Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2012

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

November 2012 edit

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 by GrahamColm 09:44, 29 November 2012 [1].

Cher edit

Nominator(s): Lordelliott (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on it for weeks and I finally feel it deserves the bronze star. It is complete, objective, factually accurate (300 notes, 10 references), neutral, well-illustrated, comprehensive, has an appropriate structure and consistent citations. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. Lordelliott (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation the article features many sentences that are long lists of items. This makes for very tiresome reading, and more often than not can be excised without the article really losing anything. Examples, quoting from the article:

  • Academy Award, a Grammy Award, an Emmy Award, three Golden Globe Awards, and the Best Actress Award
  • "Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)", "Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves", "Half-Breed", "Dark Lady", "Take Me Home", "I Found Someone", "If I Could Turn Back Time", "The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss)", and "Strong Enough
  • Carol Burnett, George Burns, Glen Campbell, Tony Curtis, Bobby Darin, Phyllis Diller, Farrah Fawcett, Merv Griffin, The Jackson 5, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ronald Reagan, Burt Reynolds, The Righteous Brothers, Dinah Shore, Sally Struthers, The Supremes,[45] Teri Garr, Chuck Berry, and Dick Clark
  • Pat Boone, David Bowie, Ray Charles, Steve Martin, Tina Turner, Dion, Wayne Newton, Linda Ronstadt, Lily Tomlin, Frankie Valli, Tatum O'Neal,[66] Raquel Welch, Wayne Rogers,[63] and Labelle
  • Frankie Avalon, Muhammad Ali, Raymond Burr, Ruth Buzzi, Charo, Barbara Eden, Neil Sedaka, Farrah Fawcett, Bob Hope, Don Knotts, Jerry Lewis, Tony Orlando, The Osmonds, Debbie Reynolds, The Smothers Brothers, Tina Turner, Twiggy, and Betty White.
  • Beyoncé,[271] Boney M,[272] Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Meat Loaf,[273] Captain & Tennille, Carpenters, Eurythmics, Marilyn McCoo & Billy Davis Jr.,[274] Chrissie Hynde,[275] Christina Aguilera,[276] Eros Ramazzotti,[277] Helena Vondráčková,[278] Jennifer Lopez,[279] Kelly Osbourne,[280] Lady Gaga,[281] Madonna,[282] Pink,[218] and Tina Turner

What is the " Berman & Napsha 2001" ref supposed to link to?—indopug (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, maybe with the exception of the guests lists of her 1970s shows, that those lists are relevant to the article. The first one denotes an achievement of hers, since she's the only person in history to receive all of these awards. The second is a mere list of her biggest hits—it appears in many music biographies which are FA—, and the last is a list of people who were influenced by her and her work. Should I delete the guest-stars lists?
Corrected the Berman reference. Lordelliott (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely remove the guest-star lists, they are not relevant at all to her biography. The influenced-artist list is redundant to the four large paragraphs you spend talking about how all-encompassing her influence has been (can you imagine if the Beatles article were to list all acts inspired by them?).
Even apart from these, I think cuts would be beneficial to the article's readability (at nearly 13000 words, this article is even longer than Mitt Romney). For eg: the first paragraph of "1990s: Ups and downs". Since Cher has released so many successful singles, I think listing them out just because they managed to chart reasonably well is unnecessary. If somebody wanted to know about Cher's chart hits, I'd visit Cher singles discography.—indopug (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Moved the guest-stars lists to The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour page. I think the article is "long" because she has a six-decade career, but not overlong. However, I cut out the singles list on the first paragraph of "1990s: Ups and downs" and the influenced-artist list (replaced it with: She was credited by Chicago Tribune as "the person who paved the way for Madonna, Lady Gaga and many more."). Lordelliott (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on spending the last hour reading through this. It's a very interesting article in which you've obviously invested a lot of time and effort. Just a couple of suggestions though:
  • I swapped some refs round (133 and 121, and 140 and 5). It's probably not strictly necessary, but I think they look better if they appear in numerical order when together.
  • Abbreviations such as USO should appear in full, unless she is directly quoted as describing herself as "an unnamed entertainer with the USO". Even then the full name can appear afterwards in square brackets: "an unnamed entertainer with the USO [United Service Organizations]".
Having said that these are only minor points and shouldn't prevent this from being promoted. Good work. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment, leaning towards oppose – this article suffers from a similar problem to pages such as Mariah Carey and Lady Gaga. I feel that the biography section of the article has a lot of superfluous information and less important events are getting more emphasis, such as the school musical production she did. Other excess details are that such as "A re-released "Baby Don't Go" peaked at number eight on the Hot 100." Summary style should be practiced more effectively. And although I do agree that quotations from the artist and those associated with her bring the article to life, too much reduces the conciseness, making for boring reading. I think part of the Legacy section suffers from this. There lie also several prose inconsistencies, but in an article of this size, these are somewhat inevitable. In summary, focus trimming repetitive information and quotations, and excess coverage on less important things, such as single/song reception and information that does not have much relevance to Cher's overall life. Look for easy grammar fixes too, like "In a appearance". That's a starting point. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are "superfluous" information on the article. In fact, even though the article is considerably "long" due to her six-decade career, it is succint, considering that much more recent music acts (such as Britney Spears and Lady Gaga) have articles that are almost or as long as the Cher article. I think the musical producction she did when she was a child shows her early desire to be a star and where "it all" began. I also think the summary structury works well, as it shows her success in the three main areas of her career: music, TV and film. The Legacy sections focus on scholar comments about her work and influence; it contains only one quotation from a person associated with her (David Geffen).
As for the proses inconsistencies, I agree with you. I worked on it for a few weeks and, although english is not my first language, I tried to be as correct and clear as possible, but there are still some errors on it. Feel free to edit and correct. Lordelliott (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed the "In a appearance" issue and similar.Lordelliott (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will surely try to do as much as I can with regards to prose. OK, I can understand your reasoning for the musical info, after having reread that part. But perhaps please reduce the number of long quotations in the article. Otherwise, we get what's called a WP:QUOTEFARM. Every few sentences in the Early life section gives a full sentence quotation. I think the overdetailedness is found more so in the Career section, where there is excessive coverage on songs and chart accomplishments. Also, problems arise in the third paragraph in the Legacy section, in which almost every sentence has a long full-sentence quotation. When writing about a career this long, it's especially important to consider what's important to cover and discuss just that. Another approach is to see if the same information can be presented in less words. Try and eliminate redundancies and condense information. Also, use less specific critical opinions of songs, instead describing how they were generally received by the critics. On a different note, pay attention to stylistic errors: sentences with quotations must always be followed by a citation, and the manual of style discourages links inside quotes. Altogether, the article does not quite meet the standards of an FA biography, but you've done some excellent research. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done All the quotations are now followed by a citation. Lordelliott (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for presenting the same information in less words, eliminating redundancies and condensing information, is this what you are talking about? Also, I restructured the last two paragraphs of the Legacy section, removed some overdetailed chart performances and integrated some "specific" opinions into the text, giving it a more "general" approach. Lordelliott (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done All the links were replaced outside quotes (except in nine much-needed cases). Lordelliott (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to condense the information on the article, but I just realized that Mariah Carey's article, which is featured, is much longer—Carey began in 1988 and Cher in 1963. Honestly, I'm confused. Lordelliott (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful which FA you take as a model. Carey was promoted 6.5 years ago, and had its latest review five years ago. Standards have improved since then, although even version that passed the latest review was reasonably short. Clearly it has attracted a lot bulk since then.
I instead recommend the David Bowie article as a model. He shares several similarities with Cher (both are highly influential shape-shifting pop stars from the '60s who have worked extensively across media), yet his article is largely free of the chart minutiae that bogs down Cher's. Instead the article focuses on the qualitative/subjective aspects of his career; what kind of sound did he pursue on an album, why, what was his latest avatar, what inspired it... I feel the same can be done here too.—indopug (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking Mariah Carey's article as a model. It just happened to me that her article is much longer and, still, is a FA. Now that you have explained it, I clearly understand.
I think Bowie is a "conceptual" kind of artist, while Cher is a "charts" kind of artist. Bowie didn't have the same success on the charts that Cher enjoyed, purely because he was more focused on the concept of his albums, while Cher was focused on staying contemporary and appealing to a young audience by adapting her musical style—what, I think, is largely covered on the article. Also, the musical aspects of her albums are already being discussed on the "Musical style" section. Given that, I cut out some excessive chart information and now I think the reading is working well.Lordelliott (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to remark that I have cut out some more "excessive" information about chart performances and sales, replacing it with "subjective" aspects of her work. I tried to make a balance between it and her commercial performance in the "Career" section, even though the musical aspects of her work are already full-covered on the "Musical style" section. Said that, I think it's Done. Lordelliott (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what you said about the summary style, I wrote a new version of it. Lordelliott (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So here are the changes I made after the comments:
  • -12,228 bytes after trimming
  • Reduced the song mentions on the article to only her major hits
  • Summarized three of the four paragraphs on the "Legacy" section
  • New summary made after suggestions
  • All quotations are now followed by citations
  • Replaced links outside quotes
  • Summarized "Musical style" section
  • Removed excessive chart coverage
  • Reduced reviews in the "Career section" to a minimum (kept only five under the criteria)
Pendent: Prose inconsistencies. Since I'm not an English-native speaker, this is the best text I could write. I would like to have a help from the users on here.Lordelliott (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these are band articles and don't have to concern themselves with personal life info, but I like to recommend to people two FA rock band articles I've had a hand in, R.E.M. and Nirvana (band), as exemplars to follow. Both articles are very concise compared to this one while still being totally comprehensive. (To be fair, that's partly because both rely primarily on the many books available about these subjects--when someone else has done all the research already, it allows you to summarize more effectively). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the main point is that Cher is not only a musical artist—she's a media personality too. Sometimes her personal life attracted as much attention as her musical efforts. Given that, and the fact that Cher is primarily a "mainstream" artist who focus on chart success, I don't believe this article, R.E.M. and Nirvana (band) belong in the same category. Lordelliott (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can compare the way the articles cover their musical careers and musical styles, and in comparison the Cher article can be needlessly dense in places. You really need to summarize more effectively. Also, this article is overly reliant on album reviews (mainly Allmusic) for factual information. Stick mainly to books and new articles for facts, and reviews for the opinions expressed therein. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Summarized the "Musical style" section. Lordelliott (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While my initial concern is being taken care of, I would like to raise another major issue: the sourcing. There are some non-high quality reliable sources used here. For instance:
  • What are the author's editorial qualifications? What kinds of fact-checking are done? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make it necessarily a high quality source. This is a ticket broker site for Cher, and is not affiliated with her in any way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to use it for definitions, but what you've cited is a blog with an unnamed author for whom we do not know the qualifications. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Even though I think the article needs an explanation about the accute acent she used in her first albums (and this site is the only reliable and complete source I found on the web), I removed it. Lordelliott (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since those sites have essential information about her 1970s TV shows that can only be found in books that are currently unavailable on the web and are not used as sources to sales figures, I really don't see any problem. Lordelliott (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a celebrity gossip site. For one of the authors, Perricone, I found she wrote for New York Daily News and a few reputed magazines, but did not find anything on Scordo, the other co-author. omg! is a popular website, but what makes it reliable? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are some quick examples. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm afraid I cannot withdraw my "leaning towards oppose" quite yet. You've put in some hard work, but the article's writing isn't up to par. This is from the lead:

  • "...the latter of which has been known to induce controversy." – part of good prose, is presenting ideas concisely. "Has been known" is puffery. Get to the point: "the latter of which has induced controversy." Also, "induce" is moreover used in a positive context. "Caused" is much better.
  • Quotations always need a direct source, as is supposed to be the case here: "Cher came to proeminence in 1965 as one-half of the folk rock duo Sonny & Cher, which popularized a peculiar "smooth, warm" sound that competed successfully with the predominant British Invasion and Motown Sound of the era." And here: "At the same time, she established herself as a "serious rock and roller" by releasing a series of platinum-winning rock albums and hit singles such as 'I Found Someone', 'If I Could Turn Back Time', and 'The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss)'."
  • More reundancy here: "After a period in which the duo became outdated due to the rise of the drug culture". Also, what do you mean by "outdated"?
  • ...and here: "Throughout, she cemented her status as a fashion trendsetter with her daring outfits, and was noted as being the first woman to expose her navel on television." Also, "cemented her status" is too informal here.
  • The lead is meant to give a very brief overview of the article. Try to avoid specific critical opinions and quotations, although they cn sometimes work if they themselves help summarize.
  • Period should come after quotation mark: "...attitude[.]"
  • "she became one of the most acclaimed film actresses of that decade by starring in a string of hit films" – more informality "a string of".
  • Missing "the": "...which revolutionized recording industry because of its pioneer use of Auto-Tune (also known as the 'Cher effect')."
  • Avoid meaningless redundancies like "a series of" and "in history". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review. I fixed everything from the list. The only thing I kept is the specific critical opinions on the lead, since they show the influence of her work, rather than present her as just a girl who sold lots of records and won some awards. Lordelliott (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I thik some things in the lead are getting into a bit too much detail, such as Cher being the first woman to expose her naval on TV, as well as the Goldmine quotation. It's getting into more detail than what's needed. All the lead is supposed to give the reader is an understanding of what the article is about: who is Cher and what does she do. Also, I think neither "obsolete" and "outdated" work, but I'd pick the latter. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Substituted "obsolete"/"outdated" for "After the duo's success declined". Removed the "first woman to expose her navel on television" detail. As for the Goldmine quotation, I still think the lead needs a subtle approach on her impact at the time, as on the David Bowie and Madonna articles. Lordelliott (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - There are problems with the formatting of references, 66, 75, 77, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92, 95 96 and 108. And, Gracyk, King and Parish (2005) are not cited despite their being listed in the Bibliography. Problems with the prose are immediately apparent as in "Referred to as the Goddess of Pop for being an influential figure in popular culture, she is also known for continuously reinventing both her music and image—ensuring the longevity of her career—, her distinctive contralto and her outrageous imagery which have also been known to induce controversy." There is an emdash followed by a comma, a lack of parallel structure, and in the use of restrictive vs. non-restrictive clauses. There is lots of interesting and informative information here, but without more work towards a professional presentation, I can't see much hope in this candidate's prospects for promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed the problems with the formatting of refs. As I said, I worked on it for a few weeks and, although English is not my first language, I tried to be as correct and clear as possible, but there are still some errors on it. I would like to have a help from native English-speaking users to verify and correct the text I took so long to research and write. I believe that, with a help from other users, we can make the changes to promote it as a FA. Lordelliott (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the image licensing in this article is totally unacceptable. I take a fairly non-paranoid attitude towards copyright issues (I think!), but the claim that File:Sonny & Cher Show 1977.JPG is PD because it doesn't have a copyright tag on an ebay listing (posted by an account which gives no indication of being the original creator/owner of the image) seems highly questionable. Ditto File:Sonny and Cher David McCallum Man From Uncle 1967 Cropped.JPG, File:Cher Don Knotts Sonny & Cher Show 1976.JPG, File:Sonny & Cher 1973 Cropped.JPG, File:Sonny and Cher Sonny and Cher Show 1976.JPG, File:Farrah Fawcett Cher 1976.JPG - to sustain a claim that these images were released without any copyright notifications you need verifiable sources which trace directly back to their original owner (eg, if the images were released as part of a press pack which included a written copyright statement I imagine that copyright would still apply. File:Sonny-and-Cher.jpg is marked as copyright at its source on Flickr and isn't CC-BY as claimed (there's no indication on the Commons record of a CC-BY status being confirmed by an admin or trusted user at the time the file was uploaded). File:Sonny and Cher live 1971 Cropped.jpg has a copyright marking on the record company's logo (and Google states that it's 'copyrighted material', for whatever that's worth) so the claim that it was released free of a copyright declaration is questionable. File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (3).jpg and File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (2).jpg and File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (5).jpg need an ORTS release or similar as the screenshot provided doesn't verify the claim that they've been released under a CC license, though it appears likely to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed all the images with questionable licenses, except for File:Sonny-and-Cher.jpg because I remember it had a CC-BY status when it was uploaded. Lordelliott (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've struck my oppose. Due to my near total ignorance of this topic (and I don't like the Cher songs I've heard) I won't post a full review, but good luck. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Lordelliott (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Hi Lordelliott, I have come to weigh in my opinion as you have requested. Unfortunately, presently I cannot support the nomination as the article has some very outstanding issues remaining.

  • Prose - Just by looking at the lead
    • and self-actualization into entertainment industry -> the
    • and for having worked extensively across media -> as a third-party reader, this is very vague and I am not quite sure what you mean
    • Cher first caught the eye and ear of the public -> There's a plethora of more simple and adequate ways to say this
    • which popularized a peculiar smooth sound that competed successfully -> smooth sound? What? I have no idea what you're trying to describe
      • That's not me who's "trying to describe". It is according to ref 27. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • a period in which the duo became obsolete -> I don't think obsolete is the right word here. They are not machinery
    • which attained immense popularity -> This is very problematic. It borders with NPOV and OR. Who are we to measure immense popularity? Especially without sources.
      • Again, that's not me who's measuring "immense popularity". It is according to Cintra Wilson from Salon: "... in 1971, 'The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour' hit the small screen. Its success was enormous." Ref 31. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • which dealt with unusual subjects in mainstream popular music -> Maybe you mean subjects in culture? This should be clearer
    • she became one of the most acclaimed film actresses of that decade -> Whoa there. That is a strong statement. Where are references for this? This leads me to another issue; the validity of your claims. I looked into the article body, where you reference the above, and only found sources for certain awards. No critical commentary at all. This means it's just your own opinion. I think I made my point already that factually and grammar-wise, the article needs a lot of polishing.
      • According to ref 76 (http://dancemusic.about.com/cs/features/a/CherBackDean.htm). Actually, there's not a single information on the lead that isn't resourced on the body of the article. All of the other issues are done. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lordelliot, in a GA, About.com would pass muster, because depending on a case-by-case analysis, it can be reliable. However, in a potential FA, we look for high quality reliable sources, and About.com does not quite cut it. There have even been a few instances, where an About.com author has cited Wikipedia. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the remark. I'll replace the About.com references. Lordelliott (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References - Many issues. You have absolutely no consistency with them (not to mention many are incorrectly formatted).
    • Aside from the fact that several are questionable (in terms of their reliability), you choose to not list most publishers, only works. This would be technically acceptable if you were consistent. Also, the refs have no links to the works. They don't look very professional in any aspect.
      • In fact, I didn't have a good time with the refs format. I've checked several featured articles and every single one of them had a different way of formatting refs. So I decided to stick to the Reese Witherspoon's article "model". Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 16, Why is Allmusic in italics? Why do you list the Rovi Corporation in this one and not is the others?
    • What makes numbers 1, 3, 31, 66, 80, 96 etc. reliable?
      • All of them are reputed websites. What's the big deal? Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but in all honesty, this article is very under-prepared. I would suggest a strong copy-edit/revaluation of factual content, MOS checks, complete reformatting and structure of references, Peer-review and GA. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I surely agree with the copy-edit issue. English is not my first language, so I made what I could with my mid-level English skills. If you could help me with the copy-editing and prose issues, I would be very, very happy, because I've not been able to find any user. As for the "strong" statements on the lead, all of them are resourced on the body of the article. I can assure you "my opinion" isn't anywhere on it. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry man, but it seems you yourself really don't understand what makes an FA (at least others strive for it, you are simply lost). I'm trying to sound as polite about this as I can, but if you are not understanding what's wrong with the article, how can you fix it? It's going to take more than striking those few comments I made to make this FAC ready. Its a large article, with a boat-load of needs. Not only that, but you haven't really addressed any of my concerns :/ My Oppose stands and I really suggest you withdraw. It's far from FA material.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the biggest issue is that I'm not an English native-speaker user, so I always sound "unprofessional" when I discuss on here. Yes, I understand what makes a FA. I'm an user of Wikipedia in portuguese (my native language) since long time. Cher's article on the pt Wikipedia is featured because of my edits. But that's not the point. Your main issues are the validation of content, the reliability of the refs, the refs format and the prose. As for the first two "issues", these are actually not issues at all. All of the content presented on the article is referenced by reliable sources. The refs can be easily "re-formatted", but I would need a little help from other users. The main issue on here is the prose inconsistencies, but it is beyond my control. I would REALLY need the help from other users to fix it. I may sound "noob" or whatever, but I'm really into what makes a FA and I'm ready to make the changes neccessary to promote it. English is not my speciality, but all of the others main points (with the exception of ref formats) are ok. Lordelliott (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I'm not saying it should be promoted because I did "the best that I could". I'm just stating that the main points are done; what the article needs to be a FA is strong copy-edit and a "re-format" of refs. Copy-edit on an article that long may seem to be hard to do, but writing it was harder. Copy-edit is not something from another world. Lordelliott (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just reformatted and restructured all the references on article per your request. Also, I should say I took The Emancipation of Mimi as a model. As for the reliability of references
  • I appreciate the further work you've put into the article. I can see this soon being of GA quality. However, my Oppose still stands. While the references are looking much better, many are still deemed unreliable. Additionally, you seem to be confusing the "cite web" and cite news" formats for the references. Still, the prose need a lot of work. Before even GA, I would suggest a thorough copy-edit and PR. Due to the overwhelming work ahead, and the fact that this is becoming more like a Peer review, I must again suggest a Withdrawal. Keep it up, you're definitely getting closer. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your appreciation. I'd like it if you could point out the unreliable references, since all but two of the refs you questioned as unreliable before are reliable (and the two unreliable refs were removed). I'll be working on the formats for the refs and on the prose. Lordelliott (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remember, FAs represent Wikipedia's best work, so we require only the most reliable of sources. Here are handfuls. 1 (Yahoo biography is not a high quality source), 32 (I am not convinced at all), 46, 67 (I don't find this to be FA quality), as an example 64 and 82 should be using the cite news format (many have this error, 83 as well), 117, 137, 171, 207, 235, 237, 246, 275, 285, 286, and 287. Not forgeting that you still have major formatting errors and inconsistencies.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm working on the reliability of the refs right now. A few of the refs you mentioned are (in my opinion) reliable, but I'll do a little bit of research to be sure of this. I'm also working on the cite news/web formats. Aside from this, what major formatting errors and inconsistencies are you talking about? Lordelliott (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed and/or substituted all of the refs you've pointed out, except for those refs:
          • Salon is a well-known website and the journalist Cintra Wilson is reliable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
          • I don't know what makes this ref unreliable.
          • I also don't know what makes this book unreliable. It is not a self-published book.
        • By the way, I've also worked on the cite web/news issue. Lordelliott (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sheer volume of issues found here after the first Support declaration-- including sourcing issues-- it is apparent that the first Support should be disregarded as not engaging the criteria, this article should be withdrawn or closed and re-worked. After a month and a lengthy review, there is no support based on comprehensive review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see followup discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Maralia 04:22, 29 November 2012 [5].

She Has a Name edit

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have checked it against the FA criteria both by visually scanning the article and by using the featured article toolbox, and I believe that this article meets the criteria. Neelix (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comment -- Many of the paragraphs are very large. I would recommend you split them up for readability. Ruby 2010/2013 03:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have split up all of the largest paragraphs. I can split the paragraphs further if need be. Neelix (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignoring footnotes and references, this article (11677 words) is longer than fellow-FAC Mitt Romney (11380 words). Using WordCountTool.com—indopug (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that too long? If so, should part of the article be split off into a new article? I could create a subarticle about the 2012 tour. Neelix (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Incredible attention to detail. Very thorough. Meticulous sourcing throughout. Excellent structure with attention to flow and ease of readability for the visitor or editor. I would suggest cutting down the size of the lede/intro a bit, and also taking up the idea started above to split out some portions of the article into daughter articles with summary style (obviously keeping the sources) back at the main article. Other than that, wonderful efforts, extremely admirable. — Cirt (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement! I have reduced the size of the lead and have split off the information about the 2012 tour here. Neelix (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. I would suggest linking back to the parent article, from the daughter article. — Cirt (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the split positively affected the main article. I have placed staggered links to She Has a Name throughout 2012 tour of She Has a Name. Neelix (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby Please see WP:Overlink There appear to be about 100 duplicated links in the body of the article, excluding the lead, infoboxes, tables, image captions and footnotes, far more than I am prepared to list, and a clear breach of MoS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to remove duplicate links from the body of the article, but I am not sure where they are. Indopug has already gone through the article and reduced the number of such links. I am under the impression that a link is allowed to appear multiple times throughout an article so long as there is enough space between them for there to be only one link to a particular article on the screen at any given point. Have I misunderstood what constitutes overlinking? Neelix (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not what the overlink section says, and there are sometimes multiple links in the same section, I'll post the script on your talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing me with an overlinking-reduction script. I have used it and have removed all of the links that it highlighted. Neelix (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do a proper review, but I've a busy few days coming up since people keep sending me unsolicited work to do, so it may be some time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove more links. Premiere, Backstory, educate Canadians, raise awareness, Canadian lawyer. That's just in the lead. The same links are repeated throughout the article (which I've only glanced at). Also, the use of multiple references interspersed within a single sentence makes the text jarring. I'm surprised at the density of references within some of the passages, for example why aren't primary sources (the play itself) used within the plot summary? - hahnchen 03:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the links to the articles you mentioned, both in the lead and throughout the body of the article. The play itself is not used as a reference within the plot summary because the script has not been published; there are no primary sources for this article. I am not sure what to do about the multiple references used in certain sentences. I thought the density of references was a good thing, and I would be loathe to obscure the sourcing. What would you recommend? Neelix (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places where the same source is used multiple times in a row, just keep the last one. I'm also convinced that there are multiple places where you could have just used one source which covers the statement in its entirety, rather than splitting it up across multiple sources. "The premiere of She Has a Name was produced by Burnt Thicket Theatre, in partnership with Raise Their Voice, a creative, justice-driven, nonprofit organization in Red Deer." - Did you really require 4 different sources for that sentence? "Creative, justice-driven" seems weaselly. You can also move more of the references to the end of the sentence. - hahnchen 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the words "creative, justice-driven" and have reduced the number of citations in that sentence to two. I have also removed all of the citations that were included multiple times in a row. I am concerned that moving references to the end of a sentence will obscure which part of the sentence is sourced by which citation. Are there citations that I have not moved or removed that you believe should be? Neelix (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't need to italicize cast names in captions
  • A few of the captions could use editing for grammar and flow
  • Licensing is okay (though I don't have OTRS access). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have unitalicized the cast names and have corrected all the grammar and flow problems that I have been able to find in the captions. Please let me know if there are other such problems that I have not yet located. Neelix (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The "Plot summary", at 1700+ words, looks rather too long and overdetailed. I think you should look carefully at WP:PLOTSUM, in particular the stricture: "Do not attempt to recreate the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary". You should also look at the section entitled "What to cut". The first paragraph of your "plot summary" is more a discussion of the principal characters than part of a summary of the plot.
  • I have a few sources queries
  • Ref 21 http://www.100huntley.com/video?id=6VFfblaYp-k : There are 11 citations to this source, but it is unclear what is being cited here, as the source has very little text. Is it the video clip? If so, this needs to be made clear. You have used the cite journal template, which adds to the confusion.
  • Ref 45: The article text says: "The office of Joy Smith, Member of Parliament (MP) for Kildonan—St. Paul, released a statement endorsing She Has a Name and advertising the premiere" and cites this to http://hopeforthesold.com/she-has-a-name-a-play-about-human-trafficking/. What the source says is: "MP Joy Smith’s office just sent out an email with information about She Has a Name, a play about human trafficking". No mention of an endorsement.
  • I am a bit concerned that some of the sources may not pas the reliability test. Could you comment on the following:
  • Ref 13 Theatre in London
  • Ref 15 The Rusty Caravan
  • Ref 23 Gig City
  • Ref 20 et al Eye See Media
  • Ref 55 The Visitorium

Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have split the first paragraph of the "Plot summary" section off into a "Characters" section. I have also shortened the "Plot summary" section by removing statements evoking the emotional impact of the work. You are correct in asserting that the 100 Huntley Street source is a video clip; I have acted on your suggestion to recognize the source as such by using the "Cite video" template rather than the "Cite journal template". I have also reworded the sentence involving the office of Joy Smith to avoid suggesting that the office endorsed the premiere. I have reviewed your list of potentially unreliable sources and have removed all instances of those sources from the article, sometimes replacing them with other sources and sometimes simply removing the associated content. Thank you for doing so thorough a review of the article! Neelix (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good responses, but I think the plot summary could do with a little further work. There is repetitious prose: for example, the sentence "After spending a few months in one city, she would be moved to another to be prostituted there" more or less repeats what has been said in the previous sentence. I don't think you have removed all the "emotive" stuff (see, for example, the second paragraph). There is also production-related information, e.g. how the Skype conversations are presented. The statement that "the drama has a fast pace" is an opinion on the plot, not a part of it; likewise "the play ends in tragedy", etc. I think you have somewhat mixed the story itself with critical comments on the story. I would also like to know what a "john" is, as used in your text; informal language should be in quotes, and explained. There is no such word as "moreso"; I take it you mean "more so". Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have further shortened the plot summary as you have recommended; I have removed the repetitious prose you indicated, and have moved all the indicated portions of that section to more appropriate locations. I have reworded the article so as to avoid using the term "john". I have also fixed the spelling of "more so". Please let me know if you deem any further shortening of the "Plot summary" section necessary. Neelix (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reflinks

Found by BullGuard internet security program to be unsafe:
Dead:
Please consider replacements. Soerfm (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Strathmore Standard links; they are unnecessary as that newspaper is also in print form. I have also repaired the link rot for the Joy Smith link by adding a link to an archive of the page. Neelix (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs and content - I too am experiencing several inconsistencies with the sources. Many lack accessdate - 7, 21, 30, 31. Also, there seems to be a lot of over/under-linking in the references in regards to the works cited.

  • I also want to mirror above concerns over the sheer size of some of the sections; they come off as excessive and overly-detailed. The lead and review sections really need trimming.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have further shortened the lead section; please let me know if you believe it needs further trimming. What inconsistencies are you experiencing with the sources? I don't believe anyone has mentioned any such inconsistencies thus far in the discussion. The references you mention (7, 21, 30, and 31) are all off-line sources and therefore cannot have accessdate. What do you feel is overlinked or underlinked in the references? I was under the impression that references are like entries in sortable lists in that every instance of a term should be linked if that term is to be linked at all, but I will gladly remove the repeated links in the sources if I am mistaken on this point. You are the first user to suggest that the level of detail in the article is a bad thing; Cirt found the level of detail a very positive quality. For this reason, I am hesitant to remove valid, sourced information from the article. If there is concensus that the high level of detail is a bad quality rather than a good quality, I would be glad to reduce the level of detail. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, I could split off the reception information into a subarticle. Would you find that an agreeable solution? Neelix (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a few days without any movement in this discussion, so I have followed Cirt's suggestion above to create multiple daughter articles. There are now two daughter articles: 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name. I hope the additional split addresses your concerns regarding detail. Please let me know if they do not; I would be glad to split off another daughter article if that is deemed useful, and I would be glad to pursue other courses of action if there is concensus to do so. Neelix (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again. I still find some of the section too overly-detailed: You focus so much information on background info that can be shortened. I mean, the first paragraph of the "Background" section could be easily cut in half.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved half of the information in the first paragraph of the "Background" section to the Andrew Kooman article. I have also removed other background information about the people involved with productions of the play, moving the information to their articles. I hope I have removed excess detail to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is more information you believe should be moved to other articles. Neelix (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there are prose issues throughout, and polish is needed. There is too much detail in the lead. Many of the prose issues amount to unnecessary verbosity and overly complex phrases and run-on sentences. Sample from the lead:
  • The play was inspired by the Ranong human-trafficking incident in which 121 people were trafficked from Burma into Thailand and left in a water tank, which was then abandoned by its drivers, only to be discovered after 54 of the people in the container had died.
    • How about something along the lines of:
      • The play was inspired by the deaths of 54 people in the Ranong human-trafficking incident.
  • Kooman had previously written other pieces of literature that had been published, such as the young-adult novel Ten Silver Coins: The Drylings of Acchora, but this was his first full-length play.
    • This is the lead-- too much detail. HOw about something similar to:
      • Kooman had previously published literature, but this was his first full-length play.
  • She Has a Name makes use of five actors portraying a total of ten different characters.
    • A total of is almost always redundant, how about something like:
      • In the play, five actors portray ten characters.

There are additionally misplaced commas throughout, and redundancies (sample: After starting to write this play, Kooman read about the Ranong human-trafficking incident in a Canadian newspaper,[6] and also heard about it through a friend of his who was working at an aftercare centre in Bangkok,) ... of his is not needed, and this is a sample of what we encounter throughout ... awkward sentence structure of clause upon clause upon clause. I also suggest someone look closely at the sourcing (based on a recent DYK I reviewed by the same editor).

The prose is dense, verbose and unwieldy throughout; these are only samples. I suggest locating an independent copyeditor, and withdrawing the article for now. The best chance at success will be a new FAC after a thorough copyedit: I think the article needs to be rewritten because the prose is so rough to get through. I haven't looked at anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have simplified the lead as you suggested and have removed the misplaced commas throughout the article. I would be glad to follow your further advice to withdraw the article for now and to locate an independent copyeditor. How do I go about the withdrawal? I would also appreciate any help or advice you can offer in locating an independent copyeditor. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Maralia 23:23, 28 November 2012 [6].

Home (The X-Files) edit

Nominator(s): Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files, a television series known for regularly featuring demonic possession, supernatural monsters and the forces of the occult, certainly has some spooky episodes. But the installment widely cited as the scariest of them all is "Home", probably one of the most gruesome things ever broadcast by a major network. It features a lovely narrative centering on a clan of incestuous mutant serial killers. I am nominating this for featured article because after successively promoting an episode of the same series to FA, I believe this one meets the same criteria. It was copy-edited, A-Class nominated and is a current GA, and hopefully it continues a long precedent set by the X-Files WikiProject. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I nominated this for GA awhile ago, and have been pleasantly surprised by the improvements that have gone on since then. Furthermore, I commented on the A-class review, silently observed the "Informal Review", and helped provide BC with a few extra articles. I feel that this article is complete, meets the prose requirements, and makes excellent use of pictures. Thus, I throw my support to it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support another fine job from a project that just keeps on going (we need to finish Season 4 later). igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not talking about the article... He was making a note to the editors active in the X-Files Project.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Some more comments after the article's A-Class review. Overall, the article is solid.

  • If possible, please remove the border from the infobox image per WP:IMAGES; I tagged the image for that problem
I simply took the opportunity to upload a new main image, this time in slightly better resolution. This way the image is a little wider and fits the infobox better, it isn't so awkward. Also filled out the free use rationale in more detail. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the science fiction" would add "American" after "the"
  • "The X-Files, and originally aired" not the best grammar, would change to "The X-Files, which originally aired"
  • ""Monster-of-the-Week"" only the Monster-of-the-Week part should be linked, without the " quotation marks being linked
  • "In "Home"" to "In this episode"
  • Link "third season" in first paragraph of lede per WP:UNDERLINK
  • "who left the staff of the show" remove the unneeded "staff" part please
As in you mean to remove "staff of the show"? If so changed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "short-lived" does that represent a neutral point of view, who says it was "short-lived"?
  • "series" add "television" at start of that
  • "cancelled" incorrect grammar, please use American English, which would be "canceled", without two "l" there
  • MOS:IMAGELOCATION problems with images starting on left side of section, or sub-sections
I believe since it features three images in three consecutive paragraphs, the placement of Chaplin's image is just here, like in "Terms of Endearment", "The Truth", "The Post-Modern Prometheus", etc. Since for one, the image can't be moved down without interfering with the one bellow it, and having four straight images on the right would look more awkward. Either the Chaplin or the Don Knotts image could be removed if necessary. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vancouver, Canada" again, seems that is should change to "Vancouver, British Columbia" instead, in writing sector
  • As well, two separate links for that now please
  • Link "autobiography" film thing in image caption, see WP:REPEATLINK
  • "Fox executives" link "Fox" per WP:UNDERLINK in filming post-production section
  • "The town of Home" huh?
Episode takes place in Home, Pennsylvania, meaning "town of Home" refers to the name of the setting itself. Changed to "The town depicted in "Home" " to make it more clear since admittedly that's confusing as hell. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink "Fox" in broadcast section, as its first link is above in production, see WP:REPEATLINK
  • "premiered" to "originally aired"
  • The publisher of "AllMovie" is "AllRovi", actually
  • "Time Inc." remove ending dot "."
  • Ref. 18: "The New York Times" should be in italics per WP:MOS; it is a newspaper
  • "FOX Home Entertainment" change to "Fox Home Entertainment" per WP:TRADEMARK.
  • Regarding that same thing, "Fox Home Entertainment" should be "20th Century Fox Home Entertainment"; that's the new name, also link there
  • How is "TV.com" a high-quality reliable source?
I'll remove it if you think its necessary, but in its defense, not only does it have an article here, it is owned by CBS Interactive, has had its domain name registered since the mid 90's and employs some reasonably experienced writers. Though it is defined as an Entertainment site. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DASH concerns, hypten should be en-dash, problem occurs in some reference titles
You mean the hyphens? I fixed the three instances I could find, and othersise per WP:How to make dashes I believe the em dashes are done properly now. If not, cite which ones are concerns? Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TXF Season 4" to "The X-Files"
  • Please sort categories in alphabetical order

TBrandley 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixes applied unless otherwise noted. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on all criteria. Very good work. TBrandley 20:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready yet

  1. Why is "often" needed here? It has often been cited as a seminal episode of The X-Files by both crew members and critics.
  2. Three similarly-deformed ... no hyphen after ly.
  3. are sent to investigate when the corpse is found ... when or after? The corpse is found when they go to investigate? So why did they go investigate?
  4. the pair meet a family of deformed rednecks who ... redneck is a pejorative, do the sources/plot use that word, or is it editor choice here?
  5. Morgan was so interested by the story ... by the story?

That is a random sampling of the lead and jumping around: I did not inspect the entire article, and don't expect that fixing these issues alone will resolve my concerns. Please arrange for a copyedit by an uninvolved editor, and I suggest that the prior Supports were not based on thorough review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed your complaints. The article was already copy-edited by an editor not involved with the project in any way at all. If your intention was to help improve the article, could you take some more time and list more than 5 issues, consisting mostly of one-word changes and hyphens? Because if not your comments aren't really that thorough or helpful. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't ... fixing a few random occurrences of an article that is not FAC ready will not solve the issue. FAC is not peer review, and this article should be withdrawn and re-worked (evidence the lengthy review just below this). I further suggest that the reviewers who supported this FAC prior to my and the next review have not engaged or do not understand the criteria, and any of their reviews should be viewed by the delegates accordingly. Also, independent, uninvolved review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia, and also hope the delegates disregard the single line supports by project members. FAC is not the place for articles with typos and grammatical errors which I discovered in my review below. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • ""Home" is the second episode of the American fourth season of the science fiction television series The X-Files, which originally aired on the Fox network on October 11, 1996." -- First of all, "second episode of the American fourth season" really stands out as odd; it would read better as "second episode of the fourth season of the American science fiction...". Second, it would be better if you wrote "aired on the Fox Broadcasting Company", because the official name is probably better in this context.
    • "Singer Johnny Mathis refused the producers the rights to use his vocals." -- This sentence seems to jump out of nowhere, and the lead could probably do without it.
    • "Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) are sent to investigate when the corpse is found by children during a sandlot ball game." -- The linking of "sandlot ball" could be breaching WP:OVERLINK, but it's a close call, so just consider it.
    • "During an autopsy, the agents discover that the baby suffocated by inhaling dirt, meaning it was buried alive." -- The linking of "autopsy" and "buried alive" are definitely violations of WP:OVERLINK; these are not uncommon terms.
    • "Mulder and Scully sneak around the house and decide to release the Peacock's pigs to lure them our of the house." -- Do you mean "lure them out of the house"?
    • "She is Mrs Peacock, the mother of the boys, who has been breeding with her sons for years." -- "Mrs" needs a period to close the abbreviation.
    • "Subsequently, the two rejoined the staff of The X-Files and became writers for the fourth season." -- Link "fourth season", as it's the first mention of it within the body of the article.
    • "The episode contained references to popular television: the names Andy Taylor and Barney are references to characters with the same name from The Andy Griffith Show." -- The colon usage in the sentence is a bit awkward; a spaced en-dash might work better.
    • "Sources consulted by the writers include Brother's Keeper, a 1992 documentary film depicting the story of the four Ward brothers." -- Unlink 'documentary film'; WP:OVERLINK.
    • "With an estimated IQ of 68, he escaped prosecution by claiming that the police had tricked him during interrogation." -- Unlink 'IQ'; WP:OVERLINK.
    • "The episode was mainly inspired by a story in Charlie Chaplin's autobiography, about the time he stayed at a tenement home while touring in a British musical theatre." -- The linking of 'autobiography' and 'musical theatre' are violations of WP:OVERLINK.
    • "Morgan was so interested by the story that he decided to use the incident for the basis of the screenplay, though Wong came up with the suggestion to change the son to the mother." -- The wording of "..was so interested by the story..." is awkward – "with the story" or "in the story" is better phrasing.
    • File:Charlie Chaplin.jpg is misplaced; I see TBrandley mentioned this above, and you objected. However, MOS:IMAGELOCATION is a very important guideline for accessibility, and cannot be ignored.
    • "An unspecified crew member asserted, "this is awful even for us", viewing that it was probably the most gruesome episode of the series run." -- "Viewing" is an awkward word choice in this context.
    • "Another uncomfortable moment for the actor involved laying face down in a pool of fake blood for over an hour and half." -- It should be "for over an hour and a half."
    • "David Duchovny agreed with Manners's response to the episode, saying, "I really like that one. Although it didn't scare me." -- When you are using a word that ends with an 's' in a possessive form, it should just have an apostrophe after it. That said, "Manners's" should just be "Manners'".
    • There are several films mentioned in the article. When a film is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, you need to include the film's year in parenthesis. Example: Titanic (1997).
    • "It was viewed by 18.85 million viewers." -- "Approximately" 18.85 million viewers; Nielsen ratings are not exact. Also, the use of 'viewed' and 'viewers' in such close succession sounds awkward – it would be better to say something like "It was viewed by approximately 18.85 million people."
    • "John Keegan from Critical Myth gave the episode a largely positive review and awarded it 8 out of 10." -- 8 out of 10 what?
    • "VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club listed it amongst the 10 best chapters of the series, writing that it was one of the scariest hours of television that he had seen." -- 'Amongst' is an awkward word, and it would be better to use 'among' wherever possible.
    • "The Vancouver Sun named it one of the best stand-alone episodes and commented that because of its horrific themes of incest, the episode "doesn't pull any punches."" -- Don't personify magazines; if no author is given, use a generic term. Also was TVS calling it one of the best stand-alone eps of the series or of all time?
    • "Starpulse named the installment as an honorable mention as one of the ten best X-Files installments." -- Weird phrasing. "Starpulse gave the installment an honorable mention as one of the ten..." reads much better.
    • "Connie Ogle from PopMatters listed the Peacock family amongst the greatest monsters of the series, viewing that it was a miracle that the program "slipped past" the censors." -- Again with 'amongst'.
    • Some footnotes include the work and the publisher, others just the work and vice versa; please include both the 'work' and the 'publisher'/'magazine' and 'publisher' wherever applicable.
    • TV.com and Television Without Pity are totally unacceptable sources, with no reliability or credibility.

My review was edit conflicted with SandyGeorgia's and I share her concerns of the rubber stamp supporting by some as well. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the very useful comments TRLIJC19, and by the time it is nominated next time, I can only hope it no longer exhibits any of the issues brought up here. Your oppose was really helpful and will definitely lead to its improvement. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, why is Television Without Pity unreliable? It's owned by NBCUniversal and is just a review site run by writers who have editorial oversight.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - I have expressed concerns about superficial supports for these X-Files candidates in the past. I hope the nominator responds more positively on this occasion. I don't want to see any issues raised described as "shit" in edit summaries as they were here [7], or reviewers described as "goons" as here [8]. I will be watching this nomination particularly closely and will give critical reviews far more weight than single-sentence declarations of support. Graham Colm (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator here. Maralia (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 22:51, 25 November 2012 [9].

Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) edit

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... "Cry Me a River" is one of the best songs by Justin Timberlake and maybe his signature song of his solo career. Through a period of 6 months I have worked on the article and expanded it from this to what it looks today. I believe that the article is very close the the FA criteria. I would also like to say thanks to User:Accedie who c/e the article. Finally, I would like to ask everybody who opposes to post on what he/she opposes certainly. Thanks— Tomíca(T2ME) 09:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, there is no need for providing source for the synopsis if it is short and not comprehensive. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article. It meets my criteria. Good work Tom. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is from the lead and (some of) the first section alone:
    • "Timberlake's failed relationship with singer Britney Spears was his inspiration for penning the song." → This can be written much better, and 'penning' is not encyclopaedic language.
      • There is nothing wrong with "penning". The verb dates back to the Middle Ages and is valid, encyclopaedic English. It is preferred to "writing" because it refers to music as well as lyrics. A valid synonym would be "compose". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please show me a Featured article that uses the word 'penning' and I'll strike this point out. The ones that I've looked at use 'wrote' or 'composed'. [10] [11] Till 23:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Cry Me a River" is a pop ballad, with instrumentation that consists of clavinet, beatbox, guitars, synthesizers, "Arabian inspired riffs" and "Gregorian chants"." → Needs a copyedit.
      What, specifically, is the issue with this sentence? It looks perfectly acceptable to me. Accedietalk to me 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The sentence should be rewritten to avoid the words 'with' and 'that'. How about "Cry Me a River" is a pop ballad; instrumentation consists of ....." Till 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lyrically, the single is about "a brokenhearted man who refuses to look back"." → A bit implicit, suggest paraphrasing the quote
    • "In 2003, Spears recorded a response to the song titled "Everytime" for her fourth studio album In the Zone." → Avoid beginning sentences with 'in', and I assume you mean answer song!
      Can you please link me to an English grammar textbook that contains this rule about avoiding prepositions at the beginning of sentences? I'm not much one for prescriptive grammar, but I've never even heard this one before. (Unless you're confusing it with this common misconception about ending sentences with prepositions?) Accedietalk to me 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There ia absolutely nothing wrong with beginning a sentence "In..." The first sentence of the Bible reads: "In the beginning..." See also - well, almost every literary work ever written. If there was a rule against it, most of the featured articles on Wikipedia would have to be rewritten, including all of mine. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It earned Timberlake a Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance and reached the top ten in more than ten countries." → These points are not mutual and would be better off in separate sentences.
    • "For shipping over 35,000 copies." → Awkward
    • "In it, Timberlake's character spies on his former lover–who allegedly portrays Spears–and plots revenge with help from Timbaland and a new romantic interest. Media outlets speculated that Spears inspired the video." → Umm, "in it"? And this should not read like a plot.
      Yes, this is an awkward use of a preposition at the beginning of a sentence. I'm not sure, though, why you think it's as awkward and flat-out inappropriate to begin a sentence with a date clause like "In 2003." Please explain. Accedietalk to me 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The production of the song was helmed by" → Why helmed? What is wrong with "It was produced by"?
    • "In November 2002..." → Reword the sentence so that it doesn't begin with 'in'.
    • "Due to its lyrical content, media speculated that Timberlake's inspiration to write the song was the failed relationship he had with Spears." → "Media speculated"? "Failed relationship"?
    • "In an interview for MTV News" → Same as above.
    • "Timberlake clarified the speculations" → To clarify something means to make it clear and more comprehensible. The quotation does not.
    • "One of the producers, Storch, while explaining the recording of "Cry Me a River", revealed that it was easy to work with Timberlake in the studio..." → Jumps from past tense to present tense and back to past tense.
    • "In December 2011, nine years after the release of the song, Timberlake clarified the rumors and admitted that he had written "Cry Me a River" after an argument with Spears." → Could be written much better.

The article has been expanded a lot but falls short of criterion 1a. Also 10 months is a bit exaggerated... you only started editing it since May. I suggest a withdrawal and finding an experienced copyeditor or putting the article through WP:GOCE. Till 03:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed all of your concerns  . Statυs (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have went through and copyedited the article. You may wish to revisit the article. Statυs (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Status, I appreciate it. And of course I am not withdrawing, because even I did that you [Till] would still oppose. User:Accedie an awesome copy-editor did the prose, so it doesn't fail the 1a criteria at all. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth? My concerns are entirely in good faith. And I'm not forcing you to withdraw, it's just a suggestion. The article fails criterion 1a as the prose isn't "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Till 08:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbh, I don't want to argue with you here, because this is something professional, but I have got to know you really well in the previous weeks. I really know about your 'concerns'. Your issues have been addressed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The "Composition" section runs into a problem that I see common in a lot of recent song GAs, in that it mainly assembles descriptive statements from assorted reviews instead of drawing from sources that specialize in musical composition/theory and giving us any in-depth insight into how the music is structured, the intentions of the author, and how it was achieved. Compare the section to those in "Paranoid Android" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Also, only comment on the chart trajectory if the sources talk about it. They do in regards to the Billboard placements, but not in regard to the UK Singles Chart. Refrain from citing retailers for factual information like tracklistings. Reduce sourcing to primary sources like the liner notes as much as possible--if something isn't mentioned by a secondary source, then it's probably not noteworthy. Only include full dates in the prose when they are absolutely necessary; oftentimes just month and year will suffice. I see a lot of remixes listed in the tracklist section--any information on how they came about? Also, have you made sure to look up any potential print sources? I see nothing but online sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi WesleyDodds. Thanks for commenting. However, is there a rule saying that the composition section should be same as in the articles you pointed above? What is wrong with saying what editors commented when the prose is good? Also for the chart section, ChartStats gives all the weeks of charting of the song, what is wrong with writing that as a prose? Having the fact the song is from 2002, and there were not separate chart explanation articles. Also, they are five published sources from magazines. That's all I found in them regarding the song. There is not rule again whether you should cite published or web sources if they are reliable. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the lack of print sources is comprehensiveness. Can you say that you've explored all avenues for available sources? If they don't exist, they don't exist, but you need to make sure of that. Detailing chart trajectory is typically discouraged unless it's particularly noteworthy (remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so not every single little development needs to be covered); what matters in the end is the peak. Composition sections don't need to be identical across articles (compare "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to "In Bloom"), but the ones I linked to have more depth and are etter sourced, relying mainly on sources that have specialized knowledge of music theory and recording practices as well as offering insight into the creation of the song structure, typically by way of fact-finding interviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, detailed chart trajectory is never discouraged in music articles. Your assuption is not true. Actually, music articles are not considered complete if they lack a chart performance section into which is explained at detail how the song/album performed on charts. Also, comprehensiveness does not mean to have all the sources, but all the sources that are needed to cover the topic in detail; quantity is not quality. If online sources cover in detail what offline sources can do, too, then we can choose between online and/or offline. We don't need to have them all. Also, comparing this article to another one makes no sense. Each article has different levels of broadness depending on how society covers them as an important topic; and thus "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is way more important and influential than this song. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed chart trajectory is indeed discouraged, see WP:CHARTTRAJ. And yes, not ever single source needs to be cited, but the lack of print sources when they are available is a recurring problem I see in music articles (people usually opt for the easiest ones to find/source), so I like to make sure all reference avenues are explored. And while there's no one-to-one correlation or need to establish crushing uniformity, I see no reason to compare a potential FA to previous FAs on the same topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CHARTRAJ is a discretionary recommendation, not a rule. Also, print sources are not mandatory if online ones cover the topic very well. Also, online sources are easy to verify and thus, information can be spotchecked with ease, so asking for offline sources when they may not be needed is nit-picky. Finally, I understand that we have to compare previous FAs, it is usual, but the final assessment is against the criteria :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I am not bringing these up as reason to oppose the article, but there are areas that need to be improved before I myself can support its nomination. I am aware that guidelines are merely that--guidelines-- but the chart information is pretty dense and should be trimmed down. If there are any print sources around that can be incorporated (are there any Timberlake biographies available?) to fill in the holes about the song (there's close to no secondary source information about the writing and recording of the song; details are mainly sourced from liner notes) then they should be cited. I am not saying print source are mandatory. What I am asking is, has Tomica explored all reference options available? That's what I want to know and if that's so, then that's fine, but I haven't received an answer on it. And I am not saying "This is not an FA because it doesn't look like these FAs"; what I am saying is "There are things you can improve in this article, and you can check out these previous FAs as models to glean from".WesleyDodds (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, finally I agree with you there. It is reasonable of you to ask about the existence of printed sources. I may have read that you were asking them to be included, and as I see that wasn't the case, I apologize the misunderstanding. Also, I will take another look at the chart performance. Finally, I expect Tom answering your question sooner rather than later and, of you wish, you can leave more specific comments [regarding specific parts of text, etc.] and additional ways to improve the article. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Wesley. Look at this. I tried to search in every book the words 'Cry Me a River'. Except in this one, no one other contained the information. Also the information that is in that book is already present in the article via online source. So is there a reason for putting it again? I didn't find information about its additional writing or producing. And when the chart performance is in question, what about this? — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Book Search won't show you every print source available. The main example is magazines, since only certain publications make their material available there. I don't understand your question involving that Madonna song article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, what provider should I use so I can find a print source about its (possible information) about the writing? And I wanted to show you a FA with a detailed chart performance. It doesn't mean it should be use as it's in "Smells Like a Teen Spirit". — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to sources, visit libraries (use interlibrary loan if possible), track down back issues of magazines on eBay, visit fansites and ask for reference leads, ask fellow editors to help you track down sources you may not be able to access yourself. Working on a lot of Nirvana, R.E.M., Joy Division, etc. articles, this is what I have to do, and it can be hard work, but it's research you need to do. In regards to 4 Minutes (Madonna song), note that it's a mix of unnecessary chart details and information that's actually noteworthy and commented on as such by secondary sources. Details like "In the United States, "4 Minutes" debuted at number 68 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for the issue dated April 5, 2008, based solely on airplay", "The song became Madonna's first top-ten single since "Hung Up" (2005), and was her 37th Hot 100 top-ten hit, breaking the record previously held by Elvis Presley", and "For Timberlake, "4 Minutes" became his ninth top-ten hit" are commented upon by news articles, and aren't just gleaned from plotting out where the song ranked each week, which this article does quite a bit of. Stick to listing the chart peaks, and add details expanded upon by news articles (chart debuts, length of time at a certain position) where appropriate. As it is, the chart performance section is too detailed and as such makes for very dry reading. Another thing I noticed is that some of Billboard links on this article don't work properly, starting me off at the top of the article instead of the exact place where the relevant material is listed. And given it's online, you can cite it as a web reference; no need to include the print information like page numbers (especially since you can link directly to the page you want to cite). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am sorry Tommy, but the prose are really my issue. They are not up to par:
The production of the song was handled by Mosley, under his stage name Timbaland.
Storch, while explaining the recording of "Cry Me a River", revealed that it was easy to work with Timberlake in the studio because there "was a meaning behind [the song]"
  • The prose could be so much more enticing to read.
  • The first paragraph just isn't well placed and explained. You tell us the writers, and that his relationship ended. Then you attempt at connecting it poorly to show how it was affected publicly or by the media. The section should begin discussing his relationship with spears, then an introduction of the song during reports of "tumultous times" and then introduce us the the break-up/post speculation. The article is just stiff, and has no professional flow. I'm sorry to be so tough, but as a friend I really want you to grow and not be mislead. Good luck :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per prose concerns. Riddled with really poor writing, as others have noted. I saw a mis-spelling of the artist's name. Needs a really thorough copyedit even to properly meet GA criteria. Sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it doesn't meet the GA criteria. It perfectly passes, having the fact what kind of articles are GA's. I will ask an experienced FA editor to further copy-edit it soon. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. The more I read it the more poor writing I saw. You had "helmed" to describe the making of the music video. I found many careless typos too. Next time clean these up before bringing it to FAC. Feel free to ping me once it's in better shape, but for now it definitely isn't a FA or even close. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a total of 14 citations to Amazon. This isn't a very good source. Consider getting better sources or removing this material. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comments - Clearly this nomination was premature and the article requires more work, which will be more productive away from FAC. I have decided to archive the nomination. Please accept these constructive comments from the reviewers, which I agree with, in good faith . Graham Colm (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Tomica. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 by GrahamColm 21:09, 25 November 2012 [12].

2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état edit

Nominator(s): Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has completed GA criteria recently and thus isnt too far off FA with perhaps a few changes. It is also a topic that is deficient of FA (Africa) and would be the first African politics FA. Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment citations inconsistent; please use consistent date formatting. (Didn't check citations thoroughly.) --Rschen7754 07:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not sure what you mean about consistent date formatting? can you give an example?Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you format dates in your references like 2012-04-03; sometimes like 3 April 2012. Choose one or the other, and stick with it. --Rschen7754 18:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DoneLihaas (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????????????????????????????Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. --Rschen7754 19:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lihaas has a very difficult attitude and has tried to prevent me from making some improvements to the article's infobox. He has recently begun accusing me of vandalism. There are several areas in the article that I feel demonstrate a limited understanding of the subject, but under the circumstances it would be impossible for me to try to fix the problems. I would not support this article until Lihaas stops practicing WP:OWN and allows improvements to be made. Everyking (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a difficult attitude? The fact that i used sources to what i wanted to say vs. that fact that you use personal interpretation AND a refusal to discuss and gain sconsensus whiel claiing you have a consensus is me hindering the article. I specifically mentioned your source (As present in the article) and added that it was superceded by more recent events, yet you want to dismiss that RS to insert your personal "probably" (as mentioned in you summary.) and then go ahead and suggest a revert WITHOUT reason or anything rto revert (see the talk page AND his the edit history) is a someoneelses problem. No you must be god almighty that your edit is blidnly right. with absoludelty nothing else. (includign somoene else who previously opposed but then agreed on the source (which you say is illegitiamte and must be not consensus) and everyone else is wrong. Dont beleive me? read the space. Sorry Im not OWNING im citing SOURCES, youre dismissing what you IDONTLIKEIT to cite the previous UPDATE AS GOSPEL TRUTH. I said he made statement (and personally added it to the talke page), then (per ANOTHER EDITOR) answered that the infobox was added based on more REVENT DATA that he was arrested (which conveniently said editor want tos ignore for his propbably) is legitimate.
Thats real rich claiming OWNERSHIP when you dont want to follow BRD to get consensus BEFORE reverting 'without explanation! and then ignore sources YOU dont like to fit your opinion! And then claim there is no consensus when the IP above admitted he found the soure and you claim he supports you. dO YOU read or want your view!Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Ian Rose 16:27, 24 November 2012 [13].

Klondike Gold Rush edit

Nominator(s): Soerfm (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...it is currently a Good Article and has had a thorough copy edit to meet the engaging prose criteria. Soerfm (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by overlinks: Dyea, Victoria, scurvy, Sam Steele, Martha Black, Jack London Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 22 October 2012 (UTCm

  • I have reduced the links. Soerfm (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
I've been watching the effort made on this article to what extent I've had time for. The talk page contains {{Canadian English}}. However, the tone suggests that too much weight has been given not to Canadian English, but a Canadian perspective and Canadian sources, perhaps at the expense of other perspectives and sources. Specifically, there is the strong suggestion in this article that nothing of importance happened in Alaska until this event happened in Canada. I gave up right away on trying to help the nominator when I received a response which I interpreted as "Oh, those are your sources. I already have my sources." A specific issue, which directly relates to this, is that Alaska Gold Rush redirects to this article, with Alaska Gold Rush (disambiguation) created as the dab, but no hatnote exists on this article. This could very well have been an honest oversight, but more than a bit strange to overlook such a thing, considering how quickly this article has been promoted. That dab serves little purpose than to tie in a few of the most widely-publicized aspects of the gold rush era in Alaska with modern-day pop culture references to same, which is another thing given perhaps too much weight in this article. I would think that referring in the article to the lasting impact on Alaskan society/culture/economy would be more important than providing a list of books, films and television shows. Also, there was consistent activity throughout Alaska during five consecutive decades (1870s through 1910s) which relates to a "gold rush" or "the gold rush", whether within the Panhandle or various river drainages and mountain ranges. For instance, the Circle gold rush was significant, took place on American soil and occurred several years before the Klondike discovery, yet it seems as if there is a concerted effort to not acknowledge or mention it because it did occur on American and not Canadian soil. My attempt to add an introductory paragraph to the dab page, providing a reasonable explanation of this, was reverted by the nominator. I'll try and take the time to read over the article again and suggest other things. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 20:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment. About...
  • Canada-USA: I think the article fairly states that gold was found in Canada but that most prospectors were Americans. Further, both London (American) and Service (British) are mentioned. Most controversial during the editing was Soapy Smith and the NWMP, I had to leave out any meetings between them.
  • Importance: The Background section states that Klondike was not the first gold rush in Alaska-Yukon, however it could expand on Circle and Juneau, the sources just aren't there. I think that the economical importance is covered in the Legacy section (tourism and growth of west coast cities). The main article about cultural legacy is split from this article since it is unsourced and reads like a list.
  • Sources: I am not aware that we have had a dispute about sources. Please present them.
  • Hat note: It is true there was a hat note to this article, but it wasn't me who deleted it. About the dab article: I introduced it and wrote the introduction which I believe you expanded. Later I found that the introduction was against MoS and deleted it. Soerfm (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance (2): I agree that the Klondike Gold Rush is a bit over-represented in the sources; it did attract more people than others to that region; however, if you look at the growth of Seattle during the Nome Gold Rush you can see that it is just as great as during the Klondike Gold Rush. I tried to explain about this when I wrote the Nome article, but again I couldn't find any sources. Soerfm (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of importance, any wiki article should reflect the balance and weight of literature in the field. I'm not aware of the article missing out any major pieces of literature that have been written in recent years, and I'd certainly argue that the article follows the balance of the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry; when I said sources I didn't mean sources used in this article, I meant sources about Alaskan gold rushes in general. For instance I haven't been able to find sources about Juneau or Nome. Soerfm (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, agree, they're far less studied - partially because the documentary primary sources often aren't there in the same way as in Dawson. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN14 needs more information
  • I am willing to delete it. Soerfm (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN252: why an external link rather than reflink here?
  • You are right, I have changed it. Soerfm (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Bramble 1987
  • It is only the cover of Bramble that is used, not any content, however a citation on the caption could be made. (Thanks for the comments by the way) Soerfm (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include state or country for US locations, and if the latter whether you use US or U.S.
  • Could you give some examples? I believe that Alaska and Yukon are seen as regions more than states. They were districts then but I thought it would be to complicated to explain. Soerfm (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC) ...oh sorry, you are talking about sources. Soerfm (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed U.S. to US. Soerfm (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to delete information based on unreliable sources. Soerfm (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is being used to support non-exceptional claims (e.g. prices), and Ms Haggar's supervisor for the work was Prof Donald Hardesty, an expert in the history and archaeology of mining in the US. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include Canada for Vancouver but not Victoria? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added country to location in refs in general. Soerfm (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- I'm going to archive this nom as it's been open over a month without any support for promotion and there's being no discussion for two weeks. I also think the prose needs further work, preferably by an independent copyeditor; some of the things that caught my eye during a cursory review:

  • Linking of common words, e.g. gold and stampede.
  • Lack of suitable punctuation, e.g. "In the gold fields the ore was distributed in a manner that could fool even experienced prospectors and digging was made slow by permafrost." (Given that two unrelated issues are being presented here, the least I'd expect is a comma before "and digging...")
  • Sentences that just don't read well, logically or grammatically, e.g. "Today the legacy draws tourists to the gold rush region and its historical places and contributes to keep them alive." and "In the 21st century Dawson City still has a small gold mining industry, just like tourism, drawing on the legacy of the gold rush, plays a role in the local economy."

Once the prose has had more work (and perhaps a Peer Review) you can re-nominate for FAC, provided a minimum of two weeks has passed since the archive date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Thank you for the advice about peer review. I tried it a year ago but with no response. Soerfm (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 by GrahamColm 22:12, 21 November 2012 [14].

Tupac Shakur edit

Nominator(s): Mattny2sc2010 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... 2pac is one of the greatest hip-hop artist of all time(A man of high cultural significance) Mattny2sc2010 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: editor has never edited the article. Also has quite a few tags. Recommend withdrawl/early closure. --Rschen7754 19:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Ucucha 13:55, 20 November 2012 [15].

XIII (video game) edit

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 22:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XIII is a first-person shooter/action game/stealth game based on a comic book. It features a cel-shaded animation, producing a comic-like world. You are playing a confused guy who lost his identity. Tomcat (7) 22:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it satisfies the Featured Article Criteria, and what has been preparation for this candidature? Graham Colm (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sequel section is overly short, especially since the game does not have its own article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was deleted and nothing much can be said about the sequel. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that there is no more that could be found in its credits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, there is no more information.--Tomcat (7) 11:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were to play the game I doubt there would not be a credit screen. Such a credit screen would at least have the company that made the game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the publisher and the exact date. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending a thorough copy-editing. The article, while interesting, does not meet the required standards for professional prose. For example, "which pop-ups everytime a headshot is performed" - this is grammatically incorrect. Another example is "dark-mooded but yet funky", which is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded to "when a headshot is performed". I removed the bit. I don't think it does not meet the criteria. Perhaps a few bits could be changed but no strong copyedits are needed. You could state which sections are problematic and I reword it. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 21:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to "pops-up"--Tomcat (7) 21:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She does not want to speak with me. I think this oppose can be ignored.--Tomcat (7) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was planning on waiting until I had time for a run of reviews, but as you will: my oppose stands pending a good copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is not up to featured article standards right now

  • Ok, but who cares? The reader can see the link in the infobox
  • "only the Mac OS X version" remove "only" as redundant and unneeded, and doesn't appeal to neutral point of view
  • "Also" is not redundant. It describes that it was only issued in one platform.
  • It is neither a jargon nor a common word, so I feel it should be linked.
  • "The game received mixed reception by publications" surely not by all, suggest adding "generally" to clear things up further
  • It is clear from the context that the overall reception is meant.
  • Statements like "76/100" should be written out fully as "76 out of 10", as followed respectively, please check. Same goes for stuff like "74%"
  • Should be? Is it your opinion? Not done.
  • "Xbox consoles" remove "consoles" and redundant and unneeded, and replace with "Xbox" and "Xbox 360" as well, if that's what you meant there, or just remove if needed
  • Xbox 360 was released ages later, so what exactly do you mean? And consoles should stay to indicate that Microsoft Windows and Mac aren't consoles.
  • Link "Mac", "iPhone", and "iPad" per WP:UNDERLINK upon first mention in lede
  • Already in the infobox.
  • "A reimagining of the game, the point-and-click adventure game" not keen on "game" again right near each other, perhaps replace "of the game" at the start of it, replacing with "of it" or something
  • Why are you not keen? Nevermind, I replaced it with the title.
  • Per WP:IMAGELOCATION, image shall not start at the beginning of sections for readability and access. That said, the gameplay violates this, and should be moved further down or something to prevent this issue from happening
  • It is a guideline, so I have the right to ignore it.
  • Link again upon first mention after lede per WP:REPEATLINK, lots aren't again after lede, as well as WP:LEDE issue here
  • Already linked.
  • Avoid using the "&" ampersand symbol per WP:&
  • Done.
  • "working on a game called XIII" to "working on the development of video game XIII" for a more engaging prose
  • Not sure what is engaging in your example.
  • "the game would create" to clear things up, change to "this game"
  • Not done, does not improve anything.
  • Is not required.
  • The development image caption should be expanded with something further interesting, specifically for WP:FA?
  • Expansion is not possible.
  • "Fall College Tour from September to October" year?
  • If you read the section, you will now it is 2003
  • "He concluded that the album is "jazzaphonic electronic tripped out, not finished writing or something, there's no ending quote " or period, nor a source, makes me think your still in the process of writing it or something
  • Are you reading the same article?
  • Nice, but I can ignore your beloved pages.
  • Don't collapse the article's only-used table per WP:MOS
  • It was done in several other articles.
  • Also, none of that track listing is referenced, suggest checking out iTunes
  • You want me to add an unreliable source? It should not be referenced as it can be viewed in the folders
  • iTunes is considered reliable enough at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mostly" to "generally" for more engaging prose for WP:FA?
  • No improvements.
  • Instead of just company name (eg: IGN), also written the author's name (eg: Matt Fowler) if possible
  • Please write in plain English. I really don't understand what you mean.
  • He means you should include the author's name for articles where an author is credited, instead of just the publisher. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sales performance for XIII was lower than expected" should certainly be expanded upon, I still am wondering after that, must be in some sources
  • Expanding how and what, etc?
  • In soundtrack section, "The Thirteen Soundtrack track listing" should be in italics, the name, per WP:MOSTEXT
  • I think Tbrandley is right here. Bastion's should at the very least have Bastion in italics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some reviews in box aren't in prose, why?
  • Because they are already in the box. Redundancy at the highest stage.
  • As Crisco said above, the sequel section is overly short, especially since the game does not have its own article, thus needing, perhaps, expanding
  • No, since this article is about this article.
  • Some WP:DASH problems in references, hyphen should be en-dash
  • Ok, done.
  • Don't use the ; semicolon, as it is a WP:ACCESS concern, replace with actual sub-section headers
  • Explain why it is a concern.
  • Some references are missing numerous parameters, like ref. 40, see WP:CITE
  • They feature the most important one. Which are parameters are you requesting?
  • Any external links?
  • They were removed during the GAN.--Tomcat (7) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 14:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please stop linking and listing all those guidelines and policies. You are a new user and I am here since ages. I know them all. Also all your comments are fairly minor, but ok, no problem, I will finish it very fast ;). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you make be upset due to my oppose, but "You are a new user and I am here since ages" really comes off as a personal attack, I've now been here for over a year actually, and your not "here since ages" really either. Let's assume good faith shall we? And, that doesn't even matter, what matters is the concerns. And, you said you know them all, funny, I saw you use rollback on me. Rollback is meant for only clear-cut cases of vandalism, as the actual guideline of it says, not good faith talkback edits. I've already left an explanation at my talk page. Honestly. TBrandley 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TBrandley, you may want to double check that one guideline. "Rollback may be used ... To revert edits in your own user space". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Tomcat7. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 by Ian Rose 08:37, 17 November 2012 [16].

School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen edit

Nominator(s): TBrandley 03:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful FA nomination of "Nightswimming" (Awake) and failed nomination of Awake (TV series), I present School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen. This school district serves fragments of the southern Okanagan and lower Similkameen regions, with its main office held in Oliver. This article recently underwent a good article review from Hahc21. In regards to this article's comprehensiveness, it covers all the information about the main subjects (its schools and production and history of it) and major aspects possible, and this is the most information there is available. Thank you for considering this nomination. TBrandley 03:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - both images have problematic PD-information:

  • File:Billboyd.jpg lacks clear source and author information. "bill boyd gave me rights to use on websites" is not sufficient as PD-release. See commons:licensing and commons:OTRS for more info. In any case, what encyclopedic value does this landscape image add to a school district article?
  • File:S_Okanagan_Secondary_Schl.jpg - summary "Picture taken of SOSS - If needed I can get my own photograph but this works as well." indicates, the uploader is not the author. Clarification of the original author's CC-release and additional source details are needed.

To avoid the hassle with hunting down those infos, it's probably easier to replace the images with other files, when you have access to alternatives ("Own work" or images with a public CC-statement are much easier to verify). GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is there a map available? Since you're talking about a school district, this would help (even if it's discontinuous) Mattximus (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A map of what? Where is it? Is there a source?
      • A map of the school district. You mention several places (towns?), but without some kind of visual representation it's hard for someone who isn't from the area to see the extent of the district, or even where it is on earth. Mattximus (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments by Hahc21

  • It appears that most sources come from the schools page, which is the best we can have at first glance. I recommend to archive them all. Shools may renovate their pages very often.
  • It'll be great if you expand on how the district was founded, a brief resumee of the school's foundation.
    • How? There are no sources on it. TBrandley 01:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, then there's nothing to do. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments by Hahc21

  • I missed this on the GAN review: The lead and body says the superintendent to be Vern Berg, but the infobox says Beverly Young. The latter is a person or a place?
    • Sorry, I forgot to change that part, "Berverly Young" is the new updated one, now. TBrandley 01:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments coming

— ΛΧΣ21™ 01:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This short article, consisting of 12 short paragraphs, would have benefited from a peer review before being nominated. The prose falls short of the standard required.

I'm not convinced that "fragments" is the best word to describe the areas of the regions served. I'm not sure what a "maintenance department" is, and this is not helped by the quotation marks, which make be think the author doesn't really know either. The use "while" is awkward - there are about seven of them - and introduces false contrasts as in " while 2,665 students attend schools in it; there are 480 employees". There is padding, " It provides a school bus transportation service, in order for children to get to their school and home, being responsible to the Director of Facilities". What else does a school bus do? And the source for this, which is a job description, says the bus driver is responsible to the Director. It will come as no surprise that there is an emergency policy and this is not needed in the Lead, let alone the fact that it was amended on April 30, 2008. Similarly, do we really need to know that the smoke free policy was amended on September 26, 2007?

This sentence doesn't flow well Their motto is "Learning Today for Living Tomorrow", and all places within the district are towns or villages. What has the demographics got to do with the motto?

There is confusion over the use of "which" and "that" - as in "All schools in the district which are part of the Okanagan region maintain the same format:"

There is redundancy and lack of clarity here, "The community also had a secondary school, named Southern Okanagan Secondary School, until it was burnt by a fire in September 2011, during the school's multi-million dollar renovation project." Is "by a fire" needed, and how extensive was the damage? The source gives a lot more detail - why not include it?

This could be interesting but the reader is left hanging, " It also works with a number of Aboriginal people, having signed a enhancement agreement to improve academic achievement of them." (The grammar is also poor).

It does help to make the prose engaging by starting sentences with large numerals as in: " 2,665 students attend schools in this district" and "1,303 of those 2,665 students within the district attend elementary schools".

There is more padding and redundancy here, "The British Columbia province gives funds to the school district, so that it can maintain their schools correctly."

This is not professional prose, "The amount given is based on the number of kids that are enrolled for the year.".

This is poor, "An emergency—a "sudden", "unexpected" occurrence that requires action for a situation—at schools within the district 53 scope can result in school or bus transportation facilities." Does the reader need a definition of an emergency? And can result in what exactly with regard to the bus service. The rest of the of this paragraph is just padding.

I'm not convinced that the article has been thoroughly researched. There is no history section, the finances are only covered superficially as are the demographics. The sources used are mainly school websites. A visit to a library or two might provide a few facts to use in place of all the padding. Graham Colm (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Suggest Withdrawal - Image issues and prose, grammar per Graham Colm (more points could be listed, if necessary). Albeit the lack of background information and further details on the interesting aspects like history and special programs makes it difficult to polish the prose, the article should have more preparation (PR to get input from other interested editors) outside a FA-nomination. Too many awkward phrases, structural flaws and a general lack of "connection" between the article's facts. GermanJoe (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • I'll be archiving this shortly as the sort of fundamental improvements recommended by reviewers need to take place outside the FAC process; a PR following such improvement would also be appropriate.
  • One final point, "Aboriginal" in this context shouldn't be capitalised, lest this general term be confused with the specific name for indigenous Australians. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Ian Rose 08:16, 16 November 2012 [17].

Friday (Rebecca Black song) edit

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this article, but I polished it up to GA level a few months back. I'm wondering whether it's ready for FA? This song was released over 600 days ago, so I don't expect much new information or sources to emerge, at least until there's a "Where are they now: Rebecca Black" special on TV in the future. It's a stable article, very few edits since the GA, albeit it is semi-protected indefinitely. Only one fair use image, with rationale, all other free. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - As of now, I am sorry but I don't see the article being anywhere near FA level. The lead is underdeveloped, the prose aren't concise, many references are poorly done or just plain unreliable. I think this needs more research, a peer review and maybe a good-copy-edit. Just an example, sources #'s 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 & 18 are just plain unacceptable. and the list goes on and on.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's sourcing issues, but I see no reason why Salon (ref no. 2) can't be cited, even though it's more useful as a review than proper reporting. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I think the nomination may have been rushed. Some of the links do not appear to be high quality sources, as noted above. The prose isn't terrible, but it isn't very brilliant either. For example, the quotation "We haven't received a dime from anywhere" is redundant and repetitive. The "citation needed" will need to be checked out as well. My suggestion is a good, thorough copy edit and some stronger, more reliable sources. Please also note that once a person has been mentioned by his/her full name, his/her surname should be used for following instances. I see a mix of "Black", "Rebecca" and "Rebecca Black", all used multiple times. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Twitter is not a reliable source. Recommend withdrawal. --Rschen7754 02:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recommend that this article be withdrawn and taken straight to Peer Review. Despite its flaws, with some concerted effort this article can definitely be refined into FA shape. If this is taken to Peer Review, just give me a ring and I will provide plenty of feedback and guidance. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Ian Rose 17:55, 15 November 2012 [18].

Anne Hyde edit

Nominator(s): Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after being a GA for some time, I think it now meets the criteria for FA. Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose of this article is too far below FA level. WP:FA Criteria requires that the writing be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." But half the sentences in the article are problematic in some way: run-on sentences ("Anne's married life was sometimes problematic, and she was not very much liked at court and James was unfaithful"), lack of clarity ("Anne became James' first wife in 1660 after she fell pregnant by him, whereas James is said to have promised to marry her in 1659"), colloquialisms ("gave him a hard time," "turn a cold shoulder"), etc. Here's a detailed analysis of the shortest section, which is called "Death and legacy".

"Anne never quite recovered after the birth of her youngest son, Edgar; she was ill for fifteen months."

  • The time sequence is not clear. Maybe "After she gave birth to her youngest son Edward, Anne became ill for fifteenth months."

"After giving birth to one further child, Henrietta, in 1669, Anne gave birth to her youngest child in 1671, another daughter, whom she named Catherine."

  • Too many commas and embedded phrases. "One further child" sounds awkward.

"Anne never recovered from this last birth, her eighth."

  • The first sentence said she never quite recovered from her sixth birth, and now that she didn't recover from her eighth. Yet four years went by between the birth of Edward and the birth of Catherine. Maybe your two sources (Henslowe 1915 and then Gregg 1984) use the same formulation ("never quite receovered," "never recovered"), but the reader will still be confused. And since you mention "youngest child" in the previous sentence, there's no need to say that Catherine was Anne's "last birth." (Or you keep "last birth" and remove "youngest child" from the previous sentence.)

"Suffering from breast cancer, Anne died on 31 March 1671."

  • So did she die of breast cancer or because she didn't recover from childbirth? One question that's not about prose: has the diagnostic of breast cancer been confirmed by several sources? Because diagnostics of historical figures are so hard to ascertain, shouldn't we say that she "probably" died of breast cancer instead? Something else that applies to the entire article: to avoid having footnote markers in the middle of sentences, would you mind merging them into one at the end of the sentence? In this case, the new aggregated note would read: "Melville 2005, p. 32 (breast cancer); Weir 2008, p. 259 (date of death)."

"On her deathbed, her two brothers, Henry and Laurence, tried to bring an Anglican priest to give her communion, but Anne refused and furthermore, she received viaticum of the Roman Catholic Church."

  • Run-on sentence. You need two sentences, here, because "and furthermore" as a link between the two clauses is too weak. Once again, the two footnotes could be merged into one.

"Two days later, her embalmed body was interred into Westminster Abbey's Henry VII Chapel (precisely, into the vault of Mary, Queen of Scots)."

  • The sequence of sentences seems to imply that she was interred two days after receiving viaticum. Maybe talk about her deathbed before her death? And here there's no need for a parenthesis: "interred in the vault of Mary, Queen of Scots in Westminster Abbey's Henry VII Chapel" would be straighter and clearer.

"In June, her only surviving son, Edgar, died of natural causes and in December, Anne's youngest daughter, Catherine, also died, leaving Ladies Mary and Anne as the Duke of York's heiresses."

  • Sounds long too, with weak links between clauses ("X died and Y died, leaving..."). You can remove some of the commas. How about: "In June, Anne's only surviving son Edward died of natural causes, followed in December by her youngest daughter Catherine...").

"Two years after the loss of his first wife, James married a Catholic princess, Mary of Modena, who offered James his only son that survived to adulthood, James Francis Edward."

  • Here the topic shifts to James and his successors, so a new paragraph is needed. Not clear if Mary of Modena "offered" James his only son by adoption or by natural birth. Should be "...only son who survived..." (Incidentally, this sentence needs a reference.)

"During the Glorious Revolution, James was deposed and the throne was occupied by Anne's eldest daughter Mary and her husband."

  • Readers who don't know much about British history will wonder how James was deposed when he was only the Duke of York. So when and how did James Duke of York become James II? The year of the "Glorious Revolution" could be added too. And it's definitely worth mentioning that Anne's husband was William of Orange. After all, he was the one who overthrew James II with his Dutch army!

"After their respective deaths, Anne's youngest daughter, Anne, became the first sovereign of the Kingdom of Great Britain."

  • "Respective deaths" is too vague. Mary died in 1694 and William in 1702. And there are too many "Annes" in here. To avoid confusion, you might want to say something like "Anne Hyde' only surviving child ["youngest daughter" is youngest surviving daughter anyway], also named Anne, became..." A link to Queen Anne (maybe a piped link under "first sovereign") would also be helpful.

"After Anne's death, a portrait of her painted by Willem Wissing, commissioned by the future Mary II used to hang above the door of the Queen's Drawing Room of the Garden House at Windsor Castle."

  • Time sequence not clear. After 1714 (Anne's death), a portrait by Willem Wissing (1656-1689) commissioned by the future Mary II (who died in 1694) used to hang... This is confusing. "Commissioned by her sister Mary before she became Queen" would already be clearer. And replace "used to" with "was hung"?

I don't have time to do this for the whole article, but this shows there's a lot of work to do. I recommend you post the article at the Guild of Copy Editors and explain that it needs urgent attention. The Guild has a huge backlog, but they have a lot of devoted and competent people there who should be able to help! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Anne_Hyde,_Duchess_of_York.jpg: source link is dead. Image has three of the same licensing tag, but lacks US PD tag.
  • File:The_Duke_and_Duchess_of_York_with_their_two_daughters..jpg: needs US PD tag, and should use creation rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I mirror other comments made here. The prose are not up to par: "Anne's married life was sometimes problematic,[22] and she was not very much liked at court[23]"? This isn't professionally written. Would need a vast prose improvement from a third party member.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- without no acknowledgement/action after two weeks re. the earlier comments, I'm archiving this nomination; it can be renominated after comments have been addressed, or two weeks have passed (whichever is the latter). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Maralia 13:39, 14 November 2012 [19].

Dromedary edit

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel this is a comprehensive and detailed article. It is well-referenced and a GA. I would love to have more useful comments from editors so that it becomes an FA. Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, the article lacks the polish and attention to detail I would expect of an FAC candidate. A full listing of the issues would make this more like a peer review. Some examples only:

  • "Coats varies largely in colour," grammar error
Fixed.
  • "The notable hump is fat bound together by fibrous tissue, measuring 20 cm (7.9 in)." so is it the hump or the fibrous tissue that measures 20 cm?
Fixed. It is the hump.
  • "dry grasses and desert vegetation - mainly thorny plants." should be an endash, not a hyphen
Done.
  • "Herds can consist of about 20 individuals, led by a dominant male and containing several females." grammar
Fixed.
  • "Predators in the wild include wolves, lions and tigers. They use a wide set of vocalizations to communicate with other camels." The predators communicate with the camels?? This is the first of three sentences that conspicuously begin with "They"
Fixed.
  • "The world's only population of dromedaries exhibiting wild behavior is an introduced feral population in Australia." So the domesticated populations exhibit no wild behaviours? Or is the message that there is only one non-domesticated population?
This was an improper and irrelevant fact, so I have replaced it with the fact on total domesticated population.
  • "The wool is also used in various purposes." This sentence is vague enough to be almost useless, so I checked the article to see what the wool is used for, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion about this.
I have removed it from the lead, does not seem relevant enough as other uses do.
  • inconsistent use of American or British English
Fixed into B.E.
  • the references also need to be polished. From a quick glance I see issues like:
  • inconsistent author display (e.g. E. Mukasa-Mugerwa vs. Potts, D. T. vs. Sambraus, HH)
Fixed
  • unitalicized species' names in article titles
Fixed
  • inconsistent use of title or sentence case for journal article and book titles
Fixed
  • inconsistent page range formats (e.g. 143–165 vs. 335–8)
Fixed
  • some book sources list publisher locations, others don't
Fixed

If you can quickly whip the article into shape, I'd be happy to do a full review. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I did not get any helpful comments on the PR, sorry about my mistakes. So I shall work on your comments right away. Please inform whatever problems you find, I shall gladly fix them. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kitchen Roll.

  • "The dromedary camel is the second largest member of the camel family after the larger Bactrian camel." ==> "The dromedary camel is the second largest member of the camel family after the Bactrian camel."
Done.
  • The first two sentences of the article begin with "The dromedary camel" and the third includes "dromedary". This needs to be varied.
The article mostly uses "dromedary", so I used "dromedary" in the second line. It should remain in the first to show the animal is a camel.
  • The lead comprises of very short sentences, I suggest merging some. Also look for short sentences throughout the article and merge them.
  • "It feeds on foliage, dry grasses and desert vegetation – mainly thorny plants. Dromedaries readily feed on Acacia, Artiplex and Salsola species." Definitely merge these sentences, as well as removing one of the "feeds".
Done.
  • The second paragraph is under-linked. For example, any animal mentioned, areas in which they live (desert), eyelashes is linked in the main body, but not here etc.
I did not wish to have duplicate links, but if you say I shall link them twice.
  • By describing the dromedary's habitat as "intermediate" does this mean these camels can live in both environments, or just something inbetween? This needs to be more clear.
Done.
  • "Earlier the dromedary and Bactrian camel were considered the same species". Earlier is vague, when exactly?
The source does not mention the time, nor does any other source. Could we have a rewording, something like "Macedonian philosopher Aristotle was the first European to recognize the Bactrian camel and dromedary as different species, and has defined them as one-humped and two-humped in his book History of Animals" ?
  • "However, there is 10.3% of difference between the species found in a mitochondrial analysis."==> "However, mitochondrial analysis shows the species are differentiated by 10.3%."
Done.
  • "fetus" should be linked.
Done.
  • "... slightly indented to a side or a small and a large hump." Needs rewording; it's not clear.
Done.
  • "These hybrids have more strength and size compared to their parents - they can bear more load and thus are more useful." Em dash, not hyphen
Done.
  • "The oldest and also the smallest known camel, Protylopus, occurred in the upper Eocene in North America." ==> "The extinct Protylopus, which occurred in the upper Eocene in North America, is both the oldest smallest camel known."
Done.
  • "Siberia" needs a link.
Done.
  • "Camelus species ranged much far south in Africa, and in the northern area remains of C. thomasi have been found." First part of the sentence doesn't make sense and the northern area of what?
Done. It means northern Africa.
  • "The dromedary has a possible origin from Arabia, hence its name Arabian camel." ==> "It is possible the dromedary had origins in Arabia and is therefore sometimes referred to as the Arabian camel."
Done.
  • "A jawbone of a dromedary was found from the southern Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia, whose radiocarbon date was 8200 BP, and calibrated date was 7100-7200 BC." ==> "A jawbone of a dromedary, whose radiocarbon date was 8200 BP and calibrated date 7100-7200 BC, was found on the southern coast of the Red Sea in Saudi Arabia."
Done.
  • "... but the book was composed at a later time, and the information can not be taken as true." ==> "... but the book was composed at a later time, so the information can not be corroborated."
Done.
  • "Scholars have dated the spread of dromedaries to the first centuries AD, and evidently before the arrival of the Romans." Why is this "evidently"? Is it possible to provide the date of the arrival of the Romans?
Removed, redundant word.
  • "In the mid-seventh century, the dromedary was first used in warfare when Achaemenid king Cyrus the Great made use of these animals while fighting with king Croesus of Lydia in 547 BC." ==> "In the mid-seventh century, the dromedary was first used in warfare when the Achaemenid king, Cyrus the Great, made use of these animals while fighting with king Croesus of Lydia in 547 BC."
Done.
  • Why is Syria not linked in its first occurrence in the article?
Sorry, forgot to. Done.
  • "They were also used in the eastern provinces of Egypt, Arabia, Judaea, Syria, Cappadocia, and Mesopotamia." ==> "They were also used for the same means in the eastern provinces of Egypt, Arabia, Judaea, Syria, Cappadocia, and Mesopotamia."
Done.
  • "Numerous camels were imported into Australia between 1840 and 1907 to open up the arid areas of central and western Australia, and were used mainly for riding and transportation." ==> "Numerous camels were imported into Australia between 1840 and 1907 to open up the arid areas of central and western parts of the country, and were used mainly for riding and transportation."
Done.
  • "... descendants of domesticated camels that were released or ran away on their own." Citation needed.
Removed as it was unsourced.
  • "Dromedaries were first domesticated in central or southern Arabia. Experts believe it happened around 4000 years ago on the Arabian peninsula." ==> "Dromedaries were first domesticated in central or southern Arabia, which experts believe happened around 4000 years ago on the Arabian peninsula."
Done.
  • "Male dromedaries have a soft palate, which they inflate to produce a deep pink sack, which is often mistaken for a tongue, called a doula in Arabic, hanging out of the sides of their mouths to attract females during the mating season." ==> Sentence needs rewording to remove one of the "which"s and it's not clear from this whether the tongue is "called a doula" or the "soft palate".
I have split the sentence, now it seems clear.
  • "The dromedary has two toes on each foot, appearing like flat, leathery pads." ==> "The dromedary has two toes on each foot, which resemble flat, leathery pads."
Done.
  • "The hump is of fat bound together by fibrous tissue. It can be 20 cm (7.9 in) or more." ==> "The hump, which can be 20 cm (7.9 in) or more, is made up of fat bound together by fibrous tissue." Also is it 20 cm (7.9 in) in diameter, high, long. What does this measure?
It is that much in height. Done.
  • "They show remarkable adaptability in body temperature, from 34°C to 41.7°C,. This is an adaptation to conserve water." ==> They can adapt their body temperature from from 34°C to 41.7°C to conserve water."
Done.

I have reviewed the article up until the anatomy section. Once they are addressed I will continue the review.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 11:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have replied to each. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking There are at least 15 repeated links in the body of the text, excluding the lead and captions. I would question whether you need even one link for "sand", it's pretty obvious. Personally I wouldn't link countries either, but that's not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed as many as I could find. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by The writing strikes me as generally a bit sloppy. I just glanced at The dromedary was first described by Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, in 1758. It is a member of the genus Camelus and the family Camelidae — The family is incorrectly italicised, there is an implication that he gave it the family name (his group was Pecora (cattle)), you don't name his great work, and you don't say that he gave this camel its current binomial name (not a given since many of his names were modified as taxonomy developed). "First described" is clearly incorrect as written, we know Aristotle (at least) described it. I also thought the chronology 1758-1982-Aristotle-Pliocene was confusing. Jimfbleak- talk to me? 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, the camel was described by Aristotle and named by Linnaeus. Now I have mentioned these things properly. I could not get the meaning of the great work you want me to mention. If you feel the writing sloppy through the article, please help improve it, as I am not a native English speaker and can't do much. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by 2 Why is this written in AE when the English-speaking countries in the range use BE? Inappropriate variety of English Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I have turned it into BE. Please fix if you find more. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits. I think you are expecting too much of your reviewers, FAC is supposed to be the final polishing of an article, not starting from scratch. It's not your English ability that's a problem, it's bringing it here without a copyedit or peer review, and then saying "fix my writing". I checked only for AE "color" and "meter" and found several unfixed examples of just these two. It just needs more care (why is it always "in colour" rather than just giving the colour?). I'm interested in the topic, but I'm reluctant to do a full review because it seems likely be a lot of work. On a more positive note, let me know if you want the duplicate links detector script Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Maralia - This article is in decent shape, but it reads as though it was written by a non-native speaker. Examples:

  • "males splash their urine on their tails and nearer regions."
  • "saves water by avoiding perspiration at the rise of the external temperature"
  • " The oval red blood cells, unique to the dromedaries, help them survive"
  • " If the hump is small, the animal can show signs of starvation"
  • "as both the sexes are much different in their appearances"
  • "which is almost impossible for most of other mammals"
  • "This prevents the dromedary from sinking much into the sand."
  • "Its diet includes foliage and desert vegetation, like thorny plants, and eats Acacia, Artiplex and Salsola species whenever available."
  • " The wool produce of a herd"
  • "The dromedary meat is a good source of food"
  • "The dromedary milk was studied"
  • "Now-a-days camel meat is processed into food items"

There are other problems that also indicate the article is not quite there yet:

  • Wikilinking: Aristotle is not wikilinked until the last time mentioned in the article. Pelage is wikilinked to coat (animal) rather than pelage or fur to which it redirects. In the sentence "The dromedary is the second largest member of the camel family after the Bactrian camel", 'second largest' is wikilinked to largest organisms#Mammals which is not relevant to the statement.
  • Style: Please use commas in large numbers throughout the article.
  • Clarity: The article asserts that "Dromedaries have [...] the unique ability of closing their nostrils to face sandstorms", but this is not unique. The sentence "The dromedaries are beneficial as beasts of burden, and their docility and toughness compared to cattle are additional advantages" is confusing because cattle are more typically draft animals, used for pulling rather than carrying.
  • Sourcing: The single book listed in the Bibliography is not cited a single time in the references. The Gauthier-Pilters cite does not list a page number, nor does the Fowler cite, the Kaegi cite, the Pastoret cite, or Bromiley cite (for which the work name is misspelled).

A comprehensive copyedit by a native speaker is in order here. Maralia (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This FAC has been withdrawn by request of the nominator. Maralia (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 19:49, 8 November 2012 [20].

Apogee Stadium edit

Nominator(s): Runfellow (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the FAC as much as possible given the limited history and information available for the subject at hand. Runfellow (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Few quick ones from me; I unfortnately don't have time for more at the moment.

  • History: Writing at the start of the paragraphs is rather bland throughout the first few sections. Each of the paragraphs starts off "In XXXX", "On XXXX" or similar. Some more variety would be nice to see in an FA.
    • This is a result of a combination of my bad habits and the editing process just sort of putting them in there over time. I've changed one or two of them to try to mix it up a tad without making the syntax too awkward, but I'm not opposed to anyone changing a couple more.
  • Environmental design: "to achieve LEED Platinum certification, the highest level of certification...". The use of "certification" is redundant here; you don't need two of them when the sentence works fine with one.
    • Fixed
  • What makes ArchitypeSource.com (ref 5) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can tell, it seems to be a nonprofit group that publishes a few things, including ArchitypeReview, a monthly online publication with calls for submissions, etc. So far as I can tell, it's not peer reviewed, per se, but it's not pay-for-publish either, since submissions are free and it's nonprofit. Even if the information is self-submitted by the builders, it seems to meet WP:SELFSOURCE requirements. At the same time, if this is an issue, I don't think a whole lot of stuff came from that list, so I may be able to find it elsewhere if necessary.
  • One more: refs 31 and 33 should have their publishers italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
Let me know if you see anything else, Runfellow (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - most all are OK, some solvable problems (Done):

  • File:Apogee_Stadium_logo.jpg - a few points: source information should be clarified (ideally a direct link or a description, where you found the logo, from a photo of the building or their website?). If you can't find the author, add "Unknown" in author-field to indicate, that you tried. "Not replacable" NFCC #1 can usually be filled (it's a unique logo after all), suggest to check similar logo fair-use rationales for possible improvements. FURs are supposed to be as "detailed" as possible.
  • File:Apogee_Stadium_2011_attendance.svg - the attendance numbers need a source in caption. You should also add a brief remark to the image summary, which raw data was used for the graph's creation.
  • Boomer_fires_at_Apogee_Stadium.ogv - can you clarify why this video file is CC - did you upload it on Youtube? (videos are one of my weak points, sorry). The shown event should be briefly mentioned in the main article text.
  • File:Map_of_UNT_athletic_facilities.png - a direct convenience link to the original SVG file would be nice to have. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media check fixes
  • I went ahead and changed the basic template of the logo image to Template:Non-free use rationale logo, which is used for the logo for the featured article for CenturyLink Field. I think it now addresses these issues.
  • Added source in caption and brief remark in the "source" section of image summary for the attendance chart.
  • Regarding the video, if you visit the original video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMguLJoXos and click "show more" below, you can see that the video was released under a Creative Commons license. It's a neat little feature that YouTube introduced recently so that uploaders (the school, in this case) can release their stuff with a CC license. I also added short sentence about Boomer in the article itself.
Learned something new, thanks. GJ
  • Do you want a convenience link on the article or on the commons page for the PNG image? If the former, where should it go? Not sure.
I'd suggest to just replace the SVG filename in the summary text of the commons image itself with the appropriate link - easier to navigate between the versions that way. GermanJoe (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the check. Runfellow (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Runfellow (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 19:49, 8 November 2012 [21].

Natchez Massacre edit

Nominator(s): Jsayre64 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I published this article last December after starting it in my sandbox exactly a year ago. It has gone through major changes since then, mostly by Michaelmas1957 and myself. I have added two more images, polished the quality of the lead, and altered the names, orders, and content of sections as suggested in a very helpful peer review by Runfellow in August. I believe that the article now covers the historical event in a broad, comprehensive, and accurate fashion, addressing the causes and effects of the attack and citing several primary and secondary sources that explain exactly what happened. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First run through comments:

  • Be consistent with your citation style - you have a mix of three at the moment.
  • Legacy seems rather a short section. Chateaubriand's work is discussed in reasonable detail, but the other works are mentioned in the briefest form. Is there nothing else you can add here?
  • Chateaubriand saw the Natchez Massacre as the defining moment in the history of the Louisiana colony; this sentence is sourced to Le Page du Pratz and Dumont de Montigny, which the sentence also comments on. Do they describe Chateaubriand in this way - I think you could be tiny bit clearer in attributing the source of that sentence.
  • Historical controversy surrounding the Natchez Massacre concerns the question of whether the Natchez plotted with other major tribes of the region to plan a simultaneous attack on the French.; The final two paragraphs of "Background" were unexpected. Without mentioning there would be an attack, it launches into a discussion of whether the Natchez conspired with others to attack the French. I would perhaps move this below the "Attack" section. It might even be worth mentioning it as a relevant thing during the "Attack" section, and then combining the bulk of the material with the "Legacy" section (perhaps renaming "Historical interpretation") as it features a lot of later analysis.

Generally the prose looks great, but I will look through in more detail later. Comments are intended as suggestions only. :) --Errant (chat!) 17:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Have I adequately addressed your third bullet point and some other things I found? I will get to your other suggestions later. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the citation style, what exactly is inconsistent? Subtitles of books? (Or does that not matter?) Here's the most recent diff for the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably me being dumb :) but you haven't changed the text of the legacy section (as discussed in my third bullet)?? As to citation style; I see you took out the full length citations, looks a lot better. I'd recommend picking either title or author (you can disambiguate author by using (<year>) after their name if needed, and sticking to it. --Errant (chat!) 11:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Your third bullet is the one that starts with Chateaubriand.) Anyways, now I see what you mean about the page number citations; I was using the book title for some of them because, for example, the article cites two works by Dumont de Montigny. I will get to the rest of your suggestions later, maybe tonight. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I think I've taken care of everything now. There wasn't that much to add about other fictional representations of the event. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having been over the article a couple of times, I'd say it all seems to be in order now. Are there any other issues needing resolution before this article can be promoted? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Fort_Rosalie_postcard.jpg: the details provided indicate that this image is currently in the Mississippi Archives, but not necessarily that they own copyright. Can you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image description page links to this info. about the Cooper Postcard Collection (Mississippi Department of Archives and History), which says the images in the collection are in the public domain. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but the current licensing tag says it was released by the archives, which doesn't appear to be the case - they seem to be saying it was PD for some other reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Attack: "and even placed in irons some of the men who voiced the warnings." I'm sorry, but I'm not 100% clear on what "placed in irons" means. Does it mean that they were put in iron chains, or in prison cells? Or does it have another meaning I'm not thinking of? Also, I'd put the "in irons" at the end of the sentence for prose purposes.
  • The em dashes in this section violate the Manual of Style. To fix them, all you have to do is make them unspaced, or switch them to the smaller en dashes; either format is acceptable.
  • "More than 20 years after the massacre, Dumont de Montigny published one of the key histories of the revolt." This is currently sourced to Dumont de Montigny, which I'm not comfortable with. I'd rather have a statement from a third-party historian saying his account of the massacre was a key history.
  • Historical interpretations: Minor grammar point, but "in order to" can usually afford to have the first two words removed; this actually leads prose to be better in areas where it is removed, as it becomes a little tighter. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 21:55, 7 November 2012 [22].

Wikipedia edit

Nominator(s): Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article has risen to become an FA article.

A few months ago, I started on a quest to get "Wikipedia" back to FA article status. I got it a Peer Review, which it hasn't gotten since 2009, and I implemented all of the suggestions that were made in the review, and more. Other editors also got into it and added some stuff. Since I feel it has changed for the better since July, I feel that this article is an FA article. So, I, Cbrittain10, officially put Wikipedia into FA-nomination and review. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Lots of good material here BUT...

  • This article will need some serious work on its citations. "How I started Wikipedia, presentation by Larry Sanger" (footnote 14) says nothing about where he presented, when he presented, any indication of publication, why it is reliable. There are several footnotes that are simply one or two word internally-linked documents. These should be treated the same as other references. The fact that they happen to be part of the 'pedia isn't relevant in this context. Footnote 217 also a WM page, but not even accurately named. Footnote 159. What is this? Etc.
  • There are all sorts of MoS issues, and text quality issues. I skimmed a couple of paras and found a "(cf. above)" in the text, single sentence paragraphs, a para with no citations, a para using "percent" but another using "%". The history is set out to be chronological, but there's a para on 2007 after ones set around 2009.
  • Would question why something as fundamental as "operation" comes after "analysis of content".
  • These issues are only from the most cursory read. Don't think this is ready yet. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet the peer reviewers didn't notice those things.. gah. I am going to put those things into the article. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sorry. The article has a lot of stuff cobbled together, of widely varying importance and reliability. The section on "Cultural significance" is a good example. The first paragraph is good, but then there's a very choppy series of unrelated factoids in the paragraph below. It's not at all clear, for example, why the Franco Grillini factoid is of any significance. Also, the citing falls short of FA standards. For example there are no cites for:

  • "only Commons has had success comparable to that of Wikipedia."
  • "One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was created by Douglas Adams. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative..."
  • "Scholarpedia also focuses on ensuring high quality."

Then there's the puffery. "For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia," is sourced to Meta-Wiki itself. Another example is "Although poorly written articles are flagged for improvement", which is a rather uncritical statement cited to WP itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per above and suggest withdrawal for now. Please get the article copy-edited (WP:GOCE). TBrandley 03:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subsection on vandalism doesn't seem to follow what I would consider to be the best source on vandalism, namely WP:Vandalism. That source lists crude humor as the most common kind of vandalism (which certainly matches my experience). Instead the sub section emphasizes SPAM, which the source does consider a form of vandalism, but it also calls out "highly partisan or opinionated language" as vandalism which would seem to include extreme POV edits, something the source explicitly excludes from its definition of vandalism. I would suggest reworking the first paragraph of the "vanadalism" subsection to match the source, and adding a separate subsection for the POV/bias issue. If no one beats me to it, I will undertake this later tonight. I would also suggest that this nomination NOT be withdrawn immediately. I agree that it probably isn't going to make it through this time, but having it up here for a few days may attract the attention of some good editors who can help improve this exceptionally important article. --Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at fixing the paragraph. --Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose many issues as stated above. Peer review would be a good option. Also not sure if there should be an article about the encyclopedia if an About page and other pages already exist. It simply duplicates all the information. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 09:21, 3 November 2012 [23].

Giuseppe Garibaldi edit

Nominator(s): Baloo1000 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article is well written. Good Images added for explanation and garibaldi is an hero in the minds of Italy people even today. Baloo1000 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: nominator has never edited the article. --Rschen7754 08:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Thank you for engaging in our Featured Article process but nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 09:21, 3 November 2012 [24].

2012 Tour de France, Stage 11 to Stage 20 edit

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article includes detailed information about the second half of this year's Tour. Each stage is reported with a sufficient prose about the events that happened that day, while the documentation is completed with a configuration model of the stage and table with the final results of the day. Since most of the references in the article derive from relevant sources about the sport and the race specifically, I assume that the reliability of the content is verified in a proper way. Main concern can be the title of the article, which shouldn't be a problem, as it is not mentioned as one of the criteria for featured article. More or less, there are other featured articles with similar title covering content related to a sport event.Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: nominator has never edited the article. --Rschen7754 08:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Thank you for engaging in our Featured Article process but nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 16:35, 1 November 2012 [25].

Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album) edit

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independiente (English: Independent), released 4 October 2011, is the thirteenth studio album by Guatemalan singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona. Recorded in the United States and Mexico, it was produced by Arjona with Dan Warner and Lee Levin (under their stage name, Los Gringos) and Puerto Rican singer-songwriter Tommy Torres. Arjona released the album under his independent record label, Metamorfosis; it was the first that he released as an independent musician after being signed by signed by Sony Music (in 1993) and Warner Music (in 2008). — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick media comment - the description pages for the two media files need to specify the length of the complete song. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG thanks for the comment. Will do as soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Tomica
  • As I can see from the tables the album was first released on September 23, 2011, not October 4, 2011. You should use the first release date. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album was a commercial success... I think you should remove this. Let the tables speak by themselves for it. Commercial success can be relative. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He concluded, "music and women look better with little clothes". I find this a bit repetitive in the Background section. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of quotes in the Background section, try to reduce them if possible. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change all the #1, #4 to number-one, number-four or there is number upper than ten use numeric digits per WP:NUMBERS. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • who told him she did not like it because it make her cry. Isn't this kind of trivial? — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Background section you didn't link Miami or Mexico City, but linked Los Angeles in the Singles. Why? Those cities are not more known than LA (they are on same leve). Either link them or unlink LA. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was released for Mother's Day. Again, I find this trivial. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released on June. Awkward prose. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • and plans to visit the Americas and Europe.. Isn't the show over? Further sentence in the section should be changed to past tense too. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the iTunes Store Bonus Track hasn't a writer and producer? — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is a video, not a song. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added the Cono Sur Version only for one track difference? Maybe you can just put note in the standard track listing for the song and the release of this edition ? — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The countries in the release history section should be ordered alphabetically in their corespondent date. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ordered them as much as I could without damaging the table. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18: Informador.com.mx, shouldn't be in italics. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references need some additional formatting. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All in all the prose is good and the article has a potential for becoming a FA, however, there are some issues that should be resolved first. These are the preliminary I found during the rough analyze of the article. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

  • I've fixed them all. Only one redlink stays there but is the original version of an url that has been archived, so that the source is not dead. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "This is heard on his twelfth studio album, Poquita Ropa." - probably should be past tense.
  • The first composition paragraph needs to have a source at the end.
  • When was the album released in the US?
  • "Arjona wrote the song for his mother, Noemí Morales[22] " - a period is missing. Were you planning expanding that sentence?
  • "As of July 2012, the song has reached number ten in Mexico" - given that it's October, has anything changed since July?
  • "As of June 2012 the album has spent a total of 13 weeks at the top of the Latin Pop Albums chart, the most for Arjona." - this needs a source. You should update all of the "as of"... months.
  • The critical reaction section seems a bit small.

All in all it's good though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only thing out of date is the "As of April 2012" for the tour. Given that the tour ended in August, you should get an updated source. Also, was there any negative feedback to the album? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about non-journalists? Any fan reviews? Any international poor reviews? What about iTunes ratings? That section just doesn't seem that balanced for an FA. And cool about the tour, that's worth having. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about reviews, or at least reviews that could be FA-level. I can't add iTunes ratins and fan reviews because they are not considered as reliable enough, as well as non-journalists (sadly). And even if added, I haven't found a negative review of the album yet, even by fans (maybe yes on iTunes but I can't add it ofc). XD — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments – I'm beginning to dig into this article, and so far it seems there is still work needed to be done with regards to prose and coherence. A look at the lead presents these concerns, although some are nitpicking, so I've chosen not to oppose at the moment.

  • Consecutive paragraphs in the lead are opening the same way: "Independiente...". Please add some variety.
Done. Miniapolis (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recorded in the United States and Mexico, it was produced by Arjona with Dan Warner and Lee Levin (under their stage name, Los Gringos) and Puerto Rican singer-songwriter Tommy Torres." – it is not really a stage name, but more so a band name. Perhaps instead "Arjona with Los Gringos (a duo that comprises Dan Warner and Lee Levin)" would work better; this way, there is no confusion as to whether Los Gringos also includes Arjona or not.
Already reworded in the lead. Miniapolis (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arjona released the album under his independent record label, Metamorfosis; it was the first that he released as an independent musician after being signed by Sony Music (in 1993) and Warner Music (in 2008)." – I feel as though this can be condensed to a more concise version. It is really fluffy the way it is structured right now.
Done. Miniapolis (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not say that this is a Spanish language album (or whatever language it is, because it certainly is not English). That would help clarify a lot.
Already done. Miniapolis (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independiente was composed and written within a year, and it marks the fourth collaboration of that Arjona and Torres." – (1) If you are implying that it took around a year to make the album, than just "in" is good enough instead of "within" (plainer). (2) The second clause is ungrammatical.
  • "In the album, Arjona returns to his trademark sound after his stylistic departure on Poquita Ropa (2010)." – "returns to" reads oddly with "In the album". "For Independiente" is more appropriate and makes more sense literally. Also, mentioning the title here works better because it helps distinguish from the other album mentioned in the sentence, Poquita Rope, as well as the fact that the next sentence begins as "On that album", which too sounds strange (that).
  • "On that album he used fewer instruments to simplify his sound, introducing what has been called a "stripped-down acoustic effort" in his music." – This altogether sounds weak and irrelevant because it refers to a previous album.
  • "Independiente became Arjona's fourth number-one album on the Billboard Top Latin Albums (where it debuted at the top the chart for the week ending 22 October 2011)." – reading this aloud makes me concerned about what to expect further down. Hint: "at the top the chart". But this could have just been an accidental typo, so I'll assume good faith. Also, "the chart" is totally redundant. And are the parentheses really necessary?
  • "Within a week of release the album was certified gold in Chile, the United States and Mexico and certified platinum in Venezuela and Argentina." – "Within a week of release" is awkward; try "Within one week after its release".
  • I'm wondering if all those chart accomplishments of the singles are necessary in the lead, which is meant to be a broad and brief summary of the article. Try trimming some of that down.
  • This needs parallel structuring: " The third single, "Mi Novia Se Me Está Poniendo Vieja", was released in May 2012 and the fourth, "Te Quiero", in July of that year."

I'm stopping there. You do appear to have put quite some effort into this article, so good work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed most of these issues and asked the article's GOCE copyditor to take a look. Thanks for your comments. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed what I've been able to find; some indication of where the issues in question are in the article would be helpful. I use parentheses {judiciously} to improve the comprehensibility of very long sentences when I don't have time to rewrite them. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Regarding the last point, the sentence sounds incomplete. "... and the fourth, 'Te Quiero', was released in July" would make the sentence structure more solid. Also, "record" is better in "The recording was composed and written in a year" because a recording refers to a single track/song. A compilation of recordings could be called a record (CD). I'm also thinking "for" in place of "on" would be clearer here, "stylistic departure on Poquita Ropa (2010)". If you need any more clarifications, feel free to let me know. Best regards. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed these little issues you raised. Thanks for reviewing the article, Penguin :). — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more concerns I have with regard to the lead:
  • The title itself in place of "The album" sounds nicer in "The album—the first independent release by Arjona after he was signed by Sony Music in 1993 and Warner Music in 2008—was issued by his own label, Metamorfosis." It's more specific and fits well with the info inside the dashes. ANother thing: is "own" necessary? To me, it seems redundant.
  • Could the lead say anything about Independiente's music? We are told that it features Arjona's "trademark sound", but what is this style exactly?
  • Careful about introducing typos: "Independiente became became Arjona's fourth number-one album on the Billboard Top Latin Albums where it debuted for the week ending 22 October 2011." Also, there should be a comma after "Albums" because it is non-restrictive. And what is meant by "where it debuted for the week ending 22 October 2011" exactly? It sounds like an unfinished thought.
  • "The second single, "Fuiste Tú" (featuring Gaby Moreno), reached number one on the Latin Pop Songs, number two on the Latin Songs charts and topped several other national charts." – several? I only counted one national singles chart (Venezuela Top 100) and four other (non-national) charts. This sentence needs to be revised.
  • Likewise, "The lead single, "El Amor", became a commercial success in several Latin American countries and was number one on the Billboard Latin Songs and Latin Pop Songs charts" also says "several", although the only Latin American countries it charted in were Mexico and Venezuela.
The lead still needs more work before it can be considered FA quality. I have not read the rest of the article, but this list shows that there may be more problems further down. Special attention should be payed to how smoothly the prose flows and whether it reads professionally. I feel like there are bumps and rough places here and there. With that said, I do feel that the potential is there. There just needs to be a bit more work needed. But I agree that the Critical section is a bit dry and largely comprises long quotations. If this can somehow be addressed, the quality of the section will greatly improve. This FAC has lasted quite some time now, and I have to put in a !vote. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 16:35, 1 November 2012 [26].

KMFDM edit

Nominator(s): —Torchiest talkedits 22:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the last time I nominated it, it was in pretty good shape, and received a lot of attention and improvement during that nomination. It received no supports, but no opposes either. I don't think there's much more, if anything, that needs fixing or changing at this point, so it should be ready to pass. —Torchiest talkedits 22:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry that no one has picked this up, after 11 days. I am inexpert in this field, but I have made some prose comments on the lede and first few sections. Unfortunately, my time is rather limited at present. I hope that someone with a bit more knowledge will take over and review the article thoroughly; on the face of it, it looks pretty thorough, though the prose may need some further attention.

  • False subjunctive in lead: "the latter of whom would leave and rejoin the group several times over its history". Should read: " the latter of whom left and rejoined the group several times over its history".
  • "by 2005 achieved a consistent line-up..." Either: "by 2005 had achieved a consistent line-up..." or "in 2005 achieved a consistent line-up..." but not as given presently.
  • "KMFDM is considered..." This formulation always provokes the question: "considered by whom?". Music writer, critics, commentators etc - gives us something specific.
  • "Members have recorded under many other names..." By "members", do you mean the whole band, or individual members, or sub-groups?
  • Confusing wording: "KMFDM was founded in Paris, France, on February 29, 1984,[1] as an art project between Sascha Konietzko and German painter/multi-media artist Udo Sturm to perform for the opening of an exhibition of young European artists at the Grand Palais." I assume the intendied meaninig is "KMFDM was founded in Paris, France, on February 29, 1984,[1] by Sascha Konietzko and German painter/multi-media artist Udo Sturm, as a performing arts project for the opening of an exhibition of young European artists at the Grand Palais".
  • Why use the recently contrived "initialism" instead of the established word "acronym"?
  • Did Konietzko write " DA-DA-esque" in that form, rather than "Dada-esque"? Perhaps this is a translator's error; even so, I think a [sic] is called for. (The correct term is probably "Dadaist")
  • "Soon afterwards..." Needs clarifying; soon after what? Soon after the 2003 interview? Or after the initial performance in 1984?
  • " The next album, What Do You Know, Deutschland?, was recorded from 1983 to 1986, with some songs done before Esch was a member of the band..." There must be a better way of phrasing this; "with some songs done" is simply ugly. How about something like: "The next album, released in December 1986, was What Do You Know, Deutschland?, which incorporated songs recorded by Ensch before he was a member of the band".
  • A "second UK release"? When? And the old subjunctive problem: "would go on to design" → "went on to design". And "thenceforth" is redundant.

Note also that the link on William Wilson leads to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to give me some notes. I've corrected all of the items above. In particular, the information about the 1983–86 recording was more confusing than I realized. As for the initialism bit, that was in the article before I worked on it, but it seemed like the slightly different flavor of the word was more accurate. Since you're not the first reviewer over the years to remark on it, though, I changed it. Thanks again! —Torchiest talkedits 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Interesting band (using the term loosely). The research looks fairly thorough (though with at least one issue, see below). The history feels a bit disjointed in places, but I may struggle to come up with conrete suggestions, sorry. Other issues (only up to Adios):

  • maybe you've had this discussion in a previous FAC, but I'm going to put this out there: this article relies 26 times on a self-published source that may be by the band itself (i'm running on the domain name - the page itself tells us disturbingly little about authorship etc). Why should we be confident about this source?
  • lede: toured more than two dozen times" Maybe specify toured internationally? It wouldn't seem notable to me a band touring its own country that often.
  • early years: "Konietzko adding audio treatment to five amplified bass guitars". Ok, this should mean there were five bass guitarists, but none are named. And Konietzko is doing... what exactly? What does "adding audio treatment" mean??
  • "is typically given the loose translation of "no pity for the majority"" - source says "loosely translated means...", which is not the same thing at all as "typically given..." Need some other sources that use that translation.
  • "Soon after the first performance, Konietzko joined up with Peter Missing in his new band Missing Foundation in Hamburg". Were it not for the wikilinks, this would read that the band name was "Missing Foundation in Hamburg". Try "Soon after the first performance, Konietzko went to Hamburg, where he joined Peter Missing's new band Missing Foundation"
  • I know it can be hard to find the right place to put isolated, but relevant, information, but the following is jarring in its tacking on to an unrelated para: "Watts left the group after working on just three songs[7] to start his own project, Pig."
  • who is Dave Thompson that we care what he said? A music critic? Rock music writer? Need to specify.
  • "found that Wax Trax! had filed Chapter 11 in November 1992". Lay person/non-US reader will have no idea what "filed Chapter 11" means.
  • "was featured in the film Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, and was the first single from its soundtrack". I'm curious here, not saying this is wrong. But how does a movie company release a single from a soundtrack? Isn't it just a single by the band? I can understand how one may market a single from the movie, just not how it gets released as such...
  • " Tim Skold, formerly of the band Shotgun Messiah, helped write "Anarchy" for the Symbols album, and became a more active participant for the band's next album.[43] The album's opening song "Megalomaniac",..." Excessive repetition of "album", and it isn't clear from which album "Megalomaniac" is the opening song: Symbols or whatever comes next (did I miss the title?)
  • "contains the grammatically correct form of the band name's meaning, which according to Konietzko was done to confuse people who told the band that its name was wrong". How would that confuse them? Wouldn't it make it clear rather than confuse? I'm confused. ;-)
  • The article seems ambiguous about Tim Skold's status. He "became a more active participant" in the next album; but a little later we have "as written almost exclusively by Konietzko and Skold". Was Skold a songwriter, or a band member, or both?

May come back another time to do more. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I am working through them now. I can address your first question about the website. KMFDM.net began in 1997, and has always been run by KMFDM main man Sascha Konietzko. You can see this archive of the homepage that was captured the same date (April 8, 1997) as the history page I'm using as a reference. —Torchiest talkedits 04:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed most of the issues you've mentioned above. On the bass guitars part, nothing I've ever read about the performance has indicated there were guitarists playing the basses. I'm pretty sure Konietzko was running a centralized system to play them all himself. Not sure what the audio treatment means exactly either, as that's pretty much all that's in the source. On the confusion part, fans who know (or think they know) German have always complained that the original phrase is grammatically incorrect. However, it was always intended to be that way. The nouns in the name were reversed to their correct positions to confuse fans about whether the original wrong name was intentional or not. Not sure how or if I can add all that into the article. —Torchiest talkedits 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and on the "Megalomaniac" single, this is all the source says: "Now, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation hopes to do the same when the album ships gold later this month. The first single, KMFDM's 'Megalomaniac,' is currently spinning on rock radio around the country." So, not sure what else I can say about it with that. I'll see if I can find another source for this and for the bass guitars part. —Torchiest talkedits 05:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, a few points. First, thanks for starting to tackle my suggestions. Second, I'm not very comfortable with extensive citation of a site written by the band's lead. Probably OK if confined to some bare factual stuff. We'll see what other editors think. Third, don't include in the article stuff that you can't clarify. If we can't make sense of the sources, we shouldn't reproduce their ambiguity, we should omit it. Finally, I didn't explain my issue with the name very well. The article says "typically given...". This implies that the majority of sources writing about the band use that translation. For the Wikipedia article to say "typically given..." we then need either multiple third party sources that are using that translation (thus demonstrating it is typical), or one third-party source that itself says that this is the "typical" translation. At the moment we don't have either. Hmm, I wonder if that was any clearer? :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything using the primary website source is relatively uncontroversial stuff like dates. I switched a few statements to the Allmusic biography source though. I've also added that source to the translation claim. I rewrote the soundtrack single bit to make it clear it was just a radio release, not a physical single. Still trying to figure out what to do about the "audio treatment" part though. Thanks again. —Torchiest talkedits 16:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts (and that's all these are, not trying to get into arguments or anything; any replies will be helpful):
  • I'm not sure we should say that the band toured "internationally". What is internationally with them? When they toured the US in 1990, and were based in Germany, I would support saying that is "international", but then when they toured Germany in 1997 (and were then based in the US), is that also "international"? Considering how often the band moved around (Germany to Chicago to Seattle to spread across Germany/UK/US), it seems tough to call what is and isn't international.
  • I think the "audio treatment" part makes sense. If the article doesn't state there are bass players, then there aren't any (all other performers are listed either by name or by general mentioning). Would working in a link to Experimental music help any? For example, "The first show consisted of Sturm playing an ARP 2600 synthesizer, Konietzko adding audio treatment to five bass guitars with their five amplifiers spread throughout the building, and four Polish coal miners pounding on the foundations of the Grand Palais, performing experimental music"? Or linking "audio treatment" to experimental music (ie audio treatment)? Or the same, except using electronic music instead of experimental music?
  • I'd support removing completely the sentence about containing the correct grammatical form and being meant to confuse listeners, etc. It is a confusing statement itself, and I don't think it really adds much to the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pulled the "confusing" part, since it really wasn't that great of a sentence anyway, and the source isn't necessarily top quality either. I agree about the international part, as the band has lived everywhere, in groups and separately, and has had members of at least five nationalities I can think of off the top of my head. Still not a 100% sure on the audio treatment bit, although linking it somewhere could work. —Torchiest talkedits 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the tour part in the lead, added a couple more references to the typical translation part, and added a little more info about Skold in two places. How's it looking now? —Torchiest talkedits 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the first performance section quite a bit, removing the "audio treatment" bit completely, and used a couple new refs. I've trimmed back the usage of the band's history website from 26 to 21, and almost all of it just for dates now; eight uses are for tour dates and names, for example. —Torchiest talkedits 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Critics consider KMFDM one" to "Critics consider KMFDM to be one"
  • "29th" remove "th" from it per WP:MOS, even it is a quote
  • Link people's name, companies, etc., per WP:REPEATLINK, in images
  • Move image to right side in reception per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
  • Same goes for album artwork image
  • Table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope rows to it ensuring so
  • Table doesn't meet WP:DTT, add table caption to ensure it does
  • Per WP:&, don't use "&" unless it is in an official name. That said, in the table I see numerous violations, and such.
  • "Allmusic" should be "AllMusic"
  • Too many external links per WP:ELNO. As per WP:FACEBOOK, Facebook links should only be used if there is no "Official website" link, so remove the Facebook link. Same goes for Twitter and Myspace, so remove those as well, and it should be fine
  • A number of reference titles, and more text, don't meet WP:DASH, hypthen should be en-dash, please check article for all these violations
  • The publisher for "Billboard" is "Prometheus Global Media", not "Nielsen"
  • "KMFDM Inc" remove Inc

TBrandley 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the technical comments. I've fixed everything on the list with a few exceptions:
  • I don't see anything in the MOS that says a quote should be changed if a date has the ordinal version.
Doesn't seem right, though. TBrandley 04:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed all the Billboard publishers to Prometheus for the online sources. I left the print journal publisher as Nielsen because they all were published before 2009.
Understood. TBrandley 04:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I can add scope="row" to the tour table because there aren't any row headers.
  • It goes in the main row of the table. TBrandley
Let me know what you think about those items, and thanks again for taking the time to comment. —Torchiest talkedits 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I've read WP:ACCESS and WP:DTT, and I can't see an example of what I think you're talking about. Can you show me an example of scope="row" being used without row headers, or make the edit? I'm fairly confused about the usage now. —Torchiest talkedits 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 16:35, 1 November 2012 [27].

Arrested Development (TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A former FA, the article was demoted three years ago in large part due to poor citations and original research. Now a GA, it is in marvelously better shape, due to the vast improvements made by other editors and myself. The article is now comprehensive, well-written, and meets all other FA criteria. Thanks for your consideration. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it appropriate given that a new season is coming out soon? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of Featured Articles that are currently-airing television series or were currently-airing when nominated. As it stands, the article meets the FA criteria and will not change drastically when the fourth season airs. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1b and 1c; this article isn't nearly comprehensive enough. Over half of it is in-universe info (plot and character summaries), but there is little analytical discussion about the show's unique style of humour, themes, motifs etc (which were curiously present in more detail in 2009). The reception section could use bulking up as well; there is no discussion of influential the show was or its legacy. The article also misses out several important and well-known facts: for eg, why the show was a ratings failure—its style of humour was so dense and layered that most fans preferred to watch it on DVD or Tivo where they could rewind it and go back-and-forth. It also neglects to mention that there were several fan-based campaigns to keep the show on air. On the other hand, I'm not sure each season's plot needs to be summarised in such detail when there are separate articles for each season and episode; I think a three/four-paragraph summary of the entire show should suffice here.

Further, all your sources seem to be exclusively online-based (missed a few though); a quick GoogleBooks search reveals a few print sources exist too. Further, there is a glaring absence of DVD commentaries, usually a treasure trove of useful and interesting info. I also object to the use of the episodes themselves as references, as this entails a violation of our no original research policy.

To summarise, this is barely GA-worthy work (and as I suspected, the review was quite inadequate), and to be FA it needs to be much, much more comprehensive. Please see FAs like The Simpsons, or even South Park and The X-Files, for good models to base this article on.—indopug (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand your comments. Briefly, I would say that the detail in 2009 was all original research, citing individual episodes or nothing, and most of it was not really encyclopedic ('Continuity' was all in-universe). A couple of sources are Google Books (the Lotz book you mention here is cited in the article), but more offline sources would be good too (but not required). Regarding citing episodes, per WP:PSTS says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source," so citing individual episodes for a plot section without interpretation is fine. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by GrahamColm 10:01, 1 November 2012 [28].

Wedlock (band) edit

Nominator(s): Mmtik (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Mmtik (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: nominator has made two edits to the article. --Rschen7754 08:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2012&oldid=525815243"