Australian Government to halt the lowering of car import tarrifs"

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done I would love you to "cherry-pick" me some more examples. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:37, 3 December 2007.

Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this article is ready for featured article candidacy. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, it is neutral, and it's stable. Statler&Waldorf 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It's a good start, but this is far from featured article quality. Might I suggest you take a look at some other show articles like The Simpsons and base Statler and Waldorf on that? The episode section is way too big (it should probably be split into an another article entitled "List of Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony episodes"), and you need a plot section, citations for the List of Balconisms, among other things. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would go in a "plot" section? How would you want one to cite the balconisms? The source for each is given in the episode section. Statler&Waldorf 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some plot summary for the entire series? Again, I'm not familiar with the series, but you should take a look at The Simpsons and some other TV show FAs and model the article upon those. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The show didn't have stories or plots it was a collection of commentaries, reports, editorials, interviews, brief sketches and commercial parodies. Each episode was about 3-10 minutes long. The form and structure was nothing like The Simpsons - it was more like At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper or Entertainment Tonight... but with puppets. Statler&Waldorf 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's acceptable.

Remark: It doesn't matter if it's "far from featured article quality"; if that was the case, we would never pass much. It simply needs to meet current criteria to a sufficient degree, which this does. Good work! Leranedo 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—2 (MOS breaches), 1a. Here are a few examples at random from the lead; the whole article needs work. New people required who aren't so close to the text.
    • Hyphens cannot be used as interruptors. See MOS on dashes.
    • "multi-award winning webshow"—Another hyphen required.
    • A sentence that starts with "Plus"?
    • "Characters that frequented"—are they robots? Tony (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:38, 1 December 2007.

1080° Snowboarding edit

previous FAC

This article failed a while back, and I did some follow-up work with copyediting and organizing to spiff it up. I then took a break, came back, and stuck it on the VGPR which has received no feedback. It's slightly short (no story section in a sports game), but I think its thorough, and meets the criteria. My only regret is my inability to locate its manual. I've come to finish the work I started; any comments are appreciated. Thanks, CM (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the article is extensively referenced and well written; however, I do think the character section needs development, although I appreciate that material on that aspect of the game may be difficult to find --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems insufficent. No mention of development or reception? Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've just spotted the part about the award; the lead still should be longer, though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit to the lead, and it was copyedited too.--CM (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead does not summarize the article. The prose needs to be checked for redundancy. "There are a total of seven modes in 1080° including training and options." "a total of" is unnecessary. Jay32183 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some super anon has done some serious copyediting work to the prose, and I think it has been greatly improved (you should really take a look). I also added a piece about the development to the lead, but I don't want to stretch the lead too much longer. More problems or ideas?--CM (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "a total of" still appears in the text. You're going to want to check formatting against WP:MOS. For instance, full dates should be linked. The year of a full date should be linked to the year itself, not the year in video games. Jay32183 20:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the date and total of thing, but a friend used the automatic PR and said "Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article." I did your way, but don't entirely get it. The anon has been doing more copyediting, but I still have one problem. I have been looking for a good place to find the total sales of the game. I found three: one on magic box (middle of the page), one on Swivel and one on VG charts. Which one do I use? Average? Compromise? None of them?--CM (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That line is being generated in the peer review script because of the stand alone years in some of the references. Those don't need to be linked and can be considered over-linking. Until you made the change another line was being generated in the script about linking complete dates, which has now disappeared. Definitely don't average those sales, it would constitute original research and wouldn't produce a meaningful number anyway. If the source isn't reliable don't use it. I didn't see a publication date on any of those three, so they may not be fully reliable. Even if the publisher is reliable, the information could be outdated. When it comes to finding sources, don't settle for what's easy to find if you can't trust the quality. Jay32183 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen those websites used in other VG FAs, but I don't know how reliable they are. Do we leave the reader wondering if this game sold ten or ten million units, or can I say something like "1080 sold over a million units" and cite all three? It's not really OR, but gives the reader some sense of what's going on. The other way is to remove the units sold all together, since I don't think there are any other references I will be able to obtain regarding units sold.--CM (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have not forgotten my promise, but I'm busy with a sick little one right now, so my edits will be short
  2. If the sources are reliable, then go with the largest figure, IMHO (the others likely don't take into account foreign sales or are outdated). An alternative is to say something like "Sale figures for the game vary from 1.23 million to 2 million, depending on the method of calculating sales." — BQZip01 — talk 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have provided feedback for the previous FAC and this article has gone under a significant upgrade since last time (EVERY technical detail seems to be up to snuff. BRAVO!!!), but I am not sure it should be an FA. I am concerned at the extreme brevity of this article (13 paragraphs of which all but a few are 3 sentences or less). Others:

  • Parenthesis not used properly
Any examples?
(Its sequel, Wave Race: Blue Storm, would feature characters from 1080°.[16]) This doesn't need parenthesis and needs to be past tense.
Fixed
Reworked that sentence.
  • A unreliable source tag within the article
That's the sales units. Still under construction.
That's kinda the point. It is still under construction and not as complete as it should be. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was an out of date post anyway. It has since been fixed.
  • A lack of pictures (cover, screen shot...that's it?)
There is no need to have more nonfree pictures in this article just for the sake of having more pictures--these adequately show what the game is like... What more would others show? Mangostar 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the "crouch move" that was so good? or a different scene?
Did you want something like the characters? I was trying to think beyond another in-game screenshot.
  • Awkward shifts in verb tense: "which has an average score" followed by "It won the..."
This is correct because metacritic aggregates reviews after-the-fact and didn't even exist when this game came out, but the award was won in the past. Mangostar 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if it isn't current, it should be in the past (even if it was more recent).
I think I fixed what you wanted.
  • Overreferencing: Ex: "Graphical faults identified by critics included occasional pop-up,[8] misplaced shadows,[8] and lag when racers passed through on-track trees;[25] these problems were generally identified as minor.[8][25]" [8][25] could just be at the end of the sentence.
Better now?
yes. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References out of order. This is more of a polishing thing, but it looks awkward to have references out of order (i.e. [12][10][8]). Reorder these for a polished look to the article.
Um.....ok.

Given the clear amount of effort that has been done to improve the article, I hate to shoot you down, but this may be one of those articles that can't get an FA because of a lack of materials available. If this doesn't get FA, I HIGHLY suggest going to Good Article and nominate it there...I think it would be a shoe-in. Good luck. — BQZip01 — talk 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it already is GA. Pagrashtak 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize it already was a GA. My bad.
I guess we disagree on length requirements, but if it's comprehensive, length shouldn't be a problem. After all, 3/3 and 8/8 are both still 100%. Also see Iridion 3D.--CM (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Support as the article is comprehensible enough. igordebraga ≠ 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find comprehensibility to be one of only a few dozen reasons to support an article. Is there anything else you find supportable about it? — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated, well-referenced (although the last ref is currently broken) and covers every aspect of the subject. Seems enough. igordebraga ≠ 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's not even comprehensive—there's no mention of the music used. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked into music, there were no lists of music used, artists and the like. It's a nine year old racing game, and the most I could find for such a thing was the reception of music and the composer. There was more, but it was edited down to one paragraph. I'm not lucky enough to have the plethora of resources that seem to exist for FF games, but trust me I've looked. That not saying I could have made a mistake, and I'd love to be wrong, but sometimes the fact just doesn't exist.--CM (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the music in the third paragraph of Reception - maybe moving the part about the composing to Development (leaving only critics' opinion on the score in that section) would help. igordebraga ≠ 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise, I really do Clyde. I can't take any of the Fire Emblem articles to FA because I can't find any development info, and have had the same problem with Marth (Fire Emblem) for GA. It's just a real pain that this stuff has to be included. As for "Music", I think you could probably get away with it; it's preferred, but I think people acknowledge that it's hard to come by for games that don't publicise that information. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was my choice to take on this project, so I'll stay with it. I moved the music like you said, and added another pic.--CM (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any other concerns or concerns I haven't properly addressed?--CM (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request nomination be withdrawn Lack of paper resources and recent events of online resources have convinced me to withdraw this nomination.--CM (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Sandman - definition". MSN Encarta. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2007&oldid=992722652"