Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2007
- 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 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Verbascum thapsus edit
I was the one who created this article over two years ago. Over the moth of November and December of last, however, I revisited and completely rewrote the article. I've been making the occasional edit ever since, but today I finished various odds and ends and I now feel it is ready to be submitted here for review. It is of course a self nomination. Circeus 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. "Distribution and naturalization" seems to put too much emphasis on introduction and spread in North America at the expense of describing the introduction in South America and (possibly) variations by region in areas where the plant is native. Also, a map showing the worldwide distribution (with perhaps a separate color for native areas) would be useful. —Cuiviénen 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You put the finger on two thing that, despite extensive search in sources available to me, I was not able to add anything about. As far as I can tell, only the US introduction seem to have been documented, partly because it is the oldest, too, it is the best so. User:MPF, IIRC, was the one that located the data on subspecies, but I haven't been able to find any more details about variations myself. Circeus 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I left a bunch of minor style comments on the talk page about a month ago, most of which haven't been addressed yet. I'll to do some more reviewing soon. --NoahElhardt 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I think It was during a time where my watchlist checking was patchy. I'll look at these. Circeus 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've copied below Noah's comments and my answers, for reference:
Nice article. This sentence in the lead paragraphs is awkward and confusing: "While not an issue for most cultures, it hosts many insects that can be harmful to other plants, such as the tarnished plant bug, and although individuals are easy to destroy by hand, it is difficult to destroy a population permanently." What do you mean by "not an issue for most cultures"? Also, the sentence has too many phrases and would ideally be broken up into two sentences. --NoahElhardt 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Split and reworded the sentence.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are working toward FA, so I'll be picky. Some of these I could fix myself, but I'll just explain here so you can make changes as you see fit:
- In the Morphology section: I would prefer metric units listed first, then American, but I don't recall if that comes up in the MOS anywhere.
The order should ideally stay the same as the original, but it should be consistent. There is agreement that plants found only in a place using a specific should have that system first. Since only one place had imperial first, i switched it around.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the Morphology section: "The stem is solid (nearly an inch across) and is sometimes branched". Try replacing the parenthesis with commas or working the material into the sentence.
- reworded.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the Morphology section: "yellow and an inch or less wide, and five stamen." Give both American and metric units.
- Since I just added a measure for "inch" above at the stem, It seemed redundant here.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the Morphology section: "capsules containing large numbers of minute (less than a millimeter) brown seeds." Work material in parentheses into sentence and give in both units.
- Though I'm not too happy with the result... Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you give some kind of description of the different subspecies? I assume they differ in more than just distribution. They may warrant their own section.
- In the Distribution and naturalization section: "The species has a wide native range...". Animals have a range, plants have a distribution. I think.
- In the Distribution and naturalization section: "By the 1630s, it was already escaped". Change to "it HAD already escaped", but I'm also not really comfortable with using the word "escaped" on plants. I completely understand what you are trying to say, but people with less botanical understand might not. Maybe make it clear somehow that the plant didn't uproot itself and hop the fence to freedom.
- *giggles* Replaced with "already found in the wild." Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Ecological aspects: "It is not an agricultural weed, although its presence can be very difficult to completely eradicate, and is especially problematic in overgrazed pastures." If it is difficult to eradicate, why isn't it an agricultural weed? Why would it be especially problematic in overgrazed pastures? Explain, considering the average reader doesn't have much of an agricultural background.
That paragraph is intended to summarize the "Agricultural impacts and control" subsection, whose first paragraph goes into greater details about this very element.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Ecological aspects: "in nature, it will only appear if the seeds are exposed". Change "appear" to sprout, germinate, grow, etc.
- Ouch. Used "do so," referring to "germinate" in the previous phrase.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Ecological aspects: "and Victoria, Australia (regionally prohibited in the West Gippsland region, and regionally controlled in several others)." Maybe change to "Australia, where it is regionally...." to work out parentheses?
- Not sure about this. I wanted to place the specific levels in parenthesis. Moving "West Gippsland" outside the parenthesis leaves a problem with "several others." Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Ecological aspects: Maybe move this last paragraph on weeds to the preceding section on Distribution and naturalization?
- By now, said paragraph (one sentence) has been added to the first paragraph of "Ecological aspects" instead. It did not seem to meld well in the previous section. Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - The article covers all of the important aspects of the plant that I would expect to see in an article, is thorough, and is very well cited. --NoahElhardt 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I couldn't knock this page for detail and information, but I didn't find it a lucid read. Small language errors crop up here and there and require a copy-edit, though I can probably sort those myself. The problem that leaps out at me the most is the over-use of reference tags, which in places makes the article semi-unreadable, in my opinion. Take this part:
V. thapsus is known by a variety of names. "Common mullein" is the usual name in North America,[1][2] but "Great Mullein" is the one used in the UK.[3][4] Vernacular names include innumerable references to the plant's hairiness: "Woolly,"[5] "Velvet" or "Blanket Mullein,"[4][4] "Beggar's," "Moses'," "Poor Man's," "Our Lady's" or "Old Man's Blanket,"[2][3][6][7] and so on ("Flannel" is another generic name).
Some names refer to the plant's size and shape: "Shepherd's Club(s)" or "Staff," "Aaron's Rod" (a name it shares with a number of other plants with tall, yellow inflorescences), and a plethora of other "X's Staff" and "X's Rod."[8][3][2][9][10] The plant is still called "Velvet" or "Mullein Dock"—"Dock" is a British name applied to any broad-leaved plant.[11]
The specific epithet thapsus was first used by Theophrastus (as θάψος, "thapsos")[12] for an unspecified herb from the Ancient Greek settlement of Thapsos, near modern Syracuse, Sicily,[13][12] though it is often assimilated to the ancient Tunisian city of Thapsus.[14]
<note: my example above has been improved by circeus so that it no longer fully relates to the following comment qp10qp 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)> Surely all this tagging isn't necessary. The edit-page version of this is a nightmare to try and copy-edit (and it needs a copy-edit, for phrases such as ""Dock" being appliable to any broad-leaved plant" or "though it is often assimilated to the ancient Tunisian city of Thapsus"). Surely a better approach here would be to cite a page or page range of a book or books which give all the various names and leave it at that (something like: Mabey, 329-40; Grieve, 75-84, or whatever, at the end of the section), rather than cite for every single name in this intrusive fashion. qp10qp 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of the Watts references, they are apreadacross the entire book (at "Rod", "staff," "Mullein" and "Velvet"), so the best I can do is move the refs for every group at the end of the paragraph, I'm afraid. How does it look now?
- Grieve cannot be given a page number because I didn't look up the book: it is available in its entirety online. It seemed better to cite it as a book and link the relevant part instead.Circeus 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I combined the Watts references together too.Circeus 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
How about (put "ref" instead of "noref"):
V. thapsus is known by a variety of names. "Common mullein" is the usual name in North America, but "Great Mullein" is the one used in the UK. Vernacular names include innumerable references to the plant's hairiness: "Woolly," "Velvet" or "Blanket Mullein," "Beggar's," "Moses'," "Poor Man's," "Our Lady's" or "Old Man's Blanket," and so on ("Flannel" is another generic name).<noref>Niering, 798; Rickett, 389; Grieve, Mullein, Great; Watts, 108, 369, 633-634; Brako, 189.</noref>
Some names refer to the plant's size and shape: "Shepherd's Club(s)" or "Staff," "Aaron's Rod" (a name it shares with a number of other plants with tall, yellow inflorescences), and a plethora of other "X's Staff" and "X's Rod." The plant is still called "Velvet" or "Mullein Dock"—"Dock" is a British name applied to any broad-leaved plant.<noref>Rickett, 389; Grieve, Mullein, Great; Watts, 302, 634, 774-775, 819-820, 866.</noref>
That's what I meant by combining refs, rather than just grouping tags together. (If you wanted to tell the reader precisely which name came from which book, you could do it in the notes: just list the names before the particular pages.)
qp10qp 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Object - 1a. Bloopers like this at the top don't augur well:
- "It grows in a wide variety of habitats, but favors well-lit disturbed soils the most, which it can invades rapidly thanks to its long-lived seeds." Remove "the most". "Invades"? The logic of why long-lived seeds allow this is unclear, and probably should be in the lead.
And more:
- "Common Mullein is a weedy, but rarely competitive species." Logic problem: why "but"?
- "it hosts many insects that can be harmful to other plants, such as the tarnished plant bug." Word order could be kinder to our readers - the tarnished plant bug is not another plant.
- "Although individuals are easy to destroy by hand, populations are difficult to destroy permanently." Another contrast that brings up logical problems; why is manual destruction pitted against permanence?
- "It is especially recommended for coughs and related problems, but also used in topical applications against a variety of skin problems. The plant was also used to make dyes and torches." More contrast/logic issues. Why "but"? Why "was also", and what are "torches" (means a number of things in English)?
Needs a good run-throught by a copy-editor before promotion. Tony 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- You expect the lead to explain all the subtleties covered in the body of the article. There are no logic problem whatsoever (although I did replace "competitive" with "invasive").
- "weedy, but not competitive" is a reaction to the fact that weeds are typically highly competitive or invasive (e.g. Purple loosestrife, Dandelion, Pilosella aurantiaca)
- Contrasting individuals and permanence reflects that one seeking to eliminate a species from a location does hope to do so permanently.
- The third case is a limitation. It's not only used for breathing ailments ("Most tigers are orange and black, but the Siberia Tiger is white and black"...)
- Circeus 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
References
- ^ Niering, William A. (1979). The Audubon Society field guide to North American wildflowers, eastern region. New York: Knopf. p. 798. ISBN 0-394-50432-1.
- ^ a b c Harold William Rickett, ed. (1966). "The Mulleins (Verbascum)". Wild Flowers of the United States. Vol. Volume 1. The Northeastern States (Part 2). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 389. LCCN 66-0 – 0.
{{cite encyclopedia}}:|volume=has extra text (help) - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
grievewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Watts, Donald (2000). Elsevier's dictionary of plant names and their origin. Amsterdam. pp. 633–634. ISBN 0-444-50356-0.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Brako, Lois (1995). Scientific and common names of 7,000 vascular plants in the United States. St. Paul, Minnesota: APS Press. p. 189. ISBN 0-89054-171-X.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, p.108.
- ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, p.369.
- ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, pp.774-775.
- ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, pp.819-820.
- ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, p.866: "A tall plant like Mullein attracts 'staff' and 'rod' names."
- ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, pp.302, 634.
- ^ a b (in French)Carnoy, A. (1959). Dictionnaire étymologique des noms grecs de plantes. Louvain: Publications Universitaires. OCLC 3284108.
- ^ (in Swedish) Den virtuella Floran: Verbascum thapsus, retrieved on December 29 2006.
- ^ Charters, Michael L. "Plant name: T". California Plant Names: Latin and Greek Meanings and Derivations. Calflora.net. Retrieved 2006-12-06.
- 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, 26 March 2007.
Radiohead edit
I have attempted to improve this article, and after much work, I think that it meets the FA criteria.ErleGrey 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
Footnotes need work, per WP:CITE article titles, author, publication name and date need to be included where available.Ceoil 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add fair use rationales to all sound files.Ceoil 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: I have now added fairuse rationales to audio files, and the footnotes are in accordance with WP:CITE. ErleGrey 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great. The article needs a thourogh copyedit which I note is underway.
I'd like to see mention of Radioheads legacy, in paticular on bands such as Muse, the unbelivable truth, and (cough) Coldplay.Ceoil 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great. The article needs a thourogh copyedit which I note is underway.
I don't think that legacy could be mentioned without taking a point of view, so I've refrained from adding that to the article. However, if you've got an idea for such a paragraph, feel free. ErleGrey 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
All those bands have explicitly cited Radiohead as an influence. No doubt you have seen this while reading the nine books, three dissertations, and eight online articles claimed as sources at the foot of the article, or should they be moved to a "Bibliography" section.Ceoil 23:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)- Well, the references do present things from the band's point of view. I have a few quotes supporting that legacy, however they are used in Radiohead's album articles, and I think that they would not fit well in the main history section of the page. To have a separate section on that legacy would, in my opinion, be ludicrous, which is why I didn't include it in the article. Also, that information is better presented in the form of a list of influences on the relevant artist pages, which it already is. Look here and here to see what I mean. ErleGrey 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that Keane and Snow Patrol are about the third wave of Radiohead influenced bands to infest (at least) the UK charts, I think a legacy section is needed. To say that the "The references do present things from the band's point of view", implies use of biased sources.Ceoil 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the references do present things from the band's point of view. I have a few quotes supporting that legacy, however they are used in Radiohead's album articles, and I think that they would not fit well in the main history section of the page. To have a separate section on that legacy would, in my opinion, be ludicrous, which is why I didn't include it in the article. Also, that information is better presented in the form of a list of influences on the relevant artist pages, which it already is. Look here and here to see what I mean. ErleGrey 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. What I meant to imply was that the other sources depict the band's history through interviews with them, and in effect portray their point of view. As to the inclusion of a legacy section, it doesn't seem a requisite for a FA article-see The Smashing Pumpkins. ErleGrey 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need a "Legacy" section per se, but you need to acknowledge one exist if bands cite Radiohead as an influence. It helps establish notability. WesleyDodds 07:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that legacy is also cited in the intro, with the line "influencing artists in many genres.[12]", so I think that should be enough mention, as it is in a notable spot in the article.ErleGrey 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, the article should go in-depth about it. Anything that appears in the lead should be discussed in the body of the article, since it is an overview of the entire article. And Radiohead's influence on bands like Coldplay and Muse is certainly enough for a paragraph or two. WesleyDodds 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that legacy is also cited in the intro, with the line "influencing artists in many genres.[12]", so I think that should be enough mention, as it is in a notable spot in the article.ErleGrey 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start to work on and cite such a paragraph.ErleGrey 18:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have now added a legacy paragraph (cited) here and would appreciate any comments/advice on it.ErleGrey 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object for now. Made some minor copyedits and read through much of the article. Here are some issues I identified.
- "initially formed by school friends in 1985." Date is relevant enough for first sentence of the article but probably not the part about school friends. That should probably come at least slightly later.
- "caught on at home in the UK" colloquial language. at home in the UK is repetitive.
- "expressive singing" POV
- First paragraph launches right into chronology. Anyway to have an overview first? Maybe have genre(s) at beginning?
- "Radiohead's original influences were" cite
- "was noted for its mix of guitars. . ." by who? cite.
- "expected for release sometime in 2007." cite
- 'customary rehearsal date" don't we mean Day of the Week? date means a specific day in the year.
- " always planning to return to the band" cite
- " As the band's live bookings increased, record labels began to show interest in them. Eventually, the group signed a six-album recording contract with EMI, thanks to a chance meeting with a label representative in the record shop where Colin Greenwood worked. At the behest of the label, the band changed their name to Radiohead, after the title of a song on Talking Heads' True Stories album." All of these sentences need cites.
- Creep single released in 92, but it says 93 in lede (because connected to debut album). Can this be clearer?
- There's a lot of use of "However, . . .". Not technically correct at the start of a sentence in any case, this rhetorically device gets a bit dry as it continues to crop up.
- "to this day" colloquial. probably change to today and add an [[As of 2007]] tag.
- America - > United States
- "then nearly broke up . . ." cite
- "their wall of guitar sound and heart-on-sleeve lyrics" POV
- "contributed to the sound of the album." Vague. Of course it contributed - what does this mean exactly and can we cite it?
- "Tensions were high," cite
- "The band responded by seeking a change of scenery" colloquial
- "in an attempt to relax the atmosphere." cite
- "However, the band, once again confronted with their newfound popularity, began to feel discomfort" I don't think bands in the collective can feel discomfort. And another "However"
- "evolving musical style is sometimes seen as a product" weasel words who sees it that way?
- "Yorke and Greenwood are sometimes seen as the main musical influences within the band." weasel words again
- "However, songwriting is actually a collaborative effort." cite, sounds pretty POV
- " Radiohead members have felt less constrained" cite. it's always hard to say what they "felt" but we can at least say what they said and what they've done and cite it.
- "Changing roles" section title doesn't really speak to their musical style necessarily, and I'm not sure the section title is really encyclopedic. sounds more like a newspaper article title to me. Maybe just "Multi-instumentalists" or at least "Changing instumental roles" or something. Maybe there's a better idea?
- It seems like there's not really a lot about their actual musical style (they play many instruments, they collaborate). I understand that musical style and content is one of the hardest things to write about. Do any of those dissertations have scholarly musical analysis that might be of help?
Lots of nice work has obviously gone into this article! I hope these comments are helpful. Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone through the article and fixed the problems which you have mentioned. Thanks for your advice. ErleGrey 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose per criterion 3. Please review Wikipedia:Music samples, which states that only 10% of a song or 30 seconds (if the song is five minutes or longer) can be used in fair use sound clips. "Usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines" according to Wikipedia:Music samples. LuciferMorgan 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply The music samples have all been shortened to less than 30 seconds, except "
", which is 32 seconds, still in compliance with Guideline#1. ErleGrey 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Vote withdrawn. LuciferMorgan 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
More comments Great work on the article! Here are some more things you may wish to consider.
- Weasel words. While you've done a great job adding more citations. I still think it's not scholarly or verifiably accurate to include phrases like "Radiohead have often been cited as among the most creative musical groups of their era,"" and "are seen by some to have maintained a spirit of musical and political independence". and "Hail to the Thief is seen by critics as an attempt to distill and fuse the electronic and experimental influences" What critics? Are they notable? Notable enough to mention in the article body? Who do they write for? etc. "Are seen by some" doesn't tell us anything useful - (if I see it that way, then it's "seen by some", so we need to say who sees them). One solution is to add several sources into each footnote, but it would also just help to change the language. One source is not critics.
- "drawing crowds to their concerts" that's pretty generic. what band doesn't?
- I think a successful footnote is the one for "influencing artists in many genres". It links to a list which clearly shows their influence. It might be even better to say some of the most notable, either in the text or at least in the footnote.
- Still some typographical errors like "groups of their era,[11]drawing" (no space) Same problem "from it!"[30]However,"
- Still some prose issues: "initially formed in 1986. Originally named On a Friday,[1] Radiohead's lineup has remained the same since their formation," formed and formation in two sentences is redundant. Plus, do we need "initially formed?" Is it that important to separate that formation from their later recovening?
- Still some sections that need cites and sound a little POV. Example: "The tense recording sessions for Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001) completely changed Radiohead's method of working as they moved away from standard rock music instrumentation. Since then, Radiohead members have felt less constrained to stick to their primary instruments, and now regularly switch depending on the particular song requirements. However, their roles usually remain more stable when the band performs live." Telling readers what Radiohead members felt is probably not verifiable in any case.
- I feel this kind of sentence construction is awkward "Yorke has described the lyrical content of the forthcoming album as". If the source is notable enough for an encyclopedia, we should be able to say. "In an interview with the New York Times, Yorke described the lyrical content of the forthcoming album as 'terrifying'..." That particular quote might be a bit extensive for this article anyway. Maybe better for the main article on the seventh studio album. It's also a one-sentence paragraph, kind of a faux-pas for FA's.
This has come a long way! These comments are meant to apply not just to the specific examples I mentioned but to the entire article. I hope they're helpful. Thanks for helping make this article better! Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone through the article, made some significant changes in respect to the issues brought up in the previous entry, and copyedited it. Thank you for your comments. ErleGrey 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:MOS and reference cleanup work is needed. See WP:DASH for how to correctly name sections. References are inconsistenly formatted and haphazard, appearing to be added by different editors using different styles. Not all publishers are identified, and it's not clear that reliable sources are in use here. If you aren't familiar with a consistent referencing style, you can see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. A review of WP:RS is in order wrt to what appear to be some personal websites.
- 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 review. 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, 26 March 2007.
God's Son edit
This is a very well written article with numerous diverse references that enhance the article, there is history about the album and behind it and it's makings. I was shocked when i finished reading it. Wuthai 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I must say that this may be the first remotely FA-eligible article that anyone ever found in the wild.--Rmky87 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...in ages.--Rmky87 06:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It appears to have one main editor (Noahdabomb3); was he asked if it was ready for FAC or notified that it was taken to FAC? Do we know if he is finished with the work? I believe original authors should be allowed to nom their own articles, as they will have to defend them, and they know if the article is ready. He should at least be notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - How about a few printed citations. --History Fan 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rebuttal For Above Appose That is an absolute weak oppose. The only other albums that are FA are 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), 36 chambers, and Enta Da Stage. The first is comprised of nearly all magazine articles (like those are truly verifiable), the second (which is far more in depth and better of an article)is comprised of all online sources (ready for viewing), and the third is also comprised of all online sources (about 9 less than the candidate in question). Even former FA-album articles, such as Illmatic are made up of nearly all online sources. Your opposition is not nearly substantial enough to deny God's Son its well deserved FA-Status. Wuthai 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object Three fair use images are missing fair use rationales
Done
- See also has a redlink (whole point of the section is to link to articles that exist)
- Done
- Point of view statements - a solid rating of four stars. - It was the second most successful single - The second and most successful single - "I Can" received significant commercial success - It was not much of a commercial success - The three singles display the diversity of God's Son
- certification from RIAA - from the RIAA
- Done
- God's Son only reached #12 - only? is this a personal statement for a poor performance
- a chart position that Nas had not fell to since his first album - fell implies the album was higher then #12 or are you referring to his other albums? make it clear.
- After the release of the acclaimed song (reference?) Nas gained acclaim - acclaim twice in one sentence
- Nas explained how he was the old king of New York rap, but later sold out, and soon reinvented himself to reign again as New York's king. reference?
- Nas' 1994 debut album, don't wikilink solo years unless it provides context to the article, which this doesn't and should be linked to 1994 in music.
- "its three singles performed well on the charts (POV and you're saying three singles performed well when the biggest selling reached the same position as the album?)
- certification from RIAA - from the RIAA. If you spell it out it's "certification from Recording Industry Association of America"
- Done
- link studio album - some people think it's just a record recorded in a studio when its a collection of unreleased material.
- Done
- Because of personal content, don't start a sentence with because. Could be - God's Son is considered a leap of maturity and spirituality for Nas, due to personal content or w/e
- Done
- During 2002, some speculated that - who is 'some'? critics?, fans?, other musicians?
- Remi produces five tracks - produced. M3tal H3ad 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- What is the point wikilinking July
- Done
- The third and final single on God's Son, released in July of 2003, is "Get Down." Produced by Salaam Remi and Nas himself, it samples vocals and the melody section of James Brown's "The Boss" and the percussion from James Brown's "Funky Drummer," as well as "Rock Creek Park" by The Blackbyrds and a speech from an unknown source. Five 'and'
- Done
- The story may be inspired by a similar real life incident that occurred in 1970 - WP:OR
- I believe you should of let the author of the article nominate so he knows its ready. M3tal H3ad 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. 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, 26 March 2007.
Belarus edit
OK, after several attempts of peer review, some issues related to content and from the Countries Wikiproject, I personally believe the article on Belarus is ready for FAC. Unlike with previous FAC's that I have done, I managed to enlist the support of the Copyeditors League, so grammar should not be a major issue. Picture wise, Belarus looks great, though the pictures of Putin and Lukashenko and the USSR stamp I have questions over or are being discussed on the Commons. Other than that, I hope this article makes yall happy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
Sorry but at first glance, the refs need formatting. Some of them have access dates, others don't. Some have no info at all.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Done
- No problem, working on that now. As for the access dates, I can try and find out when they were introduced to the article, but I will work on that once the initial formatting is complete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It might be easier to just check the refs yourself and set the accessdate to the current date. Wickethewok 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am doing it now, over halfway done. I will also try and compress the footnotes, so if there is a URL that repeats, I can use some of the formatting I used at Flag of Lithuania. Thanks for the tips. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that should be at least it for the actual formatting, dates will come later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I finished with the dates, taking Wickthewok's advice. I am going to see this person now, so I will be home in about 2 hours or so. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better way of showing that the Largest cities in Belarus section - the populations and so on - are sourced?-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Done
- Yes and yes. I took out the list and put it in paragraph form. The closest source I could find was the World Gazette, which I included at the end of the paragraph. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This sentence : "Belarus is also the only European nation that has been formally barred from joining the Council of Europe because of human rights violations and for conducting elections that do not meet democratic standards." is a very controversial and complex point to have in the lead without attributions or citations. Issues about human rights violations and democracy cannot be easily explained in one sentence. Human rights violations could mean anything from poor practices in the workplace to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, and hence could be misleading to unknowing readers glancing at the article. Also, democracy is incommensurable and no authoritative body owns that definition. There is no counterpoint from the Belarusian government. I think this needs to be discussed in detail in the body of the article, which it is, rather than the lead. I'm fairly sure someone will challenge that sentence if it ever appeared on the main page and I've seen some very nasty edit wars and even lawsuits break out over these types of sentences in nation article leads before. They are perhaps the most contentious parts in all wikipedia. Therefore I preach caution and encourage discussion about this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done
- Sentence removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Going by the featured article norm that every piece of information that could be challenged should have an inline citation, I think there are too many unsourced facts and a number of unsourced paragraphs. For instance "The first known use of the term "White Russia" to refer to Belarus was in the late sixteenth century by Englishman Sir Jerome Horsey." at the start of the history section. I think the first thing to do would be to add inline citations to some of these more precise details, such as the above, and "The spellings Belorussia and Byelorussia are transliterations of unofficial alternative names of the country in Russian." "Belarusian territories remained part of the Russian Empire until they were occupied by Germany during World War" etc. -- Zleitzen(talk) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: Needs better referencing (I generally resent editors who qualify an article's quality based on ref counts, but only, cmon, only 38?), I want to know more about the events, leaders, and issues that lead to post-Soviet independence, politics makes no mention of foreign relations except to Russia and non-EU status (what of other eastern European and Soviet-bloc countries?), picture sizes need to be standardized, aligned, formatted better, administrative divisions could be split into either "Politics" or "Geography" as there is not enough info to warrant its own section unless more information was given about these in relation to each other, "Culture" suffers from some NPOV and attribution issues. Madcoverboy 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Created paragraph on foreign affairs, though I need to expand about the Americas and China (especially). I need to mention that Belarus is part of the NAM and Lukashenko was present at the last NAM meeting in Cuba in 2006. I am trying to tackle the POV issues in the Culture section, but I am also expanding it and introducing some references. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Object:The image Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg is tagged as {{president.gov.by}}, but it does not appear to be a free image, since the listed rights only include copying, not the creation and distribution of derivative works.The image Image:Soviet Union-1961-Stamp-0.03. Belarusians.jpg is tagged as {{PD-RU-exempt}}, but it does not appear to fit in any of the classes of works exempt from copyright.
- --Carnildo 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Removed both photos. As for the first photo license, it is similiar to {{Kremlin.ru}}, which is up for deletion at the Commons, so that is what I started to use it a few months ago. I think it is free, but that is a discussion that needs to be held elsewhere. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - another pet topic as I have ancestors from Grodno..Umm a few points:
- The lead is a bit short and should summarize points in the article - thus I expected to see a brief note on the political background of Lukashenko/ruling party (need only be a few words). Also (possibly) the fact that a third of it still had issues with irradiation from Chernobyl.
- In history section there is "archagologist" (?) - do you mean archaeologist?
will look more later cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean archaeologist. Well, I had a sentence about Lukashenko's rule, (just him, since from what I understand, there is not a major party, unlike in Russia) but in a few replies above, I was told to take it down. I had Chernobyl mentioned in the lead also, but not sure why I took that out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Getting those government sentences in the lead to stick for a long period and be agreed, particularly I imagine for a more unconventional country like Belarus, is a painstaking business. Like balancing a coin on a tightrope. There should be a way of explaining the government position in the lead, but this is wikipedia! A featured article that then appears on the main page will be subject to so much scrutiny by both knowledgeable and idiotic passers-by that the challenge to make it accurate and NPOV that isn't changed regularly is daunting. I'll try and help over the next few days on the page and see if we can fashion something as tight as possible.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do admit that if there was one article that was pretty hard to make it seem FA material, this is it. While I should be blesed that many POV issues were relegated to Lukashenko's article or the POV wasn't too hard to fix. The sourcing ain't hard, though just trying to make sure I have enough information in is what kills me. I expand on the indepenence, then the previous history looks stubby. But, the novacain should wear off in a few hours, so I will take some more stabs at the history and the sourcing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Getting those government sentences in the lead to stick for a long period and be agreed, particularly I imagine for a more unconventional country like Belarus, is a painstaking business. Like balancing a coin on a tightrope. There should be a way of explaining the government position in the lead, but this is wikipedia! A featured article that then appears on the main page will be subject to so much scrutiny by both knowledgeable and idiotic passers-by that the challenge to make it accurate and NPOV that isn't changed regularly is daunting. I'll try and help over the next few days on the page and see if we can fashion something as tight as possible.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object. History section seems unbalanced - dominated by modern history, while the two and half centuries in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are not mentioned at all. There are also red links which should be stubbed or redirected. The Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920.png should be replaced with one that shows something relevant to Belarus.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I feel that the prose is in very poor shape. It's not just a case of requiring a copyedit but in my opinion of needing more precise thought in many places. I do have a list of actionable criticisms but I can't bring myself to post them here because they might seem too harsh and because addressing them alone would still not be enough to change my vote. Once this candidacy is over, I will be able to frame them in a less judgemental way, if the main editor wants to look at them. I would like to say that this article is very informative in places and taught me a lot: it is very valuable to Wikipedia. But in my opinion it is a long way from FA quality. qp10qp 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had a copy edit done earlier this year, but I am not sure if the new text I introduced was bad, or everything is crap overall. I think that right now, anything for me to fix is fine, despite on how harsh it is. I am not sure how long this candidacy will last, but I suspect it won't last for pretty long. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
SkyTrain (Vancouver) edit
In much better shape since last time. It is now the best article on the subject available on the internet. I know this because I spent alot of time looking for references. -- Selmo (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment.Could you run through my checklist please? I'm seeing date and image-sizing problems immediately. Trebor 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Image sizes are done, give me some time to fix the dates. Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm not sure where the date problems are. They all appear to follow WP:DATE. -- Selmo (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Refs 22 and 34 still aren't right. Reading through the article:Construction of the Canada and Evergreen lines is underway. - very subjective to the present. Better would be "construction began in xxxx on the..."or at least "As of 2007, construction...".
Are these Canadian dollars being used? If so, perhaps make it explicit the first time by using CAD$, given the pervasiveness of U.S. ones.
Given the length of the article, the lead is arguably a bit long, and delves into unnecessary details at times. Try trimming it to a crisp two paragraphs (maybe three) and try to make it more general.
A third line - The Canada Line is under construction until November 2009. - missing a second dash after "Line"? You probably want to use em-dashes as well.
- Overparagraphing in places. For instance, I don't think it's worth starting a new one just for the sentence beginning When not in use.
- It was originally built in 1985 - was it built again later? "Originally" seems redundant.
- When it first opened - again, was there a second opening or is "first" redundant?
Is there any reason that "Expansion lines" is a lot longer than "Lines in operation"? "Expansion lines" again has a lot of stubby paragraphs.
- Busby + Associates Architects - should that be a "+"?
Why is "history" right in the middle of the article? To me, it would make a lot more sense straight after the lead, as it would provide background for the rest of the article. Is there a plan to your ordering?
- Haven't read through it all, but it could probably do with a copyedit. I can't support for now. Trebor 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support (sorry for delay). I think this meets the criteria. Trebor 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very comprehensive. I'll support since the copyedit has been done. Canadianshoper 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose
Image:Bennett commemoration.jpg is tagged as copyrighted, but it's larger than my wallpaper. The image needs to be shrunk to at most 400px high and then tagged with. ShadowHalo 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC){{subst:furd}}
-
- Not done. 500x643 is still high resolution. The image's height should be no larger than 400. ShadowHalo 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I see several problems with NPOV and comprehensiveness. Both the Canada Line and the Milennium Line were strongly opposed on grounds of cost-effectiveness, route selection, disruption to local businesses, and environmental impact. Many people in the region, not to mention taxpayers from other parts of B.C., consider SkyTrain to have been a poor technology choice compared to light rail or even buses. The Milennium Line provided yet another method to get from Broadway & Commercial to New Westminster, while two of the most important destinations in the region (Central Broadway and UBC) have no rapid transit at all. There should be a description of the controversies.
- I can't just write down criticisms of the project without citing sources. maybe the people have complained, but if nothing's published, it would count as original research. NPOV requires that all significant (ie. published) viewpoints are represented. I'll look around nevertheless. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course criticisms we include must have been previously published. The newspaper archives have lots of material on this. An article like this should be based as much as possible on independent news coverage and independent scholarly studies, rather than government publications. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't just write down criticisms of the project without citing sources. maybe the people have complained, but if nothing's published, it would count as original research. NPOV requires that all significant (ie. published) viewpoints are represented. I'll look around nevertheless. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Other examples of problems:
- Handwaving: "Over the years, violence and drug abuse has been a major concern, but TransLink says the system is safe." This needs to be much more quantitative and explicit.
- There is no discussion of crime rates in neighbourhoods around SkyTrain stations, particularly residential burglaries.
- Predicted completion dates and budgets are stated as facts rather than forecasts, e.g. "It will cost $970 million."
-
- Projected costs of engineering projects are opinions, not facts, even if they come from the government ;) Attribtuting the opinion, e.g. "TransLink expects it to cost $970 million" is necessary. Even better would be to include other points of view about what the costs are likely to be. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless I've missed this, there seems to be a discussion of capital costs, but not operating costs. SkyTrain operating losses, and SkyTrain debt servicing costs, are huge.
- Did projects meet expectations? There should be a discussion of forecasted versus actual ridership and forecasted versus actual costs. The purpose of SkyTrain is to give people access to their destinations, reduce traffic, and manage how the region grows in terms of land use. Has it succeeded? Kla'quot 10:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What's been done so far edit
I have created a "controversy" section, and I have added most of what has been asked for above. I still need to find something on the crime, though.— Selmo (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Progress has been made, but the controversies and the issue of cost-effectiveness still need more coverage. I've suggested some sources on the Talk page. Considering the richness of the source material and the hundreds of millions of dollars involved, we need to go beyond simply stating that there are opposing viewpoints, and help the reader evaluate the substance of the controversies. The article relies too heavily on websites and The Buzzer. There are far better-quality sources available, but they're not on Google. Kla'quot 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have added some more information, using newspapers form the VPL website. — Selmo (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Kulintang edit
Been recieveing comments that this article I'm self-nominating was really good when it passed for a Good Article today. It was according to some: "well written, well sectioned, and very informative: it contains more meat than is found in some books. There is cultural context, history, technique, media files, and even a table of major performers in nice format, not to mention the numerous informative illustrations. The reference section is outstanding." I personally worked on this so if you have any comments, please feel free spill them and i'll be happy to address them. PhilipDM 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The text quoted above is mine, and I stand by it. I found the article by following a DYK link from the Main Page, and was pleasantly surprised to find an article on par with the AotD; DYKs are typically a crapshoot. The article has been very thoroughly researched, is well written, formatted and illustrated, and very comprehensive: if there is anything you've been dying to know about kulintangs, the article has it :-) Freederick 14:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, numerous problems, suggest a thorough peer review to prepare for FAC. There are WP:MSH issues; the lead should summarize the article and need not be burdened by inline citations based on text from the body of the article; hyphens and dashes aren't used according to WP:MOS; the prose relies heavily on slashes; why is there an italicized title above the info box; and this is an example of an article which is burdened by overciting of trivial facts and poor placement of inline citations. Attention to prose organization should allow for less peppering of citations throughout the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I will address those issues shortly.PhilipDM 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Those issues have been addressed. See below. PhilipDM 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- Convert Hyphens to WP:MOS protocol - COMPLETED PhilipDM 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Summerize Lead - COMPLETED PhilipDM 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Used feature articles of two instruments Timpani and Guqin as a reference to make a better lead. Reduction of inline citations but they still remain in lead based on the Guqin article. Use of italics and bold based on Timpani article. Added information about origin and importance, all so information about names into lead. PhilipDM 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Removal of overcitations - COMPLETED PhilipDM 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reduced most of the citations to a citations to one per sentence. No lost of reference sources. PhilipDM 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MSH issues addressed - COMPLETED PhilipDM 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Italicized title above info box - UNRESOLVED
- Problem of italicized title above infobox stems from how the infobox was created. In the infobox template, allows user to place in "name=" the name of the instrument and in "names=" alternative names of the instrument. Kulintang is the main name... however is is only recognize by perhaps 25% of those who play this instrument/musical genre. Others call in kolintang, kulintangan and totobuang... the other major names of the instrument. If interested in changing the italization, should resolve it with those who made the infobox for music. PhilipDM 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed it. Berserkerz Crit 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Problem of italicized title above infobox stems from how the infobox was created. In the infobox template, allows user to place in "name=" the name of the instrument and in "names=" alternative names of the instrument. Kulintang is the main name... however is is only recognize by perhaps 25% of those who play this instrument/musical genre. Others call in kolintang, kulintangan and totobuang... the other major names of the instrument. If interested in changing the italization, should resolve it with those who made the infobox for music. PhilipDM 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article actually did go to Peer Review, where it was completely ignored, and then archived. TheCoffee 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody does PR nowadays, anyway... --Howard the Duck 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody does peer review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody does PR nowadays, anyway... --Howard the Duck 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have switched to a strong (above) because there are problems in the info filled in to the cite templates throughout the article, which, although I'm sure it's not intentional, unfortunately give the impression of misleading references. This really needs to be fixed before the article is promoted, because the references are misleading, and not all appear reliable. Some of the sources are blogs and personal websites, but that information is obfuscated by the way the info is listed in the cite templates. (This is after the blogs removed by Indon, below.) The information filled in under work and/or publisher on the cite templates (which often should be publisher) isn't always descriptive, giving the impression (for example) of very reliable sources which are actually personal websites. For example, this personal website was listed as Gamelan: architecture of carved rhythm. The University of California Press, but that information can't be verified on this site (is it a book? if so, the info is incomplete.) This blogisn't specified in the templates as a blog. There's nothing to indicate that Kipas Gallery is a reliable source.; the cite template had been filled in to indicate the source as Music instruments from the Philippines, but it is Kipas Gallery. This (PnoyAndTheCity: A center for Kulintang - A home for Pasikings. ) for example, is another blog. I've only had time to correct a few, beginning at the top, but I didn't get through most of them, and the article needs still a lot more work on specifying exactly who the website publishers are, and determining if they are reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Further, adding 1a object; the prose is quite troubled, and a serious independent copyedit is needed. The prose is not professional, or compelling. Sample prose:
- The main purpose for kulintang music in the community is to function as social entertainment at a nonprofessional, folk level. This music is unique in that it is considered a public music in the sense everyone is allowed to participate. Not only do the players play, but the audience members, consisting of neighbors and guests who come to the event, are also expected to participate.
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Further, adding 1a object; the prose is quite troubled, and a serious independent copyedit is needed. The prose is not professional, or compelling. Sample prose:
- Self-published Sources Issue - to do
- Well, we definitely have a situation here. I read the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources with the sentence 'Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. I understand that totally.
- However, I also wished this was a topic that was fully researched that there are enough of these so-called "reliable sources" out there that we could use. Kulintang is a musical genre on par with Gamelan but comparatively speaking, on the amount of research done on each, kulintang cannot compare at all. Gamelan has hundereds of books published thoughtout and has been researched so throughly, there's even a center for this music in Yogyakarta.
- For kulintang music, we have only a limited amount of journal articles here and there. Research has never been done as throughly because it is not as widely spread worldwide as gamelan, much of the music resides in indigenous tribes where there are not many scholars recording what's going on and finally, areas where this music occurs are not as accesible to those who are scholars becuase of internal strife i.e. Eastern Indonesia and the Southern Philippines. I mean, I would like to go to the library and borrow books on kulintang and source them but there has yet to even be one single book, specifically writing about this musical genre. It's sad. In fact, i'm hoping to publish the first one of its kind this year. That's primarily the reason why i ended up referring to those sources.
- So, what i could do is knock out every personal website in the article. I'll defend two though becuase they seem to fit under the "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise" exception.
- One is this blog by Mohammad Amin. It's a paper about the kolintang gong music of Sulawesi but it's really sourced well. However, though Mohammad Amin has not published anything concern kakalu music that I know of, he has his own group, Hawai`i Kakula Ensemble, and happens to be the top source for this music in the states. Without him, we have almost no information about Sulewasi kolintang music.
- Another blog is Pnoyandthecity. It has the online textbook enclosed within it, "Traditional Music of the Southern Philippines" by Philip Dominguez Mercurio. Unlike Amin, Mercurio has published information about kulintang music in both Philippine News and Manila Bulletin. The editor of this textbook is Master Danongan Sibay Kalanduyan, a legend in this field. He has also published numerous things in journal of "Asian Music" and he perhaps is one of the sole resources for kulintang music from the Philippines... almost all those who published information about kulintang music, either published or not, used him as their primarly source. Also all the pictures in this article come from this source which they shared with wikipedia. This source is in the process of being published into a book... later we willl use that as the reference source for this information and not the blog.
- For the other sources, if they classified as personal websites, i'll knock them out. Chances are some of their information overlaps with the reliable sources. We'll just have to wait and see. PhilipDM 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Begun the determination of which websites are classified as "reliable sources." I'll be removing some sources from the main kulintang article so please do not reverted it. I'll also give reasons why other websites should stay. Afterwards, I will list this at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_FAC_and_FAR. PhilipDM 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Matusky, Patricia (2002). Musical Instruments of Malaysia. Musical Malaysia. Musicmall Conservatoire Productions Sdn Bnd. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Cite is repeatitive of Matusky, Patricia. "An Introduction to the Major Instruments and Forms of Traditional Malay Music." Asian Music Vol 16. No. 2. (Spring-Summer 1985), pp. 121-182. It's actually the same source. Replaced it with Matusky2. PhilipDM 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Buchholdt, Titania (2007). Kulintang Classes @ Pusod. Pusod Online. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Titania Buchholdt is well-versed in the culture of kulintang music. She is involved in kulintang groups, particularly Master Danongan Kalanduyan PKE group. However site is not clear if she is the author of information given... information which could be found in many of the other published sources below. PhilipDM 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Ethnic Music. Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Berlin - Germany (2007). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a government website published by the Indonesia Embassy of Berlin. Unless they made massive typographical errors, I'm assuming this site is reliable. PhilipDM 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Amin, Mohammad (2005). A Comparison of Music of the Philippines and Sulawesi. Sulawesi. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a blog but as I stated above there is a well-referenced paper written here by a one of the few scholars involved in Sulewasi kolintang/kakalu nuada music. Mohammad Amin fits the exception of personal websites. PhilipDM 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Butocan, Aga Mayo (2007). Maguindanao Kulintang. Tao Music. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Text here written by Aga Mayo Butocan. She, like Master Danongan Kalanduyan is also heavily involved in kulintang music, participates in ensembles and teaches it at the University of the Philippines. Another exception. PhilipDM 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Jager, Fekke de (2006). Kulintang Ensemble. Kipas Gallery. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Personally, I remember Master Kalanduyan mention to me that this fellow did some astounding documentation on the kulintang music in Indonesia and the Philippines. However, since I can't find any published documentation he has done or any other affiliation he has with kulintang music, I'm removing him. If you find evidence that proves otherwise, i'll be happy to revert this removal. PhilipDM 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Jeanson, Aled (2005). Gamelan in South-East Asia. Gamelan: architecture of carved rhythm. The University of California Press. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Really hard to figure out would wrote or published what on this page. Couldn't even find where the name Jeanson, Aled came from. Removed. PhilipDM 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Cruz, Gray (2006). Musicians - Rondalla and Percussionists. Likha Pilipino Folk Ensemble. Likha Pilipino Folk Ensemble. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Personally, not familiar with this group. They could be legitamate but becuase they have not published anything that I know of outside of this website, I'm uncertain, I'm removing it. Again if you find evidence, tell me. PhilipDM 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Grafias, Robert. Music of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Anthro 1385. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Definitely a legitamate source. Once the boss of Master Kalanduyan in University of Washington, works as the dean of music in UCLA and published information about kulintang in Asian Music. PhilipDM 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Brandeis, Hans (2006). Photographs of Mindanao, Philippines. Gallery of Photographs from Mindanao, Philippines.. Filipino Association of Berlin. Retrieved on February 12, 2007. Another legit guy from Germany. Does documentation on indiginous music of the Philipines and has reviewed articles before in legitamate journals. PhilipDM 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Panis, Alleluia (2006). Magui Moro Master Artists in Residence. Kularts. Kulintang Arts Incorporated. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Unclear on who wrote article, about legitamate group though. PhilipDM 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Canave-Dioquino, Corazon (2007). Philippine Music Instruments. Articles on Culture & Arts. National Commission For Culture And The Arts. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. I'm not familiar with Corazon Canave-Dioquino as familiar with kulintang music but I would say this is not a personal website but an article published by a governmental commission. Should be legit. PhilipDM 06:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Butocan, Aga M. (2006). Palabunibunyan. Kulintang and the Maguindanaos. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Personal website but as stated early, Aga Butocan is a known expert of kulintang music and has participated it legitamate traditional kulintang groups. PhilipDM 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Danongan Kalanduyan. Spark. KQED - Arts and Culture (2006). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a website of American public broadcasting show on KQED profiling the legendary Master Danongan Kalanduyan. PhilipDM 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Trimillos, Ricardo D. (2004). Performing Ethnomusicology: Teaching and Representation in World Music Ensembles. California: The University of California Press. The University of California Press. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a published work of the University of California Press. Kept. PhilipDM 06:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Hila, Antonio C (2006). Indigenous Music - Tuklas Sining: Essays on the Philippine Arts. Filipino Heritage.com. Tatak Pilipino. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. I leaned toward removing this essay found on a commercial website. It has lots of information about pre-colonial Filipino music and an author. However, I do not know about this author familirity with kulintang music, I don't if he published works and there are no sources attached to this essay. So I removed it. PhilipDM 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Mercurio, Philip Dominguez (2006). Traditional Music of the Southern Philippines. PnoyAndTheCity: A center for Kulintang - A home for Pasikings. Retrieved on February 25, 2006. This is a blog but as I established before it encloses a online textbook, referenced well, has a legitamate author with published works on kulintang music and its editor is a legend in kulintang music, Master Danongan Kalanduyan. PhilipDM 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED but with reservations Dria, Jose Arnaldo (2006). Maguindanao. Philippine Literature. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Seems to be a legit site intent on documenting all the indigious people of the Philippines. Has author and well-referenced but I question reliability. I removed it but this could always be reverted if you believe otherwise. PhilipDM 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Kalanduyan, Danongan Sibay (2006). What is Kulintang?. Palabuniyan Kulintang Ensemble – Traditional Gong Music and Dance from Mindanao Island, Philippines. Retrieved on November 1, 2006. Personal website of the legendary kulintang master, Master Danongan Kalanduyan. Another exception. PhilipDM 06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Phillips, Frances (2001). CWF LEAD ARTISTS: DANONGAN KALANDUYAN. Creative Work Fund. Creative Work Fund. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Legitamate event but unclear author or publisher. PhilipDM 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEPT Musical Instruments. SabahTravelGuide.Com. Sabah Tourism Promotion Corporation (2007). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Website of the Sabah tourism board. No author but it should be considered a informational website about musical instruments of Sabah. PhilipDM 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVED Culture. Labuan, Malaysia: The International Garden Island of Borneo. Labuan Corporation (2001). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Seems to be a commerical, non-governmental website with no author. removed. PhilipDM 07:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reliability of websites complete. 10 sources removed. How the references are formatted was not corrected. Sending this to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_FAC_and_FAR for through copyedit. PhilipDM 07:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyedit by an independent editor - FOR SOMEONE TO DO
- Could someone work on this becuase I can't. Thank you. PhilipDM 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. It is a very good article. TheCoffee 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great images, encyclopedic tone and informative prose, super referenced, it is a fine work primarily by Philip. Props. Berserkerz Crit 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice and comprehensive subject about the music instrument. I did some small tweaks, eliminating blog sites, commercial & unauthorized (personal) external links per WP:EL. — Indon (reply) — 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. An interesting article, but the prose has severe problems, starting with grammatical errors in the first two sentences ("Kulintang is a modern term of an instrumental form of music..." and "...kulintang music ensembles has been played..."). It gets somewhat better later on, but the whole article needs a thorough copyedit.—Celithemis 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done -- Thanks. Your copyedit suggestions have been implemented. Please edit more. PhilipDM 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- When the other issues are resolved you can list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_FAC_and_FAR. —Celithemis 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Enjoyed the article, but the prose need work throughout:
- "kulintang music ensembles has been played for centuries" - have played
- made it have been played PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- "from a simple, native signaling" - comma not needed
- "developing into its present form with the incorporation of knobbed gongs from Sunda." - and developed, maybe mention when this development occured.
- No exact dates provide by source. Oral tradition and based on etymology. PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Its importance stems from the fact it is representative of..." - the fact is redundant
- "existing culture in these islands" - indigenous?
- "By the twentieth century, the term kulintang has also come" - had also come
- "to mean the entire Maguindanao ensembles of five to six instruments" - to denote an entire
- Made to denote an entire Maguindanao ensemble PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- These are examples from the lead only, but similar problems occur throughout the text. Ceoil 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done -- Thanks. Your copyedit suggestions have been implemented. Please edit more. PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Strawberry Panic! edit
This article has gone through a ton of positive revisions in the past month or so and was recently granted Good Article status. I believe it statisfies the FA criteria.--十八 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- SupportSatisfies the FA criteria exceptionally well.--Orthologist 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object for now due largely to concerns below about the number of blogs/forums cited as sources, especially in the "reception" section, which is critical to making a FA appeal to more than just people who are already fans of the series.
- " Shoujoai.com forums discussing Strawberry Panic!." is listed as a source... general forums threads really aren't acceptable as sources in any articles, let alone featured articles.
- I'll try to find some way to phase these out. Edit: I've replaced the reference.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- "The original artist was Chitose Maki" If they were original short stories, why was there an artist? Were the stories illustrated? Needs to be made more clear for people unfamiliar with Japanese media perhaps. It does go on to explain this somewhat in the "Short stories" section, but that's far from the intro where this question was raised. But I was still wondering if these were what western readers would recognize as a "short story", e.g. several pages of text, or was it more similar to a manga?
- Using the term "short stories" is basically because that is the closest thing I could see them as. I suppose "illustrated short stories" would be better then. The first 18 or so stories were very very short, only encompassing a few paragraphs at a time. There is an example of the length of the first short story at Strawberry Panic! (short stories). And now, nothing like a manga. It was more like here's some text, and here's an illustration that goes with the text.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could "fan service" include a short definition? This phrase is relatively important to understand and, I think, is going to be unfamiliar to many readers. I assumed it was a take-off of "lip service" but had to read the article fan service to really figure out the full meaning.
- Some overlinking going on... do we really need to wikilink climaxing, dating, constellation, romance and perhaps even crush? It's a minor gripe but I kept noticing common words being linked.
- This is a side-effect from an earlier time in this pages history. I have tried to phase out most of them, and will get on that.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- "the later adapted visual novel version of the series" is this the manga or the "light novel" referred to earlier? Terminology should be consistant or at least explained for people unfamiliar with the topic.
- When it says "series", it's meant to be taken as a whole. The short stories were used as a basis for the manga and light novels that followed, and the anime was adapted from those. The game would then most likely be adapted from the manga and light novel as well, or at least the stage in the history once the short stories were done.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why aren't the subsections in "Adaptations" ordered chronologically? Seemed kind of confusing to talk about the "Internet radio show" with voiceactors from the earlier anime before talking about the anime.
- I thought they were listed chronlogically. The Internet radio show began in November 2005, a full 5 months before the anime aired. It is noted which person played which part in the anime, but this was merely so the reader would know why these people were hosting this show and what role they played within the story. I guess I could make it more specific on how the anime aired later on, but as far as chronlogical ordering goes, it is in such an order.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is the "Internet radio show" basically a radio play that tells the story of the short stories? Article didn't fully explain this.
- It was difficult to translate the wiki page, so this may be a part that doesn't get much info. I'll try to translate some pertanant information and include it.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some uncited paragraphs... mostly minor, but this sentence might need a cite: "[the anime] has a central yuri theme though nothing of it gets to the point to be considered hentai, or extremely lewd." That's somewhat interpretive and should probably be attributable to a source in a FA.
- "panned by Erica Friedman" Who is Erica Friedman? Should describe her basic position or what publication she writes for. Also this looks to be referenced to a blogspot blog... rarely a reliable source.
- Erica Friedman works for Yuricon and ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri, one of the genres SP! belongs to. Her Okazu blog, although unaffiliated with Yuricon and ALC Publishing, is used to review yuri anime and manga. She could be considered something of an expert in the field. -Malkinann 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it could be written to briefly mention her status, I think that would be reasonable (the entire mention of her seems to be gone from the article at the moment). As it was it just said her name and nothing about who she was. --W.marsh 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Erica Friedman works for Yuricon and ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri, one of the genres SP! belongs to. Her Okazu blog, although unaffiliated with Yuricon and ALC Publishing, is used to review yuri anime and manga. She could be considered something of an expert in the field. -Malkinann 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The next review is attributed only to the pseudonym "shoujoboy". I'm not sure if this counts for much of a meaningful critic either. Another review is attributed to yet another blog (animeblogger). Did no published critics ever write about this series?
- I do see your point...As far as published critics, the series has not been released in English yet, and as far as reputable Japanese reviews go, I'd say they are either very hard to find, or very little in number. Edit: I've removed the blogger entries from Reception.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't have much about it's overall market success. I don't know if "1,918 units" of the box set sold is much. Was this considered a successful venture?
- There was a comparison drawn between the DVD sales of this series with Maria-sama ga Miteru which recieved higher sales numbers. As far as if it was successful or not, I wouldn't be able to say at this point.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some of these are minor stylistic issues that I'm more pointing out and asking for comments on, rather than demanding they be fixed. --W.marsh 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- Most of "Reception" seems out of place. Much of the information should be worked into the other articles or the sections on that specific media (e.g. Famitsu review should be under "Visual novel" section"). The section should be on critical opinions on the series as a whole, not just one medium of it. Erica Friedman's comments for example, are fine. Everything else needs to be elsewhere.
- But if a person wants to know about the reception of the visual novel, shouldn't it make sense to put it in Reception? Making the reader do more work doesn't make sense.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the opposite happened for me, which is why I brought it up. I read the section on the visual novel and thought I had read all there was on it, but then saw the Famitsu review later it slightly frustrated me that it seemed out of place. Also, the statement "The first day in the game requires over a full hour of non-interactive reading" seems likely incorrect. Does the game actually not have any fast forward options to get through the first day in less than an hour? Is the pacing set? Because that'd be rather odd for a visual novel.--SeizureDog 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the "full hour" thing, I got this from the same site that I got most of the gameplay from, and this was from someone that played the game themselves. If you think it's disputable, then I'll remove the "full hour" statement, and just write that the first day is non-interactive reading. And about Famitsu, if you think it should be moved, then I'll move it.--十八 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly how important is the "Seven mysteries" section? It seems crufty to me.
- Ah! I knew this was going to come up, I was just waiting for someone to say something...I agree in that it probably shouldn't be there. I will remove it if you think it's a problem. Edit: I'll just remove it now; it is cruft...--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why are there "retrieved on" on non-internet based cites (damn pun)? Remove these instances for magazine (and other) cites, as the information is only needed for internet cites because what you linked to may later be different or gone.
- I was under the impression that cites had to show when they were accessed despite what type of source they are. If this is not the case, I will remove it from the ones that aren't from websites.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The in-universe information is excellent, but I'm concerned of the lack of out-of-universe sections like "Development". However, since the article is on all of the series, it's kinda hard to fault you on this.
- Development in terms of what? Development of the series? I thought that's what the Adaptations section is for, to show the history of the series.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I don't know. It just feels like it's missing something, but I can't really suggest anything to do. --SeizureDog 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to avoid voting on this article, as I prefer to remain neutral for articles in the anime/manga Wikiproject as I use such articles as case studies and prefer them to pass from the approval of non-otaku community rather than my own. --SeizureDog 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments: The animesuki forum thread citation is dodgy. Also, the article could probably do with a copyedit. -Malkinann 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just because the information was posted on a forum does not make the information false. Those figures are accurate. And this article has already gone through extensive copyediting, but sure, it probably needs some more. I've done all the copyediting I can do at this point.--十八 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it being in a forum doesn't neccessarily make the information false, but a more verifiable source for them would be appreciated. Even in the thread itself, people asked the poster of the sales data for a source. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful in copyediting. Maybe if you asked at the League of Copyeditors for some assistance with the copyediting? -Malkinann 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- While I do realize that if it wasn't on a forum it would look better for verifiability, the reason I cited it from that source is because I couln't find any other sales figures. Not that those are particularly amazing since they're only as of Nov. 2006, but they're something. As for the LoCE, it says that since the article is current an FAC, then we should wait until copyediting is the only thing left until we ask them for assistence.--十八 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it being in a forum doesn't neccessarily make the information false, but a more verifiable source for them would be appreciated. Even in the thread itself, people asked the poster of the sales data for a source. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful in copyediting. Maybe if you asked at the League of Copyeditors for some assistance with the copyediting? -Malkinann 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this is a nice looking article. The content flows well and despite the occasional sentence, is written very well. A user has changed the format of the Grading table and when it is expanded it looks cramped. I think it looked better in the first place but perhaps it should be revised anyway, maybe with some more whitespace. Overall I think the article is developed and it is well on its way to FA. --Squilibob 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object: Interesting article with sourcing problems (as brought up above).
- I escalated the copyediting problem to an "object", since the prose seemed a bit stilted in places. I'll try to help out myself, either by fixing or by tagging problematic areas.
- Reception and sales should be noted in the lead.
- Sales should be moved into reception, since that's where I would look. Or otherwise make a section-reference to where it can be found. Either explicitly to section or with "As mentioned above ....." --GunnarRene 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Non-object comments:
- How about making the release information in the lead less detailed? Months instead of full dates for example?
- The balance of the article suggests more about the plot in the lead, but I'm not objecting on that. There is some there already. --GunnarRene 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Clan Fraser edit
Self-nomination: I've been working on this article for god knows how long, on-and-off, and I feel it's been above GA status for quite awhile, now. I believe it to at least meet all of the FA criteria, and surpass some of them. 
Canæn 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is too listy in places, a violation of 1. a. LuciferMorgan 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment How would you present the information given in the various sections that appear listy (I'm assuming you're talking about the lists of battles)? I'd love to improve it any way I could.
Canæn 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - Comment Has this been established in effect by consistent opposition on these grounds? 1 a makes no mention of lists, simply saying that the prose should be good. Canæn 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment How would you present the information given in the various sections that appear listy (I'm assuming you're talking about the lists of battles)? I'd love to improve it any way I could.
- Oppose as per lucifer, it also has a lot of red links Ahadland 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Red links represent a lack of adequate Wikipedia coverage on related articles, but not on this article itself. Should the lack of coverage in other areas hold this article back from Featured status? Canæn 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've cut the red links in half or so. There are some left, yes. Those articles need to be created. Canæn 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've cut the red links in half or so. There are some left, yes. Those articles need to be created.
- Comment Red links represent a lack of adequate Wikipedia coverage on related articles, but not on this article itself. Should the lack of coverage in other areas hold this article back from Featured status?
- 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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Ronald Reagan edit
I have nominated Ronald Reagan to be a featured article, because I think it meets all of the criteria. After a lot of cleanup, and an expansion to the "Presidency" section, I think it's ready. All the sources have been cited in the correct format, and everything is in tip-top shape. Again, I urge you to support this nomination. Thank You, Happyme22 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd recommend referring to peer review before nominating an article here, and closing this FAC. LuciferMorgan 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The comunicator and teflon president occures two times in the lead. Are the church habits importened enough for the lead. --Stone 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)\
- Done The comunicator and teflon president were changed, and are said only once now.
Comment - The nominator withdrew this nomination I thought? Or has someone else re-inserted it without even contacting the nominator? LuciferMorgan 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I, the nominator, was the old nominator. We, the editors of Ronald Reagan, fixed up the article, and we are ready to try it again. Reagan's Christian belief was important to him. The errors you listed will be fixed. Thank You for your input. Happyme22 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment There's no fair use rational for the TIME magazine cover and you have mention the specific magazine in the text to justify it's inclusion. Quadzilla99 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done The award given to Reagan (TIME's Man of the Year) is now included in the text.
Oppose I wrote a brief peer-review for this article a couple of days ago. In that review, I mentioned that the article should not rely so heavily on Reagan's autobiography as a source (see footnote 2 of the article). Autobiographies are not secondary sources, not NPOV and notoriously unreliable. Since the article has a long list of references, I assume that the editors do not need to rely on the autobiography. If indeed they have written the article based almost solely on Reagan's autobiography, I object even more strenuously to this article being accepted as a featured article. See my peer-review for a few further issues [9]. I might also mention that issues such as the Iran-Contra scandal get very short-shrift here. Awadewit 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support As a rebuttle to the above statement, I say: Yes, President Reagan's autobiography is the main source in the article. Yet, if you look (and actually read), it is very rarley used in opinion statements, and only in facts. In the "Cold War" section, Reagan's autobiography outlines what he believed would happen with the Cold War, and we listed that there. It's fair. The above writer says that autobiographies are notoriously unreliable. Okay - President Reagan's has been noted time-and-again by historians as being one of the true (and FAIR, I might add) sources of the Reagan Presidency. The above writer says that the Iran Contra Scandal takes up a little bit of the page. Okay, I agree. We should expand on that. Overall, if you actually read the article, you will find that most of what I am saying is correct. I support Ronald Reagan's nomination. Happyme22 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- First, let me state, one cannot read an autobiography uncritically, that is, one cannot assume that all of the statements in it are true. Reagan would have had an interest in representing his life story in a particular way. That is why even basic facts have to be verified using secondary sources. But beyond basic facts, you present Reagan's analysis of his own life as a fact and as at times the undisputed interpreation. This is problematic. Here are some examples:
- Reagan's father was a problem drinker and sporadically unemployed. - It is Reagan's decision to portray his father this way.
- Done Found another reference for it
- Witnessing what he believed to be inefficient and overreaching government programs firsthand, Reagan believed that liberals were naively leading the country down a road to serfdom. - this should be a quotation, not a statement of fact, if it is coming from an autobiography
- Done Added quotes, and found the page in Reagan's autobiography
- Reagan implied that Roosevelt would have also disapproved of the change in the Democratic Party. - this should be a quotation
- Done Added quotes, and found the page in Reagan's autobiography
- Reagan would often ask his flight crew if it would be any inconvenience to change the published flight schedule because he did not want to keep his support staff from being with their families and any family planned events. - this is Reagan's interpretation - make that clear
- Done Specifically stated
- The misery index had considerably worsened during his term, which Reagan used to his advantage during the campaign. - which Reagan believed he used to his advantage - that is his interpretation of events; aa political scientist or historian would be more reliable here
- Done Got it from one of Reagan's biographers, Lou Cannon
- His most influential remark was a closing question to the audience, during a time of skyrocketing prices and high interest rates, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (a phrase he would successfully reuse in the 1984 campaign). - you should use a secondary source to prove what his "most influential remark" was, not Reagan's opinion.
- Done Found other reliable sources, and cited them correctly
- Your sole source on the "Federal Air Traffic Controllers' strike" is the autobiography? This is an event which sparked a lot of controversy. You need to have sources from across the political spectrum and from more dispassionate observers.
- Done Found other sources, and cited them correctly
- Reagan was considered a small-government conservative and supported income tax cuts, cuts to domestic government programs, and deregulation, but no one knew what concrete steps he meant to take, or whether the House (controlled by Democrats) would support him. - Reagan was considered by himself?
- Done Found another source
- All of your citations in the "Reaganomics" section come from the autobiography as well. Reagan was not an economist. He cannot speak with any authority on these issues.
- Done Found other reliable sources, such as Reagan's biographer
- Nevertheless, some surveys showed that illegal drug use among Americans declined significantly during Reagan's presidency, leading supporters to argue that the policies were successful. - so quote the surveys and the supporters
- Again, I would point out that all of your citations in the "Judiciary" section are from the autobiography. For such contentious issues, you simply cannot rely on a single source, especially one that is so biased.
- Done Found other sources
- "The invasion of Grenada," a military action, also only has citations from the autobiography.
- Done Found other sources (one is very good and informative, I might add)
- Supporters responded that SDI gave Reagan a stronger bargaining position. Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned, and SDI ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War. - you mean, Reagan believed it did!
- Done Fixed it
Even historians who use Reagan's autobiography are going to verify it and use it judiciously. This article appears to tell the story of Ronald Reagan from Reagan's own perspective. That is not the function of an encyclopedia. Since there is an abundance of sources on Reagan, there is no reason to rely so heavily on the autobiography. Scholarly biographies would be much more appropriate. Awadewit 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to reiterate that the editors of this article need to seek out scholarly sources. Replacing some of the above source problems (which, by the way, are only some of the many) with obituaries, for example, is not an improvement. There is so much written on Reagan that there is no need to resort to using obituaries (except perhaps to discuss his death and funeral). It is especially egregious that the editors are using an obituary as one of only two sources for the "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" section. Awadewit 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to say to Awadewit that I respect you, but if you read the Los Angeles Times Obituary, it covers Reagan's life and Presidency, The "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" included. To make you happy, I'll find another source. By the way, you will notice that Reagan's autobiography is much less prominent in the article than before, and is being replaced with "scholarly biographies." In all of biographies that I listed as sources, everything is true, and you can check for it youself (I did not just replace on source with another). And, if you look above, you will see that 12 out of the 13 things that you listed were fixed. Are you any happier with the article? Happyme22 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will look over everything again in the next few days, but I feel like you are missing the point here. For you to be able to write on the air traffic controller's strike, you need to read more than an obituary. An obituary is not going to give you the detail necessary to understand that event. When a reader sees that you have used an obituary as a footnote, he or she will assume that you have not read deeply on the topic (in this case, the strike) and know nothing about the topic (I do not know whether or not this is true, I am simply pointing out what it will look like to a reader). Obituaries tend to be used in very particular contexts: to prove that a person is dead and to give details of the funeral. They are often cited to prove that a person is noteworthy as well; Reagan had obituaries in many world newspapers, for example, therefore a historian in the future could argue that he was famous. Obituaries are rarely used for basic factual information unless there are no other sources available. This can sometimes happen with obscure historical figures. Reagan is not an obscure historical figure. There is a wealth of information available on him. Getting back to the strike, putting "Reagan air traffic controllers strike" into Google scholar gets you a wealth of material. I think that perhaps the editors of this page are assuming that the research for this page can be done entirely from biographies. I would question that assumption. I would suggest that the editors look at the list of sources on the Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt page for the kind of variety I would expect and that would make the page more reliable. It does seem that wikipedia does not always require this kind of variety, though. If they decide to stick only with biogpraphies, I would recommend that they look at Calvin Coolidge. Note though, that the variety exists on FDR's page, a well-known president, while the reliance on biographies is relegated to Coolidge's page (not a president many people even remember in a quick run-down). I would argue that since Reagan is such a recent president, his page deserves extra-special treatment. I would like to reiterate a message I left on my talk page responding to Happyme22 that I applaud his/her efforts on this page. It is not easy to write on a polarizing political figure like Reagan. I simply feel that a page on one of the United States' most important recent presidents should be done as well as possible. Certainly it will be highly trafficked, therefore it must be very carefully reviewed.
- I would like to say to Awadewit that I respect you, but if you read the Los Angeles Times Obituary, it covers Reagan's life and Presidency, The "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" included. To make you happy, I'll find another source. By the way, you will notice that Reagan's autobiography is much less prominent in the article than before, and is being replaced with "scholarly biographies." In all of biographies that I listed as sources, everything is true, and you can check for it youself (I did not just replace on source with another). And, if you look above, you will see that 12 out of the 13 things that you listed were fixed. Are you any happier with the article? Happyme22 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- On a side note, I checked out a lot of the other president pages and I haven't found any other (albeit I didn't click on every single one) except for Bill Clinton that had a "Criticism" section. I really would like to reiterate that this structure is problematic. In fact, I consider it POV. To have an article that discusses the greatness of Reagan and then essentially says, "oh, yeah, we can lump all of the criticism into a little section over here" misrepresents the Reagan presidency and the reaction against it. The editors must integrate these criticisms into the timeline of the presidency. Also, the bulletted list of Reagan's "positions" and "achievements" is highly problematic. For example, it says that Reagan was "intolerant of crime." This implies that his opponents were tolerant of crime. The whole "positions" section is essentially a propaganda section - what Reagan wanted the public to believe about him - but it is presented rather innocuously. I'm not particularly sure why it is included. If the editors want to discuss particular positions in relation to particular legislation, they should do that. The "polices" section should be done in prose. Discuss those policies, if you believe they are important - explain them - source them - link them. Lists like these are simplistic and reductionist. Awadewit 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I nominate this page. It is quite excellent and presents Reagan in an unusually honest and sincere way. A good article like this will make the reader agree and disagree with some things - and learn a few new things - but accept it as reasonable. I think this current article is reasonable. It is also afree of the previous partisan lies (from both sides) that had plagued it. Reagan did proudly vote for FDR four times, and I am happy to see that it is honestly stated here - which adds to the credibility. This is a very impressive work for it's accuracy and not fakery. People will like this.
Also, I would nominate Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Washington.
- The above Support was added as a comment by an IP, [10] and converted to a Support by Happyme22. [11] Happyme22 has already registered support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author of this support gave me permission to change it from a "Comment" to a "Support". Happyme22 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Object - I have no objection off-hand to criticism section, but in this article it is used to relegate certain facts and do display them only from a critical perspective. For example, dereguation of the banking industry should be discussed side by side with his economic policies, with all the facts in one place, just as Reagan's (lack of an) AIDS policy should be discussed within the broader context of health care/medicine during his presidency. The same goes for certain facts about the Iran-Contra affair (e.g. a link to Nicaragua v. United States. "Criticism" shouldn't be synonymous with "fact that might be considered damaging to Reagan's legacy. Here are some specific problems throughout the article: Savidan 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- "credited with restoring America's power and prosperity" in the intro - I think it might be a more neutral route to describe the overall tone of his economic and foreign policies (already done to some extent) rather than to discuss it from the angle of praise or criticism in the intro.
- "well-received autobiography titled An American Life" - try a more neutral adjective; e.g. (if true) "best-selling"
- Done Thanks a lot for your comments. I'll try to fix them. I agree with you on the autobiography, but I don't really agree with you on the "credited with resoring America's power and prosperity." Many, many people will argue that Reagan did exactly "restore America's power and prosperity." Would it be better if I cited it? I have a good source- I'll do that. You'll also notice that I moved many of the criticisms into the article section, like with "Reaganomic's and the Economy". Again, you are carefully pointing these things out, and I'm grateful to you. Do you feel any better about the article? Happyme22 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's an improvement, but I don't consider this addressed yet. The cite is a step up but its just one person's opinion (maybe more people) which I consider to be given undo prominense in the intro. If it's a notable subject of praise of Reagan then it should be attributed (i.e. no weasel words like "often credited"; cite the specific author and acknowledge them by name in the text. Might I suggest a "praise" subsection to the "legacy" section or similar. Also I don't consider the AIDS issue to be adequately addressed in this article. If you need some help doing the research see Google, Google Books, Google Scholar. The problem isn't just that the most notable criticism is omited (the "what's aids" comment), but that the article should provide a general background on Reagan's health policies as well. Savidan 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Slight object I wonder if it possible to include some of the serious allegations put forth by David Stockman (budget director) in the 1986 PBS Frontline interview [12] which essentially said that Reagan was deliberately kept out of the loop during his first years of the presidency by his own cabinet because he himself did not know where he stood on his own policies. For example, one example Stockman gave was a "test" he gave to Reagan in 1981 in regards to the budget cuts which asked him to cut funding for social programs such as welfare and SS. In his words, Reagan "failed" the test as he couldn't bring himself to cut anything. He dozed off during meetings and had to be trained by Stockman to know "where to stand" on his platform.
I think this deserves a mention but its worthy to note that virtually no one (that I know of) countered Stockman's claims at the time.--MarshallBagramyan 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done Hi. Thank You for your comments. I really do not think the David Stockman thing is worth mentioning, because I don't think that it's very important, and is worthy of going into Reagan's article, but I did it anyway for a neutral point of view. Plus, it's a proven fact that Reagan did not fall asleep in cabinet meetings (see James Baker if you disagree). If you disagree, please respond to this, or drop me a line. Happyme22 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Conditional support - I think the article can do much better if there are even more citations (esp. for a 110kb article and provide publication info, details such as ISBN and page numbers) and if most of the spelling and grammar are fixed but I'm satisfied with its current status.--MarshallBagramyan 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support There have been quite a bit of objections, but if you look at the article, almost everything that people objected to has been fixed (see above, or the article), either by myself, of another editor. Again, I think it's ready to go into the Featured Article list. Happyme22 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You have already supported - we know your position - please do not stuff the virtual "ballot box" or consensus-cluster. Thanks. Awadewit 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)This is the third Support registered by Happyme22. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Additional objection - I'll make my comments about meta-issues on this page, but most of the {fact} tags in the article speak for themselves. I don't want to clog up this FAC by listing all the things here, but if you have any questions about them, let me know here. Savidan 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Savidan. Its nice to talk to you again. I've fixed three out of five [citation needed] tags. I was not the one who added a lot of the uncited info. I've already tried looking for a source about the Iran-Contra is the 9th worst mistake thing, and I can't find one. Should I just delete it? Happyme22 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You'll have to use your own judgement on that one. But simply to delete the poorly cited sections will not improve the article in the long-term or satisfy Featured-Article-level completeness. Savidan 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support The Reagan autobiography is a reliable source. Reagan was an honest and sincere person the the point of being labeled "an amiable dunce." Reagan in his autobiography actually disproves other false claims made about Reagan, such as the suggestion that he destroyed USSR as some sort of Godzilla-type neo-con. Reagan reveals himself to be firm yet very willing to use diplomacy which led to a peaceful end of the Cold War (as stated in this article) and not the phony claim that he made it explode.
And the conservative neo-cons would never want you to know that Reagan favored abolishing nuclear weapons. This is favorable yet honest article, and I must say a great article. It is more honest and complete than much else.
The failings of the Reagain autobiography is what he leaves out; not what he put in. It was mainly written from his diary and ghost authored by a reported for the New York Times. There is no mention of the increased pollution or the political favors for his donors, which every elected candidate is forced to do to keep power. That's the dirty aspect of all politics, and Reagan pretty much removed himself from the patronage aspects. Also, Reagan was very tough on the poor - specifically the able-bodied. His biographer Richard Reeves said that Reagan felt bad for the poor but said it was of their own doing. Reagan optimistically believed in individual initiative as the best way to handle economic issues, which is covered in this article, and said that people should pull themselves up by their boostraps.
Other than those nuances, I cannot think of anything missing or false in this article. This voting for the Discovery Channel rating Reagan the Greatest President ever was suspect. The descriptions of the other nominiees were not always fair. For example, FDR's description made NO reference at all the World War II. The vote count was not audited and then Technically Lincolns still could have been named #1 depending on how you counted the multiple vote process. But this is standard hyping, such as that which followed the death of Kennedy.
Under a differ IP address, I previously ruthlessly edited out the fake stuff. This is now a good acticle. I have read several Reagan biographies and believe this article to be reasonable.
- This support was registered by the same IP that registered a previous comment above, that was changed to a Support by Happyme22. [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I, Happyme22, did not change this to a support. The author, whomever it might be, listed it as support. Happyme22 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Correct (as I stated); you changed the earlier one. In either case, that results in two Supports from the IP, and several from you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- First, it is immaterial whether or not Reagan or his ghostwriter was honest in the autobiography. It is extremely difficult to figure out the political agenda behind an autobiography; you could easily fall into the trap of repeating propaganda. That is why scholarly sources, which are more objective, are desirable. Your own statements support this view; you list examples of what has been intentionally left out of the autobiography to make Reagan look better.
- This is far from a great article and there are numerous POV problems, such as this statement: preserved the core New Deal safeguards (such as the SEC, FDIC, GI Bill and Social Security) while rolling-back the excesses of 1960s and 1970s liberal policies. Since this article is the very first article that comes up on a google search for Reagan, it must be superb and very carefully researched; this is supposed to be a featured article, that is, wikipedia's best, after all. Awadewit 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ballot-stuffing? Am I reading incorrectly, or has HappyMe registered three Supports? PLEASE send this article to peer review to adequately prepare it for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I, Happyme22, have only registered one support. The other two that are not signed are by two users without a username. They used their IP addreses, and did't sign it, for some reason, with four tildes. You can even check out the history to see that I am not lying. -- Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Diffs from history are provided throughout; all Support votes come from you and one IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Considering about what has been said above, I think one of the most important things this article fails to state is how Reagan was found by the Iran-Contra Select Senate Committee did not "faithfully execute" his role in office during the scandal. The fact that his administration unilaterally circumvented Congress' Boland Amendment and raised non-federal funds to supply and aid the Contra rebels that they themselves had created is one of the most glaringly obvious items that is missing from the article. Something like this some people would consider as a subversion of checks and balances is worthy of mention but I feel this article simply relegates all of the "Criticism" to the bottom of the page. I share much of Awadewit sentiments.--MarshallBagramyan 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be glad to put that in if you (or anyone else) can find a reliable source for it. I've looked for things about Iran-Contra, and I know that to be true, but I can't put it in without a source. Find me a source, and I'll put it in. About the "Criticism" section: Many of the criticisms listed there do not pertain to anything in article (i.e. Some Jewish Leaders criticised Reagan about his laying a wreath at a cemetery where Waffen SS Soldiers were buried-where would that go?). Many of the criticisms were moved from the criticism section into their correct places (i.e. the economic criticisms were put into the "Reaganomics and the Economy" section). I understand what you guys mean when you are talking about POV issues, but we can't portray Reagan in a negative way either, and I feel that that is what many of you is trying to do. I don't see a lot of POV problems, yet many of you are trying to say that there are, and I just don't see it. Give me some specific examples, and I'll see what I can do. Again, whether I agree with you, or not, thanks for your comments. -- Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have never removed an FAC before, but I am to the point of removing this nomination as a flagrant abuse of process, considering that all of the Support registered above appears to come from the same source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I explained to you- I am not the one writing all of the supports! Check out my IP address, and check out the editing history! Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note to Sandy If you feel it's an abuse of process Sandy, I'd recommend you report it to Raul who can take the appropriate action in his position of Featured Article Director. As concerns this being referred to peer review, as far as I'm aware it actually was in its first FAC (albeit for all of 5 minutes)? That peer review shouldn't have been closed, and this FAC is too premature definitely. LuciferMorgan 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned; the diffs show where the Support votes come from, and Raul will deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am the one who changed my own comment from "comment" to "support." Happyme22 did not change it. I am supporting this article. I also made several picky attacks on the article, which means that the main points are sound. I picked at the hype after Reagan's death and the patronage, which is common for any president. FDR's patronage was legendary. JFK is was probably the most hyped president ever after his death. I am honest and saying that the Discover Channel poll is hype, but the rest of the article looks good. It dishes out plenty of criticism. This is really good work!
- [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Iran Contra I think there should be criticism but be reasonable. FDR also pushed the limits of the law in his escalating war against Hitler. FDR by law was allowed only to defend US ships and shipping in a neutrality zone around North America, yet he stretched the Neutrality Zone to almost all the way to Ireland. His sparring with Hitler in the North Atlantic is well documented in the book Hitler versus Roosevelt and The Undeclared War, as well as the Pulitzer Prize-winning Freedom From Fear. Are we going to grill FDR in his article? And then Roosevelt goaded Japan into attacking in the Pacific by cutting off their oil. He did NOT know about an attack on Pearl Harbor, but he and the top military leaders knew the Japanese armada was heading to Southeast Asia and were bracing for an imminent attack in Indonesia. FDR's advisor told FDR that they should attack Japan first in self defense of Phillipines, but FDR said, "We have maneuver them into firing the first shot." So Reagan's sin is minor compared to that, not to mention that Teddy Roosevelt stold Panama from Columbia so he could build his canal. And how about all the other interventions in Central America that nobody knows about by Eisenhower and Nixon, such as Guatamala and Chile. Criticize Reagan but please be reasonable. Iran Contra was slightly overhyped. I would say the current Bush has much more to worry about.
I just want to clarify that I am not ballot stuffing for Happyme22. I have never written anything at this page under a different name. I'm sorry that I do not have a user name.
- Oppose.
- The lead is not an adequate summary of the article, nor is it compelling or brilliant. (See WP:LEAD.)
- The article size is 58KB of readable prose; it could probably benefit from better use of summary style (see WP:LENGTH.
- Section headings need work: for example, "Reaganomics" and the economy could be just "Reaganomics".
- Section headings don't conform to WP:MSH; for example, The Judiciary and The Close of the Reagan Era.
- Several sections of the article are listy and should be converted to compelling prose.
- Per Jimbo, criticism sections should be avoided, and balanced into the overall text. (Besides, the heading is POV: what is criticism to one is praise to another.) See Wikipedia:Criticism
- Scandals and controversies is a two-sentence section. Besides, one of the sentences uses incorrect bolding and has convoluted prose (The Reagan administration saw several controversies unfold in their ranks which resulted in a number of administration staffers being convicted.)
- Positioning two images across from each other squeezes the text between them. Prose is choppy; there are one and two-sentence paragraphs throughout.
- Legacy is one of the shorter sections: you must be kidding.
- Trivia has no place in an encyclopedia; usable facts from that section should be woven into the article as compelling prose.
- See also needs trimming; much of it can be, should be, or may already be linked into the article.
- Footnotes need massive amounts of work; there are newspaper articles with no titles or authors (how are we supposed to find them in a library?), blue links with no publisher info or last access date (and author and publication date when available), and named refs aren't correclty employed.
- It doesn't seem likely that all the sources listed are actually used in the article.
- For a biography of a recently-deceased public figure, the article is undercited.
- Dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly (please read WP:DASH).
- Wikilinking is inadequate and needs sustained attention.
- Mixed references styles, based on a missing reference—for example, we find Harvard style inline references (LaFeber 2002, 332) in addition to cite.php, but the LaFeber source is never specified.
- The section Supreme Court Appointees (should appointees be capped there?) is nothing more than a short list, not warranting its own section unless there is some discussion.
All of these should be fixed (in addition to diversifying the sources used, as mentioned by Aradewit); then the article should be submitted for another peer review (which typically takes at least a month), then seriously copyedited, and then it should come back to FAC to see if it has captured the essence of the man. With all of these structural deficiencies, it's doubtful the article does justice to the man. Please don't just fix these items listed and mark done—that won't do it; the article is not ready for FAC, and needs extensive work, including diversification of sources, summarizing, and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank You for your comments. I'll try to fix a much as I can. Happyme22 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Happyme22, I think you are missing the point. This page needs to be revised (in some places radically). You need to take time to think about it and carefully rework it. Good writing takes time. If, as you say on your userpage, Ronald Reagan is your hero, you should want this page to be truly excellent. Please take the time to make it that way. A good example of a section that is in serious need of radical revision is the "Invasion of Grenada" section. It is only a description of the military action. It does not explain the real reasons that the United States invaded nor the worldwide outrage (Thatcher was even opposed). You have said that you have an excellent source for that section but most of it is copied from the wikipedia page on the invasion. That does not fill reviewers with confidence and the POV clearly present in that section is highly problematic. This is just one example. Awadewit 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree in principle; the article is already too long, and makes use of (and needs to make better use of) summary style. An article about Reagan needs to discuss the Invasion of Grenada as relevant to the man, but is not about the invasion of Grenada; that should be covered in the main article, employing summary style (which the article currently attempts to do). One aspect of an 8-year presidency, governship, radio and entertainment career doesn't get undue weight in an article; that's where summary style comes in. That isn't to say that what is there now is necessarily adequate, but in general terms, the article should not give undue weight to any one issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was a major military action that was condemned around the world. I don't think that spending a few paragraphs on it is out of line. The way to fix the problem is to cut down on the military details that are there now and to expand the other aspects. Awadewit 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the current amount of "space" devoted to the topic is out of proportion; my point is that what is there should discuss the topic as relevant to Reagan, and not expand to cover the entire issue, which should be done in the Invasion article. What is there now doesn't establish much relevance to Reagan. This is probably true in sections throughout the article, since the article is in dire need of lots of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was a major military action that was condemned around the world. I don't think that spending a few paragraphs on it is out of line. The way to fix the problem is to cut down on the military details that are there now and to expand the other aspects. Awadewit 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree in principle; the article is already too long, and makes use of (and needs to make better use of) summary style. An article about Reagan needs to discuss the Invasion of Grenada as relevant to the man, but is not about the invasion of Grenada; that should be covered in the main article, employing summary style (which the article currently attempts to do). One aspect of an 8-year presidency, governship, radio and entertainment career doesn't get undue weight in an article; that's where summary style comes in. That isn't to say that what is there now is necessarily adequate, but in general terms, the article should not give undue weight to any one issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Happyme22, I think you are missing the point. This page needs to be revised (in some places radically). You need to take time to think about it and carefully rework it. Good writing takes time. If, as you say on your userpage, Ronald Reagan is your hero, you should want this page to be truly excellent. Please take the time to make it that way. A good example of a section that is in serious need of radical revision is the "Invasion of Grenada" section. It is only a description of the military action. It does not explain the real reasons that the United States invaded nor the worldwide outrage (Thatcher was even opposed). You have said that you have an excellent source for that section but most of it is copied from the wikipedia page on the invasion. That does not fill reviewers with confidence and the POV clearly present in that section is highly problematic. This is just one example. Awadewit 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Object. Many problems in this article.
- Let's start from the lead. Why six paragraphs, some of which stubby? And is this "Reagan is credited with restoring America's power and prosperity " generally acceptable?
- Stylistic problems: You wikilink single years, something not recommended by WP:MoS.\
- "In 1989, after leaving office, Reagan was contacted by the producers of the Back To The Future film trilogy about taking the role of the mayor of the fictional town of Hill Valley, "Mayor Hubert" in the third installment. According to Reagan's agent Lew Wasserman, he contemplated taking the role before eventually turning it down." Citation?
- "Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are."[cite this quote]" Tagged for citing.
- In "Governor of California, 1967-1975" you mention nothing about how and why he was chosen by the Republicans as their candidate.
- "Poor management of expectations". What does this mean?
- "This economic growth generated greater tax revenue, although the new revenue did not cover an increased federal budget that included the military buildup and expansions of social programs, in violation of the doctrine of fiscal conservatism. The result was greater deficit spending and a dramatic increase in the national debt, which tripled in unadjusted dollar terms during Reagan's presidency. The U.S. trade deficit expanded significantly, particularly with buoyant Japan." These aggregate feautures are also uncited.
- I see a couple of [citation needed]s that should be fixed.
- "most of these nominations were not controversial, although a handful of candidates were singled out for criticism by civil rights advocates and other liberal critics, resulting in occasional confirmation fights." Vague and uncited.
- "According to several scholars and Reagan biographers, including Paul Lettow (Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), John Lewis Gaddis (The Cold War: A New History), Richard Reeves (President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination), Lou Cannon (President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime), and Reagan himself in his autobiography, Ronald Reagan quietly worked to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war and earnestly desired the abolition of all nuclear weapons." Vague references. Pages? And why not cited properly like all the other citations?
- "In his autobiography An American Life, Reagan earnestly wrote, "The Pentagon said at least 150 million American lives would be lost in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union - even if we 'won.' For Americans who survived such a war, I couldn't imagine what life would be like. The planet would be so poisoned the 'survivors' would have no place to live. Even if a nuclear war did not mean the extinction of mankind, it would certainly mean the end of civilization as we knew it. No one could 'win' a nuclear war. Yet as long as nuclear weapons were in existence, there would always be risks they would be used, and once the first nuclear weapon was unleashed, who knew where it would end? My dream, then, became a world free of nuclear weapons....But for the eight years I was president I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind." Again not properly cited. Page?
- "End of the Cold War" is the first section where the prose is starting to get worse, listy. WHy all these one-sentence paragraphs?
- "As a politician and as President, he portrayed himself as being." He portrayed himself where and how? anysources? And why isn't this section proper prose?
- "Policies and decisions" is listy and uncited. Reagen "is credited" by whom? Because of the lack of sources, this section could be regarded as POV.
- "Scandals and controversies" is stubby and uncited.
- The first three paragraphs of "Post presidential years, 1989-2004" are undercited.
- Poor listy prose and one-sentence paragraphs in "Religious beliefs".
- Is his legacy only what Richard Reeves says?! A poor "legacy" section for such an important and controversial personality. Under-developped and not properly worked.
- "Facts and Trivia" in a FAC?! No!!!
- And what is this long "See also" section with articles already linked within the main text. It needs cleaning and trimming.
- Where are the pages from the printed sources you cite, such as "Cannon, Lou (2001). "Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio"?
Many many problems. I don't know how all this could be fixed. And another problem of me is that not even the peer-review's suggestions have been implemented. For istance, Awadewit correctly proposed: "Might you integrate the "Criticism" into the appropriate sections of the chronology, such as the Iran-Contra Scandal and the S&L Crisis, rather than relegating it to a list-like section at the end." Why isn't that done? Another correct remark by Awadewit not fixed: "Why are the bulk of your references from Reagan's autobiography? Autobiographies are notoriously unreliable. Since the page has such a long list of sources, I would have expected those sources to be used. Also, you need to cite more extensively throughout the piece, particularly when you say "some people" or "there is dispute". Maybe the last proposal has been partially implemented but not thoroughly. ANd a final remark of mine: I'm also a bit concerned about the structure; 19 subsections in section 6? Does this huge number of subsections constitute proper structure?--Yannismarou 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Advice TakenIt sounds like we should resubmit this article for featured status in two months after improving the citations. Do keep in mind that this article is MUCH better than it was six months ago and better than many other entries for other presidents. I think the overall story told is accurate and excellent. I will take some time to work on this article. I am one of the authors who improved it from the dribble it was a few months ago. I am one of the main authors of the introduction. I will start by citing the sections that need it, such as the reference to opposition to nuclear war. Some quick comments: the sentence about Reagan restoring America is so widely agreed upon that it would be impossible to cite an "expert" on this. This is simply a fact, and the fact that Reagan won a massive landslide reelection and remains highly popular among Americans means that this is a concensus of We the People. (It's unfortunate that we could now use another Reagan to restore America's position in the world following this Bush fiasco). As you can see, I am not a partisan conservative. I am not a Reagan worshipper. Instead, I am a history buff, and I think the overall theme of this article is very fair and good. Despite the huge Reagan deficits, the economic period following Reagan until today has better than it has ever been. Nobody would ever have ever thought that under 5% unemployment would be achievable without inflation. Other than the New Deal, Reagan had the biggest impact of any president on economics. Prior to Reagan, the West was plagued with both unemployment and inflation. In the United Kingdom this resulted in heavy problems, calls for anarchy from punks, major heroine problems, etc. History shows the changes to have been the right changes.
Recommended Authoritative Books for References:
Cannon: President Reagan the Role of a Lifetime Cannon: Governor Reagan Matlock: Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended Reeves: President Reagan, Triumph of Imagination Reagan: An American Life Reagan: In His Own Hand Tygiel: Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of Conservatism Diggins: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History Gaddis: The Cold War LeFeber: America, Russia and the Cold War Powaski: The Cold War Oberdorfer: From the Cold War to a New Era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.96.105.74 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 March 2007
- Please sign your entries by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your posts. Improving the citations alone will not be enough for this article to become featured, and being ready in a few months doesn't seem doable. If editors are serious about improving this article, I suggest the following:
- Work on some of the suggestions above
- Then, submit to a lengthy peer review
- Then submit to WP:GAC
- Then submit to another peer review, allowing enough time for it to run
- Finally, consider for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have come to the realization that you guys are right: I nominated Ronald Reagan's article, but I guess it's just not good enough. I'll try my best to undergo a lot of the recommendations listed above, and talk with other Wikipedia editors. Again, I think everyone here want's Reagan's article to be a FA, but it does take time. I just wanted to let you all know that I am grateful for the constructive criticism, and, hopefully, we can all work together. Also, I was the won who added a massive expanision to the Presiency section. Yes, like everything else, it needs work, but It's a lot better than before. Again, thanks for the opportunity, but I guess it's not the right time. I am setting a goal: we get Ronald Reagan's article to the featured list by the end of 2007. I think it's achievable. Again, I thank you. -- Happyme22 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.
Moscow edit
My reason for nominating this article is:
- a. I believe it meets the FA criteria.
- b. It has been included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection.
- c. WikiProject Echo has identified Moscow as a foreign language featured article.
- d. WikiProject Russia has rated it A Class on the Assessment scale.
- e. It has gone through a peer review. --Hirakawacho 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- oppose Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png is replaceable fair use that is not substantially important to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removing Done --Hirakawacho 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removing
Opposefor the following reasons...- There uncited statements that need to be resolved in the "Sports" and "Leisure and entertainment" sections.
- "Sports" section there are citations. "Leisure & Entertainment" can't find citations. --Hirakawacho 12:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the wording and found a suitable citation for the last {{cn}} tag (regarding Tretyakovsky Proyezd) Done. Caknuck 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Caknuck for finding citation for Leisure and entertainment section. --Hirakawacho 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the wording and found a suitable citation for the last {{cn}} tag (regarding Tretyakovsky Proyezd)
- "Sports" section there are citations. "Leisure & Entertainment" can't find citations. --Hirakawacho 12:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The "Real Estate and Neighborhoods" section has a number of unnecessary <br /> tags. The opening sentence in this section reads "The Moscow real estate has been increasing a lot the latest years.", which seems awkward, even when you interject "market" in there.
- Removed <br /> tags & removed intro sentence (can't think of another one). Done. --Hirakawacho 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removed <br /> tags & removed intro sentence (can't think of another one).
- The "Moscow tourist attractions" section is a bit of a mess. There's already a link to List of Moscow tourist attractions, so another, similar and barely-formatted list is redundant here.
- Replaced with: see List of Moscow tourist attractions Done. --Hirakawacho 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)--Caknuck 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replaced with: see List of Moscow tourist attractions
My vote is now Support Caknuck 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Big mess in the tourist attractions section, image gallery should be at the end of the article, if included at all. Still needs some work to get to FA Class. --[|K.Z|] T • V •
C 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removed the gallary as it was not appropriate having an image gallery in the article. Done. --Hirakawacho 12:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removed the gallary as it was not appropriate having an image gallery in the article.
- I have done what you asked now change your vote to support. --Hirakawacho 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Object. Quite a few paras without inline citations at all. Also, I wonder if A-class status is appopriate if the article has skipped GA step? I see no A-class review or comments on the talk page, neither.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't find citations. Done. --Hirakawacho 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't find citations.
- What's done? I see no improvement, there is still a lot of unreferenced information.
Not done -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) - If you can't find references please contact the person who made those additions for a source. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What's done? I see no improvement, there is still a lot of unreferenced information.
- What is ment by "Also, I wonder if A-class status is appopriate if the article has skipped GA step?". The Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and Template:Grading scheme state explictly that "being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class." And the Good Article Critera suggests that for longer article trying for featured article criteria are more appropriate than the ones listed there. - Waza 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Favor Article is comprehensive and meets the criteria. --Julian (http://beautifulrecords.org/) 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Favor Superzohar
Talk 20:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
_-_location_and_watershed.svg){kind=link}
- Comment Hirakawacho, canvassing and spamming other users with notice of an FAC is usually considered bad form. 125.229.98.248 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank goodness FA really isn't a vote, or more people would be tempted. Remember folks, it doesn't matter how many supports you get, as long as there's a single object with a good reason, you're not getting featured. You're far better off fixing the complaints than trying to get people to support you. Fieari 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Object As above, and also it's a bit too long, and could use some splitting off into sub articles per Summary Style. Fieari 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Opinion; refusing summary style. Done. --Hirakawacho 12:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- My objection stands. Summary style is not optional, it's a wikipedia standard. I cannot support without it. Fieari 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide relevant rule. --Hirakawacho 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- My objection stands. Summary style is not optional, it's a wikipedia standard. I cannot support without it. Fieari 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Opinion; refusing summary style.
- Objection: I put a good amount of work into this article during the summer of 2006, but the article is far from being featured. I had given up on trying to improve the article, for various reasons, and I don't think anyone has since put some effort into taking care of the rest. The prose is far from compelling in many locations – "Primary industries in Moscow include the chemical, metallurgy, food, textile, furniture, and machinery industries.", "1.73 million are employed by the state, 4.42 million are employed by private companies, and 1.99 million are employed by small businesses.", "It is now a more fashionable area than it was before and home to embassies and the Moscow Zoo." There are also large portions of the article without inline citations. Please think twice before adding the {{done}} template below my objection; it would take an act of nature to address the serious issues with this article in a short period of time. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great article. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong object. There are too many paragraphs without references. And you can't just add a {{done}} template to this with the justification that you can't find any sources. If a claim cannot be corroborated by any source then you have to assume it's untrue. Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Carabinieri 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which Paragraphs and I will add Done wherever I want to! --Hirakawacho 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which Paragraphs and I will add
- Besides I have not seen citations in Encyclopedia Brittanica? --Hirakawacho 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- All paragraphs that have claims that could be challenged, which are not cited. Unlike Brittanica, it just happens to be Wikipedia's policy for articles to cite sources. Adding {{done}} templates under all oppose statements even if the issues raised have yet to be addressed is misleading.--Carabinieri 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is so strict. --Hirakawacho 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, such a policy is necessary. Otherwise anyone could just add false, but credible information to articles.--Carabinieri 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is no necessity to add sources for trivial things that constitute common knowledge such as Moscow is the capital of Russia or that it is locates in East Europe. Anyway I think you can find the proof for most statements in the article simply following the existing links.--Dojarca 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, such a policy is necessary. Otherwise anyone could just add false, but credible information to articles.--Carabinieri 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is so strict. --Hirakawacho 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Problems with the pictures used in the article. There's a remnant of one that was deleted. I just tagged three as replaceable copyrighted images. Several have watermarks in the images, which doesn't comply with WP:IUP. ShadowHalo 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Attribution is a core policy, and shouldn't be substituted with common knowledge, especially not for featured articles. In case you see that the existing references also verify other facts, please provide them there as well. Right now the article is filled with unreferenced paragraphs and sections (e.g. Real estate and neighborhoods, Government) and I don't see it getting near FA unless criteria 1c is met. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose There are several unreferenced sections in this article. For example, a reference (or two) needs to be provided for these statements:
Izmaylovskiy Park created in 1931 is one of the largest parks in the world. Its area of 15.34 km² is 6 times greater than that of Central Park in New York.
- This statement is already sourced in the article.--Dojarca 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- and prose is poor in some areas. Here's an example (both from the Parks and Landmarks section) :
Sokolniki Park, which got its name for famous falcon huntings occurred here in the past, is one of the oldest in Moscow and with area of 6 square kilometres four times greater than London's Hyde Park. From a central circle with a large fountain radiate birch, maple and elm alleys. Farther, after the Deer ponds, there is a labyrinth, composed of green paths.
- I recommend a thorough copyedit and referencing. CloudNine 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very Good Article Flubeca 01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Section headings need WP:MSH attention, references aren't even vaguely correctly formatted, External links could be pruned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Primal (video game) edit
I've nominated the article because I think it have a lot of information about characters and the locations where the game takes place. And it is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable - which means, it meets the requirements of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.Cheat2win 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Please read the criteria page fully. No references, no fair use rationales, fair use galleries... This is not even close. --- RockMFR 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose well written, nope - "The richly developed demon realms give the scenery the effect of being important"
- comprehensive, nope - Where's the reception section? Where's the gameplay section?
- factually accurate, nope - there are 0 references
- neutral, nope - "action scenes with dramatic and well timed background."
- stable, I'll give you this one
- Also a trivia section, no fair use rationales, insufficient lead sized lead, insufficient sized history section, a section with five words etc etc. M3tal H3ad 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment. No fair use rationales are provided for any of the images. There are also large galleries of 'fair use' images that need to be removed or justified as to how they fit with wikipedia's fair use policy: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. ". —JeremyA (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, lacks a references section. PhoenixTwo 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a references section. Cheat2win 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object:
Severe fair use policy violations, both in terms of number of images and fair use rationale, contains a trivia section, contains a section for the sole purpose of stating the tagline, references are not formatted properly, does not contain enough out-of-universe information, most notably a Development or History section.Actually, looking at the references you added, almost the entire article was a copyright violation. Article is now a stub. Pagrashtak 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) - Oppose. With the removal of the copy-vio material, the article is simply a stub. -- Pastordavid 17:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per the WP:COPYVIO problems. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Duh.