Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

October 2008 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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 31 October 2008 [1].

The Rocky Horror Picture Show edit

Nominator(s): Amadscientist

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

  • The article has significance to the Halloween holiday..
  • The article has been well researched, properly structured and follows wiki guidlines.
  • The article is a part of several projects and has been improved drasticaly since it's conception.
  • Why not? (humor..little bit)

Amadscientist (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
  • Too much information is unreferenced. Several paragraphs go completely uncited.
  • Remove the spaces before inline citations; they should not have any spaces preceding them.
  • Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates.

Gary King (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
  • Images do not meet WP:NFCC; various Manual of Style issues; reference concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, per concerns above, some weaknesses in prose, and nothing on production financing. One would expect to see more critics' comments, from the release reviews or later. Oakham Court is not, in real life anyway, a castle. Needs a prose copyedit & lots more references. But the basics are there. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Thank you all for you comments and the fixes needed. I will work these out and even if it still is opposed after the changes.....at least i know I did what was needed and can reference this conversation as i work on the article. I started this early so i could see what others felt needed to be done....so there is still hope this can be approved by the Halloween weekend. If not...the article will still be improved. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Too many sections unreferenced, unreliable sites (www.imdb.com, www.filmreference.com, www.thehorrorblog, www.crazedimaginations.com, www.rockymusic.org, etc.), deadlinks showing up on the link checker tool, references lacking publishers. This is without going into the prose, strongly suggest withdrawing and submitting to Peer Review, which is a system to help improve articles, which FAC is not. FAC is for recognizing articles at a high standard, not a method for improving articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Thank you. as for unreliable sources......I have to agree. While many are perfectly fine sites they don't fit wiki standards and many editors try hard to balance between relialble and wiki acceptable source.

The article has been through peer review but certainly can be resubmitted again. If I am unable to make the changes within the week I will withdraw the nomination and go that route. It worked well when I attempted to get it to GA status.....but I assure you, the act was not simply to improve the article. I do disagree with you about FAC. The Feature Article canditates page is where we improve an article. All the other features of wiki are geard towars improving the articles. I want the article to be good enough for Feature status, but it has to earn that status. I can continue on with other editors towards consensus on direction and get more editors envolved. The fair use problem the page had has been resolved. It was my doing so I undid it. Apologies. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article is not ready. There are many problems, particularly with the prose, comprehensiveness and referencing, (reliability and shortages). Graham Colm Talk 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having an image in the lead crushes the prose between two images. Move it down to the main article for better reading. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this candidacy untill editors can fix all the areas mentioned including prose, references and other problems not mentioned here.

Thank you all for your help!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will archive this on my next pass through FAC; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 30 October 2008 (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 User:Maralia 16:01, 29 October 2008 [2].

Christmas 1994 nor'easter edit

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

I rewrote this article a couple weeks ago, incorporating a great amount of information, considering the type of storm and the time frame. It passed GA, had a brief review on its talk page, and has had some off-wiki criticism. If promoted, this will be the first featured nor'easter article, and one of only a few non-tropical weather FAs. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Context needed (especially global)
  1. across the state of Florida --> please mention the country
  2. the National Hurricane Center --> again, do mention the country name as National could refer to any country
    There's only one National Hurricane Center. Would that change still have to be made? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you have established the regional context earlier in the lead, its no longer necessary. Else it would be necessary to mention for people unfamiliar to the subject. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. flooding in South Carolina, and in North Carolina --> Add ...the states of...
  4. 1 p.m. EST --> UTC equivalent needed
  5. It peaked at around 970 millibars --> Can this be rephrased to removed the word "peaked"? peak suggests a maximum of sorts, this contradicts a nadir.
    "Peaked" does, indeed, suggest a maximum intensity. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it falls from 1000 to 970. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 130,000 customers --> "customers" reads odd [global]
    130,000 people instead? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 30 feet (9.1 m) --> precision (9.1) not needed for approximate values
    [check global] =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A map charting out the depression's path would be extremely helpful
  9. develop aloft --> jargon
  10. continued to rapidly deepen --> jargon
  11. NHC --> acronym needs to be defined earlier on
  12. 10 p.m. EST on December 22 and 1:30 a.m. EST --> UTC equivalents needed [global]
  13. A squall line --> expand to include context (First-time readers should not go clicking links to understand context)
  14. $6–$8 million --> How much in 2008 terms? [global]
  15. Are there no sources that deal with the aftermath? (rebuilding, beefing up warnings etc.)
    I haven't found such information after days of research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Check the category "New England"
  17. "strong" is a relative word to use in the lead. How strong? Can this adjective be omitted?
  18. "contained some tropical characteristics." -- The word "some" adds confusion
  19. ""There was no front associated with it ... it didn’t qualify as a tropical storm" --> Who quoted it?
  20. "by the morning of December 26" --> in the early hours of...
  21. few ice jams in area rivers --> "area rivers" - I did not get it
  22. Winds gusted --> I do not think that gust can be used as a verb in this context
  23. ...at least 6 inches... --> Remove redundant wording in the sentence

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done with everything else. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what concerns me is that the second section deals with reported statements. "At this place, this happened" At that place, this happened', "this happened there" --> I'm not sure how to deal with it, but choppy statements like this do not make easy reading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Heh. Did NOT mean to put oppose there, the perils of editing from the road. Should have been comments, now corrected. Sorry Julian!

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead: * "It developed from an area of low pressure in the southeast Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Keys in the southeast Gulf of Mexico, and moved across the state of Florida." I'd suggest removing the second instance of "the southeast Gulf of Mexico".

  • I'd suggest replacing "rainfall" with "rain" in three places.

All: * All the digit-noun combinations need no-break codes per WP:NBSP.

  • I can't think of a reason to use "numerous" instead of "many". Four-letter words are among the best in the language.

Meteorological history: * "had moved to the north, allowing for" might be better as "had moved to the north, which allowed".

  • "When later analyzing the cyclone for possible tropical characteristics, there was insufficient data to fully assess the storm." Better might be: "Analysts lacked sufficient data to fully assess the cyclone's tropical characteristics."
  • "Deemed a hybrid storm, warm waters of up to 80 °F (27 °C) from the Gulf Stream, combined with cold air over the United States, caused the cyclone to rapidly intensify." Better might be: "Deemed a hybrid storm, the cyclone rapidly intensified when warm waters... "
  • "An upper-level low pressure system that had developed behind the storm began to intensify, and grew to be larger than the original disturbance." Remove the comma. If "grew to be larger than the original disturbance" could stand alone as a complete sentence, you would need the comma.

Effects:

  • "The warm system caused minor flooding due to melting snow, along with a few ice jams in local rivers." I'm not keen on "due to" constructions, which are often weak or indirect. Better might be "The warm system caused snow melt and minor flooding and a few ice jams on local rivers."

Southeast United States and Mid-Atlantic: *"A waterspout moved ashore on Key Largo, causing only minor damage." I look for ways to put nouns and modifiers together. In this sentence, "causing" seems for a split second to modify "Key Largo". The reader can and does figure out that it modifies "waterspout", but a smoother construction might be: "A waterspout, moving ashore on Key Largo, caused only minor damage."

  • "Up to 3 feet (0.91 m) of water flooding some homes in the region." "Flooded" rather than "flooding"?
  • "Red Cross Shelter" Should that be "the Red Cross shelter" or perhaps "Red Cross shelters"?
  • The hydroplaning link should be to the kind involving car tires rather than the kind involving motorboats. In addition, the phrase "one woman hydroplaned and struck a tree" isn't quite what you want to say. Her car hydroplaned.
  • "The fire was quickly spread by the wind, burning a field." This is another example of noun-modifier separation. "Burning" seems to be attached to "wind" but isn't. Better would be: "The fire, quickly spread by the wind, burned a field."
  • "Several trees, in addition to a sign, were brought down by the winds." This sentence relies on passive voice as do many other sentences in the article. Active is often better because more clear and direct. You might say, "The winds brought down several trees and a sign." This construction uses nine words as opposed to the original 13. I would suggest looking for ways throughout the article to use active voice instead of passive voice. (You probably can't do it with statements from sources that say things like "11 injuries were reported" without telling you who reported them.)
  • "confined leveled of sand dunes"?
  • "Roughly 112,000 Long Island Lighting Company customers received power outages at some point during the storm." "Received" is not the right word. Better might be "experienced". Or, "Power outages affected about 112,000 Long Island Lighting Company customers during the storm".

New England:

  • "Northeast Utilities, who... " A company is a "which" rather than a "who".
  • "ripped three barges from their moorings, one of which traveled across the Long Island Sound" You need to re-cast this sentence to make it clear that a barge, not a mooring, crossed the sound.
  • "... a 50 feet (15 m) Christmas tree" needs a hyphen. You can fix this by adding |adj=on to the conversion template. Ditto for "400 feet (120 m) section". Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail—Julian, this is full of loose, ambiguous language, as usual. Please withdraw it, have others assist to improve the writing to the required professional standard, and resubmit in a few weeks. This is not a free-advice fixit room: the reviewers are too scarce and overworked, and it's unfair to other nominators to expect extensive treatment.

  • Now we don't autoformat, "December 23 and December 24" can do without one word.
  • "As the storm passed offshore of North Carolina"—eeeuuw.
  • "rough surf eroded an 8 feet (2.4 m) ledge"—shouldn't it be "foot"?
  • "Upwards of 5 inches"—this is loose and informal
  • "several dams failed"—what, failed to produce electricity? What on earth does it mean?
  • ""one woman's vehicle hydroplaned and struck a tree, and another drowned after being hit by another vehicle." What, the car drowned? Tony (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archived; this nomination has been closed and archived. Please leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 28 October 2008 [3].

Batman (1989 film) edit

Nominator(s): User:Wildroot (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I simply feel it is ready. I worked this article through Peer Review and A-Class review. This is obviously the best source of information for the 1989 Batman film found anywhere. I am open to suggestions to improve this article. Wildroot 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed, please ignore the above statement and the small discussion below. The websites and information listed above were simply removed from the article per WP:RS. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking that question. Basically, editors from WikiProjectFilms (such as Alientraveller, Erik, Bignole and others and obviously me) agree that we can only use these sources whenever they have either direct interviews with the person or whenever Hollywood invites them for a set visit. And the above links to have only direct interviews with the person. AMC is a good reliable source, and it is not one of those "rumor blogs", even though it says blog in front of the URL. Thanks. Wildroot 14:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that just because it's an interview doesn't mean that the publisher of the information doesn't need to be reliable. How do we know the interview is presented correctly without bias? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you mean. Well, Batman-related filmmakers such as David Goyer, Michael Uslan and Chris Corbould have called Batman-on-Film a reliable source. AMC is a television cable channel, popular in America (American Movie Classics. SuperHeroHype.com is found at Superhero Hype!. It is published by Coming Soon Media, L.P. and Crave Online Media, LLC,. None of those interviews have "bias" in them. Wildroot (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some evidence as to where they've called it a reliable source, please? Giggy (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound somewhat skeptical, but the evidence comes from the main page in Batman-on-Film's website. Yeah, that's not the best evidence, but the guy that runs the website has been invited with set visits to the past two Batman films from Warner Bros. This is where the other film editors have agreed on with sites like Batman-on-Film that only use sites like those for interviews and set visits, when information comes directly from the source. I only used those links for interviews. I hope this helps. Wildroot (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck some, but the others are still in the article and evidence that they are reliable hasn't been presented. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per conprehensiveness concerns. I'm surprised nothing is included from Time and The New York Times, which I know have material on the movie (at one point I was going to work on the article and so I went through the archives of the major websites). Make sure you exhaust all available info from major media outlets. This movie was a pretty big deal and received according coverage (Also: totally unnecessary info, but it might be my favorite movie. Jack Nicholson as The Joker and music by Prince!!!). Also, there's this book of academic essays titled The Many Faces of the Batman (I think that's the correct name; I have it at my college library). It was published in 1992 and deals a bit with the film, and if I recall correctly it discusses the film's marketing in-depth at one point. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I never would have thought of that. I went through the Time archives, and found 2 useful articles. I still need to look at The New York Times. Also, I tried looking for that book you requested, but I cannot find it anywhere. Perhaps you might be the only one who can help? Wildroot (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I just went through the New York Times archives and there were a lot of articles. Anyway, I finished adding your orders and requests into the article. Is there anything else you want to further address? Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't feel it's comprehesive; the publications I listed are just examples of sources to include. I agree with the other editors here that more research can be done. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is an excellent start on Batman, a wonderful movie that I just watched the other day. However, I feel that it does not yet meet the FA criteria:

  • Image:MikeandJack.jpg - The "purpose" of this non-free image is described thus: "Illustration of a specific point within the article" - What point? The purpose needs to be described much more specifically.
Done Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - the purpose now says "one of the main themes". The fair use description should clearly articulate what that main theme is. This is not specific enough. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Burtonjoke.jpg - I'm not totally convinced of the need for this non-free image, as it is not discussed in the article. If this image were discussed in the article, it would be a wonderful addition to the article, however.
  • The lead does not summarize the entire article. It leaves out a discussion of the "Themes" section, for example. Each section of the article needs to be discussed in the lead, as well as important points in those sections. See WP:LEAD.
  • While I applaud the short plot summary, I think it needs to be rewritten a bit. For example, the sentence about Napier killing Bruce's parents stands in isolation - explain how it ties into the plot. Also, Knox falls out of the plot description after the first paragraph, but he is a character in the movie long after that point.
Done Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is overlinked - terms should generally be linked once or twice in an article (see WP:MOSLINKS). In the "Production" section, for example, people's names and movie titles are repeatedly linked.
  • The article needs to be copyedited, as there are small grammar errors, typos, and awkward syntax throughout the article, but I would not worry about this until the new research has been added.
  • The "Themes" section needs to be expanded, as there is much more written on the meaning of the film that these few tidbits. The little that is here should probably be explained a bit more for the reader, as well. I see the above reviewer has recommended some sources for further research - I would also recommend searching the MLA database - there are many articles about Batman there (I checked). Also, see Alison McMahan, The Films of Tim Burton: Animating Live Action in Contemporary Hollywood. New York: Continuum, 2005.
Bat-Done. Wildroot (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not done. Adding a few sentences here or there from this one source is totally insufficient. Did you even search the MLA database? Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Reaction" section needs to be expanded using the reviews written by film critics. This sentence - "the film received generally favorable reviews from critics. Based on 49 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 69% of reviewers have enjoyed Batman. By comparison, Metacritic has collected an average score of 66, based on 17 reviews" - does not really convey what critics thought about the film. Select some important reviews and quote from them.
Done. Wildroot (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, this needs to be rewritten so that flows more seamlessly within the section. For example, there are detailed responses to the characters and the music before general responses to the movie. That doesn't make much sense. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, Batman helped establish the modern day superhero film genre" - This important fact is buried in the "Legacy" section and is not really explained to the reader. Put this in context for the reader - explain what the superhero genre is and what movies came after Batman.
Done Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Adding an aside from Burton is totally insufficient. Please read what I suggested - you need to define the genre and then explain what movies were inspired by Batman. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that Ealdgyth has highlighted certainly appear unreliable to me and the answers given so far do not suggest that the websites satisfy WP:RS, so more work needs to be done replacing those sources or deleting the information sourced to them. Note that if the only place we can find a specific piece of information is on a sketchy website, that piece of information itself becomes sketchy! :)
Done. Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per Ealdgyth's reply above. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to withdraw this nomination, since additional research needs to be done. After that research is completed, I would be happy to help copyedit the article in preparation for its renomination. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first comment has been addressed. The entire "reliable sources fiasco" has been finished, so no need to go into that detail. You said the Reaction section "does not convey what critics thought about the film". That's false, because there are 2 paragraphs discussing what the critics thought. I fixed your comment about what you thought of Alexander Knox in the Plot and stuff. The Image:Burtonjoke.jpg photo is very encyclopedic. I don't see any need to change it. I will finish off the other comments shortly. Cheers.Wildroot (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the Burton image was unencyclopedic - I think that it is a great image (see my comment above). However, you have not provided a sufficient fair-use rationale for it. Currently, it is not discussed in the article and therefore is nothing more than an illustration. You need to provide "critical commentary" on it to justify its inclusion. Again, I would urge you to withdraw this article and work on the research. The sources I found on the MLA database and the books suggested in this review for you to use as sources will take some time to read. You will then need to carefully add information to the article. This takes time. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hi. I don't look at film articles often, so this might not apply, but I'd like to see a bit more in the Reaction section. There must be more than just some comments from a comic book writer. Siskel and Ebert, NYT, LA Times, movie magazines, etc. I have a People Weekly magazine from the week the film was released with a review and a four page spread of the movie premiere too, if you're interested
  • Also, the image caption, "the duel of the freaks" -- surely that should begin with a capital, and it should be attributed to someone

Matthewedwards 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your suggestion on the Themes section. And yes, that would be very nice to see that People magazine section. Wildroot (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it would be nice to see more about the parallels between Batman and Metropolis. We spent a good deal of time in my Film History class discussing this. A good resource is the Chapter "Metropolis Redux: Visual Metaphor and the Urbanscape" in Beyond the Stars: studies in American popular film (you can find it on Google Books). The cathedral scene in Batman, for example, is almost a verbatim remake of the cathedral scene in Metropolis. And of course there is much to discuss of the thematic and architectural similarities. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggesting that. I found it here. I will try to fit this in my busy schedule because the other editors are also asking for suggestions. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section doesn't seem overly detailed or complete, and I agree somewhat with Awadewit. I don't edit film articles often (erm, ever) but if I was reading this article out of my own interest (which is how I looked at it) I would get the feeling that there's something. WP:FA#Media has plenty of examples; at a glance, I think this article does the reception section quite well, IMO. It's getting there but not quite "right" yet. Giggy (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing per nominator request; [4] please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 28 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:17, 28 October 2008 [5].

Homosexual transsexual edit

Nominator(s): Hfarmer (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because not only does it meet the FA criteria it hilites a subject of importance to the LGBT community. The article is stable, well referenced, well written, summary style etc. It does not have a picture but after much (archived on the talk page) debate adding a picture is a non starter. This article is the best article in a complex of articles about a controversial topic. However the "homosexual transsexual" has recieved much less coverage than the other related concept. Last but not least this article is a shining example of what editors who don't all agree on a controversial topic can do here at Wikipedia. Hfarmer (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The editor who has nominated this article seeks to legitimize this term by controlling the content of the article and related entries through the following WP:OWN-type strategies:
  • Removing citations that explain why the term is controversial and deprecated (such as comments from experts Harry Benjamin and Bruce Bagemihl).[6]
  • Unilaterally creating an infobox that includes the term and spreading the infobox throughout Wikipedia.[7]
  • Nominating this and all related articles as good or featured articles (nominations which generally fail or get delisted). [8]
  • Attempting to include User:Hfarmer's own photo as a textbook example of a "homosexual transsexual." [9]
As background, this editor strongly self-identifies as a "homosexual transsexual," but has never been diagnosed as such by proponents of the term. This editor considers the term to be more socially desirable than the other term used in the proponents' taxonomy, and has taken great pains to demonstrate both on and off Wikipedia that the term is applicable in User:Hfarmer's case. Proponents of this term have even written about their observations of "systematic distortion" among "male gender dysphorics" who are "nonhomosexual." [10] This nomination (as with all other failed good article and featured article nominations made by this editor) is part of a long-running attempt by User:Hfarmer to legitimize a self-identity that is based entirely on self-assessment and has never been corroborated by any proponent of this term. This is yet another clear case of this editor's putting personal goals in asserting a highly questionable self-identity ahead of the goals of Wikipedia. These controversial topics are all in the midst of significant debate, and this article is likely to be unstable and altered significantly during the course of the next few months. Jokestress (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord Jokestress you forgot to mention as per the procedure on this page your part in the editing of this article. Which you yourself played no small part in composing. You forgot to mention your role in the controversy surrounding this article. The fact that you are not a neutral actor in relation to this or anything related to this can be seen at Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Autogynephilia, Jokestress's own website ["Transsexual Road Map:A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse"],and on her yotube account NWSA Panel: Andrea James (part 1). Her now six years a activity against this theory makes her an obvious COI as was found in relation to TMWWBQ.
As for my own supposed bias I don't think User:James_Cantor (arguably a true "opponent" of Andrea James and her POV) would agree that I am on his side. Before he came I played the other side a bit to encourage a neutral outcome since his arrival I have only been a referee to their shooting match. I have two websites, "Hontas Farmer, Physicist at Large." and The Institutional Version hosted at UIC. I don't see how I am striving to portray myself as anything other than myself. I say call me whatever you like just don't call me late for dinner! Others may define me however they like for themselves but only I have the power to define myself for myself therefore I am not offended by any psychological theory's words. That apparently is all it takes to make one a "supporter" of her enemies to Jokestress.
I have been meaning to say thankyou to AJ for being the only person at the NWSA panel to mention the term "homosexual transsexual" in order to complain about it for what it is without a hint of angst or animosity for those who would be so labeled. It is so rare that it is even mentioned ever at all. Even here on WP the article Autogynephilia get's many more hits per day. Love it or hate it this is a concept that should get equal billing with Autogynephilia. That, and featuring OUR, your and my and the rest of the communities good work is my ONLY motivation for this nomination. (She says all the other nominations have failed but this article is a good article as we speak.)
From here on out can we please let the non involved editors, who dare to, comment comment? --Hfarmer (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot to answer the photo allegation. If you read through the archived conversations she more or less challenged me to put my picture (same one I have on my webpage BTW) up here for that purpose. This is only after she rejected any other possible picture or proposal that I offered. I thought a picture would make the article much better and more understandbale as it does have, the last time I smog tested it, a 15th grade level of language use. But as I said after many long debates I now feel a picture is a non starter and no consensus would ever be reached on any picture, ever.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 11 - why is there a "cf" in front of the author's names? And it's lacking a publisher
  • I'm assuming the hirschfeld ref is in German? Should note that.
  • Several of your book refs are lacking page numbers. Double check them all for page numbers, please.
  • Current ref 19 (Bailey) is Joseph Henry Press the publisher? If so, shouldn't be in italics. Needs a page number too.
  • Please standardize your refs to Benjamen's work.
  • Article titles should be in quotation marks for current refs 21, 22, 23 (Bentler, Blanchard, Blanchard)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all that you ask but for the references to Benjamin's book. I don't have a hardcopy but the online version we linked to is hosted by "The international Journal of Transgenderism". The page numbers that we do have are from people who do have access to such a copy. As for Dr. Bailey's book thought I once owned a copy after reading it a couple of times I gave it away. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I can't say I know anything about the topic or possible controversies, but I suggest if there is such an issue with this article it be taken to dispute resolution or some other process, not FAC. The prose is waaay too dense for someone without an understanding of technical phycology or the like to get that deep in it. It's also a very short article (<1000 words if you remove the lead) and therefor may not meet comprehensiveness concerns. Topics mentioned in the lead never come up in the prose, which suggests to me a bias, if unintentional. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article is about a controversial topic the whole area of discourse is one big dispute with scope far beyond WP. (see Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy) As for the dense prose, frankly I agree, Using the readability scores it takes a 15+ grade level to understand the article. The trouble with writing a more plainly worded article on this subject has been that it starts to sound crude. It could basically be summed up in one sentence. Some MTF transsexuals were always attracted to men and psychologist call such transsexuals homosexual transsexuals. Hey, I think I'll add that to the lead.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3

  • The FAC page is no stranger to controversial topics. This one may qualify, but the majority of reviewers here care about comprehensiveness, accuracy, reliability, and readability. Right now, I have to agree that it's difficult to understand because the article makes assumptions that the reader has a background in sexology. Though most would like to have such a thing, it would benefit the article to explain some issues clearly:
  • You might try by expanding History of term to make it simpler. (Sexologst) Richard Green states that since the term "transsexual" is very new (how new?), it is necessary to examine historical specifics to identify transsexuality in history (redundant?), and distinguish it from other roles that are described as "change of sex", such as homosexuality and heterosexual cross-dressing customs. (Break the previous sentence down to explain change of sex to an average reader) Green describes the cultural roles of groups such as the Two-Spirit, Hijra, Kathoey and Khanith, (a sentence about each of these roles from these cultures would be helpful) stating that these people are mentally indistinguishable from modern western transsexuals. (Can you provide Green's proof or reasoning for this?) In part, because of this history, past researchers have referred to the "homosexual" category as being the "classic", "primary" or "true" transsexual. (Does this mean all homosexuals are considered transsexuals? This is confusing.) At one time (when?) due to the heteronormative bias of many psychologists, transsexual people who did not fit into this category were often screened from receiving hormones and sex reassignment surgery
  • I found this writing style throughout the article. I suggest going through it to simplify everything per the example of the first paragraph.
  • Featured articles tend to stay away from bulletted lists unless it's completely unavoidable. I suggest putting the Leavitt and Berger study in prose to explain their findings.
  • The Prostitution section is very slim and doesn't explore the association between transsexual homosexuals and prostitution as a sociological phenomenon.
  • I find the same with the Frequency of Autogynephilia section (watch the capitalization in subheadings). These sections appear to list facts without exploring what implications they have on the people they describe.
  • Overall, the article seems to lack substance of what all these facts mean. If your sources don't cover this, perhaps it is not the right time for an FA. If there are sources that cover this, you need to get to them and include them in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much you have wrote here. I have also thought, though Jokestress disagreed, that the history section of this article should be longer and could be a bit better. However one has to understand why jokestress has disagreed with this in the past. She has argued that the people I list there are not transsexuals per se. That the word transsexual only has meaning in the modern medicalized sense of the word (having Sexual reassignment surgery etc.) I would argue that being transsexual is a state of mind before it is anything else so to me it is correct to say that transsexuals have existed since time began. Not everyone agree's. I will try to implement what you have said here.
I will withdraw this from FA consideration right now and make the improvements. I suppose I could have gotten this out of a peer review. But in the past getting peer review for this article has been hard. Thankyou for having the guts to touch it with a 10 foot pole. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing now. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [11].

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl edit

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. And I notice Artichoker just nominated Pokémon Red and Blue for FA. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should consult with major contributors to the article to determine if it's ready for FAC before submitting it for nomination. Gary King (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not the main contributor to this article, but I don't believe it is ready just yet. It hasn't been copyedited and I don't think the prose is up to standards. Sections like "Setting and plot" are crufty and need to be majorly trimmed.
Okay, I'm working on that. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there is still an unsolved debate about whether Pokémon Platinum should be merged to this article. Also, I don't think this article can be declared comprehensive until Platinum is release in the United states. Then the final decision to merge will be decided. But as of now I think this nomination was premature, and it appears that the only reason this was nominated was because I had nominated Pokémon Red and Blue a few hours earlier. Artichoker[talk] 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. As I said, I noticed that you had just nominated Red and Blue, and it was a coincidence. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I struck that out. Artichoker[talk] 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, ref #34 is missing publisher and accessdate information. Artichoker[talk] 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tezkag72 did not follow WP:FAC instructions, and normally, this FAC would be withdrawn. Because none of the significant contributors appear to be currently active, I'm going to let it run, but Artichoker's statement is already a large indication that peer review might be a better step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the instructions and I thought I did everything it said. What did I miss? Tezkag72 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not notify the major contributor of the article. His last edit was 6 days ago, but his second to last edit was seven months ago. I will notify him anyways. Artichoker[talk] 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notified. Artichoker[talk] 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. You're right, I should have. When Tragic Kingdom, an article I significantly contributed to recently, was nominated for GA (yet unfinished) I was not notified. Someone who knew I had worked on it had to tell me it was nominated. Okay, I'm going to work on the "gamecruft" problem. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Tragic Kingdom - I left a note on the talk page with the obvious edit summary "Listing at WP:GAN". If you had been watching the page - indeed, why weren't you? - you would have noticed this immediately. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It looks fine to me. It's a link to the Pokémon website, a pre-release page about the "upcoming" Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. If that's not right, then "borked" must not mean what I think it does. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting was off, it had part of its wikicode showing, but it's fixed now.
  • Some refs are lacking notices that they are in a non-English language.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; fails 1b. At a glance the reception section is woefully incomplete, cites three reviews only, and has a citation needed tag. The development section also looks underdeveloped (oops, bad pun), while the gameplay sections (at a very cursory glance and based on my recollection of the game) appear to have excessive amounts of content; review WP:GAMEGUIDE. More work is needed. Giggy (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps for the moment, more citation and a bit more information—as per Giggy—might help the article a lot more, actually. The prose could be improved, though I nominated it for peer review a while ago for the purpose of fixing it up. Perhaps more peer review and further contribution will help it. I'm leaning towards saying yes anyway. -- Sotomura (yell : see) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I spent some time removing crufty details, fixing links, etc. and I think everything looks okay now, except for some of the references. Not really my thing but let's go work on that. Tezkag72 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are supporting your own nomination? Gary King (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. The prose needs some work, a statement or two needs a citation, and some of the details in the "Gameplay" section are unnecessary. I'm not sure if these concerns can be addressed in time; it would probably be best to take it to a peer review. Ink Runner (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [12].

Brain edit

Nominator: Looie496 (talk)

This article was nominated in March, but it was nowhere close to ready; I was not involved at that time. It has been rewritten from top to bottom over the past month (by me), and is now a completely different article, with far more content. This is the most important Neuroscience-related article on Wikipedia, getting hundreds of hits per day, and it would be very nice to get it to FA status. I believe that it is at least close to being ready. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the article's protected status mean it fails criterion 1e? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Just because an article is frequently vandalized doesn't mean it's unstable. --Carnildo (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But being protected means that fixes and changes at FAC can't be implemented, which makes improvement hard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Semi-protection doesn't prevent regular editors from editing, but I've asked MastCell to switch the intrusive template to the less intrusive one. No, protection against frequent vandalism doesn't mean an article is unstable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fuchs just thought that the article was fully protected since fully protected articles are usually the ones that have the protection template in large mode rather than small. I've gone ahead and changed it to the small template. Gary King (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Going through the whole article

  • why it there a poetic quote in the lead? IMO, it is not needed there.
If there is consensus against it, I'll remove that quote. But let me note that it has been used very often in popular-level articles and books about the brain. Experience shows its value in getting an image into the mind of the reader. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: since there seems to be consensus, I've removed the quote. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple instances of text sandwiched between image.
I would welcome advice on how to solve this problem. Every change I can think of makes things worse. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section titles like "Structure of the brain" should be renamed as "Structure".
Done. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article examines the brains of all types of animals, including humans, in a comparative way: it deals with the human brain to the extent that it shares properties with the brains of other species. For an account of features that only apply to humans, see the human brain article." at the end of lead should be at the top, and should be formatted using Wikipedia:Template messages/General : for, otheruses (whichever applicable)
I moved it to the top as requested, but there doesn't seem to be a template message that states the situation correctly. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a little more thought, done as specified, using otheruses4. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbers needed for many references, some page numbers are given in Notes, some in References. Shouldn't all page numbers be given in Notes. Also some references give chapter numbers, wouldn't the page numbers, from which the sentence in the article is given, be given? Is searching the whole chapter really necessary for verification?
To the best of my knowledge, all specific page references are given in Notes. The page ranges in References are for journal articles, and are part of the standard citation format. Regarding chapter vs. page references, it's hard to respond fully without an overlong explanation, but the gist of my response is that I don't believe that referencing practices that are appropriate for short articles on very specific topics are appropriate for long articles on very broad topics, where most of the material appears in dozens of textbooks. Where I have used chapters as references, it's because the paragraph or section where they appear summarizes a chapter's worth of material. I don't see how it would be logistically feasible to handle this in any other way. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History of understanding of the brain" ends with Luigi Galvani with died in 1798. Are there no more developments in understanding the brain after 1798? History of the brain discusses more. NOT COMPREHENSIVE.
  • There is [citation needed] tag in Arousal system. I added one in Brain and mind
  • "Here is a list of some of the most important areas" (of the brain), why not all? On basis is it decided which are the most important?
Why not all, because there are literally hundreds of named brain areas. The basis for "most important" is mainly things that get chapters in standard textbooks. You have to bear in mind that nobody really understands how the damn thing works, and it's impossible to make stronger statements without getting into contentious issues that there isn't space to discuss. Even so, I recognize the imperfection of the way this is handled, and would welcome advice on how to handle it better. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some fishes, it is the largest part of the brain" "The brains of monotremes and marsupials are distinctive from those of placentals in some ways, " Which? "In some cases" " to some degree" "In some respects" "a few principles that apply to most of them" "some types of problems" weasel words. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation: Hoping that an expert will check punctuation throughout. IMO there is much over-use of the colon. --Hordaland (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, the curly quotes shouldn't be used.
Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your book references are going to need page numbers or chapters. For example, the Preissl ref is 274 pages, for WP:V you need to be able to narrow it down within that range somewhat.
  • What makes the Flybrain (http://flybrain.neurobio.arizona.edu/) and the WormBook (http://www.wormbook.org/) refs reliable sources? And they need publishers and last access dates at the very least.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wormbook chapter says at bottom of page that it should be cited thus: This chapter should be cited as: Hobert, O. Specification of the nervous system (August 8, 2005), WormBook, ed. The C. elegans Research Community, WormBook, doi/10.1895/wormbook.1.12.1, http://www.wormbook.org. --Hordaland (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. There was no way to get anything resembling this using any of the "cite" templates, so I had to use "Citation", even though the guidelines recommend against mixing the two types. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - just starting to look through, I will try to fix simple prose issues and list here ones that are not straightforward. It would be fantastic to get a vital article such as this to FA-standard. More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some primitive animals such as jellyfishes and starfishes... - i am not crash-hot on higher level taxonomy of invertebrate animals, is there some more accurate umbrella grouping-term for all animals without a brain as such?
Well, there is "non-bilaterians", but I would be reluctant to use that term in the lead. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1 of lead could be expanded by a sentence or two on brains in other animals - vertebrates are singled out and brain location explained, but those attributes fit arthropods as well (except that there is an exoskeleton instead of a skull). Maybe a more global overview of which type of animals have heads with brains in them or something.
From a philosophical point of view, it might be said that the most important function of the brain is to serve as the physical structure underlying the mind. From a biological point of view, though, the most important function is to generate behaviors that promote the welfare of an animal. - this could be written more succinctly. My first idea would have changed the meaning and I may revisit it, but it is on hte wordy side.
I agree it's wordy, but it's hard to say it more succinctly without getting some part of it wrong. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of neurotransmitters in lead. Only needs a line, though.
I don't understand where it would go -- please feel free to edit it in yourself. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about how to include it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of seealso sections - seems silly to have nervous system there when bluelinked at very top of article in first sentence. Similarly neuroscience already has a link. nevermind I will remove myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the portal link is supposed to be in a SeeAlso section, but if there aren't some other contents there, the layout gets borked. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is somewhere else it can og at the bottom? Refrence section? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I solved the problem by removing the portal link. Since it hasn't been updated in over a year, it's sort of an embarrassment at the moment anyway. If we can get it reactivated, we can figure out how to link it in at that time. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In many invertebrates—insects, molluscs, worms of many types, etc.—the components of the brain, and their arrangement, differ so greatly - looks unsightly, "many lower animals"? "most invertebrates" or is it all invertebrates?
All invertebrates. I'll try to find some way of wording this that looks less unsightly. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been changed to read: For invertebrates—insects, molluscs, worms, etc.—the components of the brain differ so greatly from the vertebrate pattern that it is hard to make meaningful comparisons except on the basis of genetics.
  • Heavy Oppose: There is a lot of useful information, however its structure it is not clear yet and it should be really re-thought for clarity and completeness. I know it is not easy due to the enormous quantity of facets of the theme, as occurs in most vital articles. Also more referencing is needed: they could probably be extracted from the sources already referenced in the article. I am only going to talk here about the most important structure changes. If they are changed I will review again the article but I believe this article is quite far from being of FA quality due to content problems which are clearly more important than minor style issues.--Garrondo (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anatomy: Why is this section not included inside the vertebrates or mammals sections? I do not see the difference of scope of anatomy and principles of brain arquitechture.
Neurotransmitter systems: it is not a function of the brain, but a mechanism that permits its functioning. As such I would remove it from here and add in the first section under a title similar to chemichal functioning
Brains as biological computers: this is neither a function of the brain but a metaphor used to explain how it functions and an approach to study how it works. It has no place in this section, but in the computational neuroscience section.
Brain energy consumption: same occurs with this. Should be moved to a "chemical functioning" section
Communication and high order cognition as a function: The main function of the brain, at least in humans ,is communication and high order cognition, and there is not a word on them in the functions section. Something should be said on language (maybe also on lateralization) and high order cognition (see executive functions, theory of mind...). The only words said on a similar aspect are the mind and brain section, which from my point of view gives an excessive weight to outdated philosophical theories: The brain is anatomical basis of the mind and this is proven (and should be stated). Everything else should be moved to the history section.
history of the brain: First of all I don't like the title: history of the brain is its filogenetical development. It should be historical conceptions of the brain or history of the study of the brain. Secondly such a section can not only include 2 paragraphs, 5 authors and finish in Galvani.


  • Comment: (Does not change my previous oppose vote): I have been thinking on a possible better structure for the first section for an hour. The scope of each of its paragraphs is not clear and it is difficult to follow. I would create 3 different sections. My proposal is as follows:--Garrondo (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macroscopical structure: a small summary of what is going to follow and the paragraph on how to study it (The paragraph that begins as The brain is the most complex biological... )
General structure: The anatomy section with a small paragraph on brain size as an introduction to the other sections that are to come.
ontogenetical development: a small paragraph on its meaning.
Bilateral nervous systems
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
Mammals
Primates including humans
Filogenetical development: actual section on development. (There are no images right now. It would be great to add them)
Microscopical structure
Chemical functioning
Energy consumption
Neurotransmitters
Other for completeness
Brain size section: it is probably to specific (Specially with my proposed structure): I would summarize it to a paragraph and create a secondary article with it (The info is interesting and there is no reason to loose it)
  • Comment - Is that really the best free license image of a brain on the internet? Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but at least it's not as bad as the one in human brain. Anyway, there's a bunch more in Commons -- you can see if there's one you like better. Looie496 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the new image. It looks like it's made of plastic. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They both look like they are made of plastic to me. At least this one doesn't have pixelated edges. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They look like plastic because they're made from fixed tissue, which has the texture of a rubber ball. It's possible to find images made from unfixed brains, but they have a tendency to make some readers queasy. Artistically, the best images are drawings, but they don't convey the same sense of reality as a photo. So the bottom line is that there isn't any perfect solution, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...they have a tendency to make some readers queasy" Really? They're reading an article on Brains, what would they expect to see? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not this? "Raw" brain is very hard to work with, because the softness of the tissue makes it very hard to detach the meninges without making a mess. Available pictures tend to come either from surgeries or, like this one, from autopsies. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh lovely! :-) Hmm, I honestly don't know what to suggest here... it's not overly important in the long run I think. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm making my first pass at this article, and I'm noticing several issues that are of concern to me:
  • The quote in the lead. I know someone else brought this up, but I really think it should go. I think the lead should be a review of the article.
Okay, I've removed it. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not big on bullet points in an article. It's good for describing points like in this comment, but I think it is difficult to read as prose. I think each bullet point in Brain#Areas of the vertebrate brain and their functions can be made into a separate paragraph.
  • This is purely a personal point. I really dislike this way of making references. I've already messed it up, and I frankly don't know how to correct it. Hopefully one of you will. I find this type of referencing system antiquated, something you'd find in a textbook. But I'm not standing in the way of progress, just stating I can't edit this article.
I hate it too, but I hate the other method even worse. Wikipedia really needs to support a better way of doing references. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many subdivisions in Structure. Can we break that out?
  • As SG mentioned above, it's a bit of a stylistic jumble. I've been struggling on how to get it right on other articles, but this article needs a WP:ACCESSIBILITY review.
  • Some of the prose is difficult to read. I just copyedited a sentence where the word "dangerous" was used to describe the consequence of comparative primitive to advanced vertebrate evolution. Well, if I were reading an article about the brain, I'd want to know that it's dangerous to drill a hole into the brain. I notice that kind of writing throughout the article. It needs a thorough copyedit.
No doubt, but some of these things are tricky. In this case, for example, you changed it to read, No modern species should be described as more "primitive" than others…, which isn't really correct. A lot of people, including me, think it's ridiculous not to say that a hagfish brain is more primitive than a mammal brain, but there are some evolutionary biologists who balk at that language. Perhaps "controversial" would have been better than "dangerous", though. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think evolutionary biologists look at evolution as not being an improvement in human terms. Maybe we don't even need the sentence at all? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come, but right now, this important article needs some serious work. I can see the quality come through in parts, but not everywhere. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I strongly miss the quote. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a "poetic quote"--I'd say it's the textual equivalent of a particularly colourful image. Also, the wikilinks to Sherrington and enchanted loom were useful. For reasons that are probably worth investigating, people seem to have strong WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT reactions to poetry (along with Brussels sprouts and disco music), but I see no reason not to complement the scientific with the poetic. Whether or not it belongs in the lead is a different question, but I strongly feel that it belongs somewhere in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The poetry, in my opinion, should not have gone in the lead, but outside the lead in an appropriate place would have been fine. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about at the end of Brain#History? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with this topic, hence why I'm not voting on it. Sorry. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and stuck it at the very end of the article. Feel free to play around with it--it's just too good to exclude entirely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Apart from the Sherrington quote, which I've tacked on to the end of the section, "History" abruptly stops with Luigi Galvani in the 18th century. Perhaps something could be added about more contemporary research?
Yeah, others have made the same point. Looie496 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, perhaps the main article should be renamed from History of the brain to History of brain research? As Garrondo pointed out above, the article doesn't describe the history of the brain per se; it describes the history of our study of the brain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to resist getting sucked into other related articles while working on this one, but I agree with this suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is currently tagged as citation-needed: "Many people have had a strong intuition, or at least a strong wish to believe, that the mind is fundamentally a separate thing, with an independent existence, capable perhaps of detaching from the body and surviving even after death." Does this really need to be sourced? It's your basic dualism, which is discussed later in the section anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and added a couple refs, although I imagine it'd be easy to find about a zillion more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Promising, but it still needs much work. Note that I used this version of the article when citing notes.

  • The dabfinder finds five links to dab pages, Cortex, Magnocellular, Medulla, Membrane and Parvocellular.
  • Note 66 "see Muscle", may need further explanation, where is the referenced sentence ?
  • Note 22 should be moved in the references section, like the other Nature articles
  • Note 84 and 85 need formatting
  • Note 94 has a problem
  • Last two refs need formatting
  • External links need cleanup:
  • A better presentation of the links. Especially, linking relevant articles (for ex. Society for Neuroscience)
  • Is 'Neuroscience for kids' appropriate in lights of WP:LNTBA#1 ?
  • Same about 'The Brain from Top to Bottom' and the 'HOPES Brain Tutorial'.
  • On the other hand, the description of BrainMaps.org is too long.
  • Not sure if sciencedaily is appropriate, as it's a news source.
  • In Further reading, the break "Written for children 8 and older:" is a bit awkward (only one instance), placing it in parenthesis after the relevant entry would be more appropriate.
  • The paragraph on neuroanatomy needs references.
  • In the end of Sensory systems, the recourse to (1), (2), could be avoided.
  • The title 'Areas of the vertebrate brain and their functions' is broken by images.
  • The Refimprove in Vertebrates needs to be fixed.

Some other formating issues pointed out above also need to be addressed. Cenarium Talk 21:50, 26 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [13].

History of Indiana edit

Nominator(s): Charles Edward

It has been several months, and alot of improvements, since the previous nomination. I think it is getting pretty good myself, and it should be able to pass. If not then it will benefit from some constructive criticisms. I am one of the primary editors, and the nominator. Charles Edward 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "European people" needs to be dabbed. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination statement sounds like this is intended to be more of a peer review, than an FAC. Have you considered taking it to PR, where you can get some comments to make sure the article is ready, rather than "getting pretty close"? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done two peer reviews. I truelly believe it is near FA status, and I would work very hard to try and resolve any issues that are found before the review period closes. I have passed more than a dozen GA reviews, and am fairly good at working on a deadline. I have fixed the dab. Charles Edward 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Oppose Comments Looking at the previous FAC, one of the primary issues was its prose. You have worked diligently by yourself on this article, and it shows. However, you have worked on this article enough that you are too close to the text, as these examples show:

  • I suggest asking one of the copy-editors from WP:PRV to assist you.
  • "Following the retreat of the last glacial period," Periods don't "retreat", ice sheets do.
  • "Maximum extent of western Siberian glaciation was approximately 18,000 to 17,000 BP and thus later than in Europe (22,000–18,000 BP)." Needs a The at the beginning.
  • "The Adena culture is noted for domesticating some plants and for using pottery—large cultural advances over the Clovis culture." "some" is vague.
  • "One of the new developments—which has yet to be explained—is the start of masonry in the form of large, stone forts, many of which overlook the Ohio River." "is"-->was, this happened in the past.
  • "The Ohio River Valley was very heavily populated by the Mississippians from about 1100 to 1450."
  • "Their disappearance in Indiana occurred about two-hundred years"—Should not be hyphenated.
  • "These herds not only became important to civilizations in southern Indiana, but also wore a well-established Buffalo Trace that would later be used by pioneers moving west." What does "wore" mean in this context?
  • "This brought on the wrath of the Iroquois who destroyed a French outpost in Indiana in retaliation." "wrath" seems a bit POV, anyway "brought on the" would be better as "incurred".
  • "The first Europeans entered Indiana in the 1670s and added the region to New France." What nationality Europeans?
    • French. It is also noted in the next section when it goes into detail saying French traders from Canada. Do you think I need to duplicate that information, or move it up somehow? Charles Edward 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one permanent European settlement, Vincennes, was established in Indiana during European rule, but the territory was inhabited by numerous native tribes."
  • "Prior to the Civil war" Use Before, it's simpler.
  • "In 1988, Senator Dan Quayle was elected Vice-President under George H. W. Bush. He was the 5th Vice-President from Indiana, and served one term.[191] Central Indiana was struck by a major flood in 2008 leading to widespread damage and the evacuations of hundreds of thousands of residents, making it the costliest disaster in the history of the state with early damage estimates topping $1 billion (USD)." Two unrelated ideas in one paragraph.
  • Overlinking of terms like American Revolutionary War.
    • That was just an example, there are more, such as Ohio River. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cleaned out alot of the overlinking today, but there may still be a few lurking in there. I will go over once more. Charles Edward 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although these forts were garrisoned by men sent from New France, there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements in Indiana." Wrong tense. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You fixed something, but I was saying that "attempted"-->attempt. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected all but two points, which I have commented above. I have asked a couple editors on that list for copy edit assistance in the past, but they appear to have been busy with other things. It's a big wiki. :) Charles Edward 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 69 (Indiana History Chapter two) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 157 (Cindy Aisen Fox) first needs a publisher, second the author's last name should be first to match the others.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as IMS, etc. in the references.
  • There seems to be some confusion about the difference between Publisher and Work in the {{cite web}} template. Some places you have it correct (like ref 105 - the US Census) but others you have it off. The publisher is the entity that published the information, not the name of the website. So for ref 142 (Eli Lily) the publisher is the same as the author, and the WORK is lily.com. Current ref 144, the publisher is the Gary Library, the WORK is the website.
  • In your book listing, either list the publication location or don't, but you need to be consistent (if it's unknown, you would put unknown) and put the location in a consistent place in the listings also.
  • I note that the Woolen book is a reprint of a work originally published in 1883. You need to note any such works, when they were originally published as well as the reprint publication date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple questions. Woollen is a reprint, but also includes commentary by the author and additional information not in the original work, so it is m ore of a revision than a reprint. Does that matter? I have added locations for each of the books it is listed for, that I have. The rest I put as unknown. Please let me know if I did it correctly. I am going to try and go over the publisher/work info, but that will take a bit. i have addressed everything else, I think. Thanks Charles Edward 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Woolen, it depends on if he revised the whole work or if he just appended information. How you list the work depends on how he revised it, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of the points mentioned. Are there any others?

Comments Here are two really minor concerns:

  • In the lead: Indiana was inhabited by migratory tribes of Native Americans possibly as early as 8000 BCE. I don't think the possibly needs to be there, since "as early as" has the same effect.
  • In Early civilizations: Following the end of the last last glacial period, Indiana was dominated by spruce and pine forests, and was home to animals such as mastodon, caribou, and saber-toothed cat. Should that be cats? I really wasn't sure about the grammar of that, as maybe the plural is cat for them? I made most minor grammar fixes I came across myself but that one I may be wrong about. --Banime (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns, except for the one about finding a copy editor for assistance.. Is there anything else in this article that is not up to FA standards which need improvement? Charles Edward 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments — I'm working on copy editing the article. We'll see how it goes, but there's a few questions that popped up as I read. You alternate the terms tribe and nation in regards to the Indians in the area -- is there a difference? You mentioned a "Greenville" as the site of a Miami claim to Indiana in the first note. Is that Greenville, Indiana, or another location? JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greenville, Ohio - location of the signing of the treaty of Greenville. The Miami can be considered a nation, and are often called than in books. The Wea, Piankeshaw, Kickapoo, are also Miami tribes, but not part of the Miami nation. Make sense? The way I understand it, they were independent Miami tribes. The Miami were by far largest of the tribes in Indiana. The Lenape and Shawneee were not even a quarter the size of the Miami, and were more like guests linving in the Miami territory. The Pottowatomie were up in the northernmost parts of the state, and the majority of their tribe was in Michigan. As I understand, there were numerous independent tribes of Pottowatomie, and not one overall larger nation. Mingusboodle knows alot more about that than me, I beleive. I will ask him to drop a note here in case he doesn't see the question. :)
There really is no difference between the terms "tribe" and "nation" in this article. They're used alternately to avoid repetative use, but I can't find a consensus on which term is more correct. See Native American name controversy - our approach has been to use both terms since different people hold different preferences.
As to the relationships... The Wea, Piankeshaw, and various other tribes are all very closely tied with the Miami_tribe Miami, historically. They spoke the same Algonquin language, had the same customs, and could move freely between villages even though they were separate. Today, "Miami" refers to the official Miami tribe, but in historical context it can refer to all the related tribes. It's confusing, but we didn't invent the terms, we just use them. The Kickapoo were another Algonquin people but had a unique language. The Pottowatomie, Shawnee, and Lenape were unrelated peoples, but we occasionally find them in confederation with the Miami. Mingusboodle (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Thank you very much for your copy edit efforts! That is where we are most lacking I think. Charles Edward 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also been working on copyeditting the article. However, I came across this sentence, which I changed to : Following the Civil War, Indiana remained politically important as it became a critical swing state in U.S. Presidential elections, and helped to decide control of the presidency for three decades. Originally it said it decided the presidency. If I was wrong in changing it to "help to decide" then please let me know and change it back, but I couldn't find in any sources where the state alone decided the presidency (due to electoral votes or whatever). --Banime (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in the Founding section: Pennington was quoted as saying "Let us be on our guard when our convention men are chosen that they be men opposed to slavery". That has no citation and needs one as its a quote. Finally, in the High education section: Indiana was the first state to have state funded public schools. Is there a citation for this as well? --Banime (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After rereading through this article, I believe all of the concerns that have been raised by both myself and other editors have been met and the FA Criteria are now met. I also made a lot of copyedits while reading through it and, along with JKBrooks85's copyeditting help, believe the article is well-written and I am going to support. --Banime (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've already made some uncontroversial edits to thje article. First, should we really use the CE/BCE dating system? It was only created to be politically correct, but it's still based on the birth of Christ. I'd prefer AD/BC. More important, there is an image of the Constitution Elm yet there is no mention of the tree in the artticle. Either this needs to be addressed or the image replaced. Also, there is nothing wrong with only using book sources, but it would be nice for the reader to include some websources and external links (Historical Society, etc). I could help with this. Thanks for the great work Charles!!! This article was FA quality months ago; this is only the finishing touches. Reywas92Talk 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books usually has a decent amount of books online, some with good previews that let you search pages within the book. Try looking through that to give people better chance to check sources themselves. --Banime (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with using either date format. CE/BCE dates to the middle ages, and oringally meant Before and After Christian Era. It is fairly commonly used among modern scholarly histories. We can change it though! There was text about the Elm at one point... Must have been copy edited out somewhere along the way, (Article is getting very long) I will add it back in. In regards to online sources, there are quite a few on the Indiana Historical Burueau, Indiana Historical Society, and Indiana Center for History websites. Alot of it is just not very detailed. Feel free to link to any of it you think appropriate. And it was not all me! Mingusboodle has made excellent contributions are wrote most of the early history. Thanks! Charles Edward 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit Checking the progress of the copy-editors after nominator request and because of natural curiosity (random sample of the Mississippians section):

  • "It was also during this period that American Bison began a periodic east-west trek" I think "east-west" should have an en dash.
  • "For unknown reasons, the Hopewell culture went into decline sometime around 400"
  • "Mississippian society was highly developed, with the largest Mississippian city containing as many as thirty thousand inhabitants." Has the ungainly with + -ing structure.
  • "present day Evansville" present day should be hyphenated.
  • "Mississippian houses were generally square" "square" what?
  • "Fifteenth Century" Why is this capitalized?
  • "The Mississippians were agrarian and were the first to grow maize in the region." Why the repetition of "were"? How about: "The agrarian Mississippians were the first to grow maize in the region." Or something along those lines.
  • "The Mississippians disappeared in the middle of the Fifteenth Century for reasons that remain unclear. Their disappearance occurred about two hundred years befothe Europeans first entered what would become modern Indiana."-->For reasons that remain unclear, the Mississippians disappeared in the middle of the Fifteenth Century, about two hundred years before the Europeans first entered what would become modern Indiana.

I really shouldn't be finding this many problems in three (really 2 and a half) relatively short paragraphs. As of now, I am leaning oppose Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the entire article? Or just those sections. I believe overall the article well written. But I am not sure it is Professional or Brilliant. I have asked several noted copy editors for some assistance, but none has been forthcoming yet. I am certain that this is the only thing that is lacking in this article. I will be out of town for the next several days.. By then this FAC will probably closed. If anyone can help see it through the next few days it would be appreciated. :) Charles Edward 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get a night's sleep and I'll see if I can work my penguin magic on the article.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:24, 27 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [14].

Vithoba edit

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because

  • I feel the article fulfills FA criteria.
  • It covers all areas that a Hindu deity article should have. The article can be compared with FA Ganesha (the only Hindu deity FA) for reference, though Vithoba article differs in certain areas as Ganesha is a pan-Indian deity, Vithoba is a regional one.
  • Vithoba article is a GA from 14 July 2008 and is peer reviewed on August 6, 2008.

Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=ltJI5KhFTRUC this is a google snippet, which doesn't allow you to gather the full context of the work. It also was originally published in the 1950's, surely there is something more recent? ALSO, this is an encyclopedia, and the articles are written by individuals, and the author of the snippet you've pulled out isn't Hastings, it's a W. Crooke. Use {{cite encyclopedia}} to format this correctly.
  • Again, the Eaton book is being used as Google snippets of a search, you can't get the full context by doing this.
  • Do you want last name first or first name first on the authors? Pick one and be consistent.
  • Same deal on the Chavan work, it's a google books search, was the printed source consulted to make sure the full context of the author's statements was understood?
  • Rather than repeat myself with each use of Google Books searches, I'll make a general statement that you need to consult the whole work, not just the limited preview given by Google Books.
My concern isn't so much with using a convience link to the pages on Google Books, but a concern that the research on the article itself was conducted via Google Search without actually consulting the books and gaining the full context. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Thanks for your comments.

  • Bibliography is quoted at http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/index.html
  • http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm, the reference i used quotes page numbers and books of other authors. It's Bibliography. Some of them, like Dhere's author is not English, but in Marathi. So quoting directly from Dhere, would make it difficult for readers to crosscheck the reference.
  • Most Google books are provided only for reference (that is hard copies are consulted, though some like Hastings are from google books entirely), the Google books can be crosschecked by readers who want to check the source online. In some google books, only just 1 page is used, as in Hastings book, which is completely available there. If anyone wants, they can look into the hard copies.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY in DETAIL: List of refs that are taken only from google books (All other books' hard hopies are checked, the google books version of these may or may not have the pages from where the text is referenced). Note most of the following do not have Vithoba as the central subject, but make mentioned Vithoba as a sub-topic or a passing reference:
  • Ref 2: (Crooke W. (2003). "Pandharpur", editor Hastings) entire article is present
  • Ref 10: (Zelliot, Eleanor (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra.), only 1 page is used as reference, that too just a 5-line note by the author.
  • Ref 11: (Chavan, V. P. (1991). Vaishnavism of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmins and a Few Konkani Folklore Tales), again only 5 lines are considered as that is the amount the author comments on the Shankra - Vithoba connection.
  • Ref 14: (Kelkar, Ashok R. (2001). "Sri-Vitthal: Ek Mahasamanvay (Marathi) by R.C. Dhere". Encyclopaedia of Indian literature 5) The whole encyclopedia entry is visible.
  • Ref 15: (Schomer, Karine; McLeod, W. H. (1987). Vaudeville in The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India) The whole section(The Shaiva origins of god Vitthala) is visible on google books.
  • Ref 18: (Anon [1898] (1988). The Great Temples of India, Ceylon, and Burma) The whole section (Pandharpur and Jejuri) is available.
  • Ref 24: (Gokhale, Shobana (1985). "The Pandharpur Stone inscription of the Yadava king Mahadeva Sake 1192) The whole article is available.
  • Ref 33: (Ranade, R. D. (1988). Mysticism in Maharashtra: Indian Mysticism) The whole section(history of vitthala sampradaya) is available.
  • Ref 38: (Zelliot, Eleanor; Berntsen, Maxine (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra) The whole section "Influence of Shaivism" is available.
  • Ref 41: (Keer, Dhanajay [1954] (2005). Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission) 1 para that is all the author comments on Vithoba and Ambedkar
  • Ref 45: (Pillai, S. Devadas (1997). Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary) The 2 page entry on Vithoba is completely visible.
  • Ref 53: (Kiehnle, Catharina (1997). Songs on Yoga: Texts and Teachings of the Mahārāṣṭrian Nāths) A footnote discusses the word "Kannada", in connection to Vithoba.
  • Ref 59: (Flood, Gavin D. (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism) There are 2 paras dedicated to Haridasa, both available on google books.
  • REf 83: (T. Padmaja (2002). Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu) All pages where Vittala is discussed, are avilable.
  • ref 84: (Ranade, R. D.. Mysticism in Maharashtra: Indian Mysticism) The entire article on Bhanudas available.
  • Ref 87: (Rao, Vasudeva (2002). Living Traditions in Contemporary Contexts: The Madhva Matha of Udupi) The whole table is avilable where 8 deities of Upudi mathas are listed.
  • ref 9 and 85: (Eaton, Richard Maxwell (2005). A Social History of the Deccan, 1300–1761: Eight Indian Lives) The entire section "Pastoral tribes and religions of Desh" available, also the Vitthala temple in Hampi is discussed only in 1 page (the earlier and later page also available to check validity of the argument), which is available.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY to comments on 2 OCT:

Moved my comments dated 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC), 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC), 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC), 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) and reorganized them as below:

http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm is a RS because:

  • It is an ebook version of the book "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine" [15]
  • The author has B.A. degree of Nagpur University in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology. Got elected as an non teaching expert member of Board of studies in History in Nagpur University for two terms of three years each. Biography of "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine" author
  • The book is present at the Library of Congress as asserted in the the biography above. Library website
  • The book states "it's sources" Bibliography with inline citations. (All of which are RS) "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source(if it is) or that the author is a noted expert in their field" is fulfilled.
  • The book is used as a reference (44) here, Henry Martyn Centre, Westminster College, Cambridge CB3 0AA, UK. Used as reference (3) here Non-English [16] and Columbia University site - non-English article [17], that is, other people have considered it reliable.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dvaita.org is a RS because:

  • It gives it's sources, fulfilling ""you can show that the website gives its sources and methods" criteria. Bibliography (All of which are RS) is quoted at http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/index.html "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source(if it is)" applies. In addition to links about Bibloliography, Documentation of Dvaita is given here.
  • Apart from being referenced 70 times on wikipedia [18], Dvaita.org is mentioned at Intute, a free online service providing you with a database of hand selected Web resources for education and research. [19]
  • Experiencing the World’s Religions, 4th Edition, publisher: Mcgraw hill(an established publisher) provides Dvaita,org in it's World Religion Links[20]
  • Atleast 6 books from 2004 onwards refer to this website [21], Tulu Tales: A Soota Chronicle by G. Kameshwar (University of Michigan) - 2004 [22] calls it "an invaluable web resource about Udupi Sri Krishna and doctrine of Sri Madhvacharya".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Vaishnavism, "Dvaita.org offers a general FAQ on Vaishnavism". [23] "FindingDulcinea presents only credible, high-quality and trustworthy Web sites, saving time for the novice and the experienced user alike."
  • The Hoot [24] received a letter about plagalarism of the site by The Times of India. The thing to read in this article is the aims of dvaita.org as said by the webmaster: "Though generally the site has a religious bent, as it is meant to inform about the dualistic Vedanta of the 13-century saint Madhva, we have tried to give it an academic focus suitable for non-religious types; students and professors of Indology find out site a useful resource, more so as it is perhaps the only one of its kind. We have published several ancient, out-of-print works on Vedanta by making them available for download on the Net." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, in line 3, "worshipped prominently" did you really mean "worshipped predominately"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice suggestion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, happy to help. Also I tried to link Kole, but that place in India doesn't yet have an article. Is it known by other names, such as perhaps being yet another name for Kolar? If not you could go up one level of Geography with a phrase such as Kole, [[district name]] district. ϢereSpielChequers 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure about the exact geography either, i am sure it is in the state of Maharashtra, as per reference. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, it is in Satara district. [25] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Also I've just spotted in the last sentence of Vithoba#Devotional works That it opens a bracket at "(monkey god," but doesn't close it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving my concerns, not sure I yet feel qualified to assess whether an article meets the FA standard or not, but as my concerns have been addressed perhaps whoever is assessing this candidacy could count me as Unqualified Support ϢereSpielChequers 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY:

I corrected the tag/sourcing for the Gutenberg image. I'm not the biggest fan of commenting out, as it tends to be WP:BEANS for someone unaware of this discussion to come along and uncomment out, but I've stricken as they're "technically" removed. The crux of the issue with Image:Vitthal.png is, again, that it is an object that still exists. The temple itself could release a free image, the template could change policy to allow photographs, or someone could ignore the policy and take a photograph. Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Эlcobbola's help in fixing the tag at Gutenberg img. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Ignore the policy is suggested for a photo in the temple, then shouldn't it be done here? In my opinion, the fair use rationale is valid, though i will respect a third opinion saying the photo be removed, if it is only hurdle between the article and FA status. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale doesn't even discuss free replacability (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT), let alone apply to an image that passes it (NFCC#1). IAR can be applied when following policy would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. A free encyclopedia is never hurt by requiring a free image when one could still be obtained. Has http://www.maharashtra.gov.in been asked to release a free version? There are several pictures on Flickr - have any of those uploaders been asked to release a free version? Has an image been requested? We don't ignore policy because it is an inconvenience. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have mailed the site, there was no reply.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed img is removed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns stricken. No remaining image issues. Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in terms of prose. Could do with a little scrutiny, but not bad at all.

  • "Historicity"—dear, English has some ugly words, and most readers won't know what it means, exactly. Why not "historical authenticity", which is my dictionary's sole definition?
  • "Many conflicting theories exist"—Newsflash for all nominators: when you see "exist", check whether the superior "There is/are" can be substituted. This is the case here.
  • Is it common in Indian English to space the initials of people's names? Better on a justified computer screen not to, I'd have thought, but it's no big deal.
  • "Epithet for, not of". I thought epithets were adjectives. Maybe it's a wider class ...
  • Some of the paragraphs are big and grey; some I see are not easily divisible, but I haven't looked at all from that perspective. You might find some. Tony (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Thanks for the support.

  • Historicity: Wikipedia has an article on it, which gives the meaning "the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth or legend" and articles Historicity of the Iliad, Historicity (Bible Studies), Historicity of Jesus and Historicity of Muhammad exist on wiki.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is it common in Indian English to space the initials of people's names?": Sorry, i could not properly understand. What i was available to understand is, e.g. V. P. Chavan should be V.P. Chavan. Right? Indian English mostly follows the first style.
  • Epithet: It is used as "A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person". changed to "epithet for".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My earlier lengthy comments are on the article's talk page and were all sufficiently answered/satisfied by the author. The author has picked a difficult topic, that of a regional deity, and brought out nicely its evolution theories without regionalising the subject. The plausible influence of other cults and faiths on the development of this worship and that of this deity on neighbouring socio-religions movements (such as the Haridasa movement) has also been dealt with well. In all, a good job.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Talk:Vithoba#comments: Link to Dineshkannambadi's comments on Vithoba talk, for reference. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Well, don't you think context is missing in the Etymology and other names section. You haven't mentioned any context for Crooke, R. G. Bhandarkar and all other big names there. Who are they. What makes them notable. KensplanetTalkContributions 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are authors or religious scholars for sure. Adding "scholar XYZ" before every name will make the text repetitive. Even FA Ganesha uses "Martin-Dubost says..", "Krishan notes that..", "Paul Courtright says that...", "..as Robert Brown explains.." The references indicate that they are authors. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please resolve the concerns above about reliable sources; Support declarations over sourcing concerns have little weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered the questions raised about RS, the commenter has replied "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)" To prove that the source is a RS, i have included links to website articles of Columbia University and Westminster College for one and Intute recognizing the other as "Web resource for education and research". Also both articles provide their sources and have Bibliography sections. I have also addressed the google snippet issue, i would like to quote my fello wikiuser "Otherwise sources look good". Any suggestions what can be done? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had requested the reviewer for comments. his/her reply can be read on User talk:Ealdgyth.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's gonna take a long time to go through all the issues I think I see here; I may not finish today (have things to do in real life). This morning's comments will focus on the referencing. Please be aware that referencing is not the only problem; it's just all I have time for at this moment... Right off the bat:
  • I see quotes "according to Valentine" and "according to Deleury" etc. But no Valentine or Deleury in refs. Please check the whole article (not just Valentine and Deleury) for such omissions. This makes the article smell dangerously like copy/paste.
  • I see refs such as "Bhandarkar in Sand p.36". What year is Sand? Is it the same Sand that has multiple co-authors in the References section? If so, check various online resources for instructions regarding the use of co-author's names or et al., whichever is appropriate (I suspect the latter).
  • Please make named refs for Bhandarkar p. 124, Bhandarkar p. 125, Bhandarkar pp. 125–6, Novetzke p. 116, Sand p. 56, Sand p.37, Shima p. 188 as well as "Kiehnle, Catharina (1997). Songs on Yoga: Texts and Teachings of ... " and "Eaton, Richard Maxwell (2005). A Social History of the Deccan..."
  • Looking at the last two above, why are books listed in the Notes instead of the References?
  • That's all for now. Those are not the only issues, but real life is calling. I will talk about 1a (prose) later.
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, the article is going to improve due to the comments.
* I see no Valentine referenced, for Deleury, his views are backed with Notes saying: "Deleury in Sand p. 38" (secondary reference) changed to "Deleury as quoted in Sand p. 38<" or the "Gazetteers Dept, Government of Maharashtra" site. Delrury's book - primary ref in "Further Reading" Deleury, G. A. (1960). The cult of Vithoba, Pune: Deccan College, Postgraduate and Research Institute (Original from the University of Michigan), Magis Books. The "according to" parts are included because the personal view of the scholar in question, is noted (the view- is attributed to the scholar, to show that it is not the view of the wiki-editor thus NOt OR), other scholars may have other views and other theories.
* Named ref used.
* Sand is year 1990, see references. Removed multiple co-authors. Now, Only editor is included.
* Included all books in references.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ling.Nut is on a short wikibreak as per his talk, thus his concerns about 1a (prose) could not be known. I have left a note on his/her talk requesting comments. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot fewer pictures than I would have expected. This really should be remedied, and I am sure there are public domain illustrations out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 new images. All images, on Flickr related to Vithoba have "All rights reserved". Have requested some sites if their images can be used here, so far so positive reply. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Image:Dnyaneshwar.JPG image, it is a photo of a plaster of paris image of Dnyaneshwar, which my friend had brought. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 7 images present, and 1 more will added after the copyright holder tells me the license. The copyright holder had sent me a mail saying the image use on wiki is OK, but did not mention livense. I am in contact with User:elcobbola (see his/her talk) about the new image upload. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the images is a b/w whose colors have been altered... se http://flickr.com/photos/an2/2623887237/. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warkaris are known to wear saffron clothes, carry saffron banners and have a saffron Tilak (mark on forehead). The saffron colour is closely related to Hinduism, as a whole. So the picture is not a misrepresentation, in my humble opinion. Notice a warkari is wearing saffron clothes, the saffron banners here. [27] and saffron tilak here [28].--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Still Oppose per 1a. Let me look at one (and only one) section. Please take the entire artice for thorough copy editing. Please do not repair this list and ask for a reconsideration of my !vote:

  • Legend section:
  • "There are two versions of the Vithoba legend..." In some respects (but not all, especially linking) think it will help if you view each section as a miniature stand-alone essay. The first sentence of this section does not fulfill the function of a thesis sentence. It does not set forth the controlling idea of the section, nor mention the points that willo be covered... It mentions two versions in the Skanda Purana; it isn't until halfway through the section that I discover there are other versions in the Padma Purana and elsewhere. Moreover, the anecdotes recounted in this section are not diffrent versions of the same legend; they are different legends altogether. This is not mentioned.
  • "...a devotee of Vishnu as well of his parents." The referent of "his parents" is ambiguous.
  • "Pundarika asks Krishna for a boon to stay in that form..." Awkward connection between "boon" and "stay in that form". It reads as though the boon is staying in some form.
  • "When he asked the reason for their appearance, they told Pundalik that Kukkuta served his parents and thus became pious and that by serving the sage they became pure too." Snake sentence.
  • "The last version of the legend..." If this is the last version, why is there another legend immediately below it? Why is it last? Does it somehow occur chronologically after the others, or was it written later?
  • "to groom horses while Pundalik and his wife rode on horseback" Pundalik's parents are grooming the moving horses while Pundalik and his wife ride them?
  • "Radha did not honour Rukmini, the chief queen of Krishna" I.. am guessing.. that it is the custom for lovers of the king to pay some sort of tribute or honor to the queen before making love to the king. Is that correct? I have to guess. it is distracting.
  • "Pundalik threw a brick outside for Krishna to stand on.." Why? Was it muddy or was there cow poop on the ground or something?
  • "Pundalik asked a boon that the Lord " Syntax error in the use of "boon" again.
  • "should stand in that form with Rakhumai" how and why did Rakhumai enter into this story?
  • "...in the form of a Mahar "untouchable" and "went to the palace in form of Sena" This paragraph lacks coherence. The first sentence would lead the reader to think the pragraph is about a number of stories in which Vithoba is in the form of a Mahar...but no, one sentence is about coming in the form of sena, and then later Vithoba comes "as an outcast". It needs a topic sentence that draws the connection between these two. In fact, the lack of coherence and a lack of topic sentences seems to be a common thread in these errors. Please have experienced copy editors address these and other problems.
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for the comments, will add the topic sentences tomorrow.

  • The section primarily deals with two legends: 1. versions of the Pundalik legend and 2. others: interacctions with saint poets. The "Devotional works" section has already listed all the books in advance, listing them is futile.
  • Yes, Pundarika is described as a devotee of his parents, this is the way it is described in the Sanskrit text.
  • Read the sentence as a whole "Pundalik and his wife [..] forced the parents to walk the whole way and to groom horses while Pundalik and his wife rode on horseback."
  • "Radha did not honour Rukmini, the chief queen of Krishna" nothing is said about "making love". Please do not read too much between the lines. "Radha did not honour Rukmini, the chief queen of Krishna, nor did Krishna hold Radha accountable for the offense" It is a custom to pay sort of tribute or honor to the queen.
  • "Pundalik threw a brick outside for Krishna to stand on.." I don't know, I can't speculate. The thing the reference says "Pundalik threw a brick outside for Krishna to stand on.."
  • Rakhumai and Rukmini are same as discussed in Consorts.
  • "The last version of the legend..." in the sense it the last version of the Pundalik story discussed, which is given ahead.
  • There are hundreds of minor legends relating to every other Varkari saint. All can't be covered.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added topic sentences in "Legends", can somebody else check? Ling.Nut is busy in real life. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added topic sentences for other paras too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:56, 28 October 2008 [29].

Pokémon Red and Blue edit

Nominator(s): Artichoker[talk]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It is currently a GA, and has gone through a peer review. After the demotion of Bulbasaur and Torchic more than a year ago, this would become the Pokémon Wikiproject's only featured article. I will try to respond to all concerns as quickly as possible. Artichoker[talk] 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Sorry but the article's sources are of woefully inadequate quality. So far I see only two sources that aren't entirely video game self promotional. In other words all of them but two make money by making these types of things look more important than they are. This makes it impossible to write a balanced and comprehensive article. WP:NPOV's undue weight provision cannot be properly satisfied if all of the sources are POV. And I spent some time checking on Google books and Google scholar just for a start and more mainstream treatment of the subject does exist, so there isn't an acceptable reason not to include it. Consider the Homer Simpson article as an example. It's not even a FA yet, but as a fictional topic it has far better sourcing than this has, and it should probably be improved as well. The best of FAs should be emulated, not the worst. I'm sure you can find other poorly sourced FAs but that doesn't make it a reason to promote another one. - Taxman Talk 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I'll try to add some "better" sources. I already got started [30]. Artichoker[talk] 15:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, GameFAQs can be used for release data, which is the only thing it is used to cite in this article. The second source is from IGN which is reliable. For the third source, this seems to indicate it is reliable. I have replaced ref 4. I have removed ref 5. Hooked Gamers is apparently down right now, but I have checked and it is reliable. Once it's back up I will check again though. I have fixed everything else. Artichoker[talk] 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for the IGN game guide, we don't know the author, and I'm not sure that just because IGN published it that it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go through it again:
  • Oppose - lack of proper print sources on the subject, fails comprehensiveness. Layout is rather haphazard and messy. The plot doesn't fully cover the game. The images don't meet WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask you what is wrong with the layout, plot, and images? Artichoker[talk] 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The plot explains the premise, not the actual story arc, and has very little on actual setting (per general conventions, it would also be best to have it after gameplay.) The images need much more detailed fair use rationales; what's the justification for having two box art images in the infobox when one could do just as well? On a quick run-through there's some issues with liberties being taken with cited sources, as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick fail; more work is needed. Considering these are two of the most influential games of the 90s you would expect a good deal of print media, or non-GameSpot/IGN sources. The reception section is very undetailed and the gameplay sections especially need copyediting and polishing. Not ready yet, sorry. Giggy (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious that there's more work than I realized to be done, so I would like to withdraw this nomination. I guess I'll need to work on comprehensiveness mostly. Hopefully someday this can become featured. Until then, thanks for the suggestions, I'll get to work. Artichoker[talk] 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, closed. Please leave the {{facfailed}} template in place on the talk page until the bot comes through to add it to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 26 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [31].

Armageddon (2006) edit

Nominator(s): iMatthew (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. Please leave comments and list ways for improvement shall you desire, thanks! iMatthew (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images all check out (fair use image has appropriate rationale, free images have licenses and author information.) An aside, though; shouldn't the disambiguation mention something about the event, I dunno: Armageddon (WWE) or something for more context? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The recent output from the wrestling project has been more and more refined as lessons are applied from each new FAC. Does that make these pay-per-view articles flawless? Here's a hint: if they were, I wouldn't be doing this.

  • "in a match where the objective is to place an opponent in a hearse located on the entrance stafe and drive them out of the arena..." Is should be was, for tense purposes. I've noticed things like this in a couple other FACs, and can only guess that it comes from the move out-of-universe. Still, it should be tweaked.
  • The American dollar sign really doesn't require a link, as the topic is a mainly American one.
  • As I understand it, italics are given to printed publishers. Not sure that Canadian Online Explorer qualifies.
  • While I'm here, refs 1 and 32 are the same and can be combined.
  • Background: What happened to the pro wrestling See also link? I thought it was a good idea myself. Guess the project wasn't crazy about the idea
  • "in a match where neither wrestler won the match." To remove a redundancy, I suggest dropping the last two words.
  • "During the match, MVP was scripted to attempt and escape from the ring,..." Wondering if "and" should be "an". Either way, it looks funny to me.
  • Similar redundancy as above: "in a tag team match, which ended in neither wrestler winning the match." Changing one to "contest" would be an easy fix.
  • Any pre-PPV matches like in the other candidates to come here recently?
    • I have no sources confirming any match. iMatthew (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten to the matches themselves yet. That will have to wait until another time. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Going to bed, I'll get to this first thing tomorrow morning. iMatthew (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed everything above. Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my review of the matches.
*"This match was the first time that the Inferno match had been used in over seven years." Over→More than. More formal that way.
  • "but was unable to due to the flames surrounding the ring prevented." Major surgery required here.
  • "(William Regal, otherwise known as Darren Matthews, and Dave Taylor" Parenthesis mark missing.
  • "but Chavo managed to get his foot on top of the bottom rope" Get→place. That's really picky, but again would serve to tighten the sentence a bit.
  • "a move which sees Helms grab Yang's neck under his armpit and turns around to slam Yang's neck onto the mat." Try "a move where Helms grabbed Yang's neck under his armpit and turned around to slam him onto the mat."
  • "but Helms quickly moved back into the power position by pinning Yang to retain the championship." That's a quick transition. How about replacing "by pinning" with "and pinned"?
  • Main event matches: "and then onto the commentator's announce table." Should it be announcing table?
  • Five sentences out of six begin with The Undertaker. Can some variety be introduced?
  • "Batista pinned Booker to get the victory for his team." Get again. I recommend earn here.
Haven't gotten to Aftermath yet, but this is enough for now. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC}
Done with everything. iMatthew (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Manager Theodore Long informed the pair that they would be facing Kane and The Undertaker later that night in a match, which the Kane and The Undertaker eventually won."
  • "At the Royal Rumble, The Undertaker won the Royal Rumble match to earned a title shot at WrestleMania 23..." Try "to earn a title match" and move the match explanation to before that.
  • One thing that bugs me is the use of Amazon customer reviews for DVD reception. Did any wrestling sites that have been deemed reliable have DVD reviews for this and other events? If so, I suggest using them instead. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got to all of those. I removed the last one. iMatthew (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Keeping in mind the heavy reliance on primary and uncertain sources, which I'm paying more attention to now. It's difficult because wrestling isn't widely covered in the mainstream media. As for the name, WWE Armageddon 2006 could be an option, but that's up to the main contributors. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1a, 1c, 2b of FA criteria. I've gone over my issue with the title failing MoS disambig at the wikiproject page. I can go through issues with the prose as well, but I think the bigger issue is sourcing. I am unconvinced about the reliability of WrestleView.com. I went looking in WP:PW talk archives and found the RfC which apparently said it was a reliable source, and seeing as the RfC didn't have broad input I wouldn't consider that a good benchmark for anything. I was hoping the site's 'history' page would clear things up, but it seems more like a series of blog entries. As there appears to be no indication of fact-checking or the site meeting the criteria of WP:RS by itself, the only way I can see the refs still being used is if the authors are notable or meet WP:SPS to fufill WP:QS. It's possible some of the references could stay if they reference non-contentious facts, but you're going to have to defend them as common knowledge. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your main oppose rationale being against the confirmed reliable source. There are already two FA's just recently passed The Great American Bash (2005) and SummerSlam (2003) - and I find that opposing on that point is off a bit. iMatthew (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note, it was determined that WrestleView.com is reliable, per this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's *marginally* reliable. Nothing is ever cut and dried always reliable/never reliable. Even the looniest website on the face of the planet is reliable for the fact that the author of the site thinks something. It all depends on what wrestleview is being sourced for. And just because something is on my cheat sheet doesn't mean that it's automatically reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the concern that there are next to no reliable secondary sources beyond (theoretically) WrestleView. The rest of the links are just sales information and vendor listings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [32].

Acid dissociation constant edit

Nominator(s): Petergans (talk)


The concept acid dissociation constant is of major importance in chemistry, physics, earth sciences (including environmental sciences) and biology (including human biology) and is also important in other areas such as the development of new pharmaceuticals and all sorts of industrial processes where acidity has to be controlled. The article presents a comprehensive coverage of the topic and indicates the main areas of application. It should therefore be of interest to a wide range of the readership.

The topic is covered, at an elementary level, in all text-books on general chemistry, though the treatment is usually simplified. The simplifications are explained in this article.

I have been active in research in this subject area since 1972. Our programs Hyperquad are the world market leaders for the determination of acid dissociation constants and stability constants of metal complexes with ligand acids. Correspondence with users of this software has given me an appreciation of the range of applications of interest in research today. This is reflected in the structure of the article.

I am confident that if this article is accepted for featured status that it will enhance the reputation of Wikipedia among scientists and science students.

Petergans (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a source of data, not of the article content. I believe the data to have been reliably taken from the literature. Petergans (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I"m not sure what exactly you mean by "source of data, not of the article content", do you mean that it's not used as a source? If it's not used as a source, why is it in a footnote? If it's being used as a source for data in the article, then it needs to be reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not make myself clear. It is an comprehensive source of numerical data, that is, numerical values of acid dissociation constants, the title entity of this article. As such, I prefer to reference it directly in the relevant place in the article rather than list it in external links, but I'll move the reference there if Wiki style demands it.
Regarding reliability, http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/pkatable/index.htm gives access to a list of the 64 references to the primary literature from which the data were extracted; the current link is more general and has a link to that page. Petergans (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 43 (Washburn) needs to have the link title formatted so it's not a bare url.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Leaning Oppose I really appreciate the editors/nominator of this article for working on this article and bringing it up to to its current quality. I see that it has been the recipient of nontrivial amounts of thought and elbow grease... I'm seeing two things that concern me: first, the article is a bit beyond the reach of the uninformed reader [insert arguments <here> that uninformed readers won't be examining this article anyhow]. In the first sentence of the WP:LEAD there are already blue links that lead to other articles; I'd have to read those before I could continue on with this one. A WP:LEAD is supposed to function as a stand-alone intro/summary of the article... The article, especially the lead, needs to make an attempt to address a more elementary-level reader.. although it's fine to retain info that is beyond that level in later sections. Second, I'm really not getting a concrete feel of the reasons for its importance. After searching about 3 or 4 minutes I found this book (just the first interesting one I ran across): "Risk Assessment of Chemicals" By C. J. van Leeuwen, Joop L. M. Hermens.. it says "To neglect the chemicals' dissociation may lead to serious misjudgment of their hazard.. " on p. 254. Now that's a real-world fact I can hang onto. I'd like to see more such. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the lead reads "An acid dissociation constant (aka acidity constant, acid-ionization constant) is an equilibrium constant for the dissociation of an acid". If the reader does not already have some grasp of the linked concepts, then I suspect the article will be completely unintelligible to him/her. The links put these concepts on a more rigorous basis. The need to address a more elementary-level reader is a recurrent theme for technical articles like this one and it is difficult to resolve. We have pitched the intro level towards a school student studying chemistry and coming across this idea for the first time.

I take the point about risk assessment and will insert something about it in the importance section. Petergans (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please have a look at this link which suggests possible wikilinks for the article. Note that some terms may already have been wikilinked previously in the article, and also that any new wikilinks should typically be double-checked to make sure they are relevant to the article (though for specialized, technical terms it is far less likely that the suggested link is irrelevant. Choose carefully; no real reason you have to add any of the suggested links if they don't appear to add value to the article.
  • "Biochemistry Primer for Exercise Science" by Michael E. Houston (p. 5) states: "The stronger the acid (HA), the more it is dissociated, and the higher the concentration of the conjugate base (A-). Therefore, the larger the numerical value for Ka, the stronger the acid." That last sentence in particular is crystal clear. Our article says (what I believe is) the same thing in a different manner: the larger the value of pKa, the weaker the acid .. but this article is explicitly about Ka. I understand the easy relationship etc. (very roughly, of course), but I think we should couch our explanations in terms of the explicit topic of the article... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem here: in common usage the terms "pKa" and "acid dissociation constant" are used (wrongly!) almost interchangably. I think that we would have to say something along the lines of - the stronger the acid the larger the values of Ka and the smaller the value of pKa - but to me this sounds a bit confusing. In practice pKa values are used much more often than Ka values, but I don't see how this can be reflected in the article title. Petergans (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Houston (see above) states in his Glossary (p. 245) that 'Ka "describes the ability of an acid to donate a proton". This is a restatement of the observation (above) to the effect that "larger 'Ka = stronger acid", since an acid is apparently a compound that can donate a proton. I can see why you would skip this, since we are unpacking the defition of "acid" here. But really, I think we actually can unpack these things, at least in the lead, without any damage to the article as a whole. I hope you'll understand that my intention is not to dumb-down the article; just to make the WP:LEAD a bit more stand-alone. I understand your stance that the reader must have "some grasp of the linked concepts" (to quote, not to scare-quote). But... the higher the number of elegantly-expressed ideas (some appearing as blue wikilinks) in the lead, the less stand-alone the lead is... thanks Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are very helpful comments, thank you very much. I shall be away for the next two weeks so I will get round to dealing with them and others that will come in when I return. Petergans (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators are expected to address issues promptly; if you can't get to this for several weeks, I suggest withdrawal. Also, there are numerous WP:ACCESS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific about the access issues. I will try to answer them while on holiday. Petergans (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a Chemistry Education major, though not an expert by any means (precipitates is one of my weaker areas), all the major problems I see can be summarized into three arguments:

  • The article addresses Ka in theory but lacks information of it in practice (i.e. experimental determinations of Ka including lab methods, (answer below Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)) notable historic milestones and contributors, and applications to industry). Even the "Importance of pKa values" section which addresses applications to industry remains vague as to specific examples of its usage (i.e. stating that acid disassociation values are used to increase blood absorption of pharmaceuticals but failing to detail an example of a drug that has been adjusted due to this...yes I know that there are copyrights on new drugs but maybe an old one like Aspirin pills).[reply]

This user does not appear to have read the article properly; there is a complete section entitled Experimental determination of pKa values with a link to a more detailed article Determination of equilibrium constants. Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egg on my face. I scanned quickly through the article. The lack of comprehensiveness required by Wikipedia:Featured article criteria still stands though; the applications section lacks specific examples of its usage. This leads me to the appropriate structure requirement of the featured article criteria. Why is this critical aspect of the acid disassociation constant so far from the lead?--Jorfer (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also having a link to a more comprehensive article does not allow you to be this vague on such an important point in the Summary: "The buffer regions carry the information necessary to get the pKa values as the concentrations of acid and conjugate base change along a buffer region." --Jorfer (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not use the simplest and most artful language to communicate ideas. An example of this would be my explanation (above) of what the "example" in the "pharmacology" section was trying to say (which I believe would suffice).

The details are in Avdeef's book, reference 42. Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria where it says the article must be well-written. The point is one example of the article not being well-writen.--Jorfer (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does an insufficient job of explaining to the most likely readers of the subject (high school and college students trying to pass Chemisty class) how the equations actually work. It gives the equations and expects the reader to understand how they work. Several examples of real Ka problems (with explanations) would be most effective in breeding understanding of the subject matter.--Jorfer (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. There are many examples showing how the concept of pKa can be applied to derive useful information. Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-in

I've modified it in the light of comments. Does it need further work? Petergans (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's clearly a step in the right direction. I hope to be more specific later; now I need to grade freshmen essays. Wish me luck :-). Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hazards

Added the reference and an example at acid dissociation constant #Importance of pKa values

  • Comment I would prefer the title to be switched to "Acidity constant". Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some authoritative source that prefers one term over the other? Or is there some other strong reason to do a page move? "Acidity constant" is already a redirect, and is already mentioned in the first few words of the lead... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many chemist you know that use the "acid dissociation constant" instead of "acidity constant"? Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a chemist and I often call it "dissociation constant" (the "acid" often being implied by the context), and rarely "acidity constant". But truth be told, like many chemists I'm lazy and normally just use "pKa" or "Ka". A Google Books search shows slightly more hits for "acid dissociation constant" than for "acidity constant" (780 vs 683). I prefer "acid dissociation constant" because it makes explicit what the process it represents is, while "acidity constant" could be ambiguous because some people prefer to work with formation constants (the reciprocal of the dissociation constant). The only thing I see in favor of acidity constant is that it is listed in the IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology. --Itub (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my high school and college chemisty classes have used acid disassociation constant when not referring to it simply as Ka (this includes the books and lectures). I actually have never heard the term acidity constant used.--Jorfer (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was personally not 100% convinced of my arguments, but I believe that the IUPAC's goldbook is the biggest authority you could get in this field. If IUPAC would use the term "actinoid" if you were to submit the article to FAC would you sue the term "actinide" because more people use/know it? Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Acid dissociation constant" accurately describes the content of the article, whereas "Acidity constant" is meaningful only in a specific context which identifies it as a dissociation constant. Petergans (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support (Disclaimer: I contributed to this article mostly with style issues and with suggestions, but did not add much content myself.) This is a very comprehensive encyclopedic article on this topic, which goes well beyond the usual introductory textbook treatments. I agree that anything that can be done to make the lead more accessible is helpful, but it is unrealistic to ask that this article be a stand-alone teaching resource about acid-base chemistry. First, because this article is just about one aspect of acid-base chemistry, the dissociation constant, which cannot be understood without knowing the basics about concentrations, activities, free energy, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases, and chemical bonding. Nevertheless, the article does make an effort at explaining some of these related topics but cannot be expected to teach them from scratch.

    Remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article."

    As I see it, the difference between a textbook and an encyclopedia article is that while the encyclopedia hopes to "tell the whole truth" about one topic, the textbook has much more space, can start from the basics, teach concepts in a sequence that is useful for learning, can include plenty of examples and even exercises, and can hide some of the ugly facts that are not essential for an introduction. Some may complain that this article is just useful if the reader already knows about the topic. That may be true, but this is acceptable IMHO because an encyclopedia is a reference work. Those who really know nothing about chemistry will be much better served by reading a general chemistry textbook. --Itub (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I have little knowledge of chemistry so please excuse any misreadings based on ignorance. I am assuming that a reader of this article would be expected to have some prior knowledge of modern chemistry, since this is not the first article a novice would look at. With that in mind, here are some thoughts.

I will post notes section by section, since it will probably take me a day or three to get through the article. These first notes are all from the definitions section.

  • I found the sequence of three equations in the definitions section on conjugate bases quite confusing to read. I wrote a long description of my confusion and then deleted it because in writing the notes I started to understand it, but I think something could be done to clarify the way this is presented. If I understand it correctly, the sentence that says "The conjugate acid of a base, B, "dissociates" according to" is followed by an equation in which the conjugate acid, BH+, plays the role of "acid", not conjugate acid, in the equation "acid + base = conjugate base + conjugate acid", which you give earlier as the template. That's very confusing! You are, rightly I think, keeping that equation as a template and making everything fit it, but because you don't say so the "conjugate acid" is misleading. Perhaps if the sentence read something like "The conjugate acid, BH+, of a base, B, "dissociates", taking the role of the acid in equation (1) above", or some similar means of referring to the template equation.

I'm on holiday in Crete, but here are some quick answers.Petergans (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) A general point: "reference to equation (1) above" would be fine if all the equations were numbered as they would be in a paper published in a chemical journal. Unfortunately, it is not normal practice to number equations in WP, where a more discursive style is preferred. Some guidance on numbering of equations would be welcome. Petergans (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Lowry-Bronsted theory every acid has a conjugate base and every base has a conjugate acid. It is therefore to some extent arbitrary which partner is denoted as conjugate. But you are right, some clarification is needed. Petergans (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version makes this much clearer. Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact the bicarbonate ion is amphiprotic": "amphiprotic is linked, but in a context where you're explaining the nature of proton exchange to a reader who presumably is not yet familiar with it, the comment seems unhelpful: such a reader would not understand the word and would have to click on the link. I'd suggest either adding the definition: "the bicarbonate ion is amphiprotic, meaning that it can either donate or receive a proton", or else eliminate the word "amphiprotic" completely -- you don't use it in the rest of the article.
  • "a "proton" is understood to mean a solvated hydrogen ion"; perhaps link "solvated" to solvation?
  • The article on Hydronium asserts that "hydronium" is an obsolete name; is that correct? If so, would it be better not to use the term?

The definitions section has been modified in the light of these comments. Petergans (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the "Equilibrium constant" section: the "hydration of the proton can also be assumed to be constant" appears to be the reason why the term "[H3O+]" turns into "[H+]" when we move from Kt to Ka. If this would be clear to a chemistry student, I'll take your word for it, but I don't follow it. If the concentration of H3O+ is constant (presumably true if the hydration of the proton is constant) then why is the term still there at all? If the term H+ is not constant, doesn't that mean that the hydration of the proton is not constant? What am I missing here?

Hydration means the addition of water; it is the concentration of water which is constant. Will attempt a clarification next week. Petergans (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the section on monoprotic acids you have both "half-neutralization" and "half neutralization" in the same sentence; I don't know which is preferable, but the article should be consistent.
  • In the sentence "Any base with a pKa value larger than the upper limit is "fully" de-protonated at all attainable pH values", why are there quotes around "fully"?

It is common practice to use the term "fully dissociated" when in fact the the difference from 100% dissociation is finite, but very small. See hydrochloric acid below. Petergans (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the explanation. I think a better way to indicate this to the reader is needed than just quoting "fully", though. Mike Christie (talk)
  • The following sentence is "This is known as solvent leveling"; it's not clear to me what this refers to. The previous sentences described the characteristics an acid would have if its pKa were below -2, and similarly for a base with pKa over 12. Those characteristics are solvent leveling? Do you mean that (essentially) complete dissociation or de-protonation are referred to as solvent leveling?

This is a subtle point that needs attention. The phenomenon is that in a given solvent all acids with pK less than a certain value are classed as strong acids, hence they are brought to the same level of strength. In another solvent a particular acid may be weak or vice versa. Likewise all bases with a pK value greater than a certain value are classed as strong bases. Petergans (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I follow you. A version of this explanation in the article would be good. Let me see if I can rephrase what you said to see if I have it right: all acids with pK less than -2 are essentially fully dissociated have the same strength at pH 0; hence the differences in pK do not lead to a difference in pH. A similar statement holds for bases with pK over 12. Is that right? Or is the word "measurable", earlier in the paragraph, the key, in that a pK outside these ranges is not measurable, precisely because any such acid or base is fully dissociated or fully de-protonated so there is nothing further to be measured? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good points, but since I don't have much time now I'll just reply to one. "Oxonium" has been the IUPAC recommendation for decades, but it is one of their many recommendations that is not very widely adopted. One can find hundreds of books published in the last couple of years that prefer to use hydronium: 222 for hydronium, 127 for oxonium, and 16 for hydroxonium (but note that the number of oxonium is heavily overestimated because it can also mean the organic cation R3O+ and not only H3O+). It is my opinion that the author of the hydronium article was a bit overzealous. --Itub (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Equilibrium constant" section has now been revised. I have re-instated the struck o notation as I believe that the IUPAC recommendation for the sign for standard is the plimsol line and this o is the nearest I could get to it. I am basing this on Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, page 5. We are currently looking into this to see if the recommendation still stands. Petergans (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In the section "Acidity in nonaqueous solutions", it's stated that solvents can be "polar, protic, donor or non-polar". However from the table of dielectric constants below it appears that these are not mutually exclusive. To someone who doesn't know the topic it would seem more natural for the initial statement to say that solvents can be "polar or nonpolar, donor or not donor, and protic or aprotic". A separate point is that the table itself isn't consistent in the style it presents this data; you have "Non-polar, Donor", but "Polar donor" instead of "Polar, Donor". Is there a reason for the difference?
  • I'm also not clear what purpose this table serves. It does not present pK values, nor does any of the data in it appear to be used or even referenced afterwards in the article. You do refer to dielectric constants in that section but no calculation is given, so the numbers seem unnecessary.

I agree. The table was introduced by another editor (eaglefalconn) who, though a major stimulus to bringing the article to FAC status, has disappeared into thin air. I didn't want to offend him, but I did think that the table is superfluous. I will start to make corrections after I return to Leeds on Friday. Petergans (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence beginning "DMSO is widely used ..." is a run-on sentence.
  • The last two paragraphs of ""Acidity in nonaqueous solutions" refer first to oligomers forming by hydrogen bonding, and then to an apparently separate ("may also form") process called homoconjugation. The last sentence says that homoconjugation does not occur in aqueous solutions because the oligomers cannot form; this doesn't sound like an explanation, based on the earlier sentences, which made it appear that oligomers and homoconjugation are different, though both are dependent on hydrogen bonds.
  • In the section "Mixed solvents", why is "one" in italics in the phrase "defined as one"?
  • This probably isn't something you need to fix, but I will just mention that the link to the article on Gibbs free energy wasn't particularly helpful notationally; the notations used in the two articles are different enough that a minute's perusal didn't explain to me what your "R" was, for example. However, if you're using standard notation I don't think this is your problem. After some digging around in enthalpy and elsewhere, what I found in Van 't Hoff equation leads me to think that R is the gas constant and ΔHθ is the enthalpy change. If so I think it would be good to say so. Actually you use the enthalpy delta term earlier, so it could be defined there; you do refer to it as an enthalpy term here which I think suffices.
  • In the "Thermodynamics" section, I'm not clear what you mean by "critically selected".

I've reviewed everything but the last two subsections and should return to those tomorrow. -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again I'll reply to one of the easy questions. ;-) "Critically selected" means that these are the best available values for each substance in the expert opinion of the authors who compiled the table (R. Goldberg, N. Kishore, R. Lennen). (As opposed to an "uncritical" table, which might simply compile all the available data or use arbitrary selection criteria.) --Itub (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The illustrative link in the section on buffer solutions needs to be cut; see this guideline. If the picture is sufficiently valuable you could recreate it as an image in an Excel graph and then capture the result as a graphic file and upload it. You could also convert this to a footnote and link the diagram from the note.
  • In that same section, everything after the sentence mentioning MOPS seems not to be strictly relevant to the article topic. Can some or all of this be cut? If the intent is to point out the importance of buffer solutions, and hence indirectly of pK, then it might be better to shorten the list and add it to the end of the sentence that begins "Buffer solutions are used extensively ..." Also, do we need the MOPS example? Does it help the reader understand pKa?
  • "Ingestion of cyanide by mouth is potentially fatal, independently of pH, because of the reaction with cytochrome c oxidase." Why is this sentence included?

It is standard practice in chemistry to give hazard warnings in appropriate places. Is this not appropriate? I didn't want some adventurous schoolboy to think that it is safe to play with cyanide. Please advise. Petergans (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Would it be appropriate to add a comment recommending this sort of interjection at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines#Safety? Mike Christie (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole section on the importance of pKa values is too listy, and should be converted to prose. The way you're using the {{main}} template isn't standard; the intention is for {{main}} to indicate that you are summarizing because including the whole referenced article would make your article too long. (See summary style for the details.) Here you simply want to link to these articles because they cover the topic you are discussing. A straightforward link is all you need to accomplish this. I would suggest eliminating the bullets and their titles, and the main/further info links, and running the remaining text together in whatever order makes internal sense. The articles you are linking to should then be linked as part of your discussion; instead of headings they may now appear as introductory or linking sentences in the prose.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We saw the bullet/list comment coming (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acid_dissociation_constant#Another_round_of_editing) and I sandboxed various other ways of presenting the material. The problem with running the text together, which I tried, is that most of the applications are so disparate, the area of applications is so broad, that the resulting text will not make sense; in effect most of the applications only have pK in common. Would separate paragraphs be acceptable?

Regarding the use of the {{main}} template, this is an error of inex-Wiki-sperience. The point we were trying to make is that applications linked in that way are substantial topics in their own right. Petergans (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This article has a great start towards featured status, but with the amount of discussion already here, I think it will have a better chance at gaining Support if the issues raised are worked on outside of FAC, and a new FAC is presented in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 25 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [33].

Sarah Geronimo edit

Nominator(s): Geniusdream (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article about Sarah Geronimo was very comprehensive and informative. The details were validated, and furthermore the whole article was not only helpful but also fun, because of the way it was presented, it seems that the reader will be very interested. Geniusdream (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Aside from there being absolutely no references, the layout is extremely off. Rather than being a summary of the entire article as per WP:LEAD, the lead section seems to be the majority of Geronimo's biography, but the "Biography" section is barely a few sentences long. I haven't read the article in full, but if the very first sentence is a clue, the prose may be poor throughout: "Sarah Geronimo, born as Sarah Asher Tua Geronimo on July 25, 1988". Header formatting is incorrect ("Concerts & Tours" should be "Concerts and tours"), some of the images are missing copyright tags and/or rationales, there are far too many lists, and, again, no references. I'm sorry, but this needs quite a bit of work. I suggest withdrawing for now. María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick-fail—Sorry, it's significantly underprepared, and our reviewers are stretched advising the "nearly-theres" how to get their work over the line. Please withdraw, find others to assist, and resubmit in a few weeks' time. Just a few pointers: Don't like "famous" at the opening (POV and unnecessary, anyway); audit for comma use—I see unnecessary interruptions to the flow, although too few commas can be just as bad. There are typo glitchs (space before 2003?). Have you read the MoS thoroughly, and MOSNUM? "of 2003", for example, is wrong. Tony (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry. but this article just isn't there yet. It will need a great deal of work, both on the prose and with inline-citations, before it is ready for FA. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Virtually every image in the article is a copyright violation. This nominator is a serial offender in this respect - see his/her talk page. A final warning was issued a week ago and has been ignored. The issue isn't that the article is underprepared, rather that it has been prepared with complete disregard for all the tenets of Wikipedia. This should not be on this page. Even to register an oppose lends it undeserved legitimacy.Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to be a good-faith nom from a fan of the article's subject but who has no idea of what Featured articles really are or how Wikipedia's community review processes work. I suggest to close this FAC and mentor the nominator. --seav (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment True. The moment this article was nominated, I notified the nominator to withdraw it but no responses so far. --Efe (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unsourced, cleanup banners, one sentence lead. And that's just the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per seav. Don't worry, though--all great works start out with a rough draft. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there are enough opposes; I don't think we want to dissuade the editor from further participation in FAC by drowning him in opposes. I think the message that the article is not ready already got through. :)
  • Note The nominator is currently blocked for copyright violations relating to this and other articles Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2008 (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 SandyGeorgia (02:32, October 25, 2008) [34].

Randall Flagg edit

Nominator(s): User:CyberGhostface (talk)
FAC1 FAC2 FAC3 (16:00, 27 February 2008)

Self-nomination This article has been improved a lot since the previous nomination (User:Bignole helped out a lot) and I believe that it now fits the Featured Article criteria. In addition to a summary of the character in all his media (books, comics, film), there is also concept and creation, literary discussion and impact.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on images: There are an excessive number of fair use images. One image for identification, no one will begrudge. But the variations of the character don't significantly increase our understanding of the character. Image:FlaggMovieSheridan.jpg could be replaced by a free image of the actor, as there isn't much in the way of unique and distinguishing items which are essential for a nonfree image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has the same number of images as Palpatine and two less than Jabba the Hutt, both featured articles. If push comes to shove, I suppose the comic cover and maybe the Fangoria cover could maybe go. I think the image of Sheridan as Flagg should stay, especially as Jamey Sheridan in real life doesn't look much like his portrayal of Flagg.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number, per say, but how they are used and if their usage is defensible. I suggest reading WP:NFCC as well as featured content dispatches regarding nonfree images. As for the other featured articles, another article is not always a reason for any editorial decision, particularly since those article were promoted in 2008-- standards at FA have noticeably increased since then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, I'd be willing to remove the two magazine covers (I personally think the Fangoria cover is a nice addition, but if it has to go it has to go) and that would leave three fair use images. The first main image, I don't think anyone's arguing. The image of Walter, I think, is necessary mainly because in terms of the character he looks and acts different from Flagg and by the end of the series he was the definitive form for Flagg. As for Jamey Sheridan...if say, it was Bruce Willis instead and he looked no different, I'd perhaps opt for a free picture. But a lot of the characteristics of Flagg (such as the long rockstair hair, which is explicitly mentioned in a review on the article) are exclusive to Flagg and not to Sheridan. Short of someone releasing a picture of Jamey Sheridan in character during shooting into the public domain (which I don't think exists, and considering the film was made over ten years ago, probably won't) I don't think a free image of him would carry the same effect.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 22 (Schedeen) is lacking a last access date.
  • Current ref 25 (Wyss) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 38 (Peckham) is lacking a publisher
  • Decide if you want to list the references last name first or first name first to be consistent.
  • YOu need to say who the "another reviewer" is in ref 39.
  • Current ref 41 is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 42 is lacking a publisher (and what makes htis a reliable source?)
  • http://thedarktower.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=15493&st=0&#entry676271 deadlinks and what would make this a reliable source, as it appears from the URL to be a forum post?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsarama is a reliable source, it's basically a news site. In this case it it was an interview with someone working on the book. As for the forums, the artist of the final Dark Tower book posted his thoughts on the forum. The forums are down now, though. I added his quote to make the reception of Flagg's death more neutral, as most of the reception I found were negative. I'll take a look at your other comments later.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I addressed the problems.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ref 39 is lacking a publisher (I missed that one the first time around). I'm not sure what makes this a noteworthy review? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if push comes to shove, I can remove the review. I was asked to find reviews that explicitly mentioned reaction to Flagg's death in the final book, and very few did. I think all the reviews mentioned in the article are all that I could find. But it's not the end of the world if it goes. The same, I suppose, for Mark Shreeve. I don't know if his liner notes would count as a reliable source, but if not, I can remove his mention as well.
As for Newsarama, Wikipedia's article on it states "Newsarama has been quoted as a source of comics news by the mainstream media, including The New York Times.[1] In 2006, Entertainment Weekly listed Newsarama as one of its "25 favorite online entertainment sites"[2] and the American Library Association lists it as a research resource in the field of comics.[3] A subsequent Entertainment Weekly update also included Newsarama in their list "100 Greatest Websites".[4]" (The numbers, of course, link to websites)--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I made the objectionable material hidden for the time being until I can back them up later with reliable sources.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the newsarama stuff you found works for me, so it's fine as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Found additional refs which might help.

  • On The Notions Of Good And Evil In Stephen King’s Fiction
  • The Twilit Fringe-Anthropology and Modern Horror Fiction doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1989.00115.x
  • The Stephen King Universe

--Stone (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. The first essay is already mentioned in the article in the characterization, and while I haven't read the SK Universe in a while, it is mentioned as well as the people who speculated that Flagg appeared in Hearts in Atlantis. If push comes to shove, I'll get it from the library, but I don't recall too much critical commentary. As for the "Twilit Fringe", it does mention Flagg but it seems I have to pay to access it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. A quick look at the lead shows that redundant wording is a problem.

  • I hate "various" novels ... don't you know how many? And why not remove "been" from that sentence?
  • "His second appearance was in Eyes of the Dragon, this time appearing as". Do we need "this time"?
  • "attempted ... attempt" in one sentence? Easy to conflate (I'd reverse the clauses).
  • "Aside from King's novels, Flagg has also made appearances in". Why "also" and "Aside from"?
  • "Later on, he attributed Flagg's creation to"—The opening two words are a rather exposed fuzzy chronological statement, which MoS doesn't like. Better as "He later attributed", if it's clumsy to be more precise here (presuming the info is further down and referenced).

You may wish to run through these exercises to cultivate the redundancy radar beam. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to run through and fix? It's 30 to 60 minutes' work for a skilled editor. Tony (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as stated earlier in the article, there is no clear answer as to explicitly how many novels Flagg has appeared in. For example, King doesn't explicitly identify Hearts in Atlantis as featuring Flagg in it, but he implies it and other sources have picked up on it. But it's not an "official" appearence. But I'll look at your article and see what I can do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any groups/people that look over articles? I know there was the League of Copyeditors, but that's defunct.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (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 User:Steve 21:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [35].[reply]

JFK (film) edit

Nominator(s): J.D. (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have put a lot of work into this article and think that it is ready for promotion to FA status. This is an important film not only in Oliver Stone's career but cinema in general, generating a lot of controversy and discussion. J.D. (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Should reference #23 have a page number?
  • Page range in ref #32 needs an en dash.
  • Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will hunt down the page number for reference #23 and I fixed #32.--J.D. 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has improved over the last 18months!! Is there anything you can do about the block quotation "Darryl Zanuck's The Longest Day..." It makes the section look a little messy, as it's within a bullet list. It's a short quotation, to perhaps just integrate it within the main text? The JPStalk to me 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does look awkward. I have removed it and placed it in the Production section. Thanks for the comments!--J.D. 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Is the Riordan work a book or an article? In quotation marks is the usual method of listing an article from a journal/magazine. A book title goes in italics.
  • Is current ref 23 a book? If so, it should have a page number and the italics issue mentioned above.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Prose issues and a few ambiguities, mainly. Nothing that major. I'll skip the rest of the preamble and get right to it:
    • Infobox:
      • Oliver Stone linked three times. Needs only the first instance.
      • Per WP:FLAG, we don't really need the flag image there. I'd also unlink United States as it doesn't link to anything that will increase a reader's understanding of the article.
      • The cast list seems a little long for a quick-stop infobox. While not strictly necessary, I'd be tempted to trim this to the half a dozen main characters.
    • Lead section:
      • By a strict reading of WP:PIPE, the link [[1991 in film|1991]] should be amended so it's more obvious which article it points to.
      • Change one of those first two "The film"s for "It" or similar, as the sentences are close enough together that it scans oddly.
      • "The film examines the events leading to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and alleged subsequent cover-up through the eyes of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner.)" Consider isolating "and alleged subsequent cover-up" with em-dashes, or maybe just commas, to remove the ambiguity.
      • Jim Garrison is linked twice.
      • "Stone's film became embroiled in controversy even before it was finished filming when Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner showed up on the set and wrote a scathing article attacking the film based on the first draft of the screenplay." Phew. Consider introducing a couple of commas, or maybe breaking the sentence up thus: "Stone's film became embroiled in controversy even before it was finished filming, after Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner showed up on the set. Based on the first draft of the screenplay, he wrote a scathing article attacking the film."
      • "implications of President Lyndon B. Johnson" doesn't work. Consider "including the film's implication that President Lyndon B. Johnson was part of a coup d'etat to kill Kennedy."
      • "Initially, Stone's film performed slowly at the box office but it gradually picked up momentum, earning over $205 million in worldwide gross; Garrison's estate subsequently sued Warner Bros. for their share of the film's profits, alleging Hollywood accounting." A better explanation than "hollywood accounting" should be used. Don't force the reader to follow the link away from the article. Replace the semi-colon after "gross" with a period, and better explain the first statement; "performed slowly" doesn't work for me. Consider simplifying (e.g. "After a slow start at the box office, the film went on to earn $205 million worldwide.")
        • Fixed. Although, I think I'm going to keep "Hollywood accounting" wikilinked only because it is a pretty complex definition and I really don't want to bog down the lead section trying to explain what exactly the term means. If people really need to know they can easily check it out.--J.D. (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've struck these after a couple of minor edits of my own. Feel free to revert if for some reason you disagree. Steve T • C 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good to me.--J.D. (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Synopsis" section:
      • The prose seems less well-developed than in other sections. Give it another pass, or ask someone else to if you're too close to it. The first sentence in particular is pretty cumbersome. The section could also stand to be trimmed some more. I know it's a long film, but see what else could be lost without impacting upon a reader's understanding of the article. Another option is to simplify the prose, removing redundant words and phrases (e.g. "himself").
      • The placement of "investigation" in quotes smacks of lacking a neutral point of view on the topic of the Warren Commission.
      • While written in a welcome out-of-universe tone, fewer statements to the effect of "The film then..." would go a little way to lowering the word count.
      • Per WP:MOS#Titles, "years as President" should be "years as president", as the word is talking about the office in general, rather than used as a title (e.g. "President Kennedy").
      • Is Image:Mrx_jfk.jpg being used for anything other than decoration?
        • OK, I think I've made the changes you listed for this section. I cut down the prose some. Simplified some of the more complex sentences and removed the image.--J.D. (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Production" section:
      • Inline external links are to be avoided (first sentence).
      • "Zachary Sklar... met Jim Garrison in 1987 and helped him rewrite a manuscript about the Kennedy assassination." It's unclear here that this refers to Garrison's initial draft of the book, rather than one already extant ("a manuscript").
      • Redundant words (e.g. "essentially").
      • "One of the filmmaker's primary goals with JFK was to provide an antidote to the Warren Commission Report..." Antidote scans oddly in this context. Would "rebuttal" be better?
      • "Stone... hired Jane Rusconi... to head up a team of researchers and assemble as much information about the assassination as possible while finishing Born on the Fourth of July." While Stone finished BotFoJ? The distance from the mention of Stone is large enough to make it slightly ambiguous.
      • "...upwards of 100 to 200..." Which is it, 100 to 200, or potentially more than that?
      • "He met with three executives at Warner Bros. while in pre-production on The Doors who wanted him to make a film about Howard Hughes." Makes it sound as if The Doors wanted him to make a film about Howard Hughes. Suggested re-order: "While in pre-production on The Doors, he met with three Warner Bros. executives who wanted him to make a film about Howard Hughes."
      • "Stone made a handshake deal with Warner Bros. and the studio would get all the rights to the film and put up 20 million dollars for the budget." That "and" after "Warner Bros." doesn't do what you want it to. Try a "whereby".
      • "The director did this so that the screenplay would not be widely read and bid on, and he also knew that the material was potentially dangerous and wanted only one studio to finance it. Finally, Stone liked Semel's track record." It's hard for someone with my lack of articulacy to say exactly what's wrong with this. It might be that final, tacked-on sentence. Recast in a way that better links it with the previous statement about Semel's involvement with All the President's Men, The Parallax View and The Killing Fields.
        • Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed you have. Struck. Steve T • C 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Production" section, "Screenplay" subsection:
      • The opening sentence says Sklar edited the Marrs book; do you mean Garrison's?
      • "Sklar spent a year researching and writing a 550 triple-spaced page screenplay." While I understand why you've mentioned the triple-spacing, where you mention it renders the sentence a little cumbersome.
      • "Stone and Sklar used composite characters, a technique that would be criticized in the press, most notably the "Mr. X" character played by Donald Sutherland." Reword to remove the haziness. Suggestion: "Stone and Sklar used composite characters, most notably the "Mr. X" character played by Donald Sutherland. This was a technique that would be criticized in the press."
      • No comma needed before brackets.
      • "Stone managed to pare down the script from a 190-page first draft to a 156-page shooting script." The beginning of the section already mentions a 550 page first version of the screenplay. Clarify.
    • "Production" section, "Principal photography" subsection:
      • " Although Costner's Jim Garrison is the central character around whom the film's story revolves, the film features a large cast of well-known stars.." A rather verbose way of saying "The story revolves around Costner's Jim Garrison, with a large cast of well-known stars in the supporting roles."
      • Stone was "evidently" inspired? Or actually was inspired? The direct quote suggests the latter, but if the Riordan biography is synthesising the claim from comments of Stone's that are unrelated-to-JFK, then that's fair enough.
      • See WP:ELLIPSIS for correct use.
      • "By the time principal photography wrapped on City of Hope, he was ready to make his movie." Remove slight ambiguity by using Stone's name after "City of Hope". And are we using the word "film" throughout, or "movie"? Decide on one and stick with it.
      • Suggest link to Aspect ratio (image) for more information on 1.33:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1.
      • "Stone ambitiously wanted to..." Redundant "ambitiously", and probably pushing an opinion onto the reader.
      • Suggest new sentence after first instance of "Dealy Plaza" instead of the "and".
      • Some redundant language. Examples: "...a total of" is almost always redundant, as is "has said" ("said"), "...back in 1963" ("...in 1963"), "Among the many advisors..." ("among the advisors..."), "...actual assassination witness..." (lose the "actual"). Look for other instances.
      • "In addition to the challenging subject matter, the filmmaker utilized a variety of film stocks." The one seems to have no relation to the other. While it further impresses on the reader how very hard it all was, the first part is nothing to do with the logistics of shooting a film.
      • "35 or 16 or Super 8" should perhaps have some explanation or link.
        • Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Struck comments, one remains. Feel free to disagree. :) Steve T • C 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed outstanding comment.--J.D. (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Soundtrack" section:
      • "Composer John Williams wrote and recorded six musical sequences in full for JFK before he had seen the entire film. Soon afterwards he traveled to New Orleans where Stone was still shooting the film and saw approximately an hour's worth of edited material and some dailies." So, he scored six sequences before he'd seen the entire film, but the second sentence makes it sound as if he did it before seeing any of it. Clarify.
      • "The composer remembered the moment he learned of the assassination of Kennedy and it stuck with him for years and was a significant factor in decided to work on this film." Never a fan of two "and"s close by like that, I suggest either splitting the sentence, or at least replacing the first one with a semi-colon. "This film" should be "the film" for consistency with the rest of the article. We know which film he's talking about.
    • "Reception" section:
      • Critical reaction needs a subheading so as not to appear to be an introduction to the other subheadings.
      • "Time magazine took Stone to task for doing this..." For doing what? This is the start of a new paragraph; is it related to the "[man of] scant education and negligible conscience" comment above it?
      • "The Miami Herald said..." Quote the journalist, not the newspaper.
      • The Rotten Tomatoes statement is uncited (here's the link). But even if it were, RT's rating is unreliable for a film of this age. It's only reliable for films made since around 2000, as the reviews it collects for older works are not a representative sample (see WT:FILM passim for discussions to this effect). You'll note that only three of the reviews it lists pre-date the year 2000.
        • Fixed. As for the Miami Herald reference, Riordan doesn't name the critic who said that so I will have to leave it as is.--J.D. (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Box office" section:
      • Conspicuous linking of USD. It's usually recommended to pipe it with the dollar sign that appears first in the article instead, and nowhere else.
      • "Hollywood accounting" As above.
    • "DVD" section:
      • "To date" Which date? It may not be current or accurate in five years time, after releases on other media.
      • Recommend changing section title to "Home media" or similar; the film was available on video long before DVDs became commonplace, and it future proofs the section against any potential Blu-ray release.
    • "Cast" section:
      • With the exception of Costner/Garrison, there's no real-world casting information about anyone; their entries consist purely of "plot" (for lack of a better word) detail. Is there anything available on the casting process for these parts, along the lines of what you've done for Costner?
      • Reproducing what is essentially the list of every speaking part, real-world-context-free borders on an IMDb-style list of indiscriminate information. It might be better to remove some of those that have no supporting information ("Sally Kirkland as Rose Cheramie"), or at least render them as prose, all together in a paragraph at the end of the section.
      • Prose sections need another pass to eliminate mistakes (e.g. "...New Orleans District Attorney who initially attempted to help the government's investigation", "a key witness to the assassination Kennedy.")
        • Fixed. I removed some of the lesser important cast members and took the casting info about Costner and put it down after the cast list with the other prose. Does that look better?--J.D. (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it does. Is there really no other casting information, of similar quality to that found for Costner/Garrison, available for the other cast members? If not, then fair enough. Steve T • C 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is, but not enough to really apply it to most of the cast listed. I mean, there is some info for the primaries like Gary Oldman and Tommy Lee Jones, but after that it gets sparser. I think I'll just leave it with what I've got.--J.D. (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, that's where you might fall down on the comprehensiveness requirement; if there's information not included in the article that does have a place, you need to have a good editorial reason for leaving it out, such as its being indiscriminate or trivia. No-one wants to hear that Oldman had eggs for breakfast every day of the shoot, but that he met with Marina Oswald and her daughters to prepare for the role might have some relevance. Steve T • C 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You make a good point. I'll go through my sources and see if I can dig up some more casting info.--J.D. (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I did find additional casting info but only a little about casting Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones. I could add it but I think it would still make the rest of the cast look uneven as there is no info about their casting. I think that the emphasis on Costner being cast is crucial because it helped convince the studio to bankroll the film. If you think it doesn't work, I could trim the bit about casting of Costner to just the importance of his casting in getting the film financed.--J.D. (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh, no, definitely don't remove any information. The section's looking uneven is not a reason to leave anything out. If there is information of Costner, Pesci, Jones and Oldman, that could form four decent paragraphs right there, with the rest of the cast making up either a bulleted list, or one paragraph on its own. Is the example I gave about Oldman mentioned in the Riordan book? My memory of reading it (long, long ago) is hazy. Steve T • C 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Unfortunately, Riordan's book doesn't mention anything about the casting of Oldman but I think I have an interview with him in an old issue of Empire where he talks about working on the film. I will try to dig it out and in the mean time I'll add the casting info about Pesci and Jones.--J.D. (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Hmm. Then it might be worth your while checking out a couple of other sources. For example, I've just dug out my copy of Oliver Stone: The Making of His Movies by Chris Salewicz (isbn 0-75281-820-1), which mentions Oldman's meeting with Marina, as well as a few other production details that don't seem to be in the article. Steve T • C 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • That's interesting! Well, I did add some additional casting notes for Pesci, Jones and Oldman. I did find that Empire magazine article. How does it look now?--J.D. (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I'm going to have a look in the Salewicz book to see if there's anything else of note mentioned that isn't in the article, but that's much better. However, I will make the suggestion that you should remove the duplicate information from those entries that have it. For example, the Costner/Garrison entry: "Kevin Costner stars as Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who attempted to help the government's investigation of the New Orleans links to the JFK assassination." Don't we already know that plot information from the summary? That section is there to give the rest of the article its proper context. It becomes redundant if the information is repeated. This example is particularly unnecessary, given that the plot section is right above it. Steve T • C 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Alrighty. I've started trimming away redundant info that is already in the Synopsis. Let me know if you find anything in the Salewicz book.--J.D. (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • OK, I think any further discussion on this should be in a new discussion at the bottom of the page. I'll mark these as resolved for now and roll them into the collapsible header. Steve T • C 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

    • Throughout:
      • See WP:DASH for correct use of unspaced em dashes, and WP:NBSP for appropriate insertion of non-breaking spaces.
      • A welcome lack of overlinking on common terms and phrases, but a few remain (e.g. "gay", "military industrial complex" is linked twice in same section).
      • Long quotes used throughout as direct extensions of your own prose would be better off paraphrased where possible.
        • I've trimmed down Richardson's quotes about the principal photography and paraphrased it. Most of Stone's lengthier quotes fall under his personal opinion and are pretty crucial so I've left most of them unless you see something that really needs to be paraphrased.--J.D. (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's about it on this pass. I'll give the article another review once these issues have been resolved (or successfully ignored ;) ). Steve T • C 15:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else that just occurred to me. The "Screenplay" section details Stone's meeting with Fletcher Prouty. The section says that "Prouty had no connection to Presidential security at the time of the assassination." It's cited to the Riordan book. Can you double check this? The "Mr X" speech is pretty much word-for-word inspired by Stone's meeting with Prouty ("...he told me the story of what he believed and he just blew my socks off") and Stone said that Prouty told him that it would have been Prouty's task to have arranged for "additional security" on the day of the assassination. Steve T • C 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the key is that it states that the character of X is a composite of witnesses interviews, Prouty and also "a deep throat type named Richard Case Nagell".--J.D. (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but I was just commenting on the seeming contradiction between the sources on Prouty alone. This article explicitly states that he had nothing to do with presidential security. The Salewicz book says he would have been in charge of "additional security" on the day of the assassination. Does Riordan say the same thing? (I'll post the other Salewicz info. later today). Steve T • C 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take on the rest of your comments over the course of this weekend.--J.D. (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentOppose: This is a terrific article, I can remember it's always been in strong shape. I just need to know:
    • Could be the death threats Stone received, the placements on various lists et al. go in the impact section?
    • Article needs more illustrations. Are you familiar with quote boxes? Plus, the film had amazing cinematography, so a few screenshots would be required for comprehensiveness in the filming section.
    • Do you intend to use anymore of the external links as cites? Alientraveller (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to use some screenshots but there is so little images out there that provide a good example and the justification is so hard to do well enough for it to pass. Do you have any ideas? I put the Stone death threat stuff in the Reaction section and it was response to the film so it kinda fits. As for the external links as cites... maybe a Themes section?--J.D. (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to have to oppose now, because I just realised you haven't used Oliver Stone's DVD commentary. Alientraveller (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "However, the DVD itself contains a non-anamorphic widescreen print, further compounded by a rather poor transfer." Sounds like OR to me. Any chance of a reference to a review of the disc? The JPStalk to me 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a reference (at www.dvdfile.com) but it wasn't considered a reliable enough source so I'm just going to remove it.--J.D. (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I questioned the source, but it doesn't mean it's not reliable. If you can demonstrate its reliability in some way (e.g. a report in a bona fide reliable source that cites dvdfile.com for this kind of information) then it may be OK. I only mentioned it because it didn't seem to have the historical credentials of the more mainstream sources. Steve T • C 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't find anything along those lines so I'll just take it out and keep it as it is right now.--J.D. (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've had a look at the Salewicz book (isbn 0-75281-820-1). The following information is in the book but not in this article. There's no requirement for any of it to go in, but there should be a good editorial reason for leaving it out (e.g. trivia, indiscriminate, etc.):
    • Stone paid $250,000 for the film rights to Garrison's book, to prevent talk going around the studios about projects he might be developing. p. 80
    • More is made of Stone's meeting with Prouty; the meeting itself (rather than the content of the meeting) provided inspiration for the "Mr X" scene ("It was one of the most extraordinary afternoons I've ever spent. Pretty much like in the movie, he just started to talk.") p. 80-81
    • The contradiction I mention above about Prouty's real-life involvement/non-involvement.
    • "Stone wrote the film from an impressionistic point of view" to accommodate the parallel plots. You allude to it already, with the mentions of Z and Rashomon, but only briefly. Stone had a lot more to say on it. This quote has some good information about the structure and how it was arrived at. Although he did employ ideas from Rashomon, his principal model was Z (p.81-83):

      "And I had an erroneous impression of its structure. Somehow I had the impression that in Z you had the showing of the crime and then the re-showing of the crime throughout the picture until it was seen another way. That was the idea of JFK – that was the essence of it: basically, that's why I called it JFK. Not J dot F dot K dot. JFK. It was a code, like Z was a code, for he lives, American-style. As it was written it became more fascinating: it evolved into four DNA threads.
      There are four structures there: The Garrison story from the centre was very good up through the New Orleans section, but essentially was a smaller story about a man following a local lead to its natural conclusion – he couldn't get any further than that.
      And the second story that evolved from the research was the fascination of the Oswald legend: who he was and how to try to inculcate that.
      Then the third idea was to go to Dealy Plaza and recreate the murder, and then see it again and again through the movie. Because Jim never went to Dealy Plaza: he goes once in the book. That was never his domain. His domain was the New Orleans territory. How do you get the New Orleans story combined with the Texas story? That was a very tricky thing. So that was the idea to go parallel.
      And during this research the fourth thing happened to me which was that I was contacted and approached Colonel Fletcher Prouty. That became the fourth story. It became the means by which we were able to move between New Orleans, local, into the wider story of Dealy Plaza."

    • On accuracy and the trial: "The trial within the movie has national implications, but in reality the trial was just a local, little affair. For example, I don't believe that at the trial Jim Garrison ever went through the exhibition of Dealy Plaza like we did. I wanted to show it with models. I don't think he ever did that. I think his case was based on the few witnesses he had against Shaw." p. 83
    • Oldman did actually meet with Marina Oswald and her two daughters to prepare for the role. p. 83
    • The shoot lasted (or was scheduled to last) 79 days. Filming finished five months before the release date. p. 84
    • Often, Richardson would shoot the same scenes in various formats (neo-documentary, on video). It was Richardson's suggestion that the first part of the Dealy Plaza sequence be shot in 16mm black and white. p. 84
    • JFK had 200 speaking parts and 2000 visual effects. The final film had 2,800 shots (if you include it, it might be worth clarifying why this is a lot by giving the average number of shots in a film). p. 84
    • JFK marked a fundamental change in the way that Stone constructed his films: a subjective lateral presentation of the plot, with the rhythm of the editing carrying the story. Stone brought in Hank Corwin, an editor of commercials, to help edit the film. Stone chose him because of his "chaotic mind" was "totally alien to the film form". This seems relevant (p. 85):

      He irritated some of the more traditional editors – I remember the conflict. Hank's concepts are very commercial – sixty-seconds-get-your-attention-fragment-your-mind-make-you-rethink-it. But he had not developed the long form yet. And so a lot of his cuts were very chaotic.

    • JFK was Stone's last film before he switched to digital editing. A setback occurred during editing that saw all the time codes disappear. p. 85
    • Warners undertook out a $15 million marketing campaign. p. 85
    • To counter the negative press, Stone countered with a publicity campaign of his own that saw him "omnipresent, from CBS Evening News, to Oprah." p. 85
    • Stone wanted Costner for the role because he felt he carried the same "All American" frontier qualities as James Stewart. p. 82
    • Maybe it isn't something that should strictly be cited to the book (though it is mentioned), but the "Themes" section which you allude to above may be required to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement. It's not necessary for every film (see: Transformers), but this film is replete with themes such the loss of innocence, security, etc., using the Kennedy assassination as a turning point in Stone's generation's view of the world (his words). Do you have access to offline sources such as papers and journals and the like?
  • Like I say, you may feel some of this to be trivia, and you should feel free to say so and ignore those. But some of it is definitely relevant, IMO. If you want further detail, I can get the relevant pages of the book to you (in a manner that satisfies all US and UK copyright laws of course). Just let me know. Steve T • C 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is great! I've actually used quite a bit in the article -- esp. the stuff about the structure of the film and the post-production which gives the article more substance. I will check Riordan's book and make sure that Prouty's role in all this is clarified better. I took out the contradicting material but I would still like to nail it down a bit better. Other than that, I think I've addressed most of the outstanding issues.--J.D. (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that was quick. OK, I'll take a look at those edits later. While I'm here, I was thinking earlier that to solve the image problem, it might be a good idea to have a look at The Commons. I've found it particularly useful for free shots of filming locations (example). There might be a good one of the Schoolbook Depository or Dealey Plaza, or even the actors on set if you're lucky. Steve T • C 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resources from Erik

The article looks great so far! As usual, J.D., you structure film articles very well with the right content, and I'm sure that Steve above has given a few good tips. Since this is a Featured Article candidate, and the film is pretty famous, I'd like to list possible resources to ensure that the article is as comprehensive as possible. Some academic sources may have the critical commentary to tie with non-free images. Here are some that I found:

  • Auster, Albert (Spring 2000). "The Bacchae, the 'Missing Prince,' & Oliver Stone's Presidential Films". Journal of Popular Film & Television. 28 (1): 30–35.
  • Briley, Ron (Feb–May 1998). "Teaching JFK (1991): Potential Dynamite in the Hands of Our Youth?". Film & History. 28 (1/2): 8–15.
  • Carnes, Mark (March 1997). "Past imperfect: History according to the movies". Cineaste. 22 (4): 33–37.
  • Crowdus, Gary (March 1997). "History, dramatic license, and larger historical truths". Cineaste. 22 (4): 38–42.
  • Romanowski, William D. (Summer 1993). "Oliver Stone's JFK: commercial filmmaking, cultural history, and conflict". Journal of Popular Film & Television. 21 (3): 63–71.
  • Keller, James R. (Summer 1993). "Oliver Stone: JFK and the 'circulation of social energy' and the 'textuality of history'". Journal of Popular Film & Television. 21 (3): 72–78.
  • Sturken, Marita (December 1997). "Reenactment, Fantasy, and the Paranoia of History: Oliver Stone's Docudramas". History and Theory. 36 (4): 64–79.
  • Butler, Lisa D. (June 1995). "The Psychological Impact of Viewing the Film JFK: Emotions, Beliefs, and Political Behavioral Intentions". Political Psychology. 16 (2): 237–257. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Raskin, Marcus (April 1992). "JFK and the Culture of Violence". The American Historical Review. 97 (2): 486–499.
  • Rogin, Michael (April 1992). "JFK: The Movie". The American Historical Review. 97 (2): 500–505.
  • Rosenstone, Robert A. (April 1992). "JFK: Historical Fact/Historical Film". The American Historical Review. 97 (2): 506–511.
  • Medhurst, Martin J. (June 1993). "The Rhetorical Structure of Oliver Stone's JFK". Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 10 (2): 128–143.

The above resources were what I was able to acquire after a small search, but there may be a few more floating out there. I don't want to make the FAC process seem impossible, but I just hope that we can have some truly impressive articles that go beyond the usual sections. Yours is well on the way, so let me know if you are interested in utilizing these resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in utilizing these resources. I think that a Theme section would probably be a good idea to making the article more comprehensive.--J.D. (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping off Erik, I think the article is well structured all, but lacks extensive use of all the sources out there. In particular, I feel that the actual claims Stone makes in the film about the assassination should be talked about (there are plenty of books which discuss how the shooting happened and how Stone was playing fast-and-loose with the facts, including [36] as well as more scholarly approaches. As such, I'm going to oppose due to lack of comprehensiveness. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having more of this leaves the article open to something like this. I think I have covered the criticisms with the fast and loose way Stone portrayed history in the Reaction section and his reasons. In addition, there is a link to The JFK 100: One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone's JFK, by Dave Reitzes in the External Links section that does a pretty comprehensive job of dissecting all of the factual mistakes in the film. I just don't want to place too much emphasis on one aspect of the film and throw off the balance of the rest of the article.--J.D. (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Stone already acknowledges he was creating a "counter-myth", as mentioned in the article. He's not like Dan Brown, who makes glaring forewords that cause debate over he was deliberately playful with facts. So what the reception focuses is whether it was responsible to make a historical fantasy. If readers want to know what really happened, they can read the articles on the actual people involved. Alientraveller (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

There's only one image in the entire article, the article requires more images.--Music26/11 20:51, 22 October 2008 (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 User:Maralia 20:57, 21 October 2008 [37].

1964 Gabon coup d'état edit

Nominator(s): editorofthewiki
previous FAC (00:34, 19 September 2008)

This article was a featured article candidate about a month ago. It received a fair amount of support, and also a fair amount of criticism. In the end, it was closed as unsuccessfull, and User:SandyGeorgia outlined the major concerns in her closing statement. It is copied verbatim, except my responses to pre-empt your concerns.

  • Sources. The original sources initially weren't consulted, most of them were in French, and Editorofthewiki stated that he doesn't read French. Text wasn't always supported by the sources, and additional sources surfaced that hadn't yet been consulted. Considering that editors now have access to the new and original sources, proper research to write a comprehensive article of featured caliber can now be conducted. Of greater concern is that a number of supporters didn't understand that Wikis aren't reliable sources, and an article translated from another Wiki without consulting the original sources does not meet WP:V.
    • Oh the original sources have been consulted now, by User:Nishkid64 (another large author of this) and myself. Disclaimer: I do read a bit of French, but I am not that great of a speaker to engage in an actual conversation. The information not supported by the sources was mostly me adding a ref tag in between something that was reffed to something else, and I consider this problem resolved.
  • Translation. Several translation issues were raised; writing a featured article without being able to read most of the original source material is a greater challenge. The article was initially translated from the French wiki, using Google translator. I speak fluent Spanish, and ran several samples through Google translator and found that the results weren't usable for a quality article; they might provide an adequate start to fill in a redlinked stub or perhaps to raise a stub to a start-class article if I (as a fluent speaker) also consulted the sources to correct the errors introduced by Google translator, which are substantial.
    • One can write sentences in French in different ways, especially in quotations. Since there were no English sources to verify this, we had to rely on ourselves. The French part of this was mostly taken from Leon M'ba as a content fork, and Nishkid (who wrote most of that article relied firstly on Google translater and then native French speakers.
  • POV. Some of the discrepancies identified by Ling.Nut in his userspace analysis of the sources indicate the possibility that some POV may have crept in, either from the original article, from the translation or from the incomplete sources. It will take some time to analyze all of these issues, re-consulting the original and new sources.
    • I believe the POV issues were fixed at the FAC, but I will be happy to fix anything specific.
  • Comprehensive. Questions about the comprehensiveness of the article were raised early on; they continued to emerge as new and original sources were examined. Having access to all of the sources should be helpful in doing the level of research required in a featured article.
    • The "new and original souces" that Sandy mentioned were Darlington 1968 and Matthews 1966. I have incorporated anything of value into the article. Ling mentioned that the Gabonese oil industry became dominant over the timber profession. Interesting fact, but that had nothing to do with the actual coup.

That said, I honestly believe this is the most comprehensive and best written article on the coup. There may be some nitpicks, sure, but I do not anticipate anything major. I am looking forward to your comments! ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment EotW, were you able to have the French sources verified for this article (actually have someone with access to the French sources check the translation)?
  • The reason that I ask is I was only able to access one of the sources, Keene. You used that work for a quote: "While wanting and sincerely believing in democracy, to the point of no charges irritating him more than being called a dictator, [M'ba] was given virtually all power and reduced parliament's role in a government which is already substandard."
  • My main concern is the word "substandard". The source quote is this: « Se voulant et se croyant sincèrement démocrate, au point qu’aucune accusation ne l’irrite davantage que celle d’être un dictateur, il n’en a pas moins eu de cesse qu’il n’ait fait voter une constitution lui accordant pratiquement tous les pouvoirs et réduisant le parlement au rôle d’un décor coûteux que l’on escamote même en cas de besoin» which is, roughly: "Wanting and believing sincerely in democracy, to the point that nothing irritated him as an accusation of dictator, he nevertheless had a constitution according him practically all power and reducing the role of parlement to a "costly decoration (? unsure ?)" that could be "disappeared" if need be" Note, "disappeared" is the verb escamoter (disappear, Houdini-style). I don't think the word "substandard" captures the sense of the French quote. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reduced parliament's role to a costly rubberstamp though even this could be dispensed with if the need arose? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You always have problems with this sort of thing.
    • ) I personally translated that (one of the only parts I could understand) and might have been off a bit. See my opening statement. On the quote: You seemed to hit it better than me. I touched it up a bit (now reads "Wanting and believing sincerely in democracy, to the point that nothing irritated him as an accusation of dictator, [M'ba] nevertheless created a constitution giving him practically all power and reducing the role of parliament to that of a decoration that he could dissolve if need be.", seems a bit truer to the intended meaning. We have zero references of this in my English books, so we can only rely on the translations of us Wikipedians. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a note: I'm not sure what "un décor coûteux" is; my best guess is a "costly decoration". Note: I would not be comfortable translating an article for Featured Status, even though I speak French confidently. Especially for quotes regarding one's opinion of a coup; the language is too nuanced for me. I would not feel confident putting an article up for FAC if I hadn't personally verified the source. I notice the Keene article is rather lengthy; I did not read the whole thing, but it appears to provide much information. I have an idea: look at the Keene source, and other French sources, and work back into the article. I'd be willing to help; although, it could take awhile as I've got my own articles on the stove. Perhaps after a few months, after you're confident you have everything accurate, then you can re-nom it. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Keene article actually has very little on the coup at all. It mostly talks about what Gabon was like during this lime period, with all the important political figures etc. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are not things which could add to the article? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Oppose. If this (see immediately above) is the level of the translation. I'm sorry, but this is not good enough. (And it really doesn't help that, for instance, the English of the nomination is sorely lacking: "One can write sentences in French in different ways, especially in quotations"?!?!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was trying to say was that since there are no English sources referring to this, no one can have the exact meaning put into French. My translation was no far off. Do you have a specific point (other than the occasional (small) mistranslation that occure even with hardened French spekers) to make this "firm oppose" actionable? ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "What I was trying to say was that since there are no English sources referring to this, no one can have the exact meaning put into French." I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.
      • And the translation was sufficiently far off. It was very far off in its first incarnation. But it was studded with numerous and significant errors even at the second attempt. For instance, you don't seem to recognize the reflexive form of the verb: "Wanting and believing himself to be a democrat..."
      • I hesitate to bring up credentials, but... I have translated a published book. (This one, as it happens.) What we have here is not a translation at a professional level, which is what we should be looking for at FAC. I also teach languages, and have in my time taught translation. It seems to me that you would struggle in an intermediate (200-level) college course of the kind I am teaching right now (and taught this morning.)
      • Look, EotW, I know you're trying hard here, and really want to get this suite of articles through FAC. But I think you need to realize that in this case you're not in a position to do so. You would simply need far better French to undertake such a translation or work with French material to sufficient standard. That is my very specific point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice book: perhaps I'll read it someday. I'll admit my French is, well, pretty bad. I am entirely self taught, but that really isn't the point. I did use native French speakers on this article, who I will seek out for any last minute copyedit. Please fix any specific problems, jb. I just think that articles can never be perfect no matter what. They're just "our best work" which I consider this incredibly close, if not there. I've just worked too long and hard on this article for it not to be featured. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • EotW, I think you should feel very proud with what you've done with these articles, given your self-taught French. But I also think you should realize your limits here. The fact that they do not become FAs does not mean you have wasted your time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons that forced me to oppose Paul Gondjout's FAC. Sorry, but I simply can't support an article that uses information translated using Google Translator and "the translations of us Wikipedians". Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the opening line. I used online translators to assist me (I can read basic French) as well as (this is the key point, I only ran the sources through online translators to help me) pros. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • EotW, I think you misunderstand. You need someone with excellent French to be able to use a translated source. That person must also have excellent English to correctly capture the sense of the French author. I do not feel that I'd be able to translate an article into English at a professional level. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is way short of being one of wikipedia's finest. Apart from the concerns which I share about the quality of the translation, even the English is pretty poor: "Despite these incidents, legislative elections planned before the coup were held in April 1964. They were originally to be held on 23 February, though he dissolved the National Assembly and rescheduled them for 12 April." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick-fail—This cannot be fixed in the time that is possible on this list, and reviewers have already put too much time into it because it was underprepared. It should be withdrawn now and resubmitted (yes, again) after significant time maturing out to pasture. I want to reinforce my colleagues' opinions above that this is way short of the required standard WRT several of the criteria. Here are a few random examples of prose problems from the middle:
    • Logic and relevance issue: " Much of the 600-man Gabonese army had previously served in the French army prior to independence, where they were paid modestly. However, like much of the rest of the country, they were displeased by M'ba's actions against Aubame." The relevance of the bit about modest payment isn't immediately obvious, and it muddies the point of contrast in "However,".
    • OMG: "U.S. Ambassador to Gabon Charles Darlington suggested that the coup plotters may have tried to imitate Colonel Christophe Soglo.[31] Soglo, a commander in Dahomey's 800-man army, had deposed President Hubert Maga in October 1963,[32] ruled for about a month, then resigning in favor of Dahomey's citizens." Start with "The". Commas either side of his name, usually. You talk of imitating Soglo before you tell us what was imitated—it's back to front and annoying to read. "Resigning" is ungrammatical. This is embarrassing.

Sorry to be harsh, but help by more and different editors is required before resubmission. Tony (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Withdrawn by nominator [38]. Maralia (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008 [39].

Veronica Mars edit

Nominator(s): Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion, User:Jclemens


This page has undergone significant improvement over the last month by User:Jclemens and I. It has undergone a peer review, and I think it is almost at FA status. All comments are welcome, although supporting ones would be great. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for bringing those up there, as well. Upshot of my response there was that these all seemed to fall under and be used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. My followup question, which didn't get answered on that page.

"So no featured content can ever use a WP:SELFPUB site, even for noncontroversial statements? See, I follow the policy chain like... WP:WIAFL references WP:RS which references WP:SPS, which is followed by WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within WP:V. Looking at that, it would appear that if the (admittedly pretty limiting) conditions of WP:SELFPUB are met, the source should be acceptable within both WP:RS and WP:V. However, I don't doubt that actual current consensus can markedly differ from what is written... does it? Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
Apologies if that's a question with a well known answer--this is my first time at FAC, so I may have a few such questions. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to those that Ealdgyth brought up, I'd also like to know what makes the following sites reliable:
  • The IMDb has been discussed and discarded by Wikiproject Films as a reliable source on many occasions. I know how the rest of Wikipedia views it is pretty contentious. I understand that 95% of its information is likely correct, but I can easily find instances where it has been proved wrong. In this article, one of the things it's being used to cite is VM{{'}s awards. This is one of the areas in which I've found errors before. In addition, the Ain't It Cool News link doesn't tally with what it's being used to cite. Steve T • C 22:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, would you be in a position to answer my query--is there a (written or unwritten) rule against using WP:SELFPUB sources in any manner in a featured article? WP:WIAFA doesn't make that clear. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no rule against it, and if there were, it would not be an unwritten one. However, as the link describes, self-published sources must only be used under strict conditions. Additionally, some reviewers may be more stringent on the weight given to a self-published source in a featured article than they would in a non-featured one. Essentially, if the information is available elsewhere in a bona fide reliable, secondary source, this should be used instead. Steve T • C 10:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the references, I have been told tht IMDb is reliable for awards, and that it cannot be user updated. If this is untrue, I could find alternate refs. SeanHarry is only used to cite the fact that there have been fan conventions, however this could be removed if neccessary. Likewise Media Life is only referencing fan activities, which is unlikely to be covered by a "reliable source". The Ain't It Cool News ref actually does cite what it's meant to: "my pick for the best TV series of 2006" can be found on the page. Hope that helps. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally ran into the IMDb's lack of reliability for awards information last year. The site was used to cite that the Babylon 5 episode "The Parliament of Dreams" won an Emmy for its visual effects (it was for makeup). The IMDb entry has since been changed, but it's just one example. Now, even the most reliable of sources will make the odd mistake, but the user-submitted nature of the IMDb means it happens all too often. Do you have a link to anything that declares the IMDb's awards information to be either 1) reliable, or 2) not user-submitted? Steve T • C 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Ain't it Cool News thing, I did indeed miss that. But I think citing the statement "In 2006, the series was ranked number one on the [list] of Ain't It Cool News..." to what amounts to a throwaway comment from one contributor to the site who rarely actually reviews anything is a little tenuous. Steve T • C 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick-fail—An ideal example of a premature nomination that should be removed forthwith. We can't afford to clog up the list with items that need far more work than can be done in this timeframe. Please work on the prose and other aspects in a freer timeframe and resubmit when several editors have passed it. A few random examples of the prose in the lead show that a lot of work is needed throughout:
  • "high school and college drama"—US editors would insist on a hyphen, since "high drama" is a possible ambiguity.
  • "Balancing murder mystery, high school and college drama, and social commentary with sarcasm and off-beat humor in a style often compared to film noir,[3] the series starred Kristen Bell as the title character: a student who progressed from high school to college during the series while moonlighting as a private investigator under the wing of her detective father." Oh, this is a horrid twisting snake of a sentence. The grammar of the colon is wrong.
  • Logical problem: "Thomas originally wrote Veronica Mars as a young adult novel; however the protagonist was a male." Why is it unlikely the protagonist was a male just because it was originally written as a young adult novel?
  • "Episodes had a distinct structure;"—I'm relieved. The semicolon should be a colon, but the sentence needs rethinking.
  • So Veronica is trying to "solve" the story arc? Fatal confusion of character and script-writer—comic in itself. Tony (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, thanks for all this feedback. Sorry if anyone reviewing this feels like this was a waste of your time. Cornucopia and I will address the issues you've raised in relatively short order, but I accept that this is perceived as insufficiently prepared. It's my first run at FAC, and the issues raised in peer review were prettly lightweight compared to the scrutiny that's being given here. At any rate, thanks for helping contribute to my FAC education. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were one of the editors I contacted, but I got no reply. I guessed (incorrectly) that your lack of response was a good sign. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, pending resolution of the above sourcing and prose issues. I'm not sure there's time to sort it all out during this FAC. For that reason it may be a good idea for you to withdraw the nomination; there's no shame in bringing it back later when it's had a few more editors look over it at their leisure, rather than in the pressured environment of a FAC. Steve T • C 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I guess Jclemens and I knew this would be the result, we just wanted to see what the response would be like and what issues the article has. Since the peer review only received two replies, we thought taking it to FAC was get a bigger response. Well, I guess we were right. I want to keep it here a bit longer, to see if there are any more comments by other users and how to prepare for the next nomination. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Sourcing issues (by default, a fansite doing an interview doesn't meet WP:RS, and for this post you need some sort of confirmation that this guy is, indeed, Joss Whedon). There are still prose issues; Tony's given examples, but at a glance there are still some clunky sentences like "Kristen Bell was chosen to play Veronica Mars from more than 500 women who auditioned for the role". "The setting of Neptune High for the first two seasons was located in Oceanside, California" - implies there was a Neptune High in season three, which apparently there wasn't. "Kristen Bell's performance as Veronica Mars was praised, however several critics felt that she was overlooked and deserved an Emmy Award nomination" - why "however", if the two clauses basically agree? The use of Image:VeronicaMarsNoir.JPG does not meet NFCC; what does the image do that text can't do in terms of explain the game's music? These are just examples of how a bit more work is needed. Giggy (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [40].

Nightwish edit

Nominator(s): - Aki
previous FAC
previous FAR
WP:FFA, has not been on main page


I, as well as lots of others, including User:Sn0wflake and User:SoothingR, has worked really hard on this article and I can't come up with more things to edit or add. I definitely think it deserves to be a featured article. - Aki (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — serious lack of citations, particularly in the first half of the article. Additionally, many of the citations are bare and/or poorly formatted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Large chunks unreferenced, including opinions. References are a mess, need publisher and last access date at the very least. Current ref 15 is "Kerrang!"... which is totally unverifiable, which is just an example. Iffy sources, (A YouTube Video? http://www.amvlyrics.com/ (should we even link to a site like that, do they have permission to put up copyrighted material?) Lots of short one and two sentence paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yep, sorry, oppose too based on the lack of citations for a lot of information. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I love this band, and would love to see this as FA, but it needs to be sourced much more thoroughly. For example, the section, "Over the Hills and Far Away EP (2001)" lacks a single citation! Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — article has a decent structure, but too many problems, including all of the issues noted above. --an odd name 23:03, 17 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [41].

Hurricane Kate (2003) edit

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured because I have read it over, and was quite impressed. Also, since it's already A-class, this nomination might be the article's only step away from being featured. Kudos to Hurricanehink, the article's main contributor. Dylan620 Life story 22:57 UTC October 16, 2008

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an effort to contact Hurricanehink, but due to his long wikibreak he will not be back until December. Dylan620 Life story 23:18 UTC October 16, 2008

Should you wait until he returns, then? While not official, he's told me via IRC that he would rather not nominate this article due to lack of notability. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, this should be at AfD then? Ben (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not by an means. Don't get me wrong, the article clearly meets notability requirements. Hurricanehink is rather picky with what he nominates at FAC, with a preference towards storms that make landfall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say it would bother me greatly if this article is intentionally held back from FAC if it meets the featured article criteria. This article is part of a featured topic. If an article is notable enough to be included in a featured topic then it should, by definition, be notable enough to be a featured article as well. I should also point out that it was Hurricanehink who nominated the topic that this article is a part of in the first place. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I didn't mean to open a can of worms. :-) Tropical Storm Erick (2007)'s recent FAC demonstrates that many are opposed to lesser-notable storms becoming featured. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As I recall It dit did not passed do to article length not how not notable off a storm it is. Shortly thereafter, ACE went in there. now it is a mess. Dylan, if you one to nominte FA or FT articles.Hurricane Hernan (2008) could be a FA. I can make it a FAC because I created it. Cyclonebskit can also do it too. A good featured topic would be Hurricane Ioke,Tropical Storm Zeta (2005), Hurricane Fausto (2002),Hurricane Ekeka,Hurricane Faith (1966),1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane,Hurricane Vince (2005), or Hurricane Maria (2005). Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, you can't just have a FT for random articles, they have to me related! Also, Hernan is no where near FA, much less, A-class --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose withdrawal I think this should stay up. My reasoning is that despite Hurricanehink's request, it is one of relatively few comments this nomination has seen, and very few Wikipedians have posted their opinion about the nomination. Dylan620 Life story 23:10 UTC October 17, 2008

Comment I note that the nominator isn't a significant contributor, and that one of the main contributors seems to not wish this nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article is mainly written as an extended weather report. Does not have the coherence, structure, and flow of a professional encyclopaedia entry; thus it fails criterion 1a. Wording taken from #1 NOAA is too close to the source, in my opinion, for Featured status. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I Can see no reason why this cant be an FA - Though you need to source this bit "Due to the lack of effects from Hurricane Kate, the name was not retired, and is on the list of tropical cyclone names for the 2009 season" Jason Rees (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object, it needs somebody to go through it with a fine comb, paying particular attention to the list of terms delineated as problematic in WP:WPTC/J. At this point, the article is almost on the borderline of failing B-Class criterion 6 / WikiProject criterion B6, so it falls a bit short of 1(a), I'm afraid. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject agreed to pass all of our articles though WP:WPTC/A so that we don't submit low-quality articles to FAC. You should be brought it there for A-class review first, where its many problems would have been pointed out. Also, you are pinching this from the main contributor, who will submit it when he feels it is ready. HurricaneHink knows how the FAC process works, and if he didn't submit this it was because he wasn't satisfied with it. We shouldn't be either. Plasticup T/C 23:15, 19 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [42].

Lockdown (2008) edit

Nominator(s): --WillC 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm nominating this article for featured article because, as most do, I feel it meets FA criteria. It has went under three different GA reviews under one nomination, two different peer reviews (one before GA and one after GA), and under multiple copyedits and smaller reviews.WillC 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the citations per WP:ALLCAPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. I believe I got them all and left what was supposed to be capitalize. Is there anymore?--WillC 08:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as per the Armageddon (2006) FAC below, this article really should have a better title and method of disambiguation that just a year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: Comment - I'll take that up at WT:PW and maybe come up with a better title for the article.--WillC 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I do not know. All I know is about.com was used in WWE No Way Out when it became an FL. Also that it only sources one thing in the whole article. I was assuming it was reliable and that Wrestling Observer has been found by WP:PW to be reliable, it is is used in other FAs. So that one I can't answer, I was expecting them to be reliable since I've seen them in other FAs and FLs.--WillC 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Figure Four Wrestling site is run by Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez, both of whom are acknowledged as experts in their field. Alvarez is co-author of The Death of WCW, published by ECW Press, and has been quoted in several other wrestling books (including Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of the ECW, published by Sports Publishing LLC, and The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels, published by ECW Press). Meltzer has also written books (Tributes: Remembering Some of the World's Greatest Wrestlers, published by Winding Stair Press, and Tributes II: Remembering More of the Worlds Greatest Wrestlers, published by Sports Publishing LLC, Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time, published by Stewart House). He is quoted in many books and documentaries (Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat, as well as Mysteries of Wrestling, published by ECW Press; Ric Flair's autobiography, To Be the Man; Mick Foley's autobiography; and countless others). Alvarez has been running Figure Four since 1995, and he merged the magazine with Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, which has been around since 1987. If you need any more information to verify their reliability, just ask (or do a search for their names, which should turn up many hits). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I wasn't sure why, I just knew it had something to do with Dave.--WillC 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, but I don't believe this meets the standards set by recent wrestling PPV articles. Here's a rundown of some issues with the article.

  • The article feels overlong to me. The Background and Event sections are much longer here than they are in the other active wrestling FACs. Too many matches are covered in Background, and Event goes into an excessive amount of detail. I suggest reading PPV pages that are featured, to gain insight on how to approach this.
    • That is mainly so no important notes are left out. People read the event to know all the matches, not the top two matches. That is mainly since no one wants to right more than four or three matches. I feel if I remove two of them then I just removed important information that non-wrestling fans would like to know. I can cut the event section down more. I'm working on it right now.--WillC 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I've cut down the event a bit. Just left what match was next and who and how they won. Besides in the top two matches, I went a little bit more indepth with them.--WillC 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As per tradition of Lockdown events, every match was contested inside Six Sides of Steel." Not sure about the game to start the sentence. More importantly, what is Six Sides of Steel? Remember, this article needs to make sense to non-wrestling fans. The wording in the body is much better.
    • It is explained later in the article. It clutters the lead section by explaining what each match is. When it should really be explained in the background.
      • Remember, the lead needs to be an accessible overview of the whole article. If I don't know what Six Sides of Steel is, I'm lost as a reader. I recommend just writing "contested inside a steel cage", and if you want to add the match name after that, it would be OK. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking about doing that. I did have it like that at one point but SRX told me to only explain it in the background. I'll change the lead tonight. I would really like to get yours and David Fuchs Opposes changed.--WillC 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "The first was a Six Sides of Steel cage match (tweak if above suggestion is taken) for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship" and one before Kurt Angle.
    • Fixed, I must not noticed it.--WillC 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comma after Jay Lethal.
    • I meant for the to run like a continuous sentence but changed.--WillC 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "every match was contested inside a 16 feet (4.9 m) high..." Feet should probably be foot, and a hyphen should be placed between that and the number.
    • It is because of the template, not sure how to change it.
  • The sentence detailing how Jim Cornette announced the match is difficult to read, with many commas. Feels like a run-on sentence to me.
    • Fixed, I believe.--WillC 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is not yet ready to become featured, at least in my view. More copy-editing would be beneficial, and some trimming of unnecessary details would help too. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll work on it. Just please take my comments about the added matches into account--WillC 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've worked on the event section. I'll work on the background as well, just please take my thoughts about the extra matches into account. I'll figure out what I can cut or change to make it simpler or easier to read. If I have to too I'll cut two of the matches though I do feel that is leaving out important information to the article.--WillC 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have some suggestions for the event section that can cut it down a bit. I feel I should disclose them with you before I do them. They are removing the eliminations from the Xscape and just mentioning them in the table in the Results section and I can half way rewrite the Lethal Lockdown match.--WillC 04:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WIth the Xscape, maybe knock it down to the final few eliminations. Agree that the Lethal Lockdown match needs shortening. Quickly, I noticed this in an already shortened paragraph, which needs work: "During the match, Kip attempted to perform a running splash towards B.G., who was positioned in the corner (of the ring?), however, missed, which allowed B.G. to pin him with a roll-up." A couple women's matches are of good size and could be used as a model for this aspect. Also try to cut the Cuffed in a Cage match; that is overlong in my view. And the main event could be trimmed a bit too; do their ring introductions need to take up almost half the paragraph? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll work on it somemore, I'll make sure everything reads well and not confusing if I can. Thanks for the comments. I'll start working on it right now.--WillC 02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I removed over 1,800 bytes. Any suggestions for the Cuffed in the cage match will be helpful since I feel what is left needs to be left but I have no ideas on how to cut it down more with what is left. How did I do?--WillC 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The size of the paragraphs varies widely, but it's workable and a natural consequence of the cuts. The main problem I see is the background. I still think this is too long to maintain the reader's interest, especially a non-wrestling fan's. We might have to agree to disagree on this. The writing also needs work, as shown by this segment of Main event matches: "The finish of the match saw Roode holding Sharmell for Banks to slap her, but Sharmell hit Roode with a low blow to the groin and jumped out of the way. Causing Banks to slap Roode by mistake." Sentence fragment at the end. Earlier, I found "The match came down to Devine and Lethal, in which Lethal escape the cage before Devine..." Grammar issues there. One more before I go, from Background: "Before Against All Odds, B.G. finally announced that his partner would be farther Bob Armstrong (Joseph James)." Sorry, but these examples are enough to convince me that this still isn't ready. Oh, and I left a note above on Six Sides of Steel. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm willing to work on it. Just name stuff you would like to change. I've been working on it since May so everything sounds fine to me anymore. I'll make sure tonight I check every little bit of the article.--WillC 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said I would check every bit of it tonight, but I have a busy day tomorrow and I can't. I'll make sure I get it done tomorrow morning before I start other work. Also do you want me to remove two of the feuds? I will, though I don't want too, but I will if you want. If it gets it closer to FA, I will.--WillC 04:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not entirely convinced on WrestleView's use as a source, but this article has other issues. There are numerous MoS issues (left-aligned images under level three headers, et al), weak prose in areas ("he Tsongas Arena has a maximum capacity of 7,800, however, TNA only sold 5,500 tickets for the event.[2] Although, this was the second highest margin TNA has gathered at its pay-per-view events, with Lockdown in 2007 having an attendance of 6,000, which is the highest TNA has had to date at a pay-per-view event, according to Pro Wrestling History.com."), and parts of the article are inaccessible to non-wrestling readers (" Jim Cornette made the TNA World Heavyweight Championship match at Sacrifice a 3-Way Dance between Joe, Steiner, and Angle." What's a 3-Way Dance? Why is the informal 'cuffed' used throughout the article?) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, the image problem is fixed. All pictures follow WP:MoS#Images. The only other left-aligned picture is the Jay Lethal and it follows the rule by being a paragraph down below the header. The attendance is taken care of. I removed it since I didn't have a good source for it. Also a 3 Way dance is explained in the background. It is mentioned in the Kim/ODB versus Kong/Saeed description. I've never read MoS, so if you could explain the problems that Lockdown has, I will make sure they are taken care immediately.--WillC 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would you like me to do with the WrestleView refs? All I can say is the recent wrestling FAs all passed with WrestleView sources. WrestleView was said to have been found reliable.--WillC 04:09, 20 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [43].

Location of European Union institutions edit

Nominator(s): RCS (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because since it has been voted a Good Article (GA), it has been widely increased in scope and size (diff) and certainly is now as complete as can be on this subject. RCS (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sorted.- J.Logan`t: 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still going through. Ref 10, 11, 38 and 51 sorted. 14, that is more a brochure, the whole book is pretty much cited though I'll see if I can narrow it down in a sec. The Youtube link is news put on Youtube by that company (it is their channel if you look). I don't see your problem with any of the other sources, they are all normal media outlets. What makes CNN a reliable source? I'd choose the politix website over CNN anyday, its a respectable professional source. CNN on the other hand....- J.Logan`t: 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with the ref 14 issue - replaced with a full book with pages marked. That's everything except for your doubts over sources. I maintain there is no reason to doubt their accuracy, especially the latter three which are perfectly respectable. The first may not be prestigious, but there is nothing on there that would be cause for doubt.- J.Logan`t: 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About Taurillon.org: taurillon means "little bull" in french (bull = taureau); the bull in question being the one who abducted Europe. The site is thus dedicated to European questions, and it is quite serious in that. RCS (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any sites I've seen hold such information and to force this for FA is incredibly restrictive. Trauillon, Politix, EUX and Euractive are all reliable in their field. I'll see if I can replace ecotips as granted that is not exemplary but like the others, they are not saying anything particularly disputable here. If you can find a factual error, then there is a case but otherwise this really isn't much of an issue.- J.Logan`t: 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason to confine yourself to websites, printed sources would be perfectly fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little on the political issue of the seat as the issues raised tend to be very recent. Hence the use of media. I've sorted the ecotips one with a better source.- J.Logan`t: 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very complete and well done article. Two comments; the first is the font below the map needs to be fixed as there not enough space between the items. The second is do we really need the image of Sarkozy? It's a great image but not really necessary. Plus the opposition from French has gone back decades and Sarkozy just continued the tradition. --Patrick (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well most comments just refer to "France", with only the quote from Sarko. I don't think the image does any harm, but I won't object to someone removing it if they think its needless. And I fixed the line height issue.- J.Logan`t: 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the map: I would prefer to have a dot by each number. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks.- J.Logan`t: 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But 5 is in the sea now. Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but the dot shows the exact location (on the coast). That was the point of the dot was it not?- J.Logan`t: 09:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Oppose with Comment Whoa, the images on the right in the WP:LEAD completely obscure some of the article text, in my browser/resolution. This cannot fly. I'm calling it an Oppose because I don't have time to look at the article deeply tonight, but am afraid it will be passed... it cannot pass in this state. Will review in more depth this week. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, I see the problem you have. When I increased the text size responding to one of the above comments, I didn't increase the size of the box as I had the TOC on and hence it didn't show up. I've fixed it now.- J.Logan`t: 13:18, 16 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [44].

BP Pedestrian Bridge edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger
previous FAC (21:59, 26 July 2008)


This is one of the better articles at WP:CHIFTD, which is about to be promoted to WP:GT. I have addressed most of the issues at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's comments based on this version

  • Date in image caption shouldn't be wikilinked (MOSNUM)
  • "is an American girder bridge" - doubt you need to say it's American; you say it's from Chicago later this sentence, which should make it clear enough
    • This is a big adjustment for me. Not only am I now suppose to remove United States following Chicago, Illinois, but also I am now suppose to remove American too. I will do it, but I am getting uncomfortable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first Gehry-designed bridge to have been realized." - is realized some jargon with which I'm not familiar, or would "the first Gehry-designed bridge to be completed" have the same meaning?
  • 3rd paragraph of lead; cut repeption of "The bridge" (happens a bit in the 2nd paragraph too)
  • "Gehry had hoped to avoid the visible center column." - um.... no idea what that's referring to, images don't help (hinder, rather)
  • "might not have been able to be as sleek as it is" --> "might not have been as sleek as it is", and (preferably) quote Kamin's original words
  • Not sure what relevance the Controversies section images have to that section
  • "some of the bridge's foibles became apparent. The bridge has had..." - repetition

Giggy (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as I have no other concerns. Giggy (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recurring items on repeat noms that reviewers should be catching: WP:ALLCAPS, WP:NBSP (on times of day, for example), fixes needed throughout. I left samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The first paragra of the controversy section needs a ref. Also, is there some way you can merge the "credits" section into the infobox? ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contextually, it does not really need a ref given the following paragraphs are cited. I generally like to have a citation per paragraph, but this para seems to be an exception to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if this were a building there would be parameters to merge the credits as you suggest, but for a bridge you can not do so as I understand the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Leaning towards oppose at the moment, mainly but not entirely on prose concerns.

  • In the lead, you say that Gehry agreed to take on the design after the Pritzker family funded the pavilion. The source you cite says only "The Pritzker family is underwriting his work". I don't see any other support for the phrasing in the article; do you have another source?
    • I added a better ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I don't think that does it. The problem is that your phrasing asserts that Gehry took the work after the Pritzker family underwrote it, but the source doesn't say that -- it might equally be that he took it on and later the Pritzkers underwrote it, as far as one can tell from the sources. In addition, your phrasing implies (though it doesn't directly state) that Gehry took it on specifically because it had been funded, whereas that may not have been part of his decision. I'd suggest just rephrasing to avoid these implications. Mike Christie (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some prose problems. Examples from the lead follow, but there are prose issues elsewhere. I think you need to get a good wordsmith to make a pass through this.
    • "Because of its curving form, the BP Bridge is described as snakelike": too wordy; just describe it as "snakelike" or "snaking" in the lead-in to the next sentence. I see from the section on aesthetics that this is probably intended as an abbreviated reference to that discussion; that would be OK but if so please rephrase it so that the context is clearly an aesthetic analysis rather than just a passing likeness that has been commented on.
    • "Designed to bear a heavy load without structural problems caused by its own weight" is clumsily phrased.
    • Repetition of "aesthetic" later in that sentence.
    • Last paragraph of the lead: "The bridge ..." followed by "The footbridge ..." reads oddly.
    • I think "a concealed box girder design" would read more naturally than "the concealed [etc.]".
    • Surely you mean fingerprints, not footprints?
  • The first pair of pictures looks a little strange to me; the perspectives look odd juxtaposed like that. I think the problem is that both have a vanishing point above the picture. I'm not sure what you could do about this, but you might consider separating them. The other juxtaposed images later in the article don't have this problem.
  • The comment about Gehry's prior bridge designs never having been built seems misplaced near the end of the preliminary plans section. It would be better placed either in a background description of his qualifications (i.e. the first paragraph of that section), or as context for criticism of his selection, if there was any. Placed where it is, after the description of the unapproved design, it implies there was criticism, but doesn't say it.
  • I think the article might benefit from a map view -- I don't know Chicago's topography at all well, and went to Google maps to see just where this was located. A view with Cloud Gate at the left and the lake just offscreen to the right was very helpful to me in visualizing the relative locations of some of the landmarks the article mentions. This is just a suggestion, however, since the photo you have at the top of the article is a very good overview of the bridge's shape and location.
    • Would a map like the Millennium Park map with an x on the location of the bridge suffice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That's about the right scale, but it doesn't have any street names on it. I won't oppose on this point, so I would suggest that you don't add a map unless you can find or make a good clear one that clearly locates the bridge within the park, and (ideally) the park in Chicago. Not needed for FA. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bit overlinked. Examples include screw, parking garage, rot, stainless steel and hardwood, just from one small section.
  • The sentence about the bridge being closed till 7 a.m. after a Tori Amos concert is sourced to a newspaper piece that doesn't mention anything about the outrage over deck chairs, or that that was the cause of the closure. I haven't gone through and checked every source; I only clicked through to four or five, and I'm a bit concerned that two of five don't seem to quite support what the article says. Could you verify that the wording in the article really is supported by your sources?
  • I'd introduce Gilfoyle when you first mention him; the reader has no idea who Gilfoyle is when you say "Gilfoyle notes that ...".
-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 18:12, 19 October 2008 [45].

Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States edit

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone


I've spent a couple months working on this. As far as I can tell, a recent bout of copyediting by myself has brought the article up to featured standards. I was surprised at how much information I found on this, considering that the storm never even made landfall in the United States! Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 13 (Anne Johnson) is lacking a last access date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Considering the discussion about small articles that is currently ongoing, I think it is worth asking why this article has been branched off Hurricane Noel at all. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dr pda, the combined word count of Hurricane Noel, Meteorological history of Hurricane Noel and Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States is 5,600. Since all are GA, they are presumably comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it they were not split due to WP:SIZE concerns, then. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Hurricane Noel article is getting quite long, and as I and other editors work on it, it's bound to get longer. However, the primary reason I split this is because including all of the information in the main article would give it undue weight, and would make it heavily US-biased. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake: Hurricane Noel is not yet GA. So you're saying there were more effects in the Caribbean than in the US, but that isn't yet covered in the article? If the largest effects were in the US, it wouldn't be undue to talk more about the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most severe effects were in the Caribbean, but because countries like Haiti have scarce documentation of storms, there's more information for the US. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Eliminate redundancies and merge back. Marskell (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What redundancies? As I said, to merge all of this information back into Hurricane Noel would make it US-biased. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancies:
  • Hurricane Noel: "Noel formed on October 27 from the interaction between a tropical wave and an upper-level low in the north-central Caribbean Sea."
  • Meteorological history of Hurricane Noel: "Noel formed on October 27 from the interaction between a tropical wave and an upper-level low in the north-central Caribbean Sea."
  • Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States: "Hurricane Noel formed on October 27, 2007 from the interaction of a tropical wave and an upper-level Low pressure system in the north-central Caribbean Sea."
Why does Wikipedia need to thrice describe this storm? It doesn't, as far as I can see. As for US bias, there's already US bias. It just happens to be spread across three pages rather concentrated in one.
I don't mean to denigrate your efforts at all, but I stand by this oppose. Sandy has said that reviewers have not been evaluating in terms of "can this be merged?". It's about time we started. Marskell (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed most of the first paragraph, which should take care of the redundancies. Any better? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Julian, I don't think you're quite getting me. You should actually put that sentence back in (until and unless a merge is undertaken) because now the lead doesn't describe the storm formation. What I'm suggesting is that the very fact that this article is split is the basis for my oppose. I see no need for three articles on this storm. Marskell (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to discuss with the nominator about improving the article. I don't want to say here how the article isn't an FA so officially I am not presenting any objections. Chergles (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific conerns about the article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:41, 19 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:20, 18 October 2008 [46].

Hurricane Hernan (2008) edit

Nominator(s): Leave Message orYellow Evan home


It was very simlar to Tropical Storm Erick (2007) but much longer and a little more notable and a little longer lived storm and article was around a little longer (the first EPAC fishspinner to receive an article)Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Although you aren't the main contributor, User:Cyclonebiskit is, but this article covers the storm well and there are many references. I will tell cyclonebiskit now and see what will happen. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose this article may be good, but this is not comprehensive or long enough for my taste. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The fact that every single statement is sourced to a single publication worries me; I would like to see more variety in content and sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose even though I've done basically all of the work for this article, it is definitely not ready for FAC....For one, I don't have "Professional writing" and nor do you. Another is that I haven't updated it with the TCR information. That should quick fail it because it's not up to date...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First, update before anything else.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's going to take a bit to update the article, and once it is finished, I still doubt it will pass FAC. Also, Fishspinner is not a word. The term you're thinking of is fish storm, a storm that doesn't affect land and there have been many article before Erick to receive FA in the EPAC. Before you go any further with the FAC's, do not add any of the articles that you've created and I've significantly expanded or will expand. That means Hurricane Elida (2008) and Hurricane Boris of the same year. My work is not FA quality for the record. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1. we use fishspinner a lot although it is not a real word. 2. i think it worth a try. 3. Eilda will probably be featured soon. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Do not put Elida up for FAC, it will not pass. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in the following way:
Comprehension: OK
Detail: Quite impressive
Sources: I would think there would be some more out there, but the sources that are available are quite comprehensive.

My decision: a tiny bit more sources, if there are any, and we'll have the first deserving FA of the 2008 Pacific hurricane season series. --Dylan620 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well...as long as someone other than Evan has given it support, I guess I'll work on it. Thanks, I'll try and get some other sources and and update it with the TCR data. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That also means I've removed my opposition to FA. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last time of changing Support because it is now up to date. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added two other sources from Fox news and updated the article according to the TCR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isnt it too early to chuck this article up at FAC since the TC season isnt over yet Jason Rees (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (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 User:Moni3 15:00, 16 October 2008 [47].

Tea & Sympathy edit

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)
previous FAC — June 2008

Bringing this back a few months after the last FAC. I've done a fair bit of work on it since then I think it now meets criteria. Giggy (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: withdrawn by nominator. Maralia (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For musicOMH, see here and the last FAC. Deadlink fixed via Internet Archive. Giggy (talk)
YOu want me to remember stuff from MAY??? (gasp) I've slept since then. As long as you're using it just for the reviews, then it's fine. (Sleep, it's good, but yet so bad for remembering things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. Image:Bernard Fanning-Wish You Well-20s.ogg, the image page's "summary" section includes commentary on how it meets NFCC (albeit without a template). Giggy (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but per NFCC the fair use rationale needs its own specific section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Giggy (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong link, sorry: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation_and_enforcement -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made a specific fair use rationale section on the image description page. Giggy (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Maybe I can't read too well, but I didn't see where it asked for that on the new link, either. Meh.[reply]
It's there, or at WP:FURG, or somewhere, trust me :P I added the section header, so the images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is essintally the same article put forward in June, but with new bells and with the same weakneses. Its cut and paste and little effort made to throw the factoids into a coherent story. Described as a "breakup album" by The Oakland Tribune,[1] much of the record was written after the death of one of Fanning's brothers, and after the end of Fanning's twelve-year relationship. The album veers from Powderfinger's politically and socially influenced rock. There is a connection there between these two statements, but you have not established it. There are many other examples. Ceoil sláinte 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded and (hopefully) added the connection in the example above and have fixed some other instances in the article. I'm continuing to look at it and try and improve the flow, but of course, any examples would be great. Giggy (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not my job. You nominated. Ceoil sláinte 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you opposed the article. Although you may be right, I don't think it's very good etiquette to oppose and article and refuse to offer examples on how to improve it. Wikipedia is based on collaboration to improve articles, and I would have thought that it should be a common goal to get as many articles as possible to featured article status (that is, improve the quality collaboratively so that it meets the standards). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I mentioned in the previous FAC, I believe it meets the standards for FA. Apart from the concerns raised by Ceoil (which I find hard to support, given that I find the article coherent and easy to understand), I don't think there is anything major that is wrong with the article. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [48].

Croatia national football team edit

Nominator(s): User:Domiy
previous FAC (05:04, 2 September 2008)


Nominating because I feel it finally not only meets all the FA criteria, but all the criteria raised by other reviewers in previous attempts. Having recently passed GA status with a very positive review, this article has been heavily worked on by myself and other editors, leading it to really meet all the requirements from the criteria. As per normal, any last-minute changes or suggestions are welcome and will be addressed. Domiy (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - based on criteria 1a. I suggest enlisting the help of a copyeditor go through the article and iron out the prose. Here are some examples of things that need to be fixed.

Resolved issues from Yohhans talk
  • is the national side representing - As opposed to the international side?
  • The contemporary team has existed officially - Not sure "contemporary" is the word you're looking for here; "current" is much better. This sentence would read better as "The current team has existed since 1990 and was recognized by FIFA and UEFA in 1992, one year after Croatia gained independence from Yugoslavia."
  • Although authorized as an affiliate of FIFA in the earlier era, - What earlier era? From 1944 to 1990?
  • at competitive level. → at the competitive level.
  • Croatia remained a constituent nation of Yugoslavia - Would it would be more accurate to say "constituent federal republic"?
  • They went on to finish third - This is misleading. It sound like you're going to tell how they did in 1996, but instead talk about the 1998 World Cup. I suggest rewording.
  • As a person who does not follow football, I think it would be helpful to be more explicit when talking about competitions. "Euro 96" and "1998 World Cup" are not helpful. Why not just spell it out for clarity? That is, instead of "qualifying campaign for Euro 96", say "qualifying campaign for UEFA Euro 1996". Similarly, "They went on to finish third at the 1998 World Cup" becomes "They went on to finish third at the 1998 FIFA World Cup" (It turns out there are a LOT of world cups). To continue in this vein.... "Croatia has since qualified for every World Cup" - link World Cup to FIFA World Cup.
  • tournament—Euro 2000—since - Should be commas, not mdashes.
  • The team has achieved several noteworthy results, including victories over Germany, Holland, Italy and England. - Why are these notable? What about other teams, like Brazil, France or Argentina? This sentence just sounds like boasting.
  • they defeated the Germans - Really? All the Germans? How about "they defeated Germany" instead?
  • four-time world champions Italy - Reads very awkwardly. Actually, this entire sentence is structured oddly. Also, out of curiosity, how many times has Italy defeated Croatia?
  • Recent results include twofold - Errr... No. I'm noticing a trend in almost correct usage of words (twofold here). Be careful you know the exact definition of the word you're using before you use it. How about rewording this to "Croatia has also gained two wins over England: ..."
  • Recent results include twofold victories against England: 2–0 at home in the Maksimir Stadium and 3–2 at Wembley Stadium, England's first competitive defeat at the new venue. - This sentence also just feels like boasting; kind of like you're saying, "Haha! Look! We beat England TWICE!" Surely beating England isn't that rare of an occurrence in football.
  • At Euro 2008, they defeated eventual finalists Germany 2–1. - Reads awkwardly. Sounds better as, "At Euro 2008, they defeated the German team 2–1, who would later go on to be finalists."
  • Croatia is the only team to win FIFA's "Best Mover of the Year" - Link to Best Mover of the Year?
  • ranging from third to 125th - Would be helpful to give context to this by providing years: "ranging from third in <year here> to 125th in <year here>". This would also let you get rid of the parenthetical after "125th"—this is definitely something you want to do.
  • for considerable charges and infamy against the national federation by the governing bodies of football. - So many problems with this sentence. Unless my understand of the word has changed, I don't think you can have infamy committed against anything. "acts of infamy", yes. Infamy itself? No. Also, I have no idea what "by the governing bodies of football" is doing in this sentence. Are they the ones charging the fans with "hooliganism" and acts of "infamy"?
  • They obtain further media involvement through the prime broadcasting service of HRT - They "obtain" it? I think it would be better stated that HRT reports on all the devious/deviant things the fans do. Also, service of HRT → "service of Croatian Radiotelevision (HRT)".
  • all national team fixtures live. - Diction again... "fixtures"?

All of this is just from the lead. This article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone not close to it (i.e., not Domiy or Malez).

Yohhans talk 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator reply - Thank you VERY MUCH Yohhans. I understand your concerns and critical comments. Although, it must be noted that it is evident you are not well-knowledged on football. Just to ensure that you know how the majority (actually, pretty much all) football articles on WP are consistently written. I will explain it in correct order based on your points raised:
  • Reworded correctly.
    • Forgive me, I don't think I made my point well. I was just wondering why that statement existed. I was thinking that the sentence reads better as (remember: this is my own opinion), "The Croatian national football team (Croatian pronunciation: Hrvatska nogometna reprezentacija) represents Croatia in international football matches and is governed by the Croatian Football Federation." - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reworded it correctly once again to read it like you suggested, which is similar to what other national team pages read as well. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded correctly.
  • Reworded correctly.
  • "the competitive level" does not make since, especially in football terminology. 'Competitive level' is a common phrase used in football, mostly by analysts and commentators. There is absolutely no need for 'the'.
    • I am well aware that that "competitive level" is a common phrase used in sporting commentary. However, it NEEDS a definite article (i.e., "the"). "at competitive level" is just grammatically incorrect. - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though I have some possible suspicions, I am going to take your advice as you seem to have a more thorough understanding of English than me, so I have included "the". Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded correctly.
  • Reworded correctly (to the best of my brief ability, I tried to end the Euro 96 sentence and ensure the reader knows I am about to refer to another tournament in the next sentence).
  • Even though the acronyms like '98 World Cup' and 'Euro 96' are also very common football terminology, I do see a slight need for them to be specifically stated because of possible misleading information. I would however argue that this would only be needed in the lead, and the rest of the team it should be spelled by its commonly referred shorter name. I found that constantly including the official name sounds way too specific too many times, and simply does not flow well in any prose. I will leave this untouched until we can reach an actual agreement on this. I have also linked FIFA World Cup.
    • I don't see a problem with saying "1998 FIFA World Cup". It really doesn't make the sentence any more cumbersome, and as you said, simply is more descriptive. Being more explicit, and therefore less ambiguous, is never a bad thing. - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have spelled out the entire tournament name in the lead this time. As I said before, this is almost always only required the first time the tournament is referred to. There is absolutely no reader who would be mislead by reading the article. If they see that FIFA World Cup has been referred to in the lead, then I don't see why they would possibly think that other instances which state "World Cup" would mean some other tournament by the same name. It all reads fairly correctly now so it should be in order. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Forgive me for my naivete when it comes to football. It looks fine now. - Yohhans talk 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Croatia has never really defeated France, Argentina or Brazil, at least not in competitive matches. Such victories would be certainly notable if they had occurred though. However, the stated results are indeed very notable. I admit to a possible neutrally disputed prose to a tiny extent, so I will try to touch on this briefly. Please note that all decent quality national football team pages have a section like this in the lead. Take a look at Scotland national football team, which is already a Featured Article. Croatia has only existed officially for about 16 years, and since that short time period they have achieved noteworthy results. They are memorable because Germany, Italy, Holland and England are very good sides who have each had a large share of championship glory, and remain amongst the best international sides today (all except England are in the top 10 of the rankings).
    • I have no qualms with saying that they defeated a country at prestigious competition. However, just simply stating that they have defeated certain teams seems pompous. It is very different to say that Croatia defeated Italy at the World Cup than to say Croatia defeated Italy. This is why I have no problem with the second sentence of that paragraph ("During their 98 World Cup ..."), but I do have issues with the first sentence ("The team has achieved several ...") and the fourth ("They have also gained two ..."). See the difference? - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your possible fear of POV. I have reworded this entire paragraph to something a tiny bit more suitable and less 'pompous'. Please note that since all other national team pages do the same, then there is really nothing wrong with mentioning certain victories against certain teams. I'm pretty certain that this is a guideline from the WikiProject Football page. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it looks fine now. Sorry for being so picky; I didn't realize it was such an important matter. In any case, if this is how WikiProject Football is doing it, then by all means, follow their standards - Yohhans talk 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded correctly.
  • Coincidentally enough, Italy has never defeated Croatia. This remains one of the fan highlights of the national team's history. The two teams have played eachother in competitive and friendly matches a fair number of times since 1994. Croatia has won most of those fixtures, recording a draw in only one or two of them. It would have also definitely been critical to say that the first qualifying victory was actually played in Italy's home stadium, which makes the win even more notable. However, this has not been mentioned due to a limitation of these sentences and possible POV problems. How exactly is this sentence structured oddly to you anyway? I have done another brief best to slightly reword it, although I would like to hear what exactly you think is odd about the wording so I can make a better effort if needed.
    • Worded oddly because Italy is one country, not multiple, so "champions" should be singular (sorry, that was nitpicky). Structured oddly because "with" is a very poor connecting word, and suggests that the sentence could be structured better. Example: "Croatia has twice prevailed against four-time world champion Italy. The first win, played in Italy, was during qualifications for Euro 96, and the second was at the 2002 World Cup."
        • I also reworded this sentence as well. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly reworded as well. Although, I dismiss the boasting claims. It may sound somewhat one-sided, but such a feat is definitely worth mentioning (probably one of Croatia's most notable and recognized achievements ever). It's extremely difficult to explain this to a non-football fan, but England are the most followed side in football today. Most of the media coverage is based in England, so their national team is covered very broadly. Additionally, they have a very strong history in major competitions. The fact that they lost twice and solely because of that failed to qualify for their first tournament in 14 years was a big issue in the country. To top it off, it was their first competitive defeat at their major new venue and it really caused the entire nation to panic because of the bad performance. They had thought they already qualified, but they lost to a small side like Croatia. Nobody can argue that it is not notable and it is indeed a rare occurrence for such to happen to England, but considering the nature of the achievement it is very difficult not to sound one-sided. It comes down to making a majorly one-sided event sound neutral, that's no easy task.
    • Well, I will leave this for others to decide then. I still think it is something that can be left out of the lead and simply included—and explained—later in the article. However, you must realize that it is possible that your readers do not know much about football and accommodate them accordingly. They will undoubtedly think to themselves, "Well, what makes England so special? What about <insert reader's country of origin here>?!" - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, this is always a consideration. But if someone is really vaguely knowledged on football, it is indeed very possible that they will soon realise that since a victory over England is mentioned in the lead section of a highly rated article, then clearly it must be correct. There is a wikilink to England's national team page, which the user can easily access and find out that England are a very highly regarded side. Mentioning a victory against England is the same as mentioning a victory against Germany in the sense that they are both great teams with championship glory in their history. Anyone can find this out by briefly checking the records on the other national team pages. If they wonder why their own national team of origin is not worth mention, then they can look it up on Wikipedia and find out. At that point they will see that Croatia has either never defeated that team in a noteworthy match, or that team is simply not a highly rated one. For example, Croatia have beaten Andorra on every occasion they have faced eachother, and by a margin of at least 4 goals every time. If someone from Andorra wonders why their national team has not been mentioned in a highly regarded manner in this article, then they can follow the wikilink (or search it themselves) which will lead them to the informational sense that Andorra is a tiny country which has barely ever won a football match. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok... I'll try to say it differently this time. It looks like you're defining the Croatian national football team by who they've beaten, rather than what they have accomplished. You don't define Italy by the fact that they have never defeated Croatia, or that they beat France X number of times. Rather, you define them by the fact that they have won the FIFA World Cup four times. In any case, this is becoming drawn out. It's really not that big of a deal. It looks good how it is now. - Yohhans talk 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded correctly.
  • Wikilinked correctly.
  • Reworded correctly.
  • Yes, the governing bodies of football (known as FIFA and UEFA) are the ones who have charged the national association because of the hooligan conduct of the fans. But yes, your 'infamy' point is correct and was kind of expected to be honest. This sentence always stood out to me for its awkward wording. I really need some assistance in re-wording this though. English is my second language, and for a situation like this, I am kind of stuck on alternatives for this sentence. The fans have gained infamy, so I think this needs to really be included.
    • I have no problem with its inclusion (it's of my opinion that all headings in the article should be included in the lead). I'll try and come up some sort of rewording later, but I still think you should contact experienced copy editors to run through the entirety of the article. My point is that all the things I am challenging are just from the lead which is a very small part of this article. This leads me to believe that the rest of the article needs to be looked at. - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the greatest deal of respect to you and your early efforts in this FAC, this is an assumption which cannot be made by reviewers. I was actually going to raise this in my previous reply but it seems that it slipped from my mind. The issues you found in the lead are very unique. Not only because your problems themsleves are unique in the sense you have raised them, but also because the lead section of every article is always uniquely written. I can imagine a few picky instances in the body of the article where some problems may arouse, but certainly not as many as you raised in the lead. If you read through the rest of the article, I'm confident that you will find it is correctly written in other aspects. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is an amazingly naively constructed syllogism. The likelihood that only the lead is not written well is very low. I don't see how the lead's uniqueness correlates to the quality of an article's prose. - Yohhans talk 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Similarly, just because some problems exist in the lead, doesn't mean they definitely exist in the rest of the article. No submitted work/paper/essay etc is marked based on the opening thesis (I write large essays all the time for my studies). The body is what is most important, and that goes for any encyclopedia. Remember the purpose and role of the lead; to merely sum up the article. This is a difficult task for me, at the very least. Look at all the headings and how much relevant information exists under them, that will show you how difficult it is to sum up 68 years worth of a football team's history in a few short paragraphs. The lead section is always the hardest because of such. Every word has relevant meaning in the lead, whereas you can freely use expanding words to make things sound more clear in the body prose. Likewise, your opposition points in the lead have now all been addressed now. As it currently stands right now, your opposing comments have been resolved and do not exist in the article anymore. I once again thank you deeply for your efforts and critical feedback, but I hate to sound picky as well but it seems I have to; either strike out your oppose to a neutral/support or find more relevant examples where you think problems exist. Until then, it is unobjectionable to oppose based on resolved comments. Sorry I didn't mention this before, but coincidentally enough this article has gone through a peer review and been improved by numerous copyeditors who were contacted. Relevantly, I was actually the one who wrote the lead (me and a couple of other second-language speakers). The copyeditors did most of the body prose. User:Wiggy is the main one. He fixed up a lot of the prose in the rest of the article. So in reality, the lead section and the rest of the article are two different sets of work by two different users. Domiy (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • With all due respect, again, it is up to the reviewer to determine whether all his/her comments have been resolved. An oppose based on prose with extensive examples provided is perfectly actionable. Reviewers are not obligated to endlessly delineate problems with an article's prose; FAC is not a copyedit shop. Maralia (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll echo those thoughts. Domiy, I've suggested you take this to WP:PR on numerous occasions to help get the nomination ready for FAC, yet despite this failing on three previous occasions, it hasn't had a peer review since before the first nomination. No-one is forcing anyone to get a peer review, but I've tried to advise you to do so, because I feel it would be a big advantage in this case. Peanut4 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just because the article hasn't had a peer review, it doesn't mean it should be treated any differently. I've already explained the basis for the picky problems found in the lead. It is indeed most likely such do not exist in the article body itself. Technically, examples were provided on the basis for opposing. However, since they have been fixed up, the examples are now dead and inactionable. So, realistically speaking, there are no examples on the grounds for the oppose. If you have any doubts, I suggest you look at some more FAC's and see how they were nominated and promoted. I'm yet to see a FAC which gained instant support without any issues first raised and fixed up. Domiy (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm quite familiar with how FACs proceed, and that's precisely why I spoke up when you essentially characterized the above oppose as inactionable because you believe the editor's concerned are resolved. You can certainly ask a reviewer to strike resolved issues and reconsider their oppose, but again, reviewers are not expected to identify every instance of poor prose when opposing on prose grounds. Maralia (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have listed the issues I raised as resolved; however, my oppose still stands. I do not think the article's prose meets the 1a guideline of being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". - Yohhans talk 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a confusion with this sentence. I am trying to say that the national association and national team itself gain the media attention through HRT. This attention additions the initially stated attention gained by the infamy of the hooligan fans. This sentence has been completely reworded however.
  • Also reworded correctly.

It is easy to see where your opposing prose comments come from, however it should once again be noted that some strong aspects of it are not applicable and are rather misunderstood. Hopefully I have addressed such in this reply. Domiy (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that because they are easily misunderstood, things should be reworded. If your prose is confusing your audience, then it needs to be reworked. You have addressed most of my concerns with the lead, but that does not mean that similar problems do not exist in the rest of the article. - Yohhans talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment - For the Bilic photo, don't just post a link to the Flickr home page. Include a link to the photo itself. The images should be checked anyway, because that was a major reason the last FAC was archived. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator reply - There is no link to the Flickr homepage. I provided a link to the authors profile page, and a link to the copyright and terms/conditions page. Thank you for your concern, and I have now added another link to the actual image page. Domiy (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • "Their FIFA World Ranking has been the most volatile of all nations, ranging from third to 125th (the latter shortly after the team began playing independently)." I raised concerns about this at the previous FAC, and it was removed, but has now since been added again. Their is no definitive source for the claim particularly "most volatile" and hence it is either untrue or WP:OR. Their 125th ranking was largely a nominal ranking given to them when they started playing as is already mentioned. Their form meatn their ranking climbed rapidly. Volatility suggests it has gone up and down, when Croatia's went up a lot before settling down to the same as many other countries. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator reply - This keeps getting re-worded to its current state by other editors. I have gone on and left it. I still argue it is true information. As I said before, sources are not required to state the exact information. Instead of saying Croatia have been the most volatile of all nations, the many provided sources go into through detail about how they have been uniquely powerful and volatile in the ratings. On top of the fact that they range simply from third to 125th, there is also detail provided about how they have more recently been ranked at about 17th, to 14th, to 7th, to 10th, and at their current 6th place. This clearly implies their volatility. Unless you can prove that this is NOT true (i.e, provide another similar article(s) on another national team which describes similar volatility) then it cannot be really deemed as Original Research. This sentence provides a wikilink to the FIFA Best Mover of the Year award anyway. The nature of that award is described in that separate article which sums up that only the most volatile of nations have won the award. Since Croatia are the only team to win it twice, they are most-certainly the only team to be so volatile in the rankings. Domiy (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to people to disprove facts, but for you to provide accurate, reliable sources to prove the facts. Croatia have twice won an award for best mover. Hence all the current facts point towards Croatia being one of the top sides to move up the rankings, and not up and down. Hence there is no reliable evidence to back up the claim they are "the most volatile". Peanut4 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I admit to that. Your edit will stand. Domiy (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose also on criteria 1a. You have put a hell of a lot of work into it, but I still maintain a peer review may help to iron out the problems with the prose. The article certainly looks thorough, and is largely neutral, but there are several places where the prose could be improved. Including but not confined to:

  • "Croatia defeated the Swiss 4–0 in Zagreb on April 2, 1940, marking their debut match as a distinctly recognised side." What's a "distinctly recognised side?"
  • "The directed national side played 15 friendly matches until 1944". What's a "directed national side?"
  • "This was the last Croatian national team which played during this period as such activities were eventually ceased." What does "such activities" refer to?
  • "Miroslav Blažević remained in charge as Croatia set their venture on the 1998 World Cup." "set their venture?" Seems very informal to me.
  • "This was one of the last games played by a team representing "Yugoslavia", as that side was soon renamed Serbia and Montenegro to reflect the creation of a new individual state." Again "as that side" seems rather informal.
  • "Their subsequent loss of form, however, became overly difficult to cope" I haven't got a clue what this means.
  • "Retiree Zlatko Kranjčar took over as national team coach" What does retiree refer to?
  • "Jozić momentarily stepped down as manager," When did he return as manager?
  • "Croatia failed to overcome Japan after an array of chances, including a penalty, went begging." Went begging is extremely informal / jargon.
  • "Despite such, they finished with maximum group points for the first time in their tournament history after beating co-hosts Austria, Germany and then Poland to ensure advancement to the quarter finals." What's wrong with "advance to the quarter finals"?

I echo Yohhans concerns about the prose quality and suggest at the very least a copy-edit. Peanut4 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm in agreement with the other reviewers. Here are a few more examples of questionable prose.

  • Decline under Jozic and Baric: "Despite the experience in the Austrian-born manager, Croatia continued to distress during the Euro 2004 qualifications." Distress?
  • "However, they managed to display a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France." Don't like display. How about "they managed a 2-2 draw with reigning champions France."?
  • Kranjcar and Bilic's revival: "With a a broad range of younger talent avaliable..." Typo.
  • "This excelled the Croats in their qualifying campaign..." Again, don't think excelled is the right word.

Please keep in mind that these are merely examples of problems that are most likely in the whole article. I merely skimmed through a couple of sections, meaning there are probably more issues than have been raised so far. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1a. I started at the bottom and worked up, and in only a few paragraphs found phrases etc. that I couldn't make heads or tails of:
  • "Since the breakup of Yugoslavia in such a manner, Croatian followers have caused heavy tensions between affiliated supporters of the former Yugoslavian state"
  • "National team fixtures are regularly shown live and replayed"
  • "increased heavily in the buildup to significant fixtures."
  • "he players credited his error as a relieving factor behind their victory"
  • "Maksimir Stadium hosted a patriotic riot"

Oppose - some low points:

  • "Croatia's primary supporters, often associated with hooliganism, have been responsible for considerable charges against the national federation by the governing bodies of football." - what is this saying?
  • "Oct 2002" - what's wrong with October?
  • "At the competition, Croatia conceded the fewest goals of any team (2), suffered the fewest losses (0) and scored the earliest goal (4th minute in their opening game against Austria), the latter becoming a new European Championship record." nasty sentence and WP:MOS issues.
  • Why bullet point 1930 to 1990 – Not applicable.[91] and 1994 – Could not enter.[92] when you could write it as prose?
  • Same with "1960 to 1992 – Could not enter.[97]"?
  • Is the Korea Cup notable enough for inclusion? It doesn't even have a Wiki article.
  • All managers in the table are Croatian - why do you need a flag for each one?
    • Well how do you know they are all Croatian? One of them might be from Bosnia, Serbia, Germany, Austria, England etc. They are all from Croatia, hence the use of the flags for every single one of them. National team's often do have foreign managers so it is important to identify their nationaility. Nobody would know they are all Croatian if it weren't for the flags. Domiy (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't names sortable in those tables?
    • They go by order of tenure. It would be very confusing having Croatia's first manager in the middle of the table, and their current manager mixed somewhere else. They are going by order of appearance, and this is the preferred style of most pages in any correct sense. Domiy (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group 6" bold? And why not some prose there to introduce the current squad rather than a bunch of bullets and flags?
    • This is not a requirement or a preference from Wikiproject Football. What could you possibly prose out about the squad? Bullets are perfect, they identify when the squad was announced and for what games they will be used in. Nothing more needs to be said. Having this in prose would be just one or two extremely short sentences which causes more layout problems. Domiy (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent appearances seems unnecessary. Domiy (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary. Every other national team page has them, including the Scotland page which is already a Featured Article. Domiy (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) These are enough to convince me this needs much more work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [49].

Paul Gondjout edit

Nominator(s): Editorofthewiki
previous FAC (02:29, 2 October 2008)


I am again nominating this for featured status because it is the most comprehensive account of this man's life, online and offline. The article failed FAC before mostly due to prose concerns. Now that User:Ceoil copyedited it I think the problem is resolved. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The article failed FAC before mostly due to prose concerns" What about the concerns about verification and translation? Have these been addressed? The Bald One White cat 11:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of last FAC, though Awadewit can still fact-check it. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused - have you actually read the source material or is this another translated article? Considering the ongoing problems with the fact check at the other translated article we are working on, we need to be sure that someone has seen all of these sources and checked them against the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's

comments

  • Date of death doesn't show in the infobox
  • Just be aware of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Afrique 32.JPG
  • "and served in the French colonial administration from 1928, and founded the Cercle amical et mutualiste des évolués de Port-Gentil in 1943" - rule of thumb; avoid more than one "and" in a sentence. This sentence as a whole is clunky, and the commas don't help.
    • Changed to "The elder Gondjout began his service in the French colonial administration in 1928. In 1943 he founded the Cercle amical et mutualiste des évolués de Port-Gentil (roughly translated as Mutual Friends for the Evolution of Port-Gentil), an organization that enchouraged and utilised the talents of educated Gabonese." ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and re-elected on 18 May 1952—both times as an independent candidate—and served until his term ended on 7 June 1958" - again... check throughout
  • "the then President M'ba" - I think you can remove the "the"
  • "Cercle amical et mutualiste des évolués de Port-Gentil" - I would translate that to English too (Something like mutual friends for the evolution of Port-Gentil? I'm fr-1 :))
  • "Paul Gondjout's son, Vincent de Paul Gondjout" - the way this is written implies that Laure Gondjout wasn't his son... these few sentences need rewording. Oh. Laure Olga Gondjout is a she. *embarrassed face* Still the prose here is a bit awkward. Also, the mother's name isn't known? Nothing about his marriage etc.?
    • Changed to "On 18 December 1953, he became the father of Laure Gondjout. She would later become a prominent politician[6] as would his son, Vincent de Paul Gondjout,[7] and nephew, Georges Rawiri.[8]" The wife is mentioned in the "Post coup d'etat" section, though we don't know when they married and I didn't know where to put it. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""In November 1960[16] or 1961, called for a constitutional amendment" - say what...?
  • under the pretext of a conspiracy, he declared a state of emergency" - since it's a new paragraph, say who did
  • "Upon Gondjout's release, M'ba appointed Gondjout" - change the second naming to "him", maybe?

Giggy (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Considering the exchange here and the fact that the editor does not speak French (which means he could not have verified all of the sources in the article), I am going to have to oppose this article. This article has apparently been translated, but the sources have not been verified. I am surprised that the editor did not consider this necessary, considering the problems we have uncovered at Talk:Félix Houphouët-Boigny#Fact check the sources, another article he is working on. While translating articles is a laudable effort, particularly when it ensures that en.wikipedia will have articles in underrepresented areas, that does not excuse the editors from checking the factual accuracy of those articles. Awadewit (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use Google Translate. I can speak a little French, and other than Biteghe all the sources have been accessed by me. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do other people feel about Google Translate? I know that I never rely on it and language instructors can go on for hours about all of the mistakes it makes. Shall I call a French instructor tonight and start amassing a list? Awadewit (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go ahead. I know Nishid (who mostly translated Leon M'ba, though I helped too) relied on French speakers for help. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are confusing two issues, I think - the translation of the article and the checking of the sources. It seemed to me like you were saying you relied on Google Translator to translate the sources that you checked - is that what you meant? Or did you mean that you used Google Translator to translate the article? We were only talking about the sources, so how the article was translated was not really an issue. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As part of my comments above I ran something through Google translate; clearly it can't really be trusted without reviewing closely the results it produces. Giggy (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can read French s litte, just not speak it. Running things through Google Translate helps me translate parts, though I alawys take it with a grain of salt. Also, the cercle organization was not mentioned at all in the French sources; it is mentioned in Reed 1987. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 10:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, to be absolutely clear:
          • 1) Have all of the sources for this article been checked? That is, has every note been checked to see if it supports the claim made in the article?
          • 2) To what extent were the French sources translated using Google translator? Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whenever I used a French source, though I went back to the original text for clarification purposes. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I share Maria's and Giggy's concerns about relying on Google translator. It is not a precise tool. Moreover, I would like to emphasize that although I have passed an exam that certifies that I am proficient enough to read French (graduate students are required to do these sorts of things), I would never attempt to translate an article or even judge whether a source supported a claim. The nuances of the language just escape me - I wouldn't trust myself. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment: I really dislike the red link in the lead. Can the article be created? More comments to come, if I'm not too busy. -- how do you turn this on 23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirected to the party that absorbed it. I've been wanting to create that article for a long time, though I simply don't think enough is available on it. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • This is for the record, although I posted it on Maralia's talk page last night. I'm very concerned that the article and its references have been translated using Google translator and "a little French". In every extensive article I've written, I come across sources that interpret facts differently or contradict each other. I read only English and I'm confused sometimes about which one to trust. The barrier of language is so significant that it would frighten me to have to defend the article here at FAC. Should it ever appear on the main page and readers who are fluent in French find a mistake, I would be mortified to learn that I had mistranslated, or misunderstood something due to my poor language skills. I imagine a native French-speaking editor who was just as shocked as I would contact the ANI page, causing a ruckus for the FA project. Wikipedia already has enough problems earning the confidence of readers. Featured articles are supposed to deal with that directly: an FA is cited to the hilt. But again, most readers assume that those who wrote the article have a familiarity with the language. --Moni3 (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the writer of the related articles on French wikipedia speak english? Couldn't he read through? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he is very bad at it. This is useless. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I haven't read the article. I haven't even looked at the page. However, after I read the above discussion, I have no other choice but to oppose. Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable seeing this as an article, let alone a potential featured article. It is unacceptable to write a page whose references were translated using Google Translator, which has shown to be incorrect and unreliable much of the time. How would we know if the entire page is factually inaccurate? Is there any way of telling, other than assuming Google Translator is translating the text correctly? An article that leaves the reviewer asking these sorts of questions cannot possibly become featured. As Moni said, what if this were to pass FAC and make it to the Main Page with factual errors that neither you nor the reviewers were aware of? Should a reader familiar with the subject/language stumble upon an error, the featured article process, the reviewers, the author, and the FA director will then be responsible for allowing an article to be promoted with such errors. So, for now, I'm opposing based on 1C, until a French-speaking editor can verify the content. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is people are centering in on verification issues here, but its not as if thats the only problem and that its a brilliant article. It is a biographical article and the mid section in particular on the coup really talks about Aubame and Mba and the event than it does Paul Gondjout. It is just a representation of another article to seemingly fill it out, and if you take out that paragraph or remove the information which tells you about the event rather than directly speaking from Gondjouts perspective you are left with a very short article that gives you some basic details about his early political career and then a bottom section which tells us little about his later years; thirty years of his life are unaccounted for. The same goes for that unrelated photograph from 1959 jto bulk out the article when it is completely unrelated to the event, rather it just tells me , this is how french and Gabonese soldiers look together. How I ask does this enchance my understanding of Paul Gondjout? The first paragraph is a very good one but for me this is where it ends. The article really centers on the 1964 coup and given that most of it does not directly discuss Gondjout this shouldn't even have been proposed for an FA. I appreciate that this is an article on Gabon and "nobody knows anything about his later life" but I can't emphasise enough that FAs are supposed to represent our best most resourceful work and the flaws in this article I'm sorry to say are quite serious. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no French reviewers are gouing to verify this, because they don't care about the subject matter. Of course, this is an article about a very important politician, but why wasn't it created until 11 August (by me). Your oppose is pretty unactionable, and as I've said before, most of the facts are backed by my English souces by my computer. However, more is available in French because that is the language spoken in Gabon. Even with the French sources nothing is mentioned after the trial until a few blurbs about his wife's death and a gevernment source that mentions but the place and date of death. I think it is pretty paranoid of you to think that there is any error on this article. Google Translate is 99% accurute, despite being awkwardly worded. I also wrote 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake and Lazare Ponticelli to FA status from some foreign-language sources, and no one really complained about them. What's the difference? ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me that "French reviewers are not going to verify this, because they don't care about the subject matter is a poor argument. Surely there is some French editor that will be able to read this and verify its content. Now, tell me why my oppose is unactionable. Citing a source which neither you or the reviewers can understand fully is equal to not citing a source at all. To tell me that I'm "pretty paranoid" because I'm questioning the reliability and factual accuracy of a candidate to become considered "Wikipedia's best work" is also a poor argument, and does not sway me to reconsider my vote. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate is 99% accurute [citation needed] You've demonstrated the need for the scrutiny of Featured Articles with this FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Find one then. It is unactionable since the article has already received translation help (on Leon M'ba) to prove it wasn't wrong. You're paranoid because Google Translite is right most of the time, and I've been using it far longer than when I even heard of Wikipedia. Re Blofeld, I added about the 1964 coup to give an explanation of how Gondjout came into play. Again, my FA arguement still stands. I see no reason at all, unless someone comes up with some prose issues, to not promote this to FA status. Voting without even looking at the article is poor form in itself. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WOTW, you have yet to bring up an argument worth considering. Telling me my participation is "poor form", and stating that I'm paranoid isn't helping your case. Additionally, is there a source that states Google Translator is correct most of the time? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You participation was not porr form, not reading the article was. Through my long term use of it, my bit of French that I know hasn't conflicted with Google. I do understand Spanish and German a bit better though, and they never conflict either. The gramma may be off, true, but the basic wording: never. I have been redirected to a better site by EJF. For this, however, it did receive professional help on M'ba (which I took most of this article from). ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Ed that actually google translator does a pretty good job of translating unlike some of the other terrible systems on the web. The grammar and some phrase translations are far from perfect sometimes terrible, but nearly always, particularly if you have a basic knowledge of the language can work it out accordingly. Google translate is actually far superior to these, I doubt there are any serious errors in his translation but I admit we would look sheepish if a french wikipedian reported it to ANI for errors or somebody made a meal of it in the media. I doubt however, that anybody will. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [50].

Dumped edit

Nominator(s): Dalejenkins |


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. It is already at GA and is stable. Dalejenkins | 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lead is too short, per WP:LEAD. Also includes seemingly randomly selected information - why mention that someone left the programme voluntarily? --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. The article is interesting and informative, but it is not at present set up like a featured article.

    • Echoing the above comment re the lead, this needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, without introducing relatively trivial specific details, e.g. of the early leaver.
    • The statement in the lead that the viewing figures were "marginally less" than those of concurrent programmes is not borne out later in the article, where it seems that other channels achieved much larger audiences.
    • There are several lapses into the present tense: "11 participants...must live on a purpose-made rubbish dump..." Also: "...the real landfill site which is located...", and "Ray, the scrap man, visits the dump..." Incidentally, "11" should be "Eleven" at start of sentence.
    • This is the first paragraph of the "Production and format" section, exactly as you have it:-

Dumped, which was filmed in June 2006, was initially scheduled for Channel 4's Spring 2007 line-up.[1][2] However, this did not occur and the programme was then postponed until the start the channel's period of "creative renewal", which was established due to the racism controversy that occurred during the 2007 series of Celebrity Big Brother.[3]

Apart from its dubious construction and a missing word, I reckon that anyone unfamiliar with recent British reality TV history wouldn't understand what this paragraph was about. I suggest at the very least you delete the unnecessary words "this did not occur", and attempt a brief explanation of "creative renewal" (which doesn't need to be italicised).

    • Clumsy prose: The above sentence is one example. Another awkward construction is: "Jason was not working due to religious reasons, as it was the Sabbath" There are others. The article needs looking over by a prose expert.
    • American spelling: I saw "traveled" and "feces". An article about a British TV series, and which uses the British dates format, ought to have British spelling.
    • Listiness: You introduce the contestants in a list form - this could easily have been done in prose. Likewise, the main section dealing with the episodes is in the form of a table. There is too little by way of continuous prose to give a smooth reading experience - too many stops and starts.
    • Images: One only. I understand the problem, but I would ask what attempts have been made to seek apprporiate images, if not directly illustrative of the programme then related to its ecological theme?

The article does not appear to have had a peer review. I would strongly recommend this before it is returned to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note No response after 10 days does not suggest much commitment on the part of the nominator - who has been contacted. Should this still be here? Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [51].

Space Science Fiction Magazine edit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)


This article is a GA, and I'm nominating it for FA as a result of a conversation on FAC about very short FAs. This article is 412 words long, which would make it by some way the shortest article ever to become featured. (The shortest I know of is 2005 Azores subtropical storm, which is 722 words of prose.) However, I believe it meets the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, and includes every scrap of information that I know of that relates to the magazine. I will start a thread on FAC talk titled Very short FAs for any discussion that does not belong in this FAC, such as the general question of whether there is a minimum length for a featured article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    • "The volume numbering was, unsurprisingly, regular, with one volume of two numbers" - I'm unclear about the meaning of this sentence. Does 'regular numbering' have a specific meaning in publishing jargon? Why is it unsurprising?
      Most magazines have a numbering sequence that starts with Vol. 1, No. 1, and goes on with a standard number of issues per volume. However, one frequently encounters irregularities in the sequence of numbers; see the chart in Amazing Stories for a truly odd example (look at the early 1980s). All this sentence is attempting to say is that the issues are numbered Vol 1/No 1, and Vol 1/No 2, and that there are thus no irregularities in the sequence. I've spent a little time thinking about how to clarify this and finally decided it was a distraction, so I've just cut it to simply state the numbering, without a comment on the regularity. Let me know if that works for you. Mike Christie (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the way you have it now is clear and concise.--ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions that come to mind as I read this: 1) where and how widely was it distributed? I suspect a direct answer to that is impossible, but there may be information on where and how widely were the related radio programs broadcast. 2) How did this magazine fit into the broader science fiction publishing landscape? 3) How did the contents fit into the broader cultural and literary landscape? The article addresses the latter somewhat, but the former hardly at all.
      • 1) I have no information at all on distribution, unfortunately, and have been unable to find out anything about the radio programs either. The radio programs were syndicated, meaning (I gather) that I can't just say they were broadcast on channel X. In any case, the radio programs were tied to more closely to the spy and horror magazines, so I think more details on them would be somewhat peripheral. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2) I've added a couple of sentences at the start summarizing the science fiction publishing landscape at the time Space was launched. This was definitely needed; I can add more if necessary -- I have plenty of material on the overall state of the industry. I also added a sentence at the end on the possible connection with the liquidation of American News Company; this makes me a little nervous and I am inclined to cut it again. The problem is that I am saying "not known", when what I really should be saying is something like "the secondary sources I have make no comment on". For all I know it is well known that Space went under because of the liquidation of ANC, but Ashley just didn't mention it in his books. As it stands it feels uncomfortably like an OR sentence. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3) I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here. I don't have any further material about the magazine itself or its reception; are you asking for a comment on the general cultural status of sf magazines at that time? Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much improved in terms of context. It seems like the American News Corporation bit is relevant whether or not that was the cause of Space's downfall, although I understand your concern about finding appropriate phrasing that doesn't skirt the OR border. An impersonal statement of ignorance ("it is not known") is unlikely to be interpreted as definitive ("nobody knows"); I think the way you have it works. What I'm getting at with the last question is, what were these stories about? What themes do they address? There is plenty of scholarship on specific sf themes during certain periods, and their relationship to broader cultural issues, but if the article doesn't say anything about the contents except for a few quotes about how it didn't matter, it's going to be frustrating for any reader with a serious interest in sf history. If everything except one story is out of copyright, is there any chance we could put the stories themselves on wikisource?--ragesoss (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          To answer your last question first; yes, I'm sure we could. I hope it's not a prerequisite for FAC! For the story themes: the magazine itself had no thematic unity that I can see, and certainly none was declared. Some examples: the Jakes story is about a human prospecting for a Martian El Dorado; he finds it but it is destroyed before his eyes, and he returns to earth, abandoning the Martian frontier. The Clarke is not sf at all; it's one of his Tales from the White Hart stories, about a scare when a truck overturns and people think it's fissionable material that could explode. It turns out to be full of bees. The Vance is about an editor who reads a crackpot manuscript which instructs him to perform certain actions; the story ends with the editor's mysterious disappearance. I could add some of this summary material to the article if you think it would be valuable. Generally, I'd have to say the magazine didn't have enough of a personality to be established as part of any sf themes or trends of the time. The Ashley reference that I don't currently have with me implied it was sent the "scrapings of the Scott Meredith Literary Agency", meaning that the stories were ones that had been rejected all around the market. I didn't add that in because (if I recall correctly) Ashley's wording wasn't definite enough for me to say that that's exactly what happened, but it's a highly plausible suspicion. That in turn would argue against any editorial policy -- these were inexperienced sf editors, and they took what they could get and promptly went out of business. Mike Christie (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the explanation. I think article is incomplete without more discussion of the magazine contents. Even without any explicit discussion, the summaries you've just given bring up a number of themes and topics that are very suggestive to readers familiar with the historical context. If readers had somewhere to go (e.g., Wikisource) to get more details in that regard, I don't think it would be much of an issue, but without that, I think it might be appropriate to append a section listing and introducing the stories in each issue.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            Wouldn't that be somewhat undue weight? There are eighteen stories in the two issues, none of which are individually notable; adding even a half sentence would be a substantial paragraph with nothing but primary sourcing and no support in secondary sources for the interest of the material. In the Imagination (magazine) article I added a description of the lead story in the first issue, and I think something like that might work here. What I've done to respond to your point is to add a description of the cover story in the caption, and a description of the Jakes story in the text where it's mentioned. Is that getting closer to what you'd like to see? I could also add a capsule description of the Clarke, since it's mentioned in the text. Mike Christie (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            I think what you've done sounds reasonable, although I don't think it's an issue of undue weight if it's in a separate list-like section.--ragesoss (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            FYI: I just added a note about the "barrel-scrapings"; when I went back to look Ashley was definite about it being the Scott Meredith Literary Agency, so that was a nice little tidbit to add. Mike Christie (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the ISFDB link, both issues have 130, not 132, pages. Also, why is that link attributed to Texas A&M? I see no mention of that on the linked pages or in the ISFDB FAQ or homepage. Since it is a wiki source, shouldn't it link to the specific revision used rather than the dynamic page?--ragesoss (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The issues have 128 numbered pages, with a front and back cover. Sources vary on how to record the number of pages for magazines; I've seen 128 (numbered pages), 130 (page number of the back cover if the numbering were to continue), and 132 (actual pages, counting both covers) for this. The Tuck Encyclopedia of SF lists it as 128 pages. Since material such as fiction, editorials and tables of contents is sometimes printed on magazine covers (though Space never did so) I think 132 makes the most sense. I think 130 is the least sensible number. The ISFDB used to be hosted by Texas A&M but moved in April of this year; I hadn't noticed that till you asked the question. It's owned by an individual, Al von Ruff, so I've changed the reference to name him as publisher. It's a wiki, so I can link to a rev if we decide that's the best thing to do, but I'm not convinced it is. For one thing, I'm not really using it as a reference -- it's self-published, and although for reasons I won't go into it is possible to make an argument that it's reliable, I am actually using the issues themselves as the reference. The ISFDB link is a convenience link to a web index to the contents. This is a compromise worked out in an earlier FAC to avoid using a self-published source as a reference, but still allow readers the convenience of accessing a web index. It can be cut if necessary, but I think it's useful. The real underlying information is in the database, not the wiki; e.g. here is the Spring 1957 issue. It's not possible to link to versions of this. I can switch to a link to a rev of the index page if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable.--ragesoss (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much to say, with such a short article... just one possible improvement in the lead; "when the publishers liquidated late in 1957" - is there a more specific date known? A bit more context, if possible, would be good. Giggy (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of my sources are in Texas, some in New York; the one I have with me says "... saw only one more issue [...] dated August 1957, when the publishers went into liquidation and the magazines vanished." I don't think that's precise enough to say it was August when they liquidated; "when" in this context could also mean "shortly afterwards". I'll check the other source tomorrow or Tuesday. Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look and there's nothing specific about the liquidation date. The two magazine issues actually appeared on newsstands in January and June, respectively; all we can say from that is that the liquidation was no earlier than June. So I think that's all there is to say. I haven't added the information about the actual appearance dates of the magazines to the article: all magazines appear a couple of months before their cover date, in order to extend their life on the newsstands, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning. Mike Christie (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I know I should probably weigh in to the other discussion, but in the meantime... My view, as I've suggested various times before, is that short articles like this (longer ones, too, by the way) should provide some kind of context to help us understand the subject. For instance, in the very first sentence of the main part of this article, we are immediately given the name of Galaxy Science Fiction without any indication of what that is, or why it should be important. I don't want to have to click on a blue link to understand an article. Ironically, that article (though currently unassessed) does do a fair job of contextualizing its subject, with the following paragraph:

The science fiction genre was flourishing by the end of the 1930s,[1] but World War II and its attendant paper shortages led to the demise of several magazines. By the late 1940s the market began to recover again.[2] From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950.[3] Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954.[4]

  • I would like something similar in this case. As far as I'm concerned, this article isn't comprehensive without it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some material; see the reply to ragesoss above for some details, particularly on the additional sentence on American News Company. Let me know if more is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment - I am very impressed with the research that went into obtaining a free image for this article! Head and shoulders above the usual slapdash approach to images usage on most of WP Fasach Nua (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the copyright research I did on Image:SpaceSFMSpr1957.jpg, then I should give credit to Quadell, whose copyright research page I have found very useful, and which led me to the relevant copyright search pages. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs): If this article is to become featured at this length and comprehensiveness, everything else should be almost perfect.

  • "ceased to appear"—sounds like the magazine disappeared into thin air.
    This is one of those word choice problems that bedevils articles like this. There are only so many ways of saying that a magazine ceased publication. "Ceased publication" here would give us: "ceased publication when the publishers liquidated" which puts "publication" awkwardly close to "publishers". After some thought, I've cut the mention of the liquidation from the lead, and used "ceased publication"; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1957 the boom had reached its height,[2] with 24 science fiction magazines publishing at least one issue that year."-->"By 1957 the boom had reached its height;[2] 24 science fiction magazines published at least one issue that year."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comma needed after Dimension X.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Private Investigator Detective Magazine.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Private Investigator appeared"—I don't like the use of "appear".
    I tweaked this to "Private Investigator's first issue came out in 1956." Does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space's first issue was dated Spring 1957; oddly, it indicated on the masthead that it would be a bimonthly." Can we have a different word for "oddly", how about ironically?
    Well, but is it really ironic? I think "odd" is a better fit; it's just strange that you would say "bimonthly" and have an issue dated "Spring". I could go with "for some reason", but "oddly" seems conciser. I don't see irony here, just some mistake on the part of the publisher. Still, if others agree with you I'm OK with changing it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the sentence a couple more times, it seems OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Engel did manage to obtained stories from moderately well-known science fiction names for both issues, including John Jakes, Mack Reynolds, Jack Vance, and Raymond F. Jones."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashley comments that the best story was Jakes' "The Devil Spins a Sun-Dream", which was atmospheric if poorly plotted." "comments"-->commented, keep the tense consistent.
    This would probably be OK, but as it stands I was using present tense for the critical commentary, which is modern, and past tense for the period of the magazine. If you don't object I'd like to keep it that way; I think "commented" might imply to a reader that Ashley's comments were contemporary with the magazine. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...shortly after which Republic Features Syndicate went into liquidation liquidated." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made this "went out of business"; I didn't want to finish the sentence with "liquidated" because it can be both transitive and intransitive, so a reader gets a moment of dislocation while they figure out which it is. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. May be a case of "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" on my part, but I think this article meets a reasonable interpretation of the FA criteria, despite its length. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with one comment: Should not the year of its founding be in the lead? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just thought of something I may have missed: Is the year of the "founding" of a magazine equivalent to the release date of its first issue? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think so -- I assume you meant that 1956 might be mentioned in the lead as the year when the magazine was planned? I don't think this is really necessary in the lead -- magazines can be planned for years before they appear in print. I think it's OK to just leave the details in the body; is that OK? Mike Christie (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; short article, everything seems fine. Giggy (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It fails criterion 2b. The final section is too short to form a section by itself and anyway contains information which still falls under the heading "Publication history and contents", therefore it should be merged with the preceding section. This results in a single section article, which is appropriate for the subject matter and the volume of information. The article therefore fails the criterion because, once this edit is performed, it will not have "a substantial ... table of contents". DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't even noticed the connection between "substantial table of contents" and the short articles; well spotted. I've no time to respond but will just comment that if this proves to be a consensus reason to not promote this article, I would not object -- I'm looking for consensus rather than promotion. DrK, can I suggest you post a note about this connection between length and the FA criteria at one of the places the topic is being discussed? Mike Christie (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DrK, in response to another editor I changed the structure around, and there is now a more even distribution of content between the sections. Do you still oppose based on 2b's requirement for a substantial table of contents? Mike Christie (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Far far too short. I am all for articles being concise but this really fails 2b. It just isn't a sound article in terms of information given. If I'd seen this listed under FA articles and wanted to read it I'd be rather disappointed in the least by an article which hasn't been developed to the top level. The last section is barely beyond a stub and is basically a one paragraph article/ WHat happened to covering the various aspects of magazines such as background detail, production, critical reception etc which would normally have fleshed out paragraphs of their own on literature?? I've seen B class articles on magazines which are far more informative than this. The Bald One White cat 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does include everything that is available in secondary sources. The information you ask for simply doesn't exist, in reliable or unreliable sources. I'm not sure what kind of information you're looking for with "background detail", but there's nothing on production. Critical reception -- there's no detectable contemporary critical commentary; modern critics only refer to it in encyclopedic coverage, and I've quoted much of what is said. The entire article on the magazine in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the standard sf reference, is only 44 words. I agree that it would be nice to have this information, but it's not there to be incorporated. Mike Christie (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a better article than Electrician and Mechanic for instance? If this article was of a similar length and style to that and was more informative I would likely support it. The Bald One White cat 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As RJHall says below, Electrician and Mechanic ran for many more years, and had more issues, so there is more information in the sources to use. I can't prove there's nothing in reliable sources that I haven't found and used, but I have certainly used everything I could find. I can't make it a "similar length" and "more informative" without sources. If you could clarify the suggestion that I make the article "a similar [...] style" to Electrician and Mechanic perhaps I can respond to that. Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support once The Rambling Man's issues are addressed. I think the length is acceptible given the short run for the magazine. (How could it compare in length to Electrician and Mechanic when the latter ran for 26 years?)—RJH (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Comment—To me it seems all but FA worthy, despite the brevity. It is as long as it needs to be without delving into excessive detail. However:[reply]

  • I agree somewhat with the above comments. I'd like to suggest a slight re-org. with different sections. A history section should include the first paragraph of "Publication history and contents" and parts of the last paragraph (first two and last two sentences). A content section should cover advertisements, stories, illustrations and biographical data. Also a couple more paragraph breaks might be welcome.
    I like the reorg idea; I did something similar but not identical to your suggestion; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any information about the revenue aspects of the publication? How did the authorship fees compare with the rivals.
    No, none of the sources mention this. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; meets the criteria as they stand. In my view DrKiernan's opposition is pure wikilawyering, twisting the criteria to suggest something beyond what is meant - that an article have an "appropriate structure". Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not impressed by the content to be honest. Okay, it's very, very short and doesn't, in my opinion, reflect "the very best work" of Wikipedia, as we should expect from FAs. But specifically:

  • Could you imagine this on the mainpage? The lead is three sentences long and rather dramatically announces that the publication contained stories from the likes of Clarke and Vance before somewhat embarrassingly admits to there being only two editions.
    I think you might have misread the lead -- it does say there were only two issues before it mentions the best-known authors. And I guess it might be viewed as dramatic to announce the names of well-known writers, but in such a short article there's not much else to say in the lead. I did just add a note about the packaging, which I think is interesting; see also a comment below about those details. As for being on the main page: I agree it would probably be best if articles this short weren't on the main page, but length isn't an FA criterion. (That is, TFA and FA criteria aren't the same.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably you could tell us precisely what all stories were in each edition and who wrote them?
    Yes, but I think putting that in the article would be somewhat undue weight, since none of the sources do so. The list is available to a reader of the article via the link to the ISFDB in the notes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First half of the first paragraph of the Publication history section is non-specific to this particular publication.
    Yes. I got some comments (see earlier in this FAC) about a lack of context, and I added some of this material in an attempt to rectify that. I'd argue that the genesis of the magazine in the package of two shows and four magazines that Engel put together is probably the most interesting thing in the article; this places the magazine as part of a packaging "concept", and also explains the genesis of the magazine. Surely these are legitimate topics? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three red links is a shame for such a short article - another sign that it's not exactly our best work.
    I'll see what I can do about creating worthwhile stubs on these, but I feel compelled to add that this particular objection is one of the few that has led to Sandy explicitly commenting in FACs to point out that the objection is not valid. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way about the value of redlinks (some people love them). Regardless, I will try to get rid of them. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The liquidation of American News Company earlier that year, a major distributor, had led to the extinction of many magazines, as they had to scramble to find new distributors, but it is not known if Space was one of the victims.[9]" is interesting but again borders on WP:OR as to why it relates to this publication.
    See above in the exchange with ragesoss; I expressed that concern to her but her view was that it was OK. I agree it's borderline, and would cut it if that were your sole reason to oppose. (So please let me know if it is.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the "issues were numbered as a single volume with two issues" - but this does not appear on the front cover. Was it on the spine? On the opening page?
    I don't have the issues with me at the moment; I'll be back in Texas this weekend. However, I'm quite sure they were on the contents page; this information is almost always on the masthead or above the contents. Do you have some concern about this information being accurate? I believe the Tuck encyclopedia has the volume numbering info, so it isn't dependent on the primary source. (I can check Tuck this weekend, if you like; it's in Texas too.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in Texas: I just checked, and the contents page gives the numbering as "Vol. 1 No. 1" for the first issue, and "Vol. 1 No. 2" for the second issue. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious as to why you start the contents with a description of the advertisements therein. Surely you should focus on the stories?
    Good point. This was poor organization left over from a change in response to an earlier comment; I've moved it to a better location. Let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also appear to use Space as a colloquial term for the publication, despite it only being in existence for a matter of moments... is this your choice?
    Yes, it's mine; I hoped it would be unobtrusive. It's fairly standard practice in coverage of magazines to use an abbreviated form of the name to avoid lengthy repetition. I can use the full name, or various forms of circumlocution, but I felt this was obvious and harmless. See my next response, where I quote Ashley using Space SF as an abbreviation. Do you think I should use that form, or even the full form of the name? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was going to mention that myself with a joke that it looks as though you deliberately shortened it in a desperate attempt to reduce the article length even further. But then I couldn't think of a jokey way of saying that without it sounding a bit off, so I didn't. I think you should use the full name. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it to Space SF, since that's what Ashley uses. I'd be fine with Space SFM, but I think the full name would be very clunky. There are other magazines with similar names, but within the context of the article I don't think there's any possibility of confusion. (A joke would have been fine; but then I couldn't think of an effective jokey way of saying that I was trying to cut text ....) Mike Christie (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the other active science fiction markets" - it could be worth expanding on this, I imagine you mean the novels and publications by more prominent magazines? Could you provide examples?
    Unfortunately I can't give examples. The source here is Ashley; what he says about this point, in full, is "Space SF and most of Tales of the Frightened were assembled from barrel-scrapings provided by the Scott Meredith Literary Agency. Even though the magazines carried some important names [he inserts a list] these were mostly stories that had done the rounds and failed to sell, or were reprints from UK magazines with no US sales. Very few were written to order." I know from my knowledge of sf magazine history that he means that the stories had been sent to the other active sf magazines of the day; there were a great many of them -- far too many to list, and there is of course no way to tell which ones any given story was sent to. So I think it would be difficult to give more details here. If you feel it's not clear (and perhaps you do, since it doesn't sound like you followed what I intended) then I can try rewriting to clarify it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was atmospheric if poorly plotted; the protagonist, a human prospector on Mars, finds a fabulous city, but an ancient booby-trap destroys it before his eyes." is this a quote? the first clause seems to be an opinion which, if not yours, ought to be "quoted". This sentence is not cited either.
    The cites got lost in the reorg I mentioned earlier. I've fixed them now. As for the opinion: it's Mike Ashley's opinion, slightly paraphrased. He actually says "Though limited in plot the story has a strong atmosphere, made all the more memorable by the poor quality of its companions." I could quote Ashley directly but I didn't want to overdo the Ashley quotes, so I left it as a paraphrase. I think this would be OK as a direct quote if you feel it's too opinionated as it stands; or I could just cut the judgement of the story and leave in the short description of the plot. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all that, I sincerely applaud the nominator for a considered approach to these shorter FACs, indeed initiating discussion in parallel with this nomination is a good thing. A better thing may have been to have launched said discussion beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to have that discussion here, and I also asked Sandy if there was a problem in testing the water. I didn't get anything like a strong objection at either place, and I feel I did all I could to get a discussion going before the submission. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions: Sorry I haven't gotten to this until now...
  • Have you tried Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers by Lee Server? If you don't have access to this, I could peek in it for you but not until Monday or so.
    Please do, if you have time. Since it's an encyclopedia of writers (as opposed to editors or magazines) I'm not optimistic, but if you could look up Avallone and Engel there might be something relevant. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. I'll let you know what I find. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avallone has a 2-page entry, but Engel has nothing in Server's encyclopedia. I'd have to copy, scan, and send this to you. It's too long for me to reproduce in typing. I also looked in Science Fiction Writers, an encyclopedia edited by Richard Blieler. Space Science Fiction Magazine was mentioned in passing, but neither Avallone nor Engel had an entry.--Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the Avallone entry has information that would benefit the article, yes, I'd like to see it. Can you scan it and email it to me? My Wikipedia email is active. I can also receive a fax if you would prefer that, if you can give me a few days to get back to NY. Mike Christie (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already replied to Moni on her talk page, but for those interested, there was nothing relevant in Avallone's bio; it didn't even mention his editorship of this magazine. Mike Christie (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know magazines and paperbacks are of a different sort of publication, but I bought a couple issues of this guy's magazine. It's a trade mag for pulp fiction collectors. Mine was signed by Ann Bannon too, so double cool. Write to him to find out what's available. My signed issue was purchased for $25, so obviously unsigned copies will be less.
    I'll contact him. Looks like he's mostly interested in paperbacks, but I'm interested in that area too, so even though I'm doubtful he'd have anything for this article, I'd be interested. Is it self-published? Is it something you've used and feel passes WP:RS?
  • To be sure, the 2003 copy I have looks like it was a DIY job, but there are several writers who contributed to it, and the guy I referred you to appears to be the editor and publisher. For its purposes - an authority on pulp fiction writers, books, and other works, I believe it's a reliable source. I'm sure you know that pulp fiction is still the red-headed stepchild of literature, and most reputable academics won't touch it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have heard back from Gryphon Books, and they have no reference material on science fiction digests at all. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Mike Christie (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information about how the material in this mag influenced other writers? It's difficult to read on the main page that a featured article was forgettable and unremarkable. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, none of the stories appear to have been influential in any way. I agree that this would be a lousy TFA, and that short articles generally would make poor TFAs. Although I'd like to see short articles free to get to featured status, I would support eliminating them from consideration for TFA. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (Subject of course to larger decisions about short articles at FA.) I've been mulling this over intermittently, and have been half-tempted to jump in and suggest that this magazine be treated as though it were (essentially) a book of short stories or anthology in two volumes. In which case, of course, much more would have to be said about the content. But others have asked questions whose answers suggested that even this wouldn't really help flesh the article out. Moreover, what's important about the magazine does seem to be its place in the magazine market scifi boom (and subsequent bust) of the 1950s, as well as the burgeoning notion of tie-ins with other media. The article makes that point, succinctly but clearly. There'll always be some kind of vague dissatisfaction with an article of this length (and/or with a topic of this relative insubstantiality). It's not for nothing that Mike hadn't previously put this article up for FAC. It's not as though he's shy about doing so; he's a seasoned FA regular. But he was reluctant, and not without reason. But going by WP:WIAFA in its current state, and also in recognition that this is small but well-formed, again I am supporting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been thinking about the "merge to something else" argument, and I think that if there were a merge target for this, it would be to Republic Features Syndicate, which would cover all four magazines and both radio shows, and might still be small enough to be a single unitary article. I don't have sufficient sources for the other magazines, or for the shows, to make a reasonable article out of it. I could also argue that the existence of reference works which cover the magazine independently of the company behind it would justify a similar treatment here. However, I thought I should mention the point, in a sort of "full disclosure" spirit. On a completely different note, regardless of whether this article is promoted or not, I would like to claim the record for the highest ratio of FAC word count to article word count ever. I haven't gone and counted the others, but I'm willing to bet this is the record holder. Mike Christie (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - With "It published stories by well-known writers, including Arthur C. Clarke and Jack Vance," in the lead, I expected at least a small paragraph on each of the works covered, as it could easily contain a little plot summary followed by any critical review, especially if they are "well-known writers" (which they are). I could see at least another 500 words come out of such a thing, which would dramatically increase the size and make this a complete page. Otherwise, I haven't a clue about the content. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be appropriate to discuss the content of a book of short stories, if the stories have received critical attention. The Martian Chronicles, for example, could probably draw on multiple critical sources for discussion of its stories; they've been influential in sf and are well-known. Space SF, on the other hand, is not notable in the same way. None of the stories have received any critical attention that I have been able to find. The magazine's notability derives simply from its existence within a genre that has multiple historical reference works that document minor magazines such as this. These works do not review the content; they ignore it. Ashley, who is the only professional historian of sf to devote more than a sentence or two to the magazine, has little to nothing to say about the content -- there just isn't anything interesting to say. I am not trying to make this article artificially short by avoiding adding material suggested by reviewers; on the contrary, I feel that adding details about the plots of nondescript and uninteresting stories that have drawn no attention from historians of sf would be undue weight. I would be happy to add descriptions of the stories if that were relevant, and I've done so in two cases. More would be padding, I feel. Mike Christie (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it would be appropriate to discuss the content of a book of short stories, if the stories have received critical attention." That's not how the guidelines put it. They say that you can describe any of the content in summary as long as the whole thing has been proven notable by third party sources. They don't need to be notable. They do need to exist. Otherwise, there is an article without a point because it doesn't tell you anything about the content. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prima facie Oppose It fails 2(b) by not even having a table of contents... This nom is a fantastic rationale for revising WP:WIAFA... The entire article isn't much longer than the blurb on the Main Page would be, if this hit the Main Page... We'll just have to drag it through FAR when length restrictions pass—why FA it now? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick-fail—Sorry Mike, but this can't possibly satisfy the basic requirement of representing "our very best work". An FA is a one in a thousand example, and the scope, the "meat" is so narrow as to make such representation impossible. FAs are held up as fine bodies of work, and need to show significant subject matter. It's fine as a WP article; why don't you put your talents to preparing an article in this field that is able to stand as an example of our very best work. This does not. I don't know why this has remained on the list for so long, sucking in scarce reviewing resources. Tony (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This simply isn't comprehensive enough. It's a fine article indeed, but just isn't suitable for featured status. Good work with it. -- how do you turn this on 01:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fails comprehensiveness test. Most of the article is about the publisher Republic Features Syndicate, Inc., who don't have an article. If they did, the magazine would probably be better dealt with as a section there. As it is no indication is given of their ownership, age or position in the pulp business. Was this "package" their first and only venture? When, if ever, were the radio shows broadcast, & on what networks? Well-written as far as it goes. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose much as I hate to. I think it's scope is too small, and might be better merged with it's publisher, as Johnbod suggests above. Basically, the scope of the article is too small, leaving the article feeling incomplete, even though it actually is. It can certainly stay as a stand-alone article, but I can't say anything more than it feels incomplete to the general reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went digging in my stuff, and did you know there was another pulp mag published under this name? Robinson's Science Fiction of the 20th Century: An Illustrated History (ISBN 0-7607-6572-3) p. 139 has an illustration of a cover from Sept 1953, with a Philip K. Dick story in it. Robinson says "Space Science Fiction September 1953 Civiletti - The issue contained Philip K Dick's novel The Variable Man, complete. Dick was known for his innovative ideas and skill as a writer but had yet to achieve outstanding fame." Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to mention the magazine under discussion here, and neither does anything else I have, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but which of the FA criteria mentions "scope"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Been here, done this. I think you done good, and I am honored to support this nomination becuase I feel we need more articles like this one on Wikipedia. I would suggest looking into creating an article on Republic Features Syndicate, it may help locate additional sources for the article. Otherwise I wish you luck with your nom, and judging by the above posts you are going to need all the luck you can get. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid sounding like a broken record, I've avoided replying individually to the last few opposes, but I should probably add a summary comment. It seems to me that some of the opposes are arguing that an article cannot meet 1b unless it covers all the major information about the article's subject, regardless of whether secondary sources have done so. This interpretation of 1b asserts that certain articles, regardless of length, simply cannot ever be FA. A long article on a topic for which some key information is missing would fail this criterion. This is not how the clause has historically been interpreted at FAC, nor is it the consensus of the recent discussions on WT:FAC (that discussion didn't reach a consensus either way on this point).
Assuming I've found all the relevant sources, which I think I have, this article is as complete as it can be. I believe an FA star should indicate that an article is the best that can be done, and should not be withheld because secondary sources haven't been written yet. This point was discussed on WT:FAC too, and there was no consensus on that point either. Mike Christie (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you.—RJH (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just adding my 2 cents by supporting. I agree with Mike Christie and TomStar; comprehensiveness and length are two separate things. - Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward oppose. Mike is trying to make some case law here, and I support that intention. I don't have a problem with the length issue (pending FA talk page outcomes) but I am with Johnbod: Republic Features Syndicate has no article nor is it even redlinked. If the publication is notable enough for an article why not the publisher? And if the publisher had an article would this page be merge material? Until satisfied on these questions, I cannot support. As noted elsewhere, I believe small articles should be featurable but the merge issue needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis. Marskell (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This oppose, if it turns into an oppose, is one I can't really disagree with. It's true that if Republic Features Syndicate deserves an article, Space SF could sensibly be incorporated into it, and should not then be a separate FA. I haven't done any research beyond Googling to find resources on RFS, so I can't assert that there is definitely no history there to be written. Mike Christie (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The basic premise that if a publication is notable and deserving of an article then so must its publisher be is flawed. FAC is not the place for arguments about merger proposals anyway, much less so when the merger target doen't even exist. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posed the concern as a question. It is possible that the publication is notable enough for an article but not the publisher (although it would be a little odd); I would simply like to be satisfied on the point. As for merge discussions, there's no rule against them at FAC. Perhaps they should start occurring more often as one response to this short article issue. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For minor genre magazines the publisher often existed only to publish that magazine, and would be unlikely to have separate notability. That doesn't apply here, though, as Republic Features Syndicate published other magazines, and two radio shows. Some of the radio shows (by Karloff) were later released on LP; that's the only other significant reference I've been able to find about the company so far. I'll agree that if Republic Features Syndicate can be written, this article should probably be merged into it. I don't think I'm going to be able to prove to reviewers' satisfaction that it can't be written. What's your opinion on the converse case: if you were convinced the article on the publisher can't be written, what then? Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A check on the web appeared to show that the odds of assembling an article on Republic Features Syndicate that meets the notability criteria is quite low. There is very little information available; most of which consists of an address and the magazines they published. I think that is an unrealistic option. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing without prejudice: I will type up a closing rationale on the talk page after I finish promoting/archiving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:59, 13 October 2008 [52].

Alien (film) edit

Nominator(s): IllaZilla (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. I spent months re-writing the article in my userspace more or less from scratch, doing tons of referencing and bringing it to what I felt was a fine state of readiness before moving it back into the mainspace. Other editors then contributed tweaks and revisions, and the article passed GA very easily with only 1 or 2 minor corrections needed. At this time I can think of no further improvements that could be made, and so I believe it is ready to be reviewed for Featured Article status and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status. IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest you re-examine image usage with respect to WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Image:Alien at the Egyptian Theater, 1979.jpg, Image:Alien-The Facehugger.png, Image:Alien (1979) - Alien egg.jpg, Image:Alien model filming.jpg, and Image:Alien (1979) - main cast.jpg at the very least are not necessary IMO. Giggy (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I trimmed some of the images, including a couple of the ones mentioned here and a couple of others that are not. Image:Alien at the Egyptian Theater, 1979.jpg and Image:Alien (1979) - Alien egg.jpg are gone, as well as Image:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.JPG and Image:Alien (1979) - cocoon scene.jpg. Upon reflection I didn't think these were really necessary to illustrate the concepts being described. This brings the article down to 9 non-free images, including the one in the infobox. The inherent problem is that since this is a 30-year-old film there are no free images available to use. However I think that each of the remaining images used is in compliance with NFCC. The concept art is the subject of specific critical commentary, so that's justified, as are the chestburster, facehugger, and alien as their designs are specifically discussed in the special effects & creature design section. The space jockey set and nostromo model are also specifically discussed and the images are necessary to illustrate the techniques used in filming. The only one I could really see there being an issue with is the cast picture. I've seen a precedent for this type of image use in other FA film articles such as Jurassic Park (film), Battlefield Earth (film), Blade Runner, and The Mummy (1999 film), to name a few. In this case I feel the image is rather strongly justified because the "Casting" section specifically discusses how the ages and sexes (and in the case of Yaphet Kotto, his race) added to the look, feel, and effectiveness of the film. Since there are no other images of any of the cast members anywhere in the article, this single image illustrates these points rather well. Of course, if you still think that further trimming is necessary then I will do what I can to comply. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am uncomfotable with the quantity of images, but having said that, those that are used are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three. The quantity of non-free content seems to push us away from the m:mission of producing a free encylopedia, but then this is en.wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.comingsoon.net/
      • Changed to a citation from the American film institute itself, which is the original source of the information: [53] --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20070402-buy_the_1979_original_alien_suit_by_hr_giger.php
      • I added a cite to the actual auction site [54], however the gadgetmadness cite is still useful because it reprints the accompanying press release as well as reporting the final selling price. For the qualifactions of Gadgetmadness itself, see [55]. Seems reliable enough for this basic factual information (reprinting of a press release and a final selling price). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you not have a reliable source for the final price? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=111
      • I arrived at this one via Rotten Tomatoes, which is widely recognized and used on Wikipedia as a reliable source for movie reviews. The reviewer and his reviews are listed on RT, which collects and aggregates reviews by professional film critics. This site, the original magazine which published the review, is a better source to use (also I was unable to load the RT page of the same review [56]). RT also lists Future Movies UK amongst its published sources of reviews [57] so it appears reliable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you just using this for a review score/quote? If so, as long as you attribute it in the text to the site/reviewer, you should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://twgnews.com/2008/08/15/character-biography-ridley/
      • I agree on this one, but another editor insisted on having it in the article. I've removed it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.aintitcool.com/
      • I normally try to avoid this site myself (mostly because I don't like their layout) but in this case what's being cited is an interview with James Cameron [58], and a film site interviewing a celebrated director is certainly a good source. It has direct quotes from Cameron in it. It is also used as a citation in Alien vs. Predator (film) and was accepted as reliable in that article's FA review (I participated in bringing that article to FA so I can attest that the reference was present at the time of the review and was not added later). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out less well known abbreviations such as TWG, etc. in the references.
    • Fixed as that reference has been removed. The only other I see which might have this issue are h2g2, which I added BBC in front of since it is run by the BBC and appears on a BBC site, and IGN but in that case IGN is the full name of the company (it used to be an abbreviation for something but the full name is no longer used; IGN is the official registered full name of the company). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am concerned over the reliability of h2g2. As far as I can tell, it is a reflection of Wikipedia (but for registered members who can be anyone). Their "Edited Article" can probably be equated to our "Featured Articles", but that still makes me wonder just how good their peer review is. We cannot assume that editorial oversight is provided by BBC or of equivalent standard as "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." is stated on each page of their public online collaborated encyclopaedia. We do not know Ged's expertise in films nor the sources he used for his entry. Furthermore, I doubt we can refer to an attempted encyclopaedic entry as a "review". Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, I removed it. I don't recall how I arrived at it; probably through Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - those were my primary hunting grounds when searching for reviews. I was under the impression that h2g2 was some sort of special subsection of the BBC and had oversight from them, and since it appeared on either RT or MC I felt it was probably reliable. But since it seems questionable at best I just pulled it. I just thought the quote wrapped up that section rather well, but it's not essential. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the article uses three different quotation styles (blockquote, quote boxes and pull quotes), and has left-aligned images under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a substantive difference between block quotes and pull quotes; I just though pull quotes looked better because of the decorative quotation marks. However after checking WP:MOSQUOTE I see the difference and have converted all pull quotes to block quotes. For the record, though, it didn't use 3 styles before, since it didn't have any block quotes (they were all in pull quote form). The quote boxes are for added emphasis & understanding but are not critical to the body paragraphs, so they are placed in quote boxes to the side. As far as I'm aware this is in line with MOS standards. I'm not aware of any standard or MOS that says there should not be left-aligned images under third-level headings. Could you point me to such a guideline so that I can take the proper approach to fixing them? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The Impact and analysis section fails to mention anything about the numerous feminist interpretations of the movie. There is a lot of material out there about how Alien relates to feminism. Two places to start are the books Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley (especially the introduction and first chapter) and Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema (especially the chapters "Feminism and Anxiety in Alien" and "Feminism, Humanism, and Science in Alien"). Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I honestly don't think this is a reason not to promote the article. There is nothing to prevent such material from being added if an interested editor has those sources and chooses to add them. The featured article criteria do require comprehensive coverage, "neglect[ing] no major facts or details" but the article has the facts and major details in spades. That it doesn't cover one particular angle of critical analysis of the film does not in any way detract from the content it does have. FA status obviously does not preclude further content from being written, and the article has plenty of legs to stand on as-is. Of course, now that you've pointed out those sources I'm intrigued and will probably track them down, but I don't think that possible future additions should be an impediment to promotion. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not be willing to read this material and add information to the article with due weight? It would tie quite nicely into contrasting the film as a male rape fantasy. Alien was the first film where a physically strong woman was put into an action role. I think that's significant. --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We actually watched this film in my first Gender Studies class. Girl power! Even if it were just a few sentences, possibly using one of the sources that Kaldari already pointed out (there are quite a bit more), it would be an interesting addition to the article. María (habla conmigo) 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IllaZilla, this is actually a good piece of advice. The current article places a heavy emphasis on a primary source (that of the "making of" DVD feature), which is not surprising when one considers the main focus of the media and public on the fiction industry (more on box numbers and the content). Wikipedia policy, however, prefers to be mainly based on secondary sources (primary could be used to flesh out details but not overwhelm the article). Now, Alien Woman mentions things about the chestbuster that even the "making of" does not mention, such O'Bannon's letter about Giger's loss of focus (getting fixated on the concept of a mutated chicken) when designing the chestburster, the facehugger design, and such. These information can replace those primary references. It also specifically calls the insertion of the facehugger's proboscis into Hurt's mouth as an act of fellatio. This can replace the Future Movie reference, whose reliability is called into question above. Byers in Alien Zone discusses the theme of corporatism in the film (which is not mentioned in this article). The two books can help to improve this article in more than one way (by expanding thematic discussion and replacing questionable sources). Jappalang (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my stance to a "weak oppose". Honestly, the only reason I think it's important is that this movie is considered quite important in the world of feminist film criticism. There are only 4 or 5 movies that I would raise this objection for, and this is the only sci-fi one. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am totally willing to continue doing research and expanding some sections, even splitting them off if they can stand on their own, and I will certainly do some research on the feminst interpretations, but I don't think that the possibility of future content additions is an impediment to the article being advanced to FA. "Comprehensive coverage" does not equal "exhaustive coverage". In its defense the article uses just as much (if not more) sourcing from the David McIntee book, which is a secondary source as it is written by a third party independent of the subject, as it does from the "Beast Within" features. That said, I am absolutely going to do more investigation into the sources that you've provided, I just don't have the time at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per too many fair use images, as well as comprehensiveness concerns. The impact of Ripley is an important legacy of the film, so it should be mentioned in a substantial way. The critical reception (both positive and negative) is nonexistent. The lead is also too short. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The critical reception (both positive and negative) is nonexistent" ??? There is both a "Release and reception" section and an "Impact and analysis" section. Particularly there's the "Lasting critical praise" subsection. As for negative criticism, in all my searching for reviews I found only 1 that wasn't positive, and it was a fringe opinion that seemed way out of context (being from within the last few years). I'd really like you to clarify this statement further, because I strongly believe that saying that critical reception is "nonexistent" is completely untrue. For the fair use images, see the comments near the top of this nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to do a better search, then, as I found numerous complaints in a quick search of contemporary newspapers- about the lack of intriguing dialogue, limited character roles for the more talented actors, and unfavorable comparisons to a similar styled monster, Jaws. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you possibly point me towards some of those sources to give me a jumping-off point? Links to article databases would be helpful, or just a general point in the right direction. I have university resources I can consult if necessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is very close to FA standards, but the prose falls flat in places. Take, for example, this excerpt from the "Music" sections:
Scott did not like Goldsmith's original main title piece, however, so Goldsmith rewrote it as "the obvious thing: weird and strange, and which everybody loved."[61][58] Another source of tension was editor Terry Rawlings' choice to use pieces of Goldsmith's music from previous films, including a piece from Freud the Secret Passion, and to use a piece by Howard Hansen for the end credits.[61][58] Scott and Rawlings had also become attached to several of the musical cues they had used for the temporary score while editing the film, and re-edited some of Goldsmith's cues and re-scored several sequences to match these cues and even left the temporary score in place in some parts of the finished film.
The first sentence awkwardly joins two clauses with however. The second sentence is too lengthy. The third sentence suffers from both length and the poorly chosen phrases such as had also become attached. Majoreditor (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted several experienced copyeditors as well as the FA wikiproject to get some copyediting to deal with these issues. I've gone over Tony's guides and other "brilliant prose" how-tos, but I feel I'm too close to the text (being the primary contributor) to view it objectively and iron out the kinks. Hopefully the copyeditors can resolve these issues. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The plot section in the very least IMO needs references and wikilinks. At the moment it's OR. D.M.N. (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with novels, plots usually don't need citations. They refer back to the subject. However, the plot section should say only what is witnessed on screen, and no interpretation or description other than what is able to be viewed. When using adjectives, it's best to remain low-key and dry. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently (this morning) a massive plot creep by an IP, which has been reverted back to the more concise version. Let me know if the problem still exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. D.M.N. (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything that needs citations has them. I think this is one of the best film articles out there, and it would be a shame to let it stay only a GA. Tezkag72 (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I did not read the article (yet) but there are two major issues that need to be fixed before more time is devoted to the more time-consuming parts of a FAC review. Firstly, for such a highly influential film, the lead is not "a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic" (WP:LEAD) and looks imbalanced (a two-sentence paragraph on director+actress+alien and a long paragraph about influence, but nothing on other actors, origin and set design etc.) - please have a look at other WP:FAs to get inspiration. Secondly, I am (still) not comfortable with the high number of non-free images. Image:Alien-The_Facehugger.png and Image:Alien-The Chestburster.png don't need to be shown in this main article at all since the hatnote already links to Alien (Alien franchise), where they are/can be shown for more detail on the creature. Image:Alien model filming.jpg and Image:Alien (1979) - space jockey.jpg look like general space-type-y elements and I believe that one is enough to get across the design of the film (but that may just be me). Both of these issues are comparible easy to fix, and I hope you will not be discouraged by this FAC and keep working on the article - we're all just trying to help to make this is a kick-ass wikipedia article. – sgeureka t•c 12:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally. I am too. All these comments are taken with open ears, I assure you. All suggestions and input are greatly appreciated. In retrospect I might have tried to advance it to A-class first, but I couldn't find the proper channels for doing so. And since it passed GA so easily I thought it was probably time to go to the next level. But definitely all of these suggestions are valid and will be worked on. Thanks very much. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can find instructions for the Film project's A-class review stage on WP:FILMR, should this FAC fail and you wish to pursue that first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: very fine start. Please sort the image, sourcing, prose and comprehensive issues prior to re-nomination. Also, sandwiching of text between images, see WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 13 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:19, 13 October 2008 [59].

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate edit

Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is ready for a bronze star. This material was spun out from the Iowa class battleship article during the latters FAR a month or so back at the suggestion of MBK004 (talk · contribs) as a way to reduce the size of the article. Since Iowa class battleship is already featured the material was already well sourced. It cleared A-class a few weeks back, but before I could get the article here school started and my priorities shifted, but we have lull week here so I am taking advantage of the downtime to go forward with the FAC. I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patiences, it is likely that school work has temporarily tied me up. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The article needs somebody to go through the prose; it's rough in places.

  • "...and a number of independent groups..."—vague.
  • Check slash use.
  • "The debate has played out across a wide spectrum of media, including (but not limited to)" "including" is a subset term, so we don't need another phrase telling us that the list is incomplete.
  • "Each side has presented different arguments on the best approach to the problem, but most of the participants usually advocate the continuation of the DD(X) program or the reinstatement of the Iowa-class battleships to the Naval Vessel Register." Inconsistent tense: "...has presented..." but "...usually advocate...".
  • "...return to its traditional 313 ship navy." Hyphen needed.
seems to be a triple-length one now. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is little dash. Is that better? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Jersey remained in mothball fleet until the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 passed through the United States Congress 18 October 1998." There's a word missing.
  • "The Navy plan called originally called for the extension of the range." Opposite of the last point, there's an extra word.
  • "This move has drawn fire from a variety of sources familiar with the subject" "variety" adds nothing to the sentence.

These are just examples, get somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All Noted and Adressed. I'll put a request in for a copyedit. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:NC, I don't think the letter D needs to be capitalized here. This doesn't appear to be a formal title for the debate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I was hoping someone would bring this up; we had an interesting discussion over what exactly to name the article, adn this happened to be the version we stuck with. I think there ought to be some lower case letters in there though, the title does seem a little formal for a debate of no real name. The last time a few editers suggested either "United State naval gunfire support debate" or "United States Naval Gunfire Support debate", and I was hoping that maybe we can get some censensus on this point here before doing any major moving. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm maybe "The United States Navy's gunfire support debate", or is that too long and complex?? Otherwise, I'd go with "United State naval gunfire support debate". Cheers! —the_ed17— 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Are the title words part of a publication or report? If not, I think lower case is required. It's rather long: why not "Debate on US naval gunfire support"? (Or "U.S." if you insist.) And why not abbreviate the country-name throughout? It's gobbles up lots of repetitive space.
    • There maybe some naming conventions invloved with regard to using "US" or"U.S."; a lot of our division pages and similarly themed units list use a "name (country) format, so I will see about cross checking.
  • There's no sense of when this debate started. I've read the first bit and am still unsure of what gunfire support is.
    • Research has shown this to be an on again off again debate that crops up whenever the USN does something involving its battleships, but it really took off in the 1990s after the Navy attempted to remove the battleships from the NVR. I'll see about tightening that up for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a militarily useful destructive power that is lacking in the smaller, cheaper, and faster guns mounted by"; aren't the second and third words redundant? Tony (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose they could be, but they were included originally to show the advantages of the guns on currently used cuisers and destroyers. I suppose we could cut them out without any real loss of content, although I think I will wait a day or two and see if anything else cares to weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just remove "militarily" myself. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Johnbod's suggestion was better than mine. So can you give us a sense that it's been an intermittent debate since after the second world war, with particular activity in the ?late 1980s and since the start of this century (or something like that)? US$78 million, without the space? I'm sure that's the standard way ... This nomination seems worth supporting, at least in terms of 1a. Tony (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 2 (The Iowa Class..) is lacking a publisher.
  • Current refs 7, 8, 9, 10 need last access dates. (DANFS)
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as DANFS in the references.
    • I am not seeing any, although that doesn;t nessicarily mean they are not there. Do you have any specific numbers? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainly, it was DANFS. I don't see any others now Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 13 (National Defense ..) is lacking a publisher
  • What makes http://home.comcast.net/~shipsoftheusn/ reliable? (And aplogies if we've already accepted this... I don't see any notes on my cheatsheet about it)
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look into adressing your complaints shortly. The one thing I can tell you right now though is that the website you have question has never been officially been declared unreliable, however the FAR for Iowa class battleship established the source as questionable and I removed it accordingly. The material, as I noted before, is double cited, so this link can be removed without compromising sources. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: the article is using that DANFS template that yields incomplete citations (those kinds of incorrect specialized templates are proliferating and should be corrected or shot on sight). Since it gives no accessdate, they need to be added. Is the article capitalized correctly? If not, please leave a note here so we can get everything in the right place before moving it and leaving dangling FAC pages. See WP:MOS#Quatations regarding pull quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I asked about the quotes back when Iowa class battleship was at FAR and the consensus among the commenters on the page at the time was that the quotes were fine the way they were. Here is the link, if you are interested. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DANFS Templates have been updated and now reflect an accessdate. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's a bit dense for someone with no knowledge of the subject. As others have pointed out, NGS needs explaining - "ship to shore gunfire" might do it. The Navy finds the battleships "too costly" - do we have any numbers. When has NGS been used in recentl decades? The Lebanon I think. Do no other nations still have the potential? Not even the Russians? Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the first point above has been dealt with, though it could still be clearer, and recent uses added. But much still needs to be done after nearly two weeks - a very quick copyedit of basic prose problems on a short section produced this diff. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gotten to the link and such later, first I needed to establish that the newer sections were in fact needed in the article (No sense in pouring in hours of work if everyone thinks they are uneeded). Additionally, I informed everyone that I was in school for a reason; I can't be on here religiously checking the article and addressing all the complatents all of the time, and as it happened I had a research project last week that sucked up alot of my free time. The thing to take away from this is that I am moving to address the concerns as time permits, so have some patients with me. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and the new sections certainly help the article, but FAC doesn't normally work like that, and you're running out of time. I'd do a peer review next time, & make sure you do FAC in vacation. Carefully buffed up it should be ok, but there's too much to do for this time. I still have unanswered points above, btw. Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked miracles before, and I work them again here. All I need is to ensure that everyone's compaints are dealt with to teh best of my ability. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What seem to be a well-informed & useful debate on the article talk page raises issues, some touching on my initial comments above, that I think should be be covered. I'm ready to change my vote, but I think the article needs a period in dry-dock rather than repairs at sea to reach full FA fighting condition. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very pithy, I like it. :) I assume that the talk page comments you reference are in the Overplaying the thesis section and not the Sinking battleships with aircraft has what to do with NSFS? section? bahamut0013♠♣ 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well all 3 of the September sections really. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unilaterally removed the thesis paragraph, it will remain out the article until such time as I can adress the concerns raised regarding its use in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the situation is confusing, it now looks like two or three Zumwalt class destroyers will be built, so it's not correct to say that the program has been 'canceled' as the article does. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is correct: they have cancelled the program; however, this was done after the first two destroyers were already building, and as the cost of the cancellation was deemed to be more than the cost of the completion of the construction of thtwo destroyers already underc construction the USN has decided to allow DDG 1000 and 1001 to go forward as originally planned. A rumored third DDX destroyer may or may not be constructed, the funding has been alloted for its construction, but the Navy was at last check sitting on the fence with regards to go ahead with the construction of a third DDX or putting that money to work on other projects. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to say that the program has been 'curtailed' then? 'Cancelled' makes it sound like nothing will come of the program. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its now three DDX ships, and this is noted in the article. How about "scaled back"? sould that be acceptable? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest "United States naval gunfire support debate" as the article title. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With respect to naming, I'll add this here rather than tag it onto the ongoing discussion. :NGFS is a military discipline, so I would suggest that Naval Gunfire Support is either all capitalised or none of it is. I would also say that since it is Naval gunfire support then it's superfluous to identify it as USN. My inclination is also that this is about a political debate, so I would lean towards something like Naval Gunfire Support debate in the United States.
To highlight on the point above as to when NGFS was recently employed militarily; Op TELIC on the Umm Qasr peninsula, Op CORPORATE on the Falklands. Putting my military professional head on, this debate is played out amongst retired old farts and politicians who have their own agendas. The majority of serving warfare and related types recognise that the big battleships have had their day, military technical capability has moved on, doctrine has moved on and there is no longer significant value in this type of capability.
ALR (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Oppose Never done one of these before, so forgive me my ignorance. I know I'm supposed to bring up direct and exact reasons why this shouldn't be promoted but I am offering a vague one. I don't think that (like ALR aludes to) this article fully represents both sides of the debate. The language, layout and sourcing focus primarily on the "pro gunfire support" side. I would prefer to see some input for air warfare and submarine warfare communities, as well as some historical background on the debate and effectiveness of that support. I would also like to see some summary of soruces which discuss possible motivations beyond combat effectiveness for the proponents of NGS to make their case. I'll check back with sourcing suggestions and specific comments, but I feel this needs to be addressed. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not supposed to; it was spun out from the Iowa class battleship article a few monthes back and thus carries disctictive pro-battleship tones throughout the article, in much the same way that the DDX articles is pro-DDX most of the way through. Prior to the article going independent it had no problems becuase the coverage was in the context of just these ships, but now we (Or more precisely I) have to go through and try to hammer out the bias and such in the article already. At the moment I am working a new angle, give me a week or two to see what becomes of it and then we move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem. Like I said, I'll post here when I go looking for sources on the subject. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm revising my comment so it isn't an oppose as such. I haven't gone and looked for references recently, so it isn't fair to sit on an oppose for that reason. The POV of the article has improved considerably, though I think there is more improvement to be made. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And so it shall be made. One important thing to remeber though is that the article will continue to evlove on the matter past the end of this FAC, so it may in time have even more info than it does now. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE After looking through a variety of sources both on and offline I have found evidence to suggest that this sort of debate has in fact taken place within the worlds large naval powers, however the extent of these debate does not IMO justify merging this article into a larger internationally-focus page. In light of this, I would petition the powers that be to have the article moved to either United States Naval Gunfire Support debate or United States naval gunfire support debate. I am typing this on the eve of morning class, so I will be off for an hour or two, but will resume working on the above comments and suggestions upon my return. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have found a few sources regarding the DDG 1000: US House, Senate Agree to Add 3rd DDG 1000, Will DDG 1000 Produce Any Ships at All?, and one in print but not online outlining how the Pentagon has "agreed to eliminate the operational requirements for the ship... where that leaves the program is unclear." I am hesitant to add updates to the article unilaterally while it undergoes FAC, but if we can agree on how to add, there won't be an issue. Also, USS Missouri (BB-63)#Gulf War (1990 to 1991) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64)#Gulf War (1990–91) note that naval gunfire, including the big 16-inch guns, were used as recently as 1991, but also mentions that a number of missiles were launched. There is also a delightful tale about Iraqis surrendering to a Pioneer UAV controlled by the latter ship, whose appearance had become the precursor to a naval bombardment. Point being, despite the Tomahawks, the gunfire support of all calibers, big and small, had a significant impact on that recent war, and impacts on the arguments in the article. While I don't think a history of naval gunfire is appropriate, mentioning some recent use would help give the reader a more balanced and NPOV background about how necessary battleships might be. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are being worked into the artilce. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As noted on the talk page, the article could benefit from a more pro/con approach to the alternatives to NGS. the air superiority section notes that planes can sink ships, but I think we can expand upon the vulnerabilities of other methods further. For example, larger cruise missiles can be shot down (as well as all aircraft), whereas shells are just about impossible to stop once they are launched; there are restrictions on range and endurance for all three alternatives. Exploring this a bit further would give readers a richer depth of understanding. bahamut0013♠♣ 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My recent edit stole borrowed some references from the above noted battleship articles, they may require some cleanup. Citation/reference formatting is one of my weak suits. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On point 1: Getting there. Be patient. Remeber that simply becuase the article's FAC has to end doesn;t mean that the article improvement has to end, if it isn't addressed before the FAC closes I will work with you all to address this after the FAC. On Point two: everything turned out fine, though I have reworded the material a little to drawn on a psyops angle. Well done though. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Oppose - formatting is nice and clean. "Recent developments" has the only image problem, and you might want to expand on the paragraph combined with trimming down the caption so as to not leave such a large gap. "Gun support" begins with a tiny two sentence paragraph without a citation. Please either expand or merge this with another paragraph and cite. Paragraph beginning "As noted above, the" needs a citation. The last sentences of the section, "Its expected performance is over 5800 m/s" need a citation. Many other paragraphs need citations, but the above is just an example of where. Each paragraph should have at least one citation at the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting someone to bring this up :) These three section dealing with aircraft, guns, and missiles are very recent additions and the information is still being cited. I hope to have adequate citations - which I also define as at least 1 citation per paragraph - in the article by tommarow or Thurday at the latest. In any event though, thanks for commenting/opposing. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think AGF can be applied here to trust you in doing the above, so I am putting a conditional support in case I get distracted and don't have a chance to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't believe that this article currently places the subject in its proper historical location. That is, even though it is about a specific debate at a specific moment in time (now) there is no indication of this. Rather, it looks like this debate has always been going on and always will. I think you need to clearly spell out - at the very beginning of the article if not in its title - that this is a post-WWII debate or a 1980's debate or whatever. Witty Lama 06:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tightened this up a little for you. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I just fixed two typos and some poor grammar. This article has potential, but needs to be thoroughly inspected for more "silly mistakes" before it can be made a Featured Article. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this I assume you mean that article needs a copyedit to check and correct spelling and grammar mistakes. As fate would have it, this is the one thing I can not fix; my sp&g suck. I have petitioned for such a check, but have thus far come up empty. I'm sorry I am not able to better adress this concern, though I do apreciate your input on the matter. Was there anything else you saw that you were concerned about, or was this it? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention that a lot of the content is still being continually re-worked and expanded... while spelling and grammar are always important, I think we should worry about the content before we pick apart dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. I've been planning to give a thorough scrub with AWB and my own red pen once the content has been finalized, but not before; otherwise it would be like buffing a car's finish while it's still getting body work. bahamut0013♠♣ 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: excellent start and almost there, but a couple weeks of prose polishing should bring it over the hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (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 User:Maralia 15:57, 12 October 2008 [60].

Real Madrid C.F. edit

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990
previous FAC (02:18, 28 September 2008)

I nominate this article because I consider it one of the best on Wikipedia. I worked a lot to improve it and I hope You'll agree. Thank You! —Hadrianos1990 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trabajo propio = own work.
  • Una de las primeras formaciones del Madrid Football Club (Real Madrid C.F.) a principios del siglo XX. = One of the first "formations" of Real Madrid Footabll club at teh beginnings of the 20th century. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article! Congratulations! Giggy (talk)
    • I didn't write this [61] Giggy (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hadrianos removed the above comments. I rolled him back so that a clear record is kept of this bizarre behaviour. Marskell (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just blocked the user for what I see as a very clear attempt to disrupt the FAC process. He or she is only blocked for a week, however, so I presume that this FAC should be shelved for now, and can come back once the block is over. Though perhaps we can wait a moment to see if the user responds on his or her talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - An interesting article that I enjoyed reading, but further copy-editing is needed. Here are some examples:

  • It plays its home professional games in the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium in downtown Madrid since 1947. - The tense is wrong.
  • The club is the world's richest in football (€351m) in terms of revenue and the second most valuable (worth over €950m as of 2008). - some attention needed here.
  • After moving between some minor grounds - between?
  • Real Madrid had the lead going into the last match of the season. - "were in the lead"?
  • On 2 July 1978, the one to whom credit can be given for transforming Real Madrid from the second most successful club in Madrid into the most successful in Spain, and one of the most successful in Europe, club president Santiago Bernabéu passed away. - is hopelessly convoluted.
  • rezoned - ??
  • a total of - just one example of much redundancy.

These are just a few example of many problems. A fresh pair of eyes is needed; the whole article needs attention. Graham Colm Talk 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: as the last nomination.--Andrea 93 (msg) 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too many little problems - GrahamColm has pointed out half a dozen - other things stood out to me...

  • "about 41 managers"? about 41?
  • "while Jacinto Quincoces is team's least " the team?
  • Periods are XXXX-XY while other year ranges in the article are XXXX-XXXY
  • "After the 2004–05 season, Real Madrid have ended Manchester United's eight-year reign as the biggest earners in world football on the back of a galáctico policy with €275.7m (£190m) jumped 17 per cent." - what this is going on about I have no idea. Regardless of the poor grammar, what does this mean?
  • Linking euro, dollar and pound on their final use is an odd way of doing things. Usually link the first time.
  • The whole "Budget" section needs work. It's not encyclopedic, it has unfounded claims, it's written like a tabloid newspaper.
  • Avoid squashing text between images.
  • "most winnings " - not really good English.

As Graham said, this whole article needs a copyedit, preferably by an independent native English speaker. Right now, not close to FA I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait a minute. The last time this was up for FA and it didn't get promoted, you left this charming message on SandyGeorgia's barnstar page. After you were asked to explain the comment on your talk page, for what I could see, it was ignored. Now you bring the same article back? Could you explain this comment once and for all? I took it seriously, as a threat. That is simply unacceptable and enters the realm of the ridiculous to think that bullying is an effective method of getting one's article promoted. So please explain your action either here, on SG's talk page, or the thread that was started on your own talk page (or someone point me to where this has been done). --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail - Writing is not close to FA standard. With the nominator blocked for using another editor's name to blatantly stack the vote, he/she can't respond to the opposes. With that being the case, I see no reason to keep this here. And that bullying was disgraceful too. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - 1. I question if the title is the English title and an appropriate title (it seems to be the foreign language acronym) according to MoS. 2. Sandwiched text in "Crest". 3. Seems to be half lists, which seems rather inappropriate to me. 4. Lots of words like "dominated" stick out and don't really belong in an encyclopedia. That's just a quick scan. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the user is blocked and there are numerous issues to be resolved. Giggy (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2008 (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 User:Maralia 15:49, 12 October 2008 [62].

Nevado del Ruiz edit

Nominator(s): —Ceran (Strike!)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've done my best to expand this article on a truly beautiful and dangerous volcano in Colombia. This stratovolcano caused the deadliest lahar in recorded history and killed some 28,000 people. Therefore, I'm donating this work to them. I've worked long and hard over this article, harder than I have on any other, and I think it's ready to be featured. —Ceran (Strike!) 00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 185 free English news sources for the volcano. Are you sure it's comprehensive? ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they all talk about the eruption. I was not missing any info about the eruption, but the scientific aspect of the volcano. News sources don't make an article comprehensive, nevermind sources at all. Comprehensiveness is how the article reads. —Ceran ([speak]) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, 1500 scholarly sources from scholar.google.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i've reviewed at least 300 of them, and based on my review the ones I have were as far as I got without info repeats or unecessary information. —Ceran [speak] 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Unless this is an article in which there is an incredibly large amount of information available, we assume that you include pretty much everything except some amazingly trivial points. You see what I am doing to 1964 Gabon coup d'etat, and that is much less known than NdR. Come on -- there must me more available than 20kbs on a very famous volcano! Also, I don't see the logic in how news sources do not make an article comprehensive. They can be used to make it so. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    26 books with "Nevado del Ruiz" in the title. I suggest withdrawal. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider it done. And you know what? I've grown steadily and steadily more bored of this MMORPG. I can't sleep as well, I spend a ton of time on the computer, I don't have any fun anymore. This place is just ruining my life, and I'm sadly feeling on the verge of extinction. Tipping over... —Ceran [speak] 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This isn't ready. Ceranthor asked me to do a copy-edit, and I made a brief start, plus added some comments, e.g. about structure. These have been ignored, in some cases with vague reference to personal referencing style. The article is on its way, but more needs to be done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw - Done and over. Obviously I haven't paid enough attention.
Sandy, I've stood for this too long. For over a year it just seems that you despise me. I have tried numerous times to resolve the conflict but nothing seems to work. What do you have against me? —Ceran [speak] 11:32, 12 October 2008 (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 User:Karanacs 02:25, 12 October 2008 [63].

Battle of Lipantitlán edit

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk)


This is another short article about a small battle in the Texas Revolution. The more I research and write about these battles, the more I understand the saying "God protects children and idiots". It amazes me that the Texians won anything. I look forward to any constructive criticism. Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments - This seems more like a peer revies request, rather than a FAC, but ... I would prefer a map giving the location, possibly add the {{coord)) template, FOP pictures of the various comerative plaques, gravestones should be included. Any pictures of the protagonists are likely to be free due to expired copyright (assuming there are any). Fasach Nua (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a map that shows the location of the main towns that were mentioned in the article. There are no pictures, as far as I can find, of the combatants, and I cannot find a PD photo of the commemorative plaque. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Should "Battle" be capitalized in the first sentence of the lead?
  • They were released immediately as long as they promised not to fight again during the Texas Revolution. → "They were released immediately, on the condition that they promised not to fight again during the Texas Revolution."?
  • The Texians were using a small canoe to transport men across the Nueces River, and when the Mexican soldiers were sighted only half of the Texian force had crossed to the east bank of the river. "were using" → "used"; simpler wording.
  • Westover agreed Is it possible to merge this two-word sentence with another?
  • References and sources look good.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can something that only had 150-160 persons involved be called a battle ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the sources call it. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It's not that short (2,200+ words). It looks comprehensive. But I always worry slightly when articles come to FAC without GA or PR; there tend to be niggly things that could have been sorted out there. In the lead alone:-

  • In the first line we have battle of Lipantitàn and Battle of Nueces Crossing. Why the different capitalizations?
  • It should be "served as a customs point", not "served as customs point"
  • Personally I'd put a comma after "retake Goliad", to get the right rhythm in the reading
  • Who was Ira Westover? Some brief description necessary on first encounter
  • I think it should be "alternative" route, not "alternate". "Alternate" has many meanings, alternative is clear-cut
  • San Patricio should be linked.

I'm reading on and will deliver further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read it through carefully. Here are some further comments on the text:-

  • Background
    • The word "often" occurs twice in the first line - could one of them become "frequently"?
    • The form "2d" for "2nd" (second) is new for me - is that how it's written? It is also necessary to clarify that this was a unit of the Mexican Army.
    • There is an assumption of knowledge - that we all know what centralist and federalist means in this context. Well I'm afraid I don't (English education). Is a simple explanation possible?
    • Can the references to "Austin" be made to "Gen. Austin", just to avoid confusion with the city of that name?
  • Prelude: I didn't find the map especially helpful, mainly due to (a) no scale indicated and (b) the most important part being crammed into the bottom left corner, where the river is a thin un-named line. Any chance of an enhanced map?
  • Aftermath
    • Suggest "to transport the captured artillery"
    • The phrase "must be transferred", meaning "needed to be transferred" is surely Old English use of "must", and reads oddly.
    • The first Texian victory since the Battle of Goliad - which was just a month previously. Had there been reverses during that month? A little detail would give some depth to the statement.
    • I sense a need for a "however" at the start of the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph.

That's it. A simple, even slight, story, effectively told. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • I don't know if it's these small battles like Grass Fight, but the ambiguity the soldiers and leaders presented both before and after these skirmishes is a bit anticlimactic. Am I expecting something else? Like a clear reason they were fighting? And a clear result of killing each other? I get that they won the Gulf Coast, but a half hour's worth of shooting produced what, really? I can't figure out if the battle itself was morally muddy or it's the way the article portrays it. On this conflict, I guess this is comprehensive, and maybe it's the proximity of all these small FAs coming in together where something pretty insignificant makes little impact. Help me out, Karanacs. I've read the article several times and I'm about as morally muddy about this as the participants. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

  • Ira should be named Adjutant to define his relationship to Dimmitt.
  • "which meant that the troops stationed at San Antonio de Béxar could only receive reinforcements and supplies overland."
Perhaps "which meant that the troops stationed at San Antonio de Béxar could receive reinforcements and supplies only by land."? Otherwise, it might be mistaken that Béxar troops could do nothing but wait for reinforcements and supplies (i.e. no attacking, scouting, etc).

Background

  • Ummm... could we establish a time frame at the start?

Prelude

  • "All three of the advisors"
More concise: "The three advisors"?
  • "remained behind to defend the fort."
I think we can drop "behind".

Battle

  • "Because Westover's men instead approached from the east, they eluded the Mexican patrols."
Elude suggests to me that they are in the patrol's path but managed to escape their detection. Preferably, "By approaching from the east, Westover's men avoided the Mexican patrols." One more query, were these patrols part of the 21–27 men who stayed behind?
  • "They were released immediately as long as they promised not to fight again during the Texas Revolution."
Not even against one another, and specifically for this Revolution? How about "They were released immediately after they had promised not to fight the Texians again."?
  • "The Texians captured two 4-lb cannons"
Since the two cannons were mentioned earlier, should this not be "The Texians captured the two 4-lb cannons"?
  • "and began dismantling the embankments."
If the embankments were dismantled by the time they left, perhaps just "and dismantled the embankments."?
  • "The trees prevented the cavalry from approaching, so Rodriguez's men dismounted and attempted to attack from both sides."
Suggestion: "As the trees would be a danger to charging calvary, Rodriguez's men dismounted and attacked from both sides."
  • "The Texian rifles had a much longer range than the Mexican Brown Bess muskets (200 yards (180 m) compared to 70 yards (64 m)."
Besides the unclosed brackets, the sentence did not act on the longer range of the Texians. How about "The greater range of the Texian rifles, 200 yards (180 m) compared to the Mexican Brown Bess muskets' 70 yards (64 m), helped their wielders hold off the Mexicans."?
  • "Bracken was the only Texian injured. He was shot in the right hand and lost three fingers."
Suggestion: "Bracken was the only Texian injured, losing three fingers when he was shot in his right hand."

Aftermath

  • "Rodriguez declined the offer, and he and his remaining men retreated to Matamoros."
Suggestion: "Rodriguez declined the offer and retreated with his remaining men to Matamoros."
  • "The Texians now controlled the Gulf Coast, and so all communication between Cos and the Mexican interior must be transferred overland. This was a long journey, so Cos was unable to quickly request or receive reinforcements or supplies."
Cos could quickly make a request for reinforcements. It is the time to deliver the request and execute it that would not be prompt. Hence, "The Texians now controlled the Gulf Coast, so Cos could communicate with the Mexican interior only by land. Due to the long distance involved, his requests for reinforcements and supply could not be promptly acted on."
  • "However, the town remained divided, with many still supporting the centralist Mexican government."
Suggestion: "However, the town remained divided; many still supported the centralist Mexican government."
  • "warning them that the Mexican army would be returning and encouraging them to repudiate the rebellion."
Is this "warning them that the Mexican army would return and encouraging them to repudiate the rebellion." correct?

General

  • Just how far is Goliad from Lipantitlan/San Patricio? It seems incredible how Rodriguez can march back and forth, reaching either location in less than a day after receiving news. Perhaps the map could show the distance between the locations shown.

The prose is very good. So far, I have only those little thoughts above. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I really appreciate all of the reviewer comments, and I will definitely be working on the article to incorporate the suggestions I've been given. Unfortunately, real-life pressures mean I won't be able to complete this task in a timely manner, and it is best that the nomination be withdrawn for now. Karanacs (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article quite interesting, so if you'd like, I'd be happy to help deal with the issues raised until you find more time. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:50, 12 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [64].

Battle of Berlin edit

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've overhauled it during September in order to promote it as much as possible, give that it is of top-importance. It passed an A-class review on 22 September 2008. There might be some copyediting issues which i'm willing to resolve within this nomination. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak/Borderline Oppose, Hmm...looks fine to an extent, but where are the war crimes section? I notice that that over 2,000,000 German women were raped in the war, some Germans murdered soviets in cold blood and vice versa? I don't think it should go through until there is a section on it. Possibly could you split a subsection to the Aftermath? Also remove all the red links, I spotted two. Other than that I think it look acceptable for FA. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. The Battle of Berlin lasted from 16 April to 2 May, and most of the war crimes are described in the aftermath section (including footnote nb10), according to sources. The massive rapes were made after this battle (war) ended, therefore such information shouldn't be included in this article. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It seems good enough then. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 41 fixed and the web source was removed. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • You can put sourcing footnotes with the ref group stuff, if you use {{#tag:ref|(footnote information)<ref>sourcing note</ref>|group=(name of notes section)}}. Yes it's a bit awkward, but it gives you nice footnotes on your footnotes!
Otherwise, Julian caught everything I would have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind doing yourself one? As i'm not very sure how to do it... --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I totally missed this over the weekend. Do you have a particular footnote you'd like me to rework? If you want to see them in action, check out Stigand. (gotta increase page count somehow!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Structurally the article is confused at best. The section "Battle outside Berlin" actually describes two separate operations that were completed before the "Battle in Berlin" begun. There is some sort of denial that it was a Soviet strategic operation, if only for the scale and strategic importance of the Berlin region economically and politically never mind for propaganda purposes, the denial being initially in not mentioning the other constituent parts of the strategic offensive. I imagine this is because the article relies for 51% of its citations on Beevor who just doesn't mention this as his book is what is known as "dramatic" military history. There are also 16 citations from Ziemke who had been shown to be biased and considerably dated as a source, along with Ryan. Eight references are not specific to the subject of the article, and in some cases just too general to be considered relevant, with snipets drawn from them to reinforce the pov of the editor. There is no map, so a novice is probably forced to use a modern map, but few geographic locations to serve this are in the text.other then Krivosheev there is no other reference to either Soviet or Russian sources, and the only German sources date from the 60s.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. This article is about the Battle of Berlin (Berlin Offensive Operation) and consists of two parts, Battle in Berlin and Battle outside Berlin (containing other small battles like Halbe and Seelow Heights). What were the other constituent parts of the strategic operation? This article relies on the best english sources available, written by one of the most respectable historians on this topic (Beevor, Glantz, Williams etc). Which other better sources do you actually propose? If we'd have sources in english by Russian authors, i'd be more than happy to use them. Do you have proof that Ziemke and Ryan are biased, or maybe I should cite User:mrg3105 when removing them? Which certain "eight references" are not specific to the subject of the article? Actually there are quite many geographic locations, would like me to count them for you? In a FAC you are supposed to make suggestions for improvement, not to criticise the article in a biased way. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to think that there are 3 major sections to this article. The first is the initial assault on the Oder-Neisse lines and the encirclement of Berlin (the battle up to 24/25th). There are then two/three further battles. The fighting in Berlin, and the fighting outside Berlin, which can be further divided into fighting North and South of Berlin. Because the Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front was not directly involved the fighting to capture the centre of Berlin but in capturing the territory North of Berlin, and to the south of Berlin, the battle of Halbe, and counter attack at Potsdam both south were not directly part of either of those conflicts and after the successful initial phase of the battle when Soviet forces invested the city, it again makes sense to have the sections that we do. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave reasons to why I object to the promotion of the article to a higher quality grade.
Which part of my opposing statement did you consider biased?
That you even suggest the "battle" consisted of only two "parts" is a confirmation of the poor quality of the sources used. Above all it was a strategic envelopment of the Berlin region. This included many sub-operations. Have you looked at maps? Chris Bishop put out a military history atlas recently that has the operation on page 95. He clearly whows the 2-4 defensive lines that had to be breached before Red Army reached the Seelow Heights position, the one similar defensive line on the outskirts of northern Berlin, and two such lines to the south.
Its not about having many geographical references, but the right references. Bucholz was a major source of frustration for Zhukov and Konev, but it is not in the article! The need to cut the Wittenberg line was an operational objective to complete encirclement, but that is not there either. The 17th Army counter-attack at Konigswartha is not there. Spremberg and Torgau were 1st Ukranian Front strategic objectives, not just a nice place to meet the US Army for the later.
Battle outside Berlin begins with Wenck's counter-attack to reach Berlin at its virtual conclusion!
Glantz is only used for 4 citations related to statistics. Williams' book is about "Presents a story of the Allied struggle for survival told through the voices of the British, American and German soldiers who were there." The very objective you state in the article was to deny Western Allied the ability to participate in the encirclement and taking of Berlin, so how good a source can he be?
Actually we are not limited to English sources, so why not use Russian and German sources?
Yes, you can cite me for removing Ziemke and Ryan. They are the cause of what is described in The myth of the Eastern Front. The reason John Erickson wrote his Road to Stalingrad and Road to Berlin is to "update" and give some less biased perspective on the Ziemke's Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East with Magna Bauer, and Stalingrad to Berlin. The particular work you used is heavily illustrated with pictures and maps, but is in fact a reduction of US Army understanding of what happened from those Germans who managed to escape the encirclement. It is just flawed if only because of the association he had with the translation of Keitel's memoirs what were written during the war as a justification of the German war. Cornelius Ryan was a journalist. This is why his books were good to make movies from. His depiction of the Red Army was highly controversial and still is.
My suggestion for improvement is to go back to the "drawing board"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that Antony Beevor is also an extremely biased and unreliable source. He overplays German successes, Soviet deficiencies and Soviet warcrimes (which were, nonetheless, horrible). JonCatalán(Talk) 15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catalan I think neither you, I or any other person on wikipedia is in the position to categorize Antony Beevor as extremely biased and unreliable. Citing from Antony Beevor article: His best known works, the bestselling Stalingrad and Berlin - The Downfall 1945 recount the World War II battles between the Soviet Union and Germany. They have been praised for their vivid, compelling style, their treatment of the ordinary lives of combatants and civilians and the use of newly disclosed documents from Soviet archives.[1] [2] [3] Beevor's works have been used as sources and credited as such in many recent documentary films about WWII. You can also have a look at the awards he won with this book as well as others. So if you say Beevor is unreliable, you have to come with serious sources that contradict his statements in the book. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should be able to. I consider myself a well read amateur historian of the Second World War and have read quite a bit of different books on the Battle of Berlin (I also own three books on the Second World War by Beevor, and his book on the Spanish Civil War). Furthermore, I've had the treat of reading reviews of his books not published by himself (on his own books). You can praise Beevor with quotes from his own book, all you want, but it doesn't really speak for his reliability. He is a well known anti-Communist, and he is biased towards the Germans. He overstates German feats, and downgrades the Soviet role. It's something which is easier to catch when you compare him to David M. Glantz, who is in general a superior historian. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make clear that I am not opposing the article on grounds of the source, since I think that's unfair. Beevor's book is slightly biased, but it can be referenced accurately. It's mostly the tone he takes in the book, which can be extrapolated for a Wikipedia article without major impact. I am simply saying that there are better sources which exist. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beevor's books have received awards, but his style is "dramatic" which is not suitable for use in reference works. Despite being a former officer, Beevor really fails to understand the strategic, operational and tactical aspects of the "battles" he describes, at least in Stalingrad and Berlin. In fact I could see how he would get an award for Stalingrad at the time it was printed, so have only read the Berlin book borrowed from the library. My impression was confirmed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Catalan said, even if Beevor's style is a bit dramatic, we can use his book in order to reference accurately - just look at the end of the book to see how many Soviet archives and historians he cites. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"snipets [sic] drawn from them to reinforce the pov of the editor" - please assume good faith, mrg3105. Thank you. Biruitorul Talk 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it is currently a neutral article? Glantz gives Stettin-Rostock Offensive, Seelow-Berlin Offensive, Cottbus-Potsdam Offensive, Spremberg-Torgau Offensive and Brandenberg-Ratenow Offensive operations as being part of the strategy of encircling and talking Berlin, with the battle for Berlin being a separate operation. These included breaching of at least seven defensive lines and reduction of Bucholtz by forces from two Fronts. Instead only the Order-Niesse and Seelow heights are given as important parts of the whole, and the rest is reduced to seeming triviality. Surely for a Soviet operation it should present something of the Soviet point of view, planning and execution, and not predominantly German defensive measures and perspective? Just consider the title of Erickson's book the Road to Berlin. That city was the culmination of 4.5 years of fighting from the very gates of Moscow.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have a valid point, but the way you say something is important. Had you merely said the Soviet perspective should receive more weight, that would have been fine. It's when you accuse the author (a project coordinator and widely-respected editor) of using the encyclopedia to advance his own agenda or "pov" is when problems start to appear. Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify then. I expect authors/editors to have a point of view, because if they don't have one, they have not read and understood any sources on the subject. Its the presentation of their point of view, and how these are supported by sources that is the issue. Unlike some in Wikipedia, I actually know that a human being is incapable of being completely neutral. This, is why there is a principle of "consensus" where points of view of several editors supported by diverse sources are compared to arrive at a neutral article content. An article is the inanimate body of information incapable of presenting a point of view; behind every book, there is an author. The point is neutrality requires collaboration based in diversity--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak/Borderline Oppose - Going through it now, I'm finding some problems, especially in terms if prose. I'm still going through it, but examples include:

  • 'A Soviet war correspondent gave this account, in the zealous style of World War Two Russian journalism, of an important event that day—the capital was now within range of field artillery' - 'Zealous style'? Sounds rather WP:PEACOCK to me.
  • The 'Battle Outside Berlin' section could do with some expanding as well - it seems to skip over a lot of events. Now, admittedly I'm no expert, but I still think it needs to mention more. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'However, the Soviet forces led by Zhukov eventually broke through the defensive positions, having suffered about 30,000 casualties, while the Germans lost only 12,000 personnel' - I think the 'only' should be removed.
  • 'One powerful thrust by Gordov's 3rd Guards Army and Rybalko's 3rd and Lelyushenko's 4th guards tank armies' - Capitalize the lower-case 'guards' there. I'm also wary of 'powerful thrust' and wouldn't mind seeing it removed as Peacock again.
What do you think 'Battle outside Berlin' is missing? In my opinion, every battle, units and troops movement are covered according to sources. All your other issues have been resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose - There are serious licencing issues regarding the first few images, which have depreciated Russian licence tag Fasach Nua (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced copyright tags where I thought it was necessary. Have a look again. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because of the overwhelming forces that the Red Army deployed it makes sense in most of the article to mention Soviet Units sizes considerbaly larger than the opposing German force, Eg a German division defending against a army of Red Army. For the initial part of the battle and the Battle in Berlin, I think this is done reasonably well. But in the section the Battle outside Berlin, there are problems. I originally knocked up the text intending it to be expanded until the detail could be moved into a subsiduary article similar to that of Battle in Berlin. Because it is only an outline many of the sentences are not complete and carry a potential POV. For example take the sentence:

Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army made a fighting retreat back towards the Elbe and American lines after providing the IX Army survivors with surplus transport.

It could have equally have been written:

Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army was forced back away from Berlin along its communications lines by the 4th(?) Guards Tank Army where rather than capitulate to the Soviets many including Wenck crossed the Elbe and surrendered to the Americans. (I got the 4th from a sentence someone added the the Battle of Halbe article "Most of those that broke out were again surrounded west of Luckenwalde by the north-westerly thrust of the 4th Guards Tank Army, only 10km away from the German 12th Army troops, although unbeknown to them the Ninth United States Army had already halted at Elbe." but unfortunately they did did not source it.)

But at the time I wrote it I was using references that tend to look at things from a German perspective, and there was not a lot of detail on whether which Soviet units (at Army level) were involved and if the Soviets were intentionally just trying to drive the German XII army away from Berlin or were trying to envelop them before most could reach American lines. It is the same for the Battle North of Berlin. For example were the Soviets trying to reach Denmark before the British did and were they trying to envelop the German III Panzer Army and the German XXI Army or did they plan to drive them West towards the British? A sentence on the fate of Nazi Felix Steiner would be nice to have (so much for joining the Nazi Götterdämmerung in Berlin) as would a couple of sentences on the Soviets capture of the physical headquarters of OKH and OKW which were at Zossen, did most of the staff get away to new headquarters and continue to operate up until the end of the war, (if so where?), or did the staff organisation disintegrate with every man for himself or was it a bit of both? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: MoS breach in the linking of everyday words. "Siege", "committed suicide", et al. and repeated links "East Prussia" etc, (needs audit throughout on both counts). Unsure why "Berlin" needs to be linked separately (multiple times), since there are so many Berlin-related links already that are more valuable and will lead themselves to "Berlin". Why link "(army groups)" when you've already linked "Fronts" as a specific Soviet organisational army group? Why link "Russian language" right at the opening? It's an ugly sea of blue, so please take steps to minimise the dilution of your many valuable links. Tony (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a go at the long lead, removing low-value links, making other corrections, and adding a few inline queries. I don't think it's ready for nomination, let alone promotion. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [65].

Indestructible (Disturbed album) edit

Nominator(s): --The Guy complain edits


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel very little can be done to expand it, and it is at its best potential right now, which I feel is FA potential. It is perhaps not as lengthy as other FA articles, but it covers all significant points, its prose is perhaps professional or near professional, it is well-referenced, and neutral. In summary, I feel this article is ready to be a featured article and I welcome any constructive criticism. Please note that I'm also, in part, opening this nomination to see if there's anything that can be done to significantly improve the quality of the article. If there is not, then I feel this article should be passed. --The Guy complain edits 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
Yes, the titles of the links in the references shouldn't have anything in all capitals. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it says that the site "has its roots in" this site. (AKA they used to be one site, but it branched off). Right on the homepage of MusicSquare it has a "BECOME AN EDITOR" button. That's all I can find for right now. --The Guy complain edits 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any other word? --The Guy complain edits 01:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Could you clarify what you mean by link titles? As in the titles themselves in referencing? If so, I'm on it after I get a reply.
Thank you for your assessment, and please reply at a time convenient for you. :) --The Guy complain edits 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead is too short. Split to paragraphs, summarise full article, etc. Check out some recent album FAs for examples.
    • Done.
  • Without a critical analysis of those alternate covers, they fail WP:NFCC as they don't significantly enhance reader understanding
    • I don't understand at a glance, but I'll check the link.
  • http://www.tunelabmusic.com/2008/06/12/review-disturbed-indestructible/ - what makes Nick's views notable as an industry critic? Or, in other words, who is Nick?
    • Review deleted.
  • "After the record cycle of Ten Thousand Fists" - context needed, readers shouldn't be forced to click the link to find out what Ten Thousand Fists is.
    • Added context.
  • If the entire first paragraph of Recording and production is cited to ref 5, you can (except for the direct quotes, which need a source right after them) just use the one ref at the end of the paragraph.
    • Same in other paragraphs.
      • Done, but may still need to be done in a few other places. If so, please direct me.
  • "Draiman began to write lyrics for each song.[5] Draiman commented" - try and avoid repetition of names
    • ...and of other stuff, eg. "break" early in paragraph 1
      • Done
  • "This album took the longest to name" - I personally dislike the use of "this album", I'd just use the album title here
    • Done
  • "to complete production process,[5] and had defined the musical direction the band wanted to use with this record" - maybe "to be produced in full" or something like that, and I'd also cut the last three words
    • Re-worded, to something a little different from your suggestion.
  • In general, try and cut down on the amount of quoting used (in favour of your own words).
    • I will try and do that.
  • "on Disturbed's official MySpace" - if it's theirs, it's official... cut the redundant word
    • "on Disturbed's official website" - again (and this happens a few days... do a Ctrl+F for "official" and check each one)
      • Done.
  • "is actually an early song" - clarify that this means it was written early in their career
    • Clarified.
  • "sixty radio stations,[11] and was released" - I'd end the sentence, then start the next one with "It was released..."
    • Done.
  • "quickly rising to #1 on the charts" - preferably write it in full (number one), check this throughout (except on chart tables)
    • Done throughout article.
  • fix these dablinks
    • Links piped.
  • The short paragraphs in the Musical and lyrical themes section don't look particularly professional... merge, expand, whatever.
    • Merged into two paragraphs.
  • "says 411mania writer Dan Marsicano" - check MOS:ITALICS; it's a website so it shouldn't have them, I believe
    • Same for allmusic, about.com, etc. - check the lot
      • Done throughout.
  • Might want to mention the album's score on Metacritic (57%..... not too great.... from what I heard of it I'd agree, though...!)
    • Mentioned the score at the heading of the criticism section. "The album did, however receive criticism. It received a score of 57% on Metacritic, and..."
  • ""The band uses this opportunity to their advantage, utilizing a more aggressive and gloomier sound than their previous album, while sticking with the melodic sound that has helped to pave their way to success."" - says who, in what context???
    • Dan Marsicano says so :). Fixed.
  • "Singer David Draiman says Indestructible is Disturbed's darkest record yet — it was partly inspired by the band's experiences performing for troops overseas — and he does his best to back up the drama" - stuff like this could be used in the production/themes sections
    • Unfortunately, due to two archived consensuses, the Rolling Stone review has been determined to not pass WP:RS.

Giggy (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've satisfied you, have I? If there's anything else, do tell! --The Guy complain edits 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are getting at with the alternate covers now. Ask yourself, what is the significance of the regular album cover? And there you have your significance -- All three are in retailers, save for the limited edition, which is out of print. Although, the "Promotion" section goes into detail describing the Limited Edition package, so there is some significance there, and it mentions the Special Edition version briefly. The special edition is also in retailers, though, so I believe it to have the same significance as the others. --The Guy complain edits 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • The additional album covers seem unnecessary (Remember our minimum use policy). They are largely identical to the album cover, and as such don't convey any further information to the reader. Further, record labels often release many "special editions" of albums; there's no need to include each of their album covers. indopug (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No mention of the album sales figures and chart performance anywhere in the body of the article. Note that per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise everything already present in the body in the article. So a paragraph/section regarding the sales and charting (in prose form) needs to be added.
    • I will add sales figures and chart performance to the Reception section.
  • What is "Mediabase's Active Rock chart"? Is it even a reliable source to warrant mention in a Wikipedia article let alone be mentioned in the lead?
    • I didn't mean to include the word "Mediabase's." I will remove that word. The Active Rock chart is a chart where rock songs chart, and the single Inside the Fire remained at #1 for fourteen consecutive weeks. That's quite notable.
  • A sound sample or two (at low quality and < 10% of the song's full length) wouldn't be out of place. They provide a clear understanding of the music that words alone cannot.
    • I don't know anything about uploading song samples, and I also do not understand how that would benefit the article. Mind a bit of clarification in that matter?
  • Who is credited with writing all those songs? See this.
    • Writing the music, or the lyrics? I'm sure you mean every little detail, music, lyrics, et cetera, so I will add them.
  • What is a "Record cycle"?
    • A "record cycle" is the cycle of creating a record, releasing it, and then touring in promotion of it. That choice of words came from the "Making of Indestructible" DVD and I will change/clarify it.
  • The Promotion section seems a tad too detailed for my liking. There are far too many detailed dates and I'm not sure if every small thing they did to promote the album needs to be included (such as posting a song on their MySpace). This is supposed to be a scholarly article that is geared towards the general reader, so too much detail is unnecessary.
    • I think the dates would be necessary, but believe me when I say it could go much more detailed. I did give a brief summary in comparison to every promotion event that happened. I will remove information about the video trailer, and the artwork and track listing being revealed, though.

indopug (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit all of these as soon as I save this page. --The Guy complain edits 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick-fail—1a. This needs more work than can be done in the limited time available on this list. Please remove it and resubmit after a couple of weeks.
  • Third sentence: "It was recorded in Chicago, Illinois, at Groovemaster Studios, and the band feels it is their most textural, and darkest work to date." Erck. two ", and"s. The band feels, do they? Would rather not such a POV wording right at the top—why not just state it here, and cite it further down in the main text. It will have to be cited somewhere, anyway.
    • Fixed the two "ands" and eliminated the POV sentence.
  • "The album features two songs that were previously written by Disturbed, but never mixed into an album, titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide"." This sentence structure is very poor, isn't it.
    • It was poor, I tried to fix and expand it.
  • It "received" sales? "Sales" x 2.
    • "it shipped over 253,000 units in its opening week" Changed wording.
  • Probably "remains" allows you to remove "consecutive", yes?
    • Indeed it does, and it would be vice-versa as well.
  • "took a break for about a month"—hate the up-front fuzziness.
    • Fixed it with the vague, yet more certain, "took a break."
  • Use ellipsis dots to save our readers from the appalling expression in the quote: "since the beginning, the start of the this band"—"since the ... start of the this band. I'd use just three periods, not that spaced-out symbol. And to continue the quote: "It's always been riffs; something musically that I'll come up with." Um ... what does it mean?
    • I fixed the quote, and attempted to explain the whole "riffs" and "something musically" thing more in-depth, although I do not feel satisfied with the final product of the clarification, so I will attempt it again.

Tony (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else is wrong with it, as you stated more is wrong with it than can be fixed in the short time, so surely you have other issues? Please state them, all of them. --The Guy complain edits 01:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've provided ample illustration of why the nomination was premature. It is unfair to other nominators and strains our limited resources for reviewing to suck in free advice such as you're attempting to. I don't copy-edit articles, and reviewers are under no obligation to do so. We judge, assess, critique—and you might consider not trying to game the system here. Please withdraw the nomination and work on it in a timeframe of your own choice. Tony (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't catch your meaning, but it seems like you're trying to accuse me of something. Please, assume good faith, I was not trying to do anything wrong, nor am I, I am just wondering why you would think it fails, because you are the only editor who has blatantly said that thus far. (Although I'm sure others think it.) I just don't follow the ample illustration, but perhaps I don't understand the nomination process, then. I was under the impression users submit the articles here for constructive criticism, and if there is nothing to criticize, the article is elected. That's in simple terms, of course. I also do not understand your statement about "we do not copy-edit articles." Please explain? Do you mean you do not take advice and edit accordingly here? If so, I might just be mistaken about the nomination process. The nom page says this, "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." That is my intention with this nom -- To generate and resolve critical comments. That's how I interpret it, anyways. --The Guy complain edits 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "A self-produced effort, Indestructible is the first Disturbed album that did not feature Johnny K as producer." So what is the significance of this line? Why mention Johnny K?
    • Because he produced the first three Disturbed records. This is significant, (in my opinion) because he gave Disturbed two consecutive number-one albums, and he also produced their first album, which is their top-selling record. Now I think its significant to mention him for two reasons. One; this is Disturbed's first time without a producer, and they've only had one previous producer, who has been with them for their previous albums. To me that's almost as significant as Steve Kmak's departure for Ten Thousand Fists, Disturbed's previous album. Two; one of the reviews sourced here say that the lack of Johnny K's guidance on the album, in short, made Disturbed a little too confident of themselves, and I've seen several other reviews (non-professional) state this as well. Also, I might add, this is Disturbed's first album without him, but it still was another straight number-one debut, and it went gold, still.
      • Yep. I was thinking also that he produced some of the band's previous albums. However, reading that phrase alone, non-Disturbed fan will likely to ask why Johnny has to be in the lead? Maybe a little info to add? At least for clarity. --Efe (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried my best to clarify that in the lead, now, "A self-produced effort, Indestructible is the first Disturbed album that did not feature Johnny K, the producer of Disturbed's previous three albums, The Sickness, Believe, and Ten Thousand Fists." Is that clarified to satisfaction? --The Guy complain edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think its fine now but I suggest to put the period after "Disturbed's previous three albums". Adding those albums would be too much. --Efe (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree; someone here stated that would be vague. (not on the same subject, but similar.) Allow me to explain. As you said, some non-Disturbed fans might just read this. After reading that, they might go "What are the first three albums?" See my point? They should not have to search for what the first three albums were, and that's my intention there. --The Guy complain edits 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The main concern is to back up that Johnny stuff why he has to be in the lead. To add those albums is too much for a lead and since its their fourth album, the readers will no longer want to know what are those three albums since all previous albums were produced by Johnny. If you want to add them, maybe somewhere below. --Efe (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album features two songs that were written by Disturbed before their first album, The Sickness, but were never previously featured on an album. Those songs are titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide"." I think it would be better to just write these lines below? I see no significance of it in the lead.
    • In the "Making of Indestructible" DVD, they made an entire chapter devoted to those two songs, so I figured they'd be significant enough to add. Possible bad judgment on my part, but you're the first one to make a comment about it, so maybe not. I also figure, at least "Perfect Insanity" is good enough for a spot in the lead section, for a couple of reasons. One; this is an official single, two; this song originally appeared in 2002, on the band's home DVD, M.O.L. as a song they recorded back in 1998, to help them get signed to a label. I could note that in the article, if that's what it takes for inclusion in the lead. --The Guy complain edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and remained in the top ten for five weeks" I think this is too much for a lead?
    • I agree. Long story short, I wanted to avoid an edit war so I allowed it to stay. I'll remove it now.
  • Uhm, the lead isn't complete. I can see no info about the "Musical and lyrical themes".
    • Added some things about the themes of the album, mainly just lyrical themes, and one statement about musical themes otherwise. "The album features significantly darker themes than any of Disturbed's previous work. Many of the lyrical themes are about relationships that didn't work out, about a car accident vocalist David Draiman was in, and even one about suicide. To match the aggressive attitude of said themes, Draiman told the other band members to create darker, more textural music than they have before. On the other hand, the title track, "Indestructible", is a song meant to encourage troops fighting in wars, to make them feel strong." --The Guy complain edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Efe (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image Image:Johntrackinginsidethefire.PNG fails under WP:NFCC criterion number 8. --Efe (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. I thought it might be significant because it illustrated that John did indeed come back to the studio, which is not in words on the article. Is that a significant enough purpose; to illustrate a point which is not mentioned in the section? Also, the image is a free screenshot. The video is posted in the media section of their website, so I'm assuming it was free to use. Could be wrong. --The Guy complain edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is non-free, so it must be fair use. --Efe (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see, but what about the significance I stated? --The Guy complain edits 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think it fails. Its just a mere image of John Mayer. Who knows if, in that picture, he's in the studio? That image alone do not add/increase understanding. --Efe (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well then we shall find one that does not. Muwahahahahhahahah! No, all evil laughing aside, I'll remove the image, it's no trouble! :) Also, I'm about to expand the Reception section a tad bit, adding IGN writer Jim Kaz's criticism of the guitar solos featured on this album; I feel that's significant. --The Guy complain edits 03:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make due adjustments to everything. --The Guy complain edits 20:34, 6 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [66].

Kaunas Fortress edit

Nominator(s): M.K. (talk)


Kaunas Fortress is already a good article, it also got an A-class rating from military department. Article is topical, as it covers the history of the largest and best preserved originally Russian Empire's fortress. Article is written using newest academic research on the subject, richly illustrated with pictures, both contemporary and present, article is stable and comprehensive. I think article meets all FA criteria. M.K. (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator, M.K. (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the principle contributor and nominator, your support is assumed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writing needs ironing out throughout: here are examples of why, just from the top.

  • The link to redoubt is good, but it's a very unusual term and our readers shouldn't have to divert, as I did, to learn the basic meaning; could you gloss it in a brief phrase? Are we meant to know about some grading hierarchy for fortress? I'm mysified.
    • Done. Removed redoubt. Re "first-class", it's used by at least two of our sources, but I can't find any more info on the grading system; could take it out. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... obsolete; after [year], it was used only for c p and as a g." (Two different ideas are currently blurred into the one sentence.)
  • The "Some ..." sentence: there are two "ands" in it, so insert a comma after the first one.
  • Infobox: what does "from 19th century end" mean? And why just "1915"?
    • Done. Changed to 1882 - present; construction started then, still being used by LT army. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comma after "Vilnius" (the use of commas throughout clearly needs an audit).
    • Done. Hmm, we disagree, but if you feel strongly, will remove it. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague and a bit wordy: "During the course of the city's history"—why not give us a century range?
  • Why is the growth of the city suddenly relevant, and stuck at the end of the para? Is it population or economic or what? TONY

(talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. Added more detail - regional trading center, railway, canal, etc.; goes to general significance of the city. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked another contributor to fix the style. M.K. (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I was unable to check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Regarding dead links - I will investigate them. M.K. (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed dead links, last two works now. M.K. (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Censorship? Really? Learn a proper ethical way of conduct. M.K. (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done regarding ndashes.M.K. (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify. Could you clarify that you want by saying Also a lot of your websites have dates that the content was put in at the bottom, but you did not put it in the ref? M.K. (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)P.S. If you had in mind "|date=" I added it now.[reply]
Everything here seems to be fine now. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify. I failed to understand what you suggesting by why is pp used for single dates, please elaborate. M.K. (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the footnotes section you used p. for single pages and pp. for multiple pages, but in the general book section, you used pp. for single pages. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general section presented a total number of pages available in specific books. Should we use just a p. then speaking and about total pages in books? M.K. (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - I support this page now pending what Sandy may feel about the position of the table (i.e. if it is acceptable under accessibility. If not, it can be moved to the bottom of the section, yes?). Neutral pending work on table and images Oppose There are multiple problems with the positions of images and sandwiching of text. The chart "Fortress construction" sticks out and takes away from the article. There are many images, but I can't tell which ones are vital and which ones are not. Perhaps limit it to one per section for the whole article? I'm sorry. Images and formatting are a big thing for me and it seems cluttered with them at this moment. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps table should have hide/un-hide option in order to not stick out? M.K. (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hide function causes even greater problems in the long run. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I remove the table ? M.K. (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you turn the dates into a simple set of sentences reading ___, ____, and ____ were created ___ year? That table seems to be the main formatting problem. If it is fixed I will give the article another look over. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do my best, hope some other contributors will help me too. M.K. (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose convertion into prose as prose will be awkward, listy, hard to read, and much less informative. I am also opposed imposing your own personal formatting preferences. I understand desire to reduce image clutter, but I do not understand opposition to the table: it is the shortest, easiest, and most informative way to present this kind of information. Renata (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renata, text is not supposed to be "sandwiched" between two images, which includes and image and a table. Sometime its allowable, however, with all of the images, this instance causes a major problem that needs to be addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on table issues now, M.K. (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, please investigate new table implemented in the main space, M.K. (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check—the lead doesn't fill me with confidence, and after all this time ...

  • "After World War I, the fortress' military importance declined as advances in weaponry rendered it increasingly obsolete. It was used by various civil institutions and as a garrison." The fortress' – is this the correct possessive form? "was used"—orient me as to the chronology of this statement. "It was subsequently"? Until when?
  • "eleventh", then in "Background" we see "13th"; where's your boundary. Please see MOSNUM.
  • "During World War II, parts of the fortress complex were used by the governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for detention, interrogation, and execution. About 50,000 people were executed there, including 15,800 victims of the Holocaust." What, both governments at the same time? Or at different times? I'm totally confused. And, just checking, you do mean that each government perpetrated each of the three crimes? Why the repetition (execution/executed)? "... and the Soviet Union for detention, and interrogation, and about 50,000 people were executed there, including 15,800 victims of the Holocaust."

Further down, at random:

  • " The Augustow Canal, completed in 1832, linked the Nemunas to the Black Sea, and a rail line linking Saint Petersburg, Warsaw, and Germany via Kaunas was completed in 1861; it was part of a limited network of western Russian railways." I think you need "in 1861 as part of". It's a long sentence, but removes the problem of "it".
  • Clunky sentence: "In order to control the region, attackers would need to first neutralize Kaunas." Remove "In order". "would first need to".
  • "After several delays, on July 7, 1879 Tsar Alexander II issued an edict ordering its construction." What, several delays on July 7? Bad-hair day, that one. Put it after "edict", surely.
  • Clunky: "They were symmetrical, usually having five faces, with positions for infantry and artillery." What about "They were symmetrical and usually of five faces, with positions for infantry and artillery."
  • Again, it's the join between the ideas in a sentence that is awkward: "Therefore, the first seven forts were very similar; they differed only in the layout of their interiors, their integration into the surrounding relief, and in some construction details." --> "... very similar, differing only in ...". The ideas need to be glued together here (normally, it's the reverse problem in prose).

I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. The article needs a solid and careful copy-edit by someone who is well positioned to make it a smooth, enjoyable read. It's a good topic and it's a promising article, but I think it deserves a bit of air and resubmission after a few weeks. It will probably go through more quickly on second ride. Tony (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you have other suggestions or areas to improve, please write them down now, in order to increase work efficiency. M.K. (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I agree a copyedit would help, but it may have also been benificial to file an A-class review for the article before moving it to FAC since the A-class people tend to be harder toned on matter such as copyeditting. I would oppose on such grounds, but as an editor who relies on others for copyeditting help I can not find it in myself to side entirely with the oppostion. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, this article is already an A class one. M.K. (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article seems to be well-structured and comprehensive, but it does not yet meet all of the FA criteria.

Prose - I agree that the article could use a copyedit. While reading I saw a few infelicities. For example:

  • Since Lithuania was heavily wooded and its lands were often impassable, its interior was most approachable along its rivers when frozen and during the short dry harvest season in late summer.[7] In response to this vulnerability, defensive structures, including a brick castle in Kaunas, were in place at various points on the Nemunas River by the 14th century. - This is awkward, particularly "in response to" and "were in place".
  • In 1915 only one fort, the Ninth, was in conformance with the new technological criteria, while the Tenth Fort was only partially built. - "was in conformance" should be "conformed with"
  • Researchers have identified factors contributing to the relatively rapid fall of the fortress - empty statement - describe the factors somehow

Sources:

  • This source should not be used - it is a class project written by graduate students.
  • I am unsure why this source is reliable - could you explain?
    • Done. official portal of city Kaunas. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the author of this publication? What is its publisher? I am unconvinced of its reliability.
    • Done. As I understand it is a render of criteria, however not to distract attention I removed this sources from the article. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page says "The material from: V.Orlov „Kauno tvirtovės istorija 1882 – 1915“. Kaunas, 2007." - Why not just use the original book, then? It is cited in the bibliography, so I assume you have access to it.
    • Done. Because web page is in English (we have only few of them about fortress) therefore people will have ability to investigate at least part of article's material more freely. And yes I have the original book too. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a primary source for the project - do you not have a secondary source describing the project? This one could be viewed as self-promotional.
    • Comment. Written in neutral language and source presents basic info, hardly it can be called self-promotional piece. However will look for other one if you insist. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

  • Image:Gamma-gerät.jpg - This image has a tag claiming it is in the PD because the copyright has expired since the author has died and 70 years have passed, however the author is not listed.

While I am opposing at this time, I hope to be able to support once these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see why my colleagues above are opposing on the basis of 1a. I have to reinforce my own previous illustrations of problems in the writing with a spot-check:
    • "On August 14, over 1,000 defending troops were killed,[16] but the Germans were unable to completely overcome the fortress' defenses. However, on the next day, August 15, Gamma-Gerät shells destroyed the First Fort ...". The second date is unnecessary if you say "on the next day". One or the other. "fortress's", please. I see fort in a caption, yet "Fort" elsewhere.
  • More redundancy: "its defenders sustained heavy casualty rates, ranging from 50% to 75%". Why not just "its defenders sustained heavy casualty rates of 50% to 75%".

These are just random samples. Doesn't augur well. Tony (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 8 October 2008 [69].

Metroid (series) edit

Nominator(s): Judgesurreal777 (talk)
previous FAC (20:27, 31 March 2008)

This article is much better, having been FA'd once to great improvement and then worked on in peer review. All issues should be addressed now, so lets' do this again! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy (ec)

  • I'm thinking the first two sentences could be merged quite nicely into one.
  • I barely play this series, but... is there a logo for the series as a whole? Compare this article's opening image with that on Age of Empires, a logo based on the whole series (so to speak), as opposed to this one which seems to just be taken from one game
  • "It is also one of Nintendo's best selling franchises with 14 million games sold" - cut the also
  • "secondary characters such as Mother Brain and Ridley" - any articles/lists to link to for these guys?
  • "which allows Samus to curl into a ball and roll into tight places and plant bombs" - servers down so I can't do it myself.... remove the first and and replace with a comma, or something like that
  • "Further, Metroid had five different endings..." - remove the further
  • "made by the ancient Chozo who specifically designed it for her" --> "specifically designed for her by the ancient Chozo" (relevant article/list?)
  • "because he died in order to save Samus in a previous mission" - Samus --> her
  • Just noticed ref 7 needs a publisher
  • If you're going to use the Samus image you'll need more discussion of her appearance alongside it
  • "similar to Samus's" - I don't think you're meant to use the second s (after the apostrophe)

More to come... tomorrow, hopefully. Giggy (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes for both of you - I have fixed the broken or strange reference issues, and in the process found some good references. Also, there are no other articles on the world of metroid except for Samus Aran, because they don't have enough notability on their own. Also, there is no official series logo, other than the words "Metroid" and the screw attack symbol which are used very differently with every game release. And finally, the metadrake fan site you referenced shows the actual Metroid comic book images, so it is reliable because the text references what happens in the comic, and I link right to it. Finally, I will add more on Samus to the article in her section. Thanks for your reviews! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added about two more sentences on Samus' in universe background, as the actual real world creation is already put in the article, so both aspects are now covered. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Surprised there's still this much to do. Here are random examples just from the top.

  • MoS breach: "It is noted". Just say it, as long as you cite this assertion in the main text somewhere.
  • MoS breach: "currently" (Have you read MoS?). "as of 2008", not linked, please.
  • "best selling"—what's missing? And do we need "selling" and "sold" in the same line?
  • "longtime", I think, shouldn't be a single word. I'd just remove it.
  • Rather long sentence, and the last two words appear stuck out at the end. "Metroid chronicles the missions of bounty hunter Samus Aran to protect the galaxy from the depredations of the Space Pirates and their attempts to harness the power of fictional organisms such as the eponymous Metroids against civilization." Tony (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Tony I have, but it's really long and constantly changing. I fixed your corrections, and will scan the text today from top to bottom because I still think it's ready. If it's still got tons of work, then Sandy can remove it, as I am not the best at copyediting and usually have help on these things. But I will do my best :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images (all non-free) check out ok; I'd like to see appropriate copyright ownership on the Samus and original Metroid pictures to round them out, but that's not going to fail their use here. --MASEM 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This article is good, but it has some issues, chief among them being that it wanders into unnecessary detail: The protagonists/antagonists section feels like someone adapted a List of Metroid series enemies or something and then plopped it in. Samus and the important antagonists can be mentioned in the story.
    • Some major grammar issues, such as "Lion Rock Productions reacquired the rights a few years later, and Lion Rock Productions was to produce and release before 2006, but has been either canceled or remains in development hell."
    • If the logo used at the beginning of the article isn't indicative of any sort of style or logoface for the series, why not just axe it and stick Samus right up at the top of the article?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes David, and again, I will very shortly run through this with a fine tooth comb to catch anything I didn't catch already, but I do think it's ready. If then people still see anything other than a minor issue to two, Sandy should remove for the time being. Thanks in advance for the patience. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review, I think I'm going to withdraw this. Thanks for the comments recieved, I have fixed the things mentioned so the article has improved, but I think there still is probably grammar issues and trimming to do, so I hope someone someday gets this to FA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [70].

Mark Speight edit

Nominator(s): -- how do you turn this on


I have been working on this article for a while, and following a short peer review, I now believe it meets all the FA criteria. One thing that does bother me about this article though, that I can't really fix, is there's no free picture of Mark available. It would certainly improve the article. If anyone knows where a free pic of him could be obtained, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent article. Thanks for any comments. -- how do you turn this on 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is the only Flickr image [71], perhaps you could ask the uploader to allow its use on here? Gran2 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but note they have been asked already (see the bottom comment). I guess asking again couldn't hurt, if they realize it could vastly improve a (potential) FA, and (possibly) appear on the main page. I don't, however, have a flickr account, and am unfamiliar with how it works. -- how do you turn this on 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that twice, I remembered I asked him a few days after Mark died. I doubt it'd do much good if I asked again, so perhaps you could contact someone with more image related experiance? I don't know anyone off hand, so let's just wait and see if anyone else could come up with some suggestions. The rest of the article looks pretty good. Gran2 17:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have asked the owner again here. Let's see what he says. -- how do you turn this on 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has said no. Oh well, it was worth a try. -- how do you turn this on 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Death and legacy" section needs to be broken up into multiple paragraphs. Long blocks of text hurt my eyes. I'll try to give a bit more thorough review than at the PR, and add info where necessary. Cheers. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- how do you turn this on 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images - There are excessive non free images, one should be removed (WP:NFCC#3). What efforts were made to obtain freely licenced pictures? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. -- how do you turn this on 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 2 is lacking a publisher
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a publisher. -- how do you turn this on 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have more references for the fact that the newsround broadcast made some children upset? It is briefly mentioned in the reference you have, but a BBC reference would clarify the situation at their end in some depth. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added another reference, and expanded a bit. -- how do you turn this on 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments—I can't comment on the prose, but it seems as if you have solved all the issues raised currently. This is quite an interesting article, and I admit that I didn't know who Mark Speight was before reading this—a sad story. In any case, I believe that this meets the FA class requirements, especially since the image issue seems to be largely resolved and everything to do with the references has been fixed, as well. Good luck! JonCatalán(Talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undistinguished prose: Oppose. Tony (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's saveable, but needs attention from a new collaborator. Here are examples of what I mean, at random.[reply]

  • "art related"—strange and coy epithet. And there's something missing, anyway.
  • We have "16" and then "fourteen". Where's your boundary? Please see MOSNUM.
  • Clunky and over-long sentence: "Speight was a presenter on See It Saw It, where he met his future fiancée Natasha Collins, and took part in live events, such as Rolf on Art and his own Speight of the Art workshops for children." The wife thing doesn't quite fit in unless you break after it.
  • "He attended"—what, his father?
  • Second sentence in "Career": "He" to avoid repeating the surname. Tony (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the above points. -- how do you turn this on 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they were merely examples from the top. What about the rest? I took a random look-see: "He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of murder and of supplying class A drugs,[14] but he was released on bail until the first week of February." Remove second "he"; the "but" is not logical. I see the Jbmurray was scolded for helping. Tony (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I read the whole thing last night. A well-written biography from what I can see. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this could have been an over the top tribute piece, but it appears very factual, neutral and is engagingly written. No disambiguation problems etc.--Tufacave (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm leaning support, but this is one of the few cases that I actually agree with Tony about the prose. My main beef is with the sentences which continually start with "He.... He...." Mix it up! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a few issues for me...

  • "He gained an art degree, and heard of auditions..." - this flows badly for me.
Fixed I think. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speight was a presenter.." - was also a presenter as he did it simultaneously SMart didn't he?
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What made Rolf on Art any more a "live event" than any of the other shows he recorded?
SMart, See It Saw It, and basically everything else were pre-recorded. Rolf on Art took place in real time. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childline should be ChildLine.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was not ultimately charged" - "was ultimately not charged"?
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allegedly from the stress of Speight's" - I don't think you can die from stress - physiologically it was alleged she had suffered a stroke brought on by the stress of the loss.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He said he did "very badly" at school due to bullying" - "...at school as he was a victim of bullying..." makes it unambiguous.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Bilston art school the official name of the place? Should it be Art School? Or was it simply an art school in Bilston?
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link Bilston twice isn such quick succession.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its first edition" - certainly a personal opinion but since this is Brit Eng, we very very rarely refer to the first episode of a series as the "first edition".
What is it referred to as then? Episode is for a sequencial series, such as a soap. A series that doesn't have any continuity doesn't have episodes. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect Burridge's quote should be specifically cited.
It is, at the end. It would seem to me to be unnecessary to have it twice. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Josie D'Arby then Kirsten O'Brien in 1999." - both in 1999? That's how it reads, so just checking..
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's ITV?
A British television network. Linked. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should make a clearer distinction between the children and adult shows he was involved in - right now you start with working with Mallett, followed by History Busters (which I'm surprised is redlinked) and then onto See It Saw It. It's a bit muddled and for non-UK-TV readers is confusing.
Well, I have to disagree. I've ordered them from less important to more important. I ended with See It Saw It so I could move on to Collins without the subject changing dramatically. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He began dating her after she was involved in a car accident..." - reads strangely again. Chronologically I suspect you're spot on but the way it's written implies a causal relationship between her car accident and them dating. Is that so?
I've tried to reword it. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speight also had a regular slot on This Morning, The Heaven and Earth Show,[1] The Big Breakfast[4] and was a contestant in ITV's Celebrity Wrestling.[8]" is oddly positioned, after the brief description about he and Collins. I'd move it to the rear end of the discussion over the other shows he was in. It's probably the "also..." bit I didn't like.
Fixed, I think. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " involving going to Borneo in March 2008 and training" - ...ing ...ing ...ing... reads poorly.
Only one now. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "originally a one-off one year project that lasted eight years" - confused.
How so? -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he usually became involved in" - too many words for something so simple - and then you provide a single example of his "usual involvement".
Removed "usually". -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "questioned by police, since he was the" - no comma and replace since with as.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some chronological disorder in the Arrest section, Jan, Feb, Jan, Mar, Feb, Apr....
It only mentions February the first time because that's when he was bailed till. I fixed the other instance. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two police officers also spoke to him, as he appeared "vacant", but he refused their help." - what were the circumstances under which the police decided to talk to him?
I don't know why they did, but they did. Added some other adjectives which hopefully clarifies. I think they were concerned about him. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link Wood Green tube but not Queen's Park. Why?
No reason. Linked. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was reported missing the following day by family and friends..." really? Not by one person?
Yes, really, see the source. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and legacy section has two very short paras - merge or expand.
Done. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resumed inquest " - you didn't say the inquest had been adjourned..
Added. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says two suicide notes, but "suicide notes had been found in his left pocket, and one addressed to his parents in his diary at his home" implies more than two..
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it made children watching it cry" upset children viewers?
Yes. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 2008" vs "In May, 2008" - comma consistency please.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the above issues, except where I have noted otherwise. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - it seems reasonable. Could you any more additional references? Such as books or televised broadcastings? The BBC site is particularly useful for linking it to videos. Other than this I can it is acceptable. You've got my vote. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for books on him, but nothing seems to have been written about him. I will of course look for broadcasts of him. Are there any particular that you think I should look for? -- how do you turn this on 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that offers what the article already has stated or more. It's more relevant that way. Such as his appearances on television shows. Interviews. And more importantly his death. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to a photo gallery. -- how do you turn this on 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find any videos? Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are various YouTube videos showing the report of his death (the Newsround one is there). I'm not sure how suitable YouTube would be though. -- how do you turn this on 11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be acceptable. For example if it does say BBC or similar in the video then it should be appropriate to use in an article. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the link I added OK? -- how do you turn this on 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems not. -- how do you turn this on 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but remove Jay Burridge dead-link or, even better, create the article. Dalejenkins | 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created a very tiny unreferenced stub... -- how do you turn this on 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think a few other knowledgeable editors should go over it. The word 'councellor' doesn't inspire confidence; I presume it should be 'counsellor', but equally 'councillor' might be intended. --79.75.111.140 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Numerous prose issues. I started to do some copy-editing, which can give an indication of the kind of work necessary, but was asked to stop. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked you to stop. I asked you to stop adding hidden comments that I won't see, and instead bring them here like everyone else has where I will see. -- how do you turn this on 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And would it be too much to ask what the issues are now? Or am I supposed to be able to read minds? I fixed all the issues you "raised" on the article itself. If you'd list your issues here (where I'll see them) I'd be extremely grateful. -- how do you turn this on 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those were sample edits. Reviewers are not required to list every single problem with an article, merely to indicate actionable issues with reference to WP:WIAFA. The issue is prose, as per criterion 1a. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't, but if they're going to claim there's an issue, it's helpful to actually bring it up. How do you suppose I go fixing a problem I know nothing about? -- how do you turn this on 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've brought up the issues: prose, plagiarism, MOS. I don't have to point to every instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I fixed them all to the best of my ability. Please help me with this, instead of trying to make enemies. -- how do you turn this on 13:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also plagiarism. The line "They planned a fancy dress wedding, and Collins joked with friends that Speight wanted the venue filled with monkeys, his favourite animal." is taken more or less word for word (and was even more so before I raised a query) from the Guardian obituary. That's simply the first source I checked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that's the one it's cited to, no surprise there. Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not fixed. You've simply added new problems. Your edit adds a brand-new grammatical mistake, and distorts the meaning of the source. I'm changing now to a strong oppose. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you didn't bother to fix this, I went ahead. But I think all the quotations should be checked, so I'm not withdrawing the issue of potential plagiarism and/or distortion. The two that I looked at (this one, and one from the Telegraph regarding the Newsround controversy) were either plagiarized or distorted. According to the accessdates, the vast majority of the references were last looked at long before you even arrived at Wikipedia. You should have checked them before taking this to FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As you didn't bother to fix this" Why are you being so aggressive and nasty about this? Have I irritated you enough? I checked all the references; I wasn't aware it was a rule they needed updating. As you've finally given me an actual issue with the article, instead of vague unhelpful comments and assumptions of bad faith, I can get on with improving Wikipedia. -- how do you turn this on 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing to strong oppose because I made a grammatical error? Good grief. And you can't even have the decency to tell me how to fix it. We aren't all brilliant article writers. -- how do you turn this on 13:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not changing to strong oppose because of a grammatical error. The distortion of the source is much more serious. More importantly, is the fact that rather than rework the article as a whole, you simply want to look for quick fixes based on the sample instances I provide. This is what wastes reviewer time. This is the last comment I'm making on this FAC until you have gone through (or, probably better, persuaded others to help you go through) the article thoroughly, in which case you should feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors have already gone through it. Most were gracious enough to tell me what to fix. Others like yourself weren't. If there are issues, please bring them up, and stop having me play guessing games with you. If this wastes your time, don't comment in the first place. I'm trying to improve an article here. You're just standing on the side criticising it, and at the same time, refusing to either fix it yourself, or give me examples of what's wrong. I've already been through the article thoroughly - I've edited nearly 200 times. -- how do you turn this on 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. You changed the one example I gave, but didn't fix the general problem. Sometimes you give us the newspaper title as the publisher (inaccurate, with the case of the Guardian, who last I remember were published by the Scott Trust), sometimes not. Again, the two instances above were samples. You need to go through the entire article on this and on the other issues I've raised. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth it? Surely all the other mistakes I've made that you won't tell me about are still going to make you be strongly opposed to this? -- how do you turn this on 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all these issues. -- how do you turn this on 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a few people to copy-edit through. However, I've fixed everything Jbmurray has brought up (to the best of my ability), so I don't think anything in this oppose is actionable now. It's far too vague currently for me personally to fix. "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a because... blah" is so much more helpful that "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how it doesn't". -- how do you turn this on 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more advice, for someone new at FAC: don't annoy reviewers by consistently distorting what they say. I didn't not say "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how it doesn't." I referred you to a whole series of sample issues. The only difference between my approach and that of some others, is that I dig in and fix those sample issues where I can. This saves both you and me time, freeing you up to go through the rest of the article and look for similar problems. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't constantly distorted what you said. You've done it to me, mind. Claiming I asked you to stop editing the article, how completely ridiculous. I did ask you to stop adding fact tags and hidden comments, and instead put your issues here, like most people would, but I have no issue whatsoever if you wish to improve the article in some way. And I asked you countless times for help, and you refused to give it (I don't consider "I gave you examples" to be helpful). -- how do you turn this on 00:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're getting annoyed, try and be a little more co-operative in your editing style. A smile once in a while really helps. -- how do you turn this on 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who worked on the long-running BBC children's art programme SMart, among many other television shows" - could probably be reworded; I'd just have an "amongst others" after SMart, or something like that
Fixed - changed to "amongst other shows" (to make it clear it wasn't other art shows)
  • Tough to read when every sentence (or so it feels in paragraph 1) starts with He.
Attempted a change.
  • "he often took part in pantomime, and played a part in Cinderella in 2007." - first part of sentence is far too vague, second almost certainly links to the wrong article
Reworded completely.
  • What does the image in the Career section add to the article?
I assume you mean, what does it add - well, it's an example of his work.
Oops, typo fixed. Does it meet all the WP:NFCC criteria? Giggy (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. No free equivelent? No, it's a publicity photo. I very much doubt the kids were allowed to take a camera in to the studio either.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities? It's a tiny image used to show an example of his work.
3a. Minimal usage? One image shows him "normal" and the other playing the king on a TV show. Both are very different, and both are useful.
3b. Yes, it's small low quality.
4. Yes, it's from a news site.
5. I believe this is encyclopedic.
6. Yes, I think it meets this.
7. Well it's used here, and the article for See It Saw It.
8. Significance? It's showing him as an example of some of the work he did. I do believe it adds to the article.
9. Yes, it's only used in articles.
10. Image description page? All covered.
-- how do you turn this on 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight is the issue; what does this image add to the article that no text could replace? (ie. what is so notable about what the image portrays that you couldn't just write about it?) Giggy (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so important it's kept. It's otherwise "prettying" the article a bit... -- how do you turn this on 08:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to self; track this.
Oops - I already asked him the other day and he said no! :-( I have emailed www.speightoftheart.org to see if they'd like to donate a free picture.
  • "create all of the art content for each edition of the show" - would "create all of the art content for the show" work?
Yes, fixed.
  • "had spent the previous evening "partying"" - why is this a quote?
It's what the source called it. Don't want to get accused of plagiarism... -- how do you turn this on 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Giggy (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. -- how do you turn this on 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I got in contact with the editor and did a line by line walk through of the page and I believe that there are no serious problems left in the prose at this time. I could be wrong, but that's just what I determined over the past hour working on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please make sure all the references are formatted properly? I wouldn't want this to fail over something as small as that. Thank you! -- how do you turn this on 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and fixed the two that you missed. Though NB that you don't need to have publishers for newspaper reports; also there's rather horrendous overlinking, making the references section a sea of blue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. -- how do you turn this on 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? A lot of the stuff was written in his obituaries, so that was obviously after both had died. He wasn't written about an awful lot (and where he has been, it's duplicated in the later references, so there's no need for even more). Was there anything specific you think needs better sourcing on? -- how do you turn this on 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naw - it's just that I think a bit more can be written. However, I'm willing to support this. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Jbmurray, and especially his edits to the article. This article simply isn't there yet, especially in terms of prose. I really hope HDYTTO will not see this as a personal vendetta. It is not. It is FAC. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful. This article has had numerous edits made to it fixing up the prose over the past few hours. Please tell me exactly what's wrong with it so I can fix. "Per Jbmurray" is about as useful as saying "It's not good enough". -- how do you turn this on 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me what the issue with the prose is so I can fix it? Jbmurray thinks this article is still "seriously deficient" (and unsurprisingly, hasn't bothered to say why). What exactly does need fixing now? -- how do you turn this on 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Dweller

Sorry, but I'm just finding too many niggly problems for this to be considered Featured quality or "fixable" at FAC. Suggest third party copyedit or return to PR. Issues I uncovered during speedy review of first portion of article:

  • use of "show" instead of "programme" - article should be in English English.
  • Some MOS issues eg "fourteen"
  • "Speight took a degree in commercial and graphic art at Bilston Art School" Unsourced. Also, slightly odd topic to take a degree in. Are you sure it was a degree?
Not unsourced. See reference 2, the Guardian biography. The reference might not be right next to it, but it comes a sentence later. In the source (and others) it says a degree. -- how do you turn this on 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please connect the reference with the claim. I can currently find no such institution as Bilston Art School since long before Speight could have attended it, which undermines the RS. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -- how do you turn this on 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose issues. Here are some chunks of text I think need a review:
"who worked on the long-running BBC children's art programme SMart, amongst other shows."
"a few days later; two suicide notes were later"
"Intending to become a cartoonist, he entered into television when he took part in auditions for a new children's television programme, SMart, after hearing about it while painting the set of another television production."
"fronted the show"
  • Some refs not after punctuation

Sorry again. It's not that far off and should be fairly stable, so I look forward to seeing this pass soon. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry. Unlike Jbmurray, you've actually given me something to work with. I'll get on with it ASAP. -- how do you turn this on 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything you have mentioned, except I couldn't find any misplaced references. -- how do you turn this on 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One follows "Timmy Towers". Not sure if there are others. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right... it's not before any punctuation though. I Ctrl+F on the page with "];" "]," and "]." and found nothing. That should be some kind of indicator if there's anything misplaced. -- how do you turn this on 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Refs need to follow punctuation marks. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On an article, a reference appears like so: .[1] I assume by not after punctuation, the references would look like this: [1]. So therefore, I seached the close square bracket, plus some punctuation. I couldn't find a single instance of it. Maybe if you copy and pasted the exact problem with the Timmy Towers ref, I'd be able to see what you mean better. -- how do you turn this on 12:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He played the Abominable No Man in Timmy Mallett's Timmy Towers[2]" The reference [2] should follow a punctuation mark, but it doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no punctuation mark for it to follow. You mean, you want me to add a comma in? -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't punctuate for the sake of referencing. Punctuate naturally and place the ref after the next available punctuation mark. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that OK? -- how do you turn this on 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pedant (!) but you've inadvertently introduced an error by doing that, because the Cyborgs thingy isn't referenced in that source, but it appears from the placing that it does. Why not stick all the refs at the end of the sentence? --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's ok ;-) You're being most helpful here. Have I succeeded this time? -- how do you turn this on 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good. If you can ditch any of those refs as being covered by the others, it'd be good because the string of numbers isn't pleasant on the eye, but if they're needed, they're needed. No need to reply on that. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I have been asked for, and I haven't been able to read the above in detail; here's a start:

  • Lead
no need for comma after "presenter"
"Growing up in Tettenhall" -> He grew up in Tettenhall... and left school...
"art degree"- insufficiently precise
Second para needs punctuation to make it flow as a narrative
Third para: "Collins's" - I find this clumsy. Style opinion on how to deal with this type of plural is divided, but you have to imagine how it would sound when it is read aloud. I doubt anyone would have a real problem with it, however.
"live life" - is duplicity; "live" is enough here. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDYTTO, you have a great start here and a lot of good info to help towards the final tweaks of the article. Four opposes this far in to a FAC can be hard to overcome, and opposers have opined that the work is too much to accomplish in the tenure of a FAC. Working on the issues raised and re-approaching FAC in a few weeks will give this article the best shot at a successful FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [72].

Quark edit

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk
previous FAC

Over the past week or so, I have completely re-written this article. Before, it didn't make too much coherent sense and was quite covered in redundancy. I believe the article now meets the criterion. I think the text is comprehensive and provides an all-round view of the topic. The article is sourced to forty-three (43) reliable references, consisting of a healthy meld of web and book sources. It is well formatted and of a good length (36KB), and the text is brightened up by six (6) illustrative images. It has a strong lead section that I believe introduces the article concisely but informatively. I hope reviewers will provide me constructive criticism and express their thoughts on the article. —Anonymous Dissident<span <style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1a - I don't know much about physics (imagine; a mathematics aficionado not know much about physics!) and so I can't comment on much of the technical side of this article, but the prose isn't up to par.

  • The very first sentence I object to. Two successful restrictive clauses begin with "that", which reads extremely awkwardly, and "is placed under the classification of fermion" is simply redundant.
  • "The quark forms one of the two basic constituents of matter" - as above, unnecessarily verbose. "The quark is" would do just fine. Additionally, two sentences in a paragraph - two consecutive sentences, and the only two sentences - both begin with "The quark", when "it" would do just as well.
  • "are in abundant existence" - also unnecessarily verbose.
  • "are assigned various other properties"
  • "..., and never in isolation" - "and" is unnecessary here, and disrupts the flow of the prose. Furthermore, the sentence that contains this phrase is long, winding, and confusing.

I'm out of time for now; I've read a fair portion of the article though have only taken points from the very beginning. I intend to finish the reading and point out more examples tomorrow. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All repaired. I hope you'll reconsider your opposition; these particular problems are very minor. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree they're minor, but many minor errors throughout just two paragraphs isn't a good indication - much of the article is like that. I'll give the promised further examples soon. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I note that Brianboulton has remarked on the prose below, and is currently copyediting, so I'll hold off comments, and might help a bit. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand the following sentence: "The two proposed the theory in attempt to explain the numerous hadrons and new particles that were being found at the time, and were dubbed the point-like constituents of the baryon and meson." Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest, I'm not sure how to simplify that. Basically, hadrons were being found at the time, and much uncertainty surrounded whether they had constituents or whether they were fundamental particles. Yheir properties indicated they could be split, and quarks were brought into play to take the place of those constituents. —Anonymous DissidentTalk
  • It's been changed satisfactorily. A brief rereading of the article allows me to strike my oppose, though I probably shouldn't give a support until tomorrow, when I can have a proper read. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Looks pretty good after a quick read. In places the text is a bit thick, and leans jargony (especially towards the end sections). There may not be a good way to reduce that without very long explainitory sections, which can be equally awful to read. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the science easy to understand. If you could point me towards the things that you thought were overly complex, I'll see what I can do. In regards to the thick text, I assume you refer to the last text section? I agree that could be split, but I'd be unsure of a section header scheme there. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fancy external link checker observed that two of the external links had an issue that I didn't understand (so I didn't try to fix). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? All of them worked for me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All publisher citations overturned and replaced. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, mainly on the proseSupport I meant to come back earlier, and say that this looks good, has been worked on meticulously and is ready for FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • An untested theory, or one which is supported by little evidence should, I suggest, be termed a hypothesis.
      • I would disagree with that. A hypothesis is notational of the expected results of a particular question or experiment. A theory denotes a broad intellectual architecture which answers many important questions about natural phenomena. There may be cause to believe that this theory doesn't answer those questions correctly (or more probably, that the burden of proof has not been met). But the quark is proposed as a fundamental particle. Currently the article calls it a theory in all but one location, and uses "hypothesis" once. I suggest that the word "hypothesis" there (2nd sentence of the last paragraph of the intro) be changed to "thesis." Huadpe (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, in 1964, the burden of proof had not been met — read the second paragraph of the history section. While now it is a theory, calling it a theory in that sentence is anachronistic, as would calling Slovakia a "country" in a sentence about something which happened before Czechoslovakia splitted. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  11:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    • "At the time of the theory’s initial proposal, the physical particle "zoo", as it is sometimes referred to, consisted of the two types of hadron (the meson and the baryon) and several of the first leptons, among many others" (my emphasis) For the life of me I can’t work out what his means, specially the "among many others".
      • With respect, that's not a prose issue. What part are you not understanding? The particle physics model consisted of many different types of hadron, as well as a few early leptopns, among various other particles like the atom that had been known of for decades. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Initially, I couldn't understand the phrase "among many others" - what did "others" refer to? You have explained this above - "others" means various particles like the atom. But, in your explanation, you say the model consisted of "many different types of hadron", while in your original sentence you say it consisted of the two types of hadron (the meson and the baryon). So I'm still confused. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for my lack of clarity here. There are two essential types of hadron: meson and baryon. The meson has one quark and one antiquark, while the baryon contains three quarks. All quarks possess a spectrum of different properties such as electrical charge etc.. From quark-antiquark and quark-quark-quark combinations, as well as the property combinations that occur therein, we are given a wide range of different mesons and baryon forms; about 200, to be precise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This construction: "to temporarily help explain" – splits the infinitive.
      —This is part of a comment by Brianboulton (of 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      So what? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Splitting this infinitive leads to a very awkward construction, because the verb "help explain" is complex. The situation is easily avoided by "could be utilized temporarily, to explain..."etc
    • Also the sentence containing it is extremely long and winding.
    • Prolix: "It was in the same year that..." Suggest should be "Also in 1964, extensions…..." etc (we need reminding what year we’re in)
    • Inappropriate use of mdash as hyphen
    • "added appendage"? "added”" is redundant
    • Prolix: "...since no hadrons that had been observed at that time seemed to indicate the presence of another quark type". Try: "...since no hadrons yet observed indicated the presence..." etc.
    • "This number grew..." "This" isn't anchored to anything. You need to say "The number of possible quark types grew..."
    • You don’t need "nine years later" when you give the year 1973. Thus: "In 1973 the number of possible quark types grew to six, when Makoto..." etc
    • Awkward phrasing: "...six quarks made more sense than four considering the two’s study of CP-violation in the same year". Try: "...six quark types made more sense than four on the basis of their current studies of CP-violation".

Look, I’m only half way through the History section and I’m finding prose problems just about every sentence. This article should have had a proper copyedit before coming to FAC, but if you like, I’ll do one now. It might take a while, but it’ll be worth it, as no way is this prose going to make FA as it stands. By the way, I’m a non-scientist but I find the subject interesting, even if I don’t understand all the detail. Leave me a note on my talkpage if you want me to do a copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done a general copyedit, removing redundancies, repetitions, verbose phrasing etc. I am reluctant to do more for fear of disturbing the physics. It would be as well if someone checked my edits to see that I haven't inadvertently altered a meaning. Anyway, I believe the prose flows better now than it did, notwithstanding my limited ability to understand the article. I hope this has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a full read-through of the article later to see whether you inadvertently removed any terminologies in your copyediting. In general, however, I'd like to say that I appreciate your work in improving the article's prose. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have addressed the most obvious issues, but the article still hav lots of room for improvement. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where? I can't improve if you don't specify. Where can it be iomproved? Prose? I agree there are some concerns. Article completeness? I assure you I've written about pretty much everything relevant to quarks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed inline tags in some relevant parts — for example, in the Spin section a sentence seems to suggest that quarks rotate around their own axis (something point-like particles can't do) and in the table there is an unsourced coupling between the sign of spin and flavors which I had never heard of before. And the prose is cumbersome, even if I'm trying to fix it when I can.
As for completeness, I don't think there is much more that could be said. (Unless we merge the articles about individual flavors into this one, as I proposed on the talk page.) -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've repaired both those instances. You were right about the point-like particles there, thanks for pointing it out. Turns out spin is an intrinsic property. The unsourced part was also wrong; I dunno how I got that different quarks have an integral + or - spin. they can all have both. Fixed. Thanks for pointing those details out. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • This is looking much better then when I last looked at it. Which is good; exams are soon.
  • "The six flavors of quarks and their most likely decay modes. Mass increases moving from left to right." - opening an article with this will scare the reader off. You need wikilinks, at least, if not a much more simple explanation.
    • Oh, and up and down are inline... so do they have the same mass?
      • Replaced with a more suitable image. It shows the Standard Model, which is quite relevant at the lead. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which participates in strong interaction" - participate isn't the right verb here, I don't think. I just checked my textbook (I know) and it doesn't specifically state that they interact via the strong force (it talks about colour force but not in the same context). I've heard it explained as "they interact via the strong nuclear (force|interaction)", force being more common, but that might not be "correct". I dunno if this helps at all, and perhaps participate is the right verb... I just doubt it.
  • are two varieties of hadron, distinguished by the number of quarks in the hadron" - just end the sentence at "quarks".
  • "The proton and neutron hadrons are the constituents of the atom, the most basic form an element can take" - probably put this sentence before the previous one

From the lead. Sorry about the ramblings. Giggy (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "participate" with "interact", even if now it sounds so repetititititive... -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Meanwhile, I'm going to read the article and the featured article criteria more carefully, to decide whether to vote for support. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anonymous Dissident, please read the WP:FAC instructions and remove the "done" templates. (This FAC is quickly becoming unreadable between the graphics and the sigs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for me, I support, as I can't see any serious issue with the article anymore, but I've requested a peer review, because I'm not an expert in quantum chromodynamics, and I propose that the factual accuracy of the more technical sections of the article be double-checked before the article is featured. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have asked Army to close the peer review he has opened; in the spirit of the guidelines, a FAC and peer review should not be active at the same time. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks generally good, but needs some review from someone familiar with the subject; I've found some small misunderstandings so far. Fortunately, I'm familiar with the subject, and in the process of taking a look. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide some examples of the said misunderstandings? I'd be curious to know to what you refer, being the writer of the article; if there are some concepts I'm not grasping, I'd be most grateful to be corrected for my own intellectual purposes, as well as for the benefit of the article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two misunderstandings so far, both in one sentence: "The discovery of the top quark was the most significant of any of the six quarks, because it was found to be hundreds of times bigger than the hadrons it was theorized to occupy." The first issue is the use of the word "bigger," by which I assume you (or whoever wrote the sentence) meant "more massive," but they're hardly the same thing in this case. The second issue is that the top quark was more massive than "the hadrons it was theorized to occupy." Nobody ever claimed that specific hadrons contained top quarks; they expected the top quark to appear in new hadrons, and to be discovered by the observation of those new hadrons. However, once it was realized that the top quark was very heavy, the Standard Model also predicted that the top quark would appear outside of hadrons. The point was, whoever wrote the sentence roughly understood the issues I've described, but seemed at least to have the explanation a bit muddled. If I see other points of confusion, I'll edit them, as indeed I already did in this case. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The history section currently details the predictions of each kind of quark before it describes any as being discovered. It also leaves out any hint at why new quarks were proposed. These two issues together make it seem like a bunch of quarks were just made up and turned out to be there. In fact, the theoretical predictions of new quarks followed experimental results that gave strong support to the original set, and sought to address specific problems with the existing theory. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if I wrote that; if I did, I'm sorry, it must have been a slip of the mind: I remember learning the difference between something being "big" and "massive" years ago. ;) In regards to them being parts of hadrons, I was sure I removed that earlier on today. The history section: please, if you have information regarding why the quarks were proposed, add it with sources. I mentioned CP-violation as being the catalyst for the six-model, but found it difficult to find information on why the others were proposed. Your improvements are appreciated. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have rewritten and reordered parts of the history, and it looks better to me now. Comments appreciated! -- SCZenz (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. There was something you did that wasn't in chronological order, so I've fixed that, but, otherwise, a fine job. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: First this is a preliminary review, I'm giving this after a quick read (article) and without reading the other comments so I'm not influenced by them. I'll give a more detailed review later.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is this article up to date with the 2008 Particle Review?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would imagine so. I haven't compared this article directly to that, but my sources are, many of them, very recent and up-to-date. Most of what is known about quarks has been established for quite some time, anyway. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why is quark table in various colors? What's the color scheme?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quarks match the antiquarks, as do their symbols. The generations are differentiated by different colors. The electric charge is differed for each half of the pair in every gen. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my (Giggy's) comments, there's a few more up above.

  • "At the time of the theory's initial proposal, the physical particle "zoo", as it is sometimes referred to" - sometimes referred? I dunno, if the term was used by the majority it'd be different, but as is I'd just go with something that doesn't seem slang-ish.
    • Displaced, although there is an article... ;) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like someone re-added it. I think it's slightly more than slang; we have an article on it. I think it is probably the best term to describe the spectrum of physical particles. Linked it to the article in case of misunderstanding. Do you have any true objection to its usage? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as electrical charge and spin" - I'd give the links again here for those that skip the lead.
  • "extensions to the Gell-Mann–Zweig model were proposed, when another duo of physicists" - if they extensions were proposed because of Glashow and Bjorken's work, then remove the comma (and the comma after their names)
  • "The word was originally coined by Murray Gell-Mann as the sound ducks make." - what, he coined the word, and then he wasn't sure about it, and then he found it in someone else's book? Not clear.
  • I'm not a big fan of the massive blockquote in the Etymology section, if it can be avoided (it probably can).
  • "by a process known as weak interaction" - wordiness... just use "by the weak interaction"
  • "A quark can decay into a lighter quark by emitting a W boson" - yet bosons are bigger than protons (which are made of quarks)... how does it emitt something that big?
    • Big is not to heavy. Such is particle physics. Why is the top quark so heavy, heavier even than a clump of hadrons in a gold nucleus? We don't know yet. I'll still contact Army or SCZenz to see if they can clarify better than I can. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you be using the funky template for the quark symbols in the Weak interaction section? (for uud/udd)
  • I don't see what the introduction to atoms and ions in the Electric charge section has to do with quarks ("The total electric charge of a nucleus..." onwards)
    • Because a quark's electrical charge is the governing factor in the charge of protons and neutrons, and the number of protons vs. electrons is what determines an atom's electric charge, or lack thereof, and that is what makes an atom an atom or an ion an ion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Image:Quark structure proton.svg be changed so the ups are the same colour? (see below)

I'll finish it off... soon. :-) Giggy (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For information, Glashow and Bjorken were the ones who did the extending, so that's the direction the wording should be clarified in. Also, there is a very good reason why the ups are a different color -- see the section on color charge in the article! -- SCZenz (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my mistake on the colours - I added that comment before reading that section, and didn't go back and erase it afterwards. Struck now. Giggy (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as all addressed. Giggy (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments. I am inclined to support, but there are a few problems that should be fixed:
Issues resolved, Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Lead:
a) "usually known as flavors"—usually is redundent here;
b) "charm, strange, top, and bottom flavors are highly unstable"—remove highly, it is vague;
c) "and differ from quarks only in that some of their properties are inverse"—I suggest "and differ from quarks only in that all their charges have opposite sign".
d) "In nature, quarks are always found bound together"—drop 'found', it is unnecessry.
e) "mesons consist of two quarks, and baryons consit of three"—I suggest "mesons consist of one quark and one anti-quark, and baryons consit of three quarks"
2) History:
a) ""zoo", as it is sometimes referred to, consisted of many types of hadrons, and several of the first leptons, among many others."—I do not understand, which 'many others' refers to. I suggest ""zoo", as it is sometimes referred to, consisted of several leptons and hundreds of different hadrons."
b) "These partons were later recognized as up and down quarks."—needs a citation. As I understand partons are not necessary constituant quarks. They can be quarks from the "sea", i.e. quark-antiquark pairs that spontaniously appear and annihilate. In addition some partons are gluons (see [73]).
c) It should be mentiond that J/ψ meson is also known as charmonium.
3) Properties:
a) "but is an arbitrarily named property that takes its name"—the word name is used twice in one sentence.
b) "The six flavors are named up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom"—drop the word "named".
c) In the same sentence I see "the top and bottom flavors are also sometimes known as truth and beauty, "—please, drop "sometimes".
d) In the next sentence there are two "very" words. Remove them, because they are "very" redundent".
e) "Quarks of higher generations have greater masses and thus are less stable than quarks of lower generations."—not necesary true. For instance, B_mesons are more stable than D_mesons.
f) When discussing generations it should be mentioned that leptons are also divided into the same three generations. This is not a property of the quarks only.
g) "but the electric charge and other quantum numbers are the additive inverse of that of quarks." Please, use simpler language. For instance, "but the electric charge and other other charges have the opposite sign".
h) "There are numerous hadrons, all of which result from the variety of possible quark combinations that can occur and all of which are differentiated by the properties their quarks confer upon them."—this statement is only partially true, because some of the hadrons are excited states of others, and they can have exactly the same quark content.
i) "Electric charge is a property intrinsic to the quark mechanism, and is an important factor in the overall hadron model."—remove this sentence. It provides no usuful inforamation.
j) The same with the following sentence "The electric charge of quarks is an important factor in the construction of atoms."
k) "Composed of duu"—change to "composed of one d and two u quarks".
l) Not only gluons contribute to the mass of hadrons—quarks-antiquarks pairs from the "sea" also contribute.
m) "the duu proton to the ddu neutron"—change to "the proton to the neutron".
n) "are the subjects of the quantum chromodynamics research field."—it is not clear what the word "field" means here. Is it a physical field or one of the areas of research?
o) "occurring approximately 1024 times every second."—unscientific statement. Please, remove it.
p) "that contributes to a quark's indivisibility."—Probably, hadron's indivisibility or quark's inseperability?
q) "The matrix of interactions and exchanges that occurs in a hadron model is complicated by the fact that gluons are able to engage in a process of self-exchange; that is, gluons are able to emit gluons and exchange them with other gluons."—putting it simpler "The strong interactions are non-linear, becauses gluons can emit gluons and exchange gluons with other gluons.

Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything. there were a few things I specifically didn't fix, only two or three. For instance, the thing about antiparticles and "opposite sign": that's not scientific enough, in my opinion. "Inverse" isn't exactly a scientific word anyway, and it's more accurate than an "opposite sign". If there was anything else, just ask and I'll try and fix it/explain my change etc.. Thanks for a detailed review. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument about "opposite sign" at all. I don't think there's any imprecision introduced by that the term, which always means "additive inverse" as far as I know. When it costs us nothing in accuracy, using the simplest language possible is an easy choice. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to support, but can you comment about partons and their identification with up and down quarks (which is incomplete explanation in my opinion)? And also about about contribution of quark-antiquark pairs to the mass? Ruslik (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I wasn't aware of the term "opposite sign" before, and thought it was a made up terminology. I'll change it now. In regards to the parton: my source says that the substructures that were implied to be within the quark by the 1968 SLAC tests were later identified as up and down quarks. Why this is a matter of debate I do not know; I would have thought it would have been obvious that the interior of the proton was composed of u and d? In regards to quark-antiquark pairs: I assume you mean the sea? Take a proton: three valence quarks, the field of gluons, plus the sea of q
q
. I am personally unsure of how much the sea realistically contributes to the mass, and I cannot find a source for it either. If either of you two have the knowledge/sources, I'd be hugely grateful. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this(p.9-10) for the discussion about partons and gluons-quarks. See also Parton_(particle_physics) article. The graph shows that additional q
q
 pairs (including s
s
 pairs) and gluons contribute to scattering, not only three valent quarks. You also can read this (pp.72-100). Latter I will provide additional sources. Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question posed concerned how much sea-quarks contribute to the mass of the hadron. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of up and down quarks, the valence quarks contribute very little to the mass of the hadron -- the quarks have a mass of a few MeV, while the hadron has a mass of at least 900 MeV! The extra energy is in the binding of the valence quarks, which is produced by the gluon field (of which "individual gluons" are quanta, but individual gluons are not a good approximation at low (i.e. ordinary) energy). Now, when you hit a sea quark when you do a deep inelastic scattering experiment, that sea quark is there (loosely speaking) because a gluon "split" into a quark and antiquark. Thus the sea quarks are a manifestation of the same phenomenon that gives the hadron the bulk of its mass, but it is very difficult to make a meaningful statement about "how much sea quarks contribute to the mass of the hadron." It will be difficult to find a source answering that question exactly, because on a technical level the question has no precise meaning. The conclusion, I think, is that our article should avoid such complexities! -- SCZenz (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree; we are an encyclopedia, not a compendium of deep scientific analysis: this article provides more than cursory quark knowledge without presenting a book on the topic, which is quite fine in an encyclopedic context. I'm wondering: should we perhaps create a section on the matter of sea quarks? A mention on the distinction between valence and sea quarks, how they just form out of the vacuum? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a section about sea quarks vs. valence quarks could be useful. Sea quark used to redirect to quark; I changed it to point to Parton (particle physics), but it could point to, e.g. Quark#Valence quarks and sea quarks if such a section were created. -- Army1987!!! 12:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it have it's own header or would it come under something else, like properties? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a section called something like "quarks in hadrons," with three subsections:
  • Description of how quarks combine to make hadrons
  • Color confinement and gluons (already exists)
  • Sea quarks
SCZenz (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an idea could be adding a section on sea quarks to Hadron, making Sea quark redirect to it, and adding a very short introduction to the concept of sea quarks and valence quarks to Quark, linking the more detailed explanation. -- Army1987!!! 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crucial Question How many domain experts have laid eyes on this article? I know exactly squat about the topic, of course, but from quick bouncing around related Wikipedia articles (no other research yet) I am leaning Oppose, probably per 1b. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've laid eyes on it. But I'm not done reading the whole thing yet, so I can't speak to whether the information is comprehensive. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any problem with 1b. The articles cover all major facts about quarks (except probably techniquarks?). Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, exactly, would you place opposition based on a hunch? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) You're rewording my statement. Not opposition, not a hunch. Leaning opposition, based on (possibly incorrect) perception that it omits facts )omitted unintentially because they are obvious ones... and for the reality that I read the article and still didn't have any idea what a quark was until I read other articles, which to my mind is unacceptable for an FA. But I have to close now, 'til tomorrow. Striking mention of Oppose to avoid miscommunication; will talk more tomorrow... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, see here. Are you honestly telling me you read the whole article and have no clue what the subject matter is? It's stated quite clearly in the second statement, if the first was too jargony: "It is one of the two basic constituents of matter, the other being the lepton." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see the content of this article unpacked a bit, especially in the lead. If you'd like to think of it as "Quarks for Dummies" feel free; I think of it as "Quarks for the People". :-) In my mind, it's an issue of accessibility to the broader public. However, it may be debatable whether "accessibility to the broader public" is a component of 1(a). I personally couldn't support without unpacking, but I'm not sure if it's a valid reason to oppose... perhaps I'll ask some other folks, and check back in later... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your comment. I'm happy to alter the lead to this effect, but it will be pretty much impossible to "unpack" it when all I have to go on is that single word. Perhaps if you could provide examples of statements or concepts that you think require a more detailed explanation, then I could work on that. Otherwise, I'm somewhat fielding in the dark here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Ling and AD: does this work for either of you? Giggy (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a stab, but quarks aren't substances. I'll try and think of something else. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi again, I really don't mean to leave you hanging, but my Spousal Unit has many items on her Honey Do list today. I have copied the lead (temporarily) to User:Ling.Nut/page2 and will try to get to it this evening, which is probably late morning for those of you in the States. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment My head exploded trying to comb through the article for problems so, can you at least integrate the "see also" section into the body of the text? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at User:Ling.Nut/page2, and feel free to edit it mercilessly. I am not yet satisfied that it is finished, but I have to go to bed. I do think it is a great deal more perspicuous than the current lead of quark, though. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best for others with unexploded heads to do such. :) Quarks are best left to experts. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling, I commend you for your work, but, in my honest opinion, I think it makes the lead more convoluted. Just my opinion. If the main problem is with the word "constituents", then it can be changed to "components". The first two sentences seem otherwise fine there, considering that links *are* provided. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) My point is that it's too condensed, to the point of opacity; no one can understand it without clicking through a number of other articles. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry to tell you that such is particle physics. This article is about a concept in particle physics, an area that will always be quite complicated. This article is always going to require the reader to click on a few links if they want the background information; we would need an entire book to surmise all of the background information about particle physics. This article is comprehensive in its chosen topic, which is quarks. We aren't writing about particle physics; just one type of particle. See, for example, atom, another featured article. Very comprehensive about atoms, but doesn't shy away from using technicalities. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: it's only just OK. See my copy-editing of the lead for a demonstration of why the whole text could do with a polish. I'm surprised that "up- and down-quarks" are not hyphenated thus. Please watch out for the overuse of "being". Please ping me when it's better. Tony (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Up quark etc. aren't usually hyphenated. As for the overuse of being, my bad. I added most of them, but thanks to GrahamColm for fixing that. -- Army1987 ! ! ! 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose for now - the article has not reached the required standard yet. At this late stage I should not be finding mistakes, (see article history), but, my major concern is that possibilities to make the article more accessible have not been fully explored. Take just one example —hadronisation; the word appears without explanation three times. The most important section of all articles, particularly specialist ones, is the Lead, (let's face it, many readers will not progress further), and I think more can be done here. For example There are six different types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom, respectively denoted by u, d, c, s, t, and b. - do we need the notation in the Lead? And, do we need to use "flavor" here; does it help? I would like to see every sentence scrutinised and simplified where possible. I am not suggesting the article should be turned into baby food, but I would like to see more of an effort made with regard to accessibility. Graham Colm Talk 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion about this lead.? Ruslik (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the two versions side-by-side, the one on Ling.Nut's subpage, although not perfect, is better. I have changed my mind about the need to mention flavor in the Lead, but I still think the notation can go. Graham Colm Talk 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I updated lead. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is fine, but I am concerned about the first paragraph. You have simplified it by substituting over-explanation, and in doing this we have actually introduced more confusing termionologies, very early on into the article (color charge, for example, a complex topic that is and should be covered much deeper in the article than a direct reference in the first sentences.) Just my view. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits have improved the article and I am supporting the article now. Particle physics is complex, but the article is an excellent introduction to quarks and their role in forming matter. I would not be embarrassed to see this on the Main Page. Graham Colm Talk 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your support, but also for the fine improvements you made to the article in your copyedit. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (undent) Oppose, even with the new version of the lead. I think this article needs to be thrown back to WP:PHYSICS and completely re-written, hopefully by a collaboration of physicists and non-physicists. Physicists know what they are talking about, but have been dealing with the topic as their job for so long that they end up writing articles that are condensed to the point of opacity, and miss the magic and mystery that interest nonspecialists. Nonspecialists don't understand the topic, and so could introduce significant errors or omissions. I won't be changing my vote, sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're opposing because the article lacks the "magic and the mystery", but also because it might contain some errors, which you have not identified. Fine. I don't mind. This is becoming quite silly. This article is written in fairly simple language, from where I stand, while still maintaining a scientific tone; if you were to simply identify certain instances of complication, I could actually work on the article. Instead you call for a "complete rewrite". This provides no room for improvement. In regards to this article lacking "magic and mystery" - we are an encyclopedia, not an amateur science magazine. Our goal is to provide an encyclopedic article built on facts and written in a comprehensive and purely non-biased or non-opinionated way. I therefore do not understand how your point about a lack of some kind of "mystery and magic" is valid. Finally, this article has been looked at by both physicists and non-physicists. I am not a physicist, but Army and SCZenz are (or they certainly have been academically involved in the area, looking at their userpages), and Ruslik0 certainly seems to have some background in physics as well. This is all I have to say. What else can I say? You have, in your previous statement, lain down a brick wall in terms of future improvement and bettering of the article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not agree with Ling.Nut; this is a very good article and does not need to be re-written or thrown anywhere it just needs a few hours' more work. There is still a little redundancy and confusing prose in the article that non-specialists might find hard to spot because they do not know much about the subject and might think it (the redundancy in particular) conveys some sort of esoteric meaning. The mystery and magic is there—particles appearing seemingly from nowhere and quickly turning back into energy again. Ironically, I think this is the problem, how to describe this to a non-specialist without losing the physics. The article can be improved, please act on my suggestion to scrutinise every sentence and simplify them wherever it is possible. Graham Colm Talk 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I half don't appreciate the fact that my remarks/concerns are being painted as "silly". This borderline ad hominem is far from constructive, to say the least—and is taking the easy way out. I won't say more than the least, however. :-) As for Graham, if you think it is fixable, then {{sofixit}}. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never called your remarks silly. I referred to the whole debacle. In addition, that single phrase was a fraction of what I was saying; my argument as a whole was hardly ad hominem, as you call it. But arguing semantics isn't going to work here. I plan to read over the whole article tonight and work towards overall simplification. A complete re-write is hardly in order here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC reviewers are not expected to fix articles; their job is to review. Having said that, I often help out when I can. I spent the best part of yesterday working on this article and will continue to do so today. Graham Colm Talk 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” (anonymous, attributed to A. Einstein) -- Army1987 ! ! ! 09:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't as simple as possible yet. ;-) By "magic and mystery" I think... I think I was saying that the dots are not being connected well in this article, though the info is probably all present. Why are quarks important? I learned in elementary school (ages ago, don't ask) that electrons and neutrons and protons were the smallest things.. now we have quarks, why did we find them? ... and I remember being puzzled as to why protons didn't repel each other.. and quarks are a big part of the mystery of the Big bang, which isn't dealt with here... the article does not do a good job of connecting the dote or of presenting more interesting info... I'm striking my comment about "I won't be changing my vote", in order to remain flexible, but please remember that it is somewhat unlikely that I will do so. The reason I made that statement is not to be obnoxious, but because FAC is not an Article Improvement Area. Believe it or not, I have always strongly supported the idea of reviewers (both FAC and GAN) working extensively on articles; in FAC I worked more than a little on Roman Catholic Church, and I have sometimes almost rewritten whole sections of GAN articles... But we currently have a problem with too many articles and not enough reviewers at FAC, and so substandard articles (not referring to this one) get Passed via fan-club !votes or by one or two very surface skims from one or two reviewers.... so we need to Pass or fail, not Improve, and I think this needs more than a little Improvement... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions like "why are quarks important?" will always be a matter of opinion, and are way too broad in an encyclopedic context. The fact that they built all matter, a concept which is treated here, is kind of self-evidence for why they are "important". Why did we find quarks? Please refer to the History section; they were found when protons were broken apart and substructures were located inside. Again, "interesting" is a highly opinionated quality of an article; what might be uninteresting to you might be fascinating to me, and claiming that an article is not interesting enough is not really a valid complaint because making a topic more interesting than it is in a specific person's eyes is quite impossible. Lastly, I'd ask you to consider that saying that the article needs "more than a little improvement" is quite a hefty statement, and it would be much more appreciated if you could back up what you are saying with evidence within the text itself (inaccuracies, specific prose issues etc., rather than such abstract questions as 'why did we find them?" [a question whose answer was, as it happens and as I have noted, treated within the article at any rate]). Nonetheless, your clarification is received gratefully, and you are, of course, entitled to as steadfast an opposition as you please. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the question "Why are they important?" might sound fuzzy, it is one of the main points of WP:LEAD. One problem of Wikipedia is that some editors believe that the fact that the topic of an article is technical is a good excuse to make the article incomprehensible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuler%E2%80%93Lagrange_equation&diff=236955643&oldid=236924288.) (I have since rewritten the lead section of that article, see the old version to understand what that discussion referred to.)
But, in the case of this article, I really can't see how can it be made much clearer than it is now. Often, editors aren't unwilling to make articles accessible, but simply unable to do so. Not everybody is able to write an introductive book about quantum electrodynamics using hardly any mathematics at all, but without serious factual inaccuracies. On the other hand, if somebody manages to make the article clearer without introducing falsehoods, you're welcome to do so. -- Army1987 ! ! ! 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that we can't seriously be expected to write an article geared towards people who's high-school education was less than accurate (which is different than having them in mind). It says right there that quarks are one of the two fundamental constituant of atoms. If your high school taught you that neutrons, protons, and electrons were, then they got it wrong (see lie to children, although its very possible that they really believed this to be true since they were told the same thing and never got to do particle physics). If you're puzzled, you can click on atom or proton. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about this? -- Army1987 ! ! ! 14:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I'm not an expert but found some errors. "Only the stable up and down flavors occur naturally" contradicts the page on the strange Lambda baryon, which was first found in cosmic rays. Other areas could be simplified - has the top quark actually been directly observed, or is it just that the decay modes are different? One of the links to parton goes to a disambiguation page. Is the 'quack' etymology just a joke, as other accounts say that the 'three quarks' were Gell-Mann's deciding factor. The evidence (or not) for actual existence of quarks should be addressed more. --79.75.111.140 (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for that etymology is a book about Feynman, so it is not implausible that it was not entirely serious. Maybe someone who's got a copy that book might quote the relevant part? -- Army1987 ! ! ! 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for all this "direct vs indirect osservation" fuss you and Ling.Nut are making, I simply can't see the point of it. We cannot see single elementary particles with a naked eye, so all observations of them are indirect, in some sense. Well, some are more indirect than others, but there's no need to make a mountain out of a molehill about that. -- Army1987 ! ! ! 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The top quark - it has actually been observed, as is noted in the article in the History section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmic rays create tons of particles. The fact that they found Lambdas (and a ton of others) in cosmic rays is not an indication of stability, but rather an indication that cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere created particles. Top quarks' been observed since 1995 at Fermilab (or at least I think it's Fermilab). The etymology is not a joke. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dablink. In regards to the baryon, I have altered the sentence to make everyone happy; it retains its effect while allowing for some exceptions. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead it says that the u and d quark were "discovered" in 1968, then the rest from 1974 (charm) to 1995 (top). This forgets about the strange quark. Something should be mentionned about that one.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded it; strange weren't actually observed in '68, but their existence was validated by the existence of the other two because it was necessary to the model, as well as because the concept of strangeness was already accepted (cf Kaon). This is discussed further on. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zweig originally called them aces. Something should be mentioned about this too. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a sentence with a reference about this on the Talk page. Graham Colm Talk 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated; thanks for the ref. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb— the lies to children bit was well-intended but way off the mark; "there was little evidence for their existence until 1968" which would have been one year or perhaps two before I started elementary school, and four or five before I studied atoms. I'm not aware of elementary schools that keep abreast of the latest developments in particle physics. ;-) @Anononymous Dissident—top quarks have been directly or indirectly observed? Plus I think my remarks have been pretty specific, especially when the old lead, my version of the lead, and the revised version of my version (which is currently atop the page) are compared... @Everyone: I actually don't fully support the lead as it stands, or even my own version (from which the current one was drawn). My version was intended to show the direction of change that I thought would be good, not to be the Final Version (TM).. I think the article should go back to WP:PHYSICS and be rewritten top to bottom. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Enough said indeed. Your oppose is noted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that myself, SCZenz, Ruslik0, and Army1987 are all members of WP Physics... Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With the inclusion of the aces and strange quark discovery, I'm happy with the content of this article and with the way it's written. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says that free quarks are never observed in nature. However the t quark doesn't hadronize... Perhaps SCZenz could offer some insight here. I withdraw my support until this has been addressed.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this addition clarifies things. You still don't directly observe free top quarks; you deserve their decay products. The top quark would hadronize too, if it ever lasted long enough. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. What my concern was what should the lead say about it? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: You have to think about who your audience is. I believe that it is possible to say things about quarks that are understandable by a high-school student who knows about the structure of an atom. It is okay for parts of the article to be more technical, but that high school student ought to be able to read at least the beginning of the article with benefit. As it stands, there's no chance of that -- right from the start it's leptons and hadrons and other advanced physics cruft. Looie496 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the second statement to note that quarks and leptons are the basic components of all matter. That is way enough, and it explains very clearly what quarks are. If the reader reads on, they are met with an easy to understand explanation that there are six different types "or flavors" of quarks. They are still with us, because understanding that things come in different varieties is an infant's concept. We then learn that only up and down varieties are stable, and the rest can only be created in particle accelerators. Stability is a concept I learned in the fifth grade, and a particle accelerator is something most people have heard of, considering recent events. Then we have the sentence about the up and down being very common - easy. The next statement deals with antimatter, a subject that needs to be tackled but which might be hard for some to understand. Still, we have noted that they are like the quark's archenemy.
Next para, we see that quarks cannot be isolated because of color confinement, with a juicy link for the latter. What that is isn't important in the lead, and a cursory look at the TOC will reveal that it is covered further down. Next sentence hadrons are explained, and then we see that there are two varieties of hadron, just before an explanation of how many quarks and antiquarks there are in each. Again, simple as pie, no ambiguity even for a toddler. A little further on, we find out that the protons and neutrons, two things everyone over the age of probably 10 has heard of, are hadrons and are therefore made up of quarks. Anyone who was feeling slightly lost, which I doubt, is now back on the boat. The next statement after that is fairly straight forward, and even implied by the fact that quarks cannot escape from hadrons.
The final paragraph is a simple history section, that uses no jargon in its expression.
Now, where was the difficulty in that lead? I just gave a sentence-by-sentence analysis of that lead, and explained quite clearly why everyone could understand it. The rest of the article eases into concepts, with reference to the simple-to-comprehend lead. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I think it's an important article, and I'm glad someone has re-worked it, but in the present state, I don't think it's FA standard (yet). My main objection is that the article doesn't meet 1b - there are too many crucial aspects that aren't even mentioned. Also, it looks to me like there are some problems with what is there.

  • Curious omission: the standard model of particle physics is mentioned in the lead and in the caption for the lead image only, and then never again. And while the weak interaction is mentioned, the fact that this introduces new states (right-handed different from left-handed) is not, and neither is the mass mixing issue (see comment on Higgs, below).
  • Curious omission: not even a hint of the group theory basis of the quark model?
  • Curious omission: Yang-Mills theories and, more generally, non-Abelian gauge theories not mentioned at all.
    To discuss all these things you will need to introduce complicated math into the article. Yang-Mills theories require writing the lagrangian, for instance. I am not sure that even majority of physisist will understand it. These topics are better to be dealt with in special articles. Ruslik (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious omission: Nothing about the quark-gluon-plasma.
  • Description of the parton model: could use some words on what it means that "the proton had substructure".
  • Curious omission: no mention of what the parton model has to do with asymptotic freedom. (Which is mentioned once, later.) In particular, the lead says that "Since quarks are not directly observable, their properties can only be deduced by experiments on hadrons." - but that's the whole point, isn't it? At high energies, it looks as if you have free quarks just coasting along there.
  • In the section on mass, the Higgs mechanism is mentioned only as an afterthought - why? Surely, in the standard model, this is how quarks get their non-zero rest mass in the first place?
  • The paragraph about spins is a bit uneven. It explains in very elementary terms some properties of spin, but, for instance, doesn't mention what half-integer spin entails: the Pauli principle, in other words: what makes matter matter. It doesn't even mention that half-integer spin is what all matter particles have in common.
  • The last sentence is misleading: "The quark's spin value contributes to the overall spin of the parent hadron, much as quark's electrical charge does to the overall charge of the hadron. Varying combinations of quark spins result in the total spin value that can be assigned to the hadron." - several problems with that. At an elementary level, because spin is directional there are more ways of combining elementary spins than there are for simple scalar charges. The more advanced problem is that the combination of valence quark spins doesn't reproduce the proton spin. Which is why we've had experiments like HERMES at the HERA particle accelerator. See, for instance, this article.
    You overcomplicate the issue. The spin of the hadron is sum of spins of the quarks: 1/2+1/2+1/2=1/2 or 3/2. The structural functions discussed in the paper does not influence this result. They are only important for hadron's magnetic moment. Ruslik (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system of attraction and repulsion between quarks charged with any of the three colors (...) is as follows: a quark charged with one color value will be attracted to an antiquark carrying with the corresponding anticolor, while three quarks all charged with differing colors will similarly be forced together. In any other case, a force of repulsion will come into effect." - that makes it sound more simple than it is. If, say, you have three quarks, each with a different color, and take the symmetric combination, you'll end up with a repulsive force. Also, for a symmetric state with two quarks with two different colors, you get an attractive force.
  • "Composed of one d and two u quarks, the proton has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the three quarks contribute around 15 MeV/c2, the remainder is from the energy of the gluons." - 15 MeV/c^2 sounds very low. I remember coming across higher numbers (quark rest mass plus kinetic energy contributions). Is that number recent?
  • "Gluons are constantly exchanged between quarks through an emission and reception process. These gluon exchange events between quarks are extremely frequent, occurring approximately 1024 times every second." - I'm very skeptical about the number given. After all - and that should be stated here! - the exchange picture is perturbation theory; whatever happens inside a hadron is highly non-perturbative.
  • "In this way, an infinite amount of energy would be required to wrench a quark from its hadronized state." - but that's not what happens, right? If you really were to pull a single quark away from its partners, there would be pair creation once you have invested sufficient energy, and you would be left with two hadrons instead of one.
  • "Those quarks that make up the core of the hadron are called valence quarks." - core sounds a bit literal. As if everything else is going on around that core.

Some other issues:

  • Lead seems to be too technical - it should be understandable to the average curious reader. I don't think the current version meets that standard. It tries to put all the technical terms in there, but doesn't explain them. For instance: strong force is introduced, and in a way that assumes that the reader knows that the color charge implies interaction via the strong force, but it doesn't say what the strong force does. It doesn't even say that the binding-together of quarks to form hadrons is due to that strong force.
  • Since the lead is supposed to introduce no concepts that aren't explained in detail later on, I don't think it should have references.
  • I don't quite know what to make of "which was found to have a mass approximately equal to that of a gold nucleus, around 200 times heavier than the hadron it was thought to form." - especially as the reference given for that sentence doesn't appear to contain any statement like that.
  • "A quark can only hold a charge of fractional or non-integer value, either −1/3 or +2/3 (measured in elementary charges), but the charge of an antiquark can be either" - sounds a bit weird. After all, the "but" doesn't address the "can only", as one would expect from the sentence structure.

Markus Poessel (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note; the article still relies on marginal sources, as outlined earlier, such as antonine-education and hyperphysics; also, missing publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take on board the suggestion that my comments are too vague. I apologize... Monday (today) and Tuesday are my busiest days at work... I'll try to have an exhaustive (and exhausting) commentary that's as close to line-by-line as possible... perhaps I can do it Wednesday or Thursday, then post it all here in one fell swoop. Again, I apologize for the vagueness. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement @Markus: what a comment. I plan to tackle every bullet over the next dayish. Please bear with me. @Sandy: I was sure I had every publisher marked. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, most of your concerns, Markus, are beyond my experience. I have asked SCZenz to take a look. Again, please bear with me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainly willing to bear with you. Again, I think it's great that someone's resolved to take this article to FA. And I apologize for merely pointing out the problems instead of fixing them myself – I'm exceptionally busy for the next few weeks. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: with one Support struck, and the level of issues mentioned by domain experts who have opposed, I think this work will best proceed off-FAC. I hope it will return to FAC with more solid sourcing, and a much clearer lead and more context about the significance of quarks and their discovery, and with less definitions and more context in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 7 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 06:56, 6 October 2008 [74].

Beecher's Handmade Cheese edit

Nominator(s): rootology (C)(T)


Hello, I'd like to nominate Beecher's Handmade Cheese for it's first FAC attempt. It's had a formal peer review here, and an informal one on the article's talk page, with all the changes now in place, along with some extra copyediting and clean up beyond that. There likely is some grammatical horror or MOS trouble, because my copyediting work isn't my strong suit, and as I'm still learning MOS. Please let me know what needs improving! Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, sorry. rootology (C)(T) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article needs a careful copyedit. A few examples:
  • "As of 2006, a second cheese making center was opened in South Seattle, which includes a cheese aging facility." So South Seattle includes a cheese aging facility?
  • "A portion of the cheese curds used in the manufacturing process are set aside ...".
  • "Beecher'ss are sold in retail stores beyond the Seattle area ...".
  • "A cookbook by Dammeier, Pure Flavor: 125 Fresh All-American Recipes From The Pacific Northwest, has been published incorporated recipes from Beecher's."
  • "Together with Brad Sinko, who helped run a family cheesemaking business in Oregon, they established the Beecher's brand ...". Should be he established.
  • "Fourth through sixth grade elementary school children are educated on the effects of food additives ...". We don't all live in the US. Why not something like school children between the ages of whatever fourth grade and sixth grade means?
  • "... has been prepared by Dammeier druing guest appearances on several television programs ...". There really ought not to be such obvious typos in a FAC.
  • Reference #7 is malformed.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I got all the points you listed, and take a look at the elementary school passage--does the Education in the United States#Elementary school link help to clarify that bit? I can try to dig up some independent sources for typical ages for those grades, if that would be better still? I'll go back through and try to copyedit more. rootology (C)(T) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for the school children, I changed it to Primary education#United States which seems better. Please let me know. rootology (C)(T) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to have to follow a link to find out that fourth grade means 9–10 year olds. Good luck with the copyediting, but I'll stress that those were only examples I gave. For instance: "The cheese factory is housed in a small, glass-walled facility that includes a retail shop and cafe to buy cheese dishes." So the purpose of the cafe is to buy cheese dishes? Or does this mean that the cafe sells cheese dishes? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you mind looking again? I've gone through with a variety of copyedits since: here is the combined diff. Thanks for your help! rootology (C)(T) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail—sorry, this nomination is premature and should be worked over by fresh eyes. Do you know how to find good word-nerd collaborators? Withdrawal and resubmission in a few weeks would be proper.

  • "cheese making center"—something missing?
  • "USA" not normally used nowadays. "US".
  • "with a" ... "with a". And there's another "with" connector in the lead, too. Try to avoid. ("and operates a high-volume modern production facility, with multiple farms supplying milk" --> "and operates a modern high-volume production facility supplied by more than a dozen local farms"—I've guessed the type of information you could provide that will inject the precision a WP article needs).
  • "a rare open storefront lease"—now where would the hyphen go?
  • "Prior to"—why not plain Germanic "before"? Remove "doing".
  • Possibly remove "various". I think there are two of them, too.
  • "Beecher's has won numerous industry awards."—Twice, verbatim, in the one para. It's puffy, so be careful.

These are random examples from the opening two paras. Tony (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. May I withdraw? rootology (C)(T) 05:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn; per WP:FAC/ar, please leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:57, 6 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008 [75].

Dol Guldur edit

Nominator(s): Lord of Moria Talk Contribs


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets criteria. And looks really good. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be negative right at the start, but the nomination statement is extremely feeble. There's nothing wrong with omitting it where there's nothing particularly useful to say. It won't have a bearing on the outcome, I assure you. It's mostly very well written. I spotted a few glitches, though. Passes 1a.

I apologise for the statement. I knew it was weak, I just didn't the like idea of not writing something in. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to its location, situated just inside Mirkwood"—"location just" would remove the redundancy.
    • Done. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to intervene, but what's been written now is: "Due to it being situated inside Mirkwood..." which is ugly. What was being suggested, I think, was: "Due to its situation inside Mirkwood..." I also removed a stray bracket from the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First map probably OK. Second map is high-res. Unsure, but I think a better, more explicit case should be made on the info page, and in relation to NFCC8 in the caption, which doesn't exist yet.
    • What do you mean by this? The map should be removed? I think it looks good and its interactive, provides many good links on it. Maybe the first one could stay as well? I won't mind removing it though and replacing it with a better one.Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: suddenly stub-paras. Perhaps they're necessary?

I think the article fails comprehensiveness and more research is required before the article gets to FA. Some specific problems:

  • No real wp:notability suggested.
  • No sourced analysis from independant, third party, reliable sources.
  • Almost 90% in-universe,
  • Needs a real-world framework (based on literary criticism and literary biography):
    • When did Tolkien invent Dol Guldur?
    • What symbolism does Tolkien use to portray Dol Guldur?
    • How have critics approached Dol Guldur?
    • How is Dol Guldur significant to Tolkiens reputation as an author / success of the works / influence on popular culture?
    • etc.

There's a long, long way to go yet!Davémon (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I strongly disagree. I have found sources from many sites to say it is notable. What you have listed above is not possible or is at minimum false, why would anyone want to criticise Dol Guldur? It is a building. All information is listed there. We simply don't know "when" he created it - it seems tedious in the least and will seem too in-universe and not notable. Probably around the time he wrote the book is only guess. I have looked for "indepedant third party sources", books mentioning Dol Guldur are listed, John Howe has drawn illustrations of it, all information is mentioned in Appendix B of the Lord of the Rings, which is also mentioned. It isn't "90% in-universe". I mean look at Flood (Halo) is it "in-universe". Furthermore we have already listed it as being notable: this is where Sauron rebuilt his strength and set out to look for the one ring. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOTRrules - Davemon has a strong point. It would benefit your article if you could find any information on what Tolkien did to create this area. Anything special, ideas he based it on, similarities to medieval fiction or real world places, etc. When does it first appear in fiction? Why does it first appear in fiction? Etc. Try to come up with a few paragraphs on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Notability must be established outside the story. Dol Guldur is an element of fiction, and as such critics will have something to say about its role in that fiction. As for when it was created - this is highly significant to literary biography. The whole transformation of Tol-in-Gaurhoth to Dol Guldur illuminates Tolkiens creative processes. All of this citable from The History of Middle-earth and the History of the Hobbit. --Davémon (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't often oppose on sourcing, but this one clearly fails the comprehensive guideline, because there is no evidence that several sources have been consulted. Specifically, there is no information from the Book of Lost Tales works, which would be important for the development of the location. Note that there are 805 books listed at Amazon when you search for Middle-Earth and Tolkien, have any of those works been consulted?

  • Current ref 26 (Rutledge, Fleming) is a book, not a website, and should be formatted as such, because I'm assuming that you've read the whole book, not just Google snippets, so that you have the whole context.
  • What makes http://www.tuckborough.net/ a reliable source?
  • Current ref 41 (MERP) is lacking last access date and publisher at the very least.
  • What makes http://www.xbox360achievements.org/guide.php?type=Retail&gameID=74 a reliable source?
  • I have to say there is a distinct lack of third-party sources on this article. This is Tolkien, there will be scholarly discussions of the location. There is also a lack of using the Book of Lost Tales, or other published works by Tolkien's estate.
Otherwise sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm disappointed to see that my comments on the talk page from June have yet to be addressed. I didn't believe that the article was GA material then, and I still doubt it. The fundamental problem with this article is that it does not adhere to WP:WAF; it contains far too much in-universe details and not enough real-world context. Where is the critical analysis? Where is the notability in literature established? The "Reception" section isn't what the header suggests; it's a list of portrayals in the media, so the header is misleading. That is the only section that doesn't contain solely plot details. Also, most of the sources are primary sources, from Tolkien's work -- this does not satisfy WP:RS. I just don't see how this article has improved since its hasty promotion to GA. María (habla conmigo) 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an article about a minor feature of a (major) work of fiction. As such, it is not likely ever to acquire enough information to warrant becoming a Featured Article. As LOTRrules notes, there's not a lot written about it, either in universe or out (though he has not mined all the available sources). The article has improved significantly since being given Good Article status (which was clearly premature), and many (but not all) of the fan references have been replaced with more authoritative ones (and regardless what WP:RS says, there is no more authoritative source about in-universe details than Tolkien himself). [And this does serve a useful purpose: one of the reasons the WP Tolkien articles are so popular is that they have become fairly trustworthy sources of information in light of the story's mangling by the films.] But the basic objection that there is little here in the way of development is just (and in my opinion not likely to change); and even some of the in-universe material (specifically the section on "Culture" -- not exactly an appropriate heading) is not entirely accurate. (Disclaimer: I have worked on this article.) Elphion (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely disagree that this subject cannot become FA-worthy, although it might be relatively obscure, there is no reason it can't fulfill the FA criteria. As an aside - may I ask how are you measuring the popularity of the WP Tolkien articles? Davémon (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article looks good and is well written, however I have to agree that it really needs more real-world content before becoming an FA. Xandar 10:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically what if there is no criticism that anyones written?Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 16:59, 5 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [76].

Virginia edit

Nominator(s): Patrick «»

previous FAC (00:50, 16 April 2008)


I feel confident that the article is now ready for featured article status. A lot of work has been done on it, including updates since the previous nomination. Thanks in advance for any comments and contributions.--Patrick «» 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Needs more work on the prose. I see that since the last FAC, the article hasn't been submitted to Peer Review. That should have been done first; especially for a large article over an important topic. Here are examples from the lead and the first section:

  • "The state is named after Queen Elizabeth I of England who was known as the 'Virgin Queen' because she never married." Comma after "who".
  • "The capital of the commonwealth is Richmond, though Virginia Beach is the most populous city and Fairfax County is the most populous political subdivision." No contradictions in there.
  • Could you add something about the geography to the lead?
  • "Virginia has an economy with several important foundations"—What does "foundations" mean in this context?
  • "Most of the state east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, plus the southern part of the Shenandoah Valley," Change "plus" to something a bit more formal.
  • "The largest earthquake, at 5.9 magnitude, came in 1897 in Blacksburg." "came"-->occured or happened or was (your choice of words)
  • "Gypsy moth infestations beginning in the early 1990s have eroded the dominance of the oak forests."-->Since the early 1990s, gypsy moth infestations have eroded the dominance of the oak forests.
  • "Virginia is sixty-five percent covered by forests." How about, "Sixty-five percent of Virginia's land area is covered by forests." or something similar.
  • "Coal supplies half of the state's power needs, with another third from two nuclear power plants." I think "power needs" can be shortened to electricity, unless there are other important uses of coal in this context.
  • "Thunderstorms are an occasional concern, with the state averaging 35-45 days of thunderstorm activity annually." Three concerns:
    • "occasional concern" sounds too casual.
    • The hyphen between 35 and 45 should be an en dash.
    • The with + -ing sentence structure is not grammatically smooth, try using a semicolon instead: ""Thunderstorms are an occasional concern; the state averages 35-45 days of thunderstorm activity annually."

Note that these are just examples; please find someone to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice! The article was up for peer review three times this year so far. I think these are relatively minor word choice issues. I also worry that flipping the subject of some sentences might alter the flow of the paragraph. I have made changes based on your suggestions, and I encourage you to keep reading!--Patrick «» 04:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the motto not given in English? this is en.wikipedia? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through, thought I'd clarify: Virginia's flag has the motto displayed in Latin, and Sic semper tyrannis (linked in the infobox) gives the translation. Oklahoma (FA), however, has the field written as: Motto(s): Labor omnia vincit (Latin: Labor conquers all things). Perhaps this is the way to go? María (habla conmigo) 14:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The info about the motto is in the text, in the Symbols section. I've added the English equivalent into the infobox too, however the official motto is only the Latin version.--Patrick «» 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like the Religious affiliation table unless you know Baptist is a subset of Protestantism, which in itself is a subset of chritianity, then it doesnt make a lot of sence, there must be a better layout. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs on sourcing and comprehensiveness concerns. Where are the books? As one of the original colonies, Virginia should have been the subject of dozens of books on its history, yet the article instead primarily cites self-published sources by various universities? That is not acceptable for a Featured article.

  • The geology and terrain section needs to be expanded quite a bit. The five regions are mentioned but not really described. (Google books search on Virginia Geology gives quite a few potential sources [77])
  • Climate - is there information on average rainfall or average temperatures? It might be wise to add information about Virginia's seasons (in Texas we have two: crazy hot and not quite as hot)
  • I would also recommend that the article by copyedited. There are a lot of awkward phrases and misplaced commas.

Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I used reliable web sources like Yale or the Virginia Historical Society to make the information as verifiable as possible, though I will look into the Google Books suggestion, thank you for that. Since the article is already almost 120kb, there are subarticles that have been split off, including Climate of Virginia, that have more information on temperatures and such.--Patrick «» 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy access to sources should not be the primary concern when choosing which references to use. Use the most reliable (generally books), and if they can't be found online an interested person can go to the library to get them. Some of the other links can be placed in the External links section.
I realize that the article is long, but summary style needs to be appropriately applied so that the user reading this feels as if he received a great overview of the topic. I felt like some of the sections were much too cursory. I know I've asked for a lot - good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are eleven books cited, and another nine journals. I haven't seen this issue in other FACs I was involved in. While I will look to have more textual sources for new information, would you really recommend replacing working sources with books?--Patrick «» 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe most of the sources are strong enough, so, yes, I would recommend replacing them with better sources.
  • Because this article is about a state, I would not consider most info pulled from state websites to be independent. These are essentially self-published sources and therefore should not be our first choice.
  • The College of William and Mary info on Geology is a product of their Department of Geology, yes, but it is still self-published info. Colleges do a lot of research, and it is highly possible that some of that could be on the website before it has been vetted by a journal or other publisher. That makes this less reliable than many other sources.
  • A classroom website is absolutely not a good source. Professors also include their opinions on their own websites - look for peer-reviewed or externally published info
  • This source from Jamestown 2007 (http://www.jamestown2007.org/pdfdocs/Three%20cultures%20release%20FINAL.pdf) is a press release. That is a self-published source.
  • Newspapers are not considered as reliable as journals or books. They are generally not good sources for history
  • There are many citations from colleges (where it looks like a professor's site) and even a local independent school district. Many of these are self-published. Unless you can find evidence that the person who wrote that is an expert in the field, then the cites should not be used. Even if they are an expert, that means they probably wrote a book or journal articles on the topic - and those are better sources
  • There are a lot of cites to websites of partisan organizations (http://www.americasfirstregion.com/, proenglish.com) - these are all self-published and are not reliable sources
  • Also, as Moni said below, it appears the article has cherrypicked sources. It cites several different websites on particular festivals - that implies to me that someone went out, did a search on festivals in Virginia, and then added a few that popped up in the search into this article. That borders on OR or Undue, because it ends up representing a WP editor's opinion of what is important to be listed in the article, not the opinion of independent sources.
Not all of the sources are bad, but I'd probably throw out at least half of them. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half? Over one-hundred sources? I don't think that's possible. While sections such as history and geography might benefit from different sources, the article has to use sources such as the state's own website for much of the information, from statistics on graduation rates to the naming of their state tartan; from the number of airports to Colonial Williamsburg's theme for the quadcentenial. I simply don't expect to find accurate or up to date facts like those in published works. If there are controversial subjects that were cited with minor websites, then I could understand, but that's not the issue your raising. The only controversial issues on the page would be the role of slavery in Virginia and the designation of Virgina as culturally southern, both of which have multiple books sourced. If Wikipedia were to require published sources only, it would really limit what could be included here.--Patrick «» 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On references: As Virginia is one of the oldest states, the center of American republic democracy, the home state of 7 presidents, and a major center of slavery and its defense, I expect to see stellar sources about these issues. Instead, the citations list is full of multiple general sources that picked a phrase from here and a sentence from there. It's as if the citations list was padded to add more sources with the least amount of substance possible. I understand that this is an overview of Virginia, but this is to be a featured article on the main page one day. Sources at the local library should be plentiful and accessible. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' "Unlike her nation-leading education system, Virginia has a mixed health record..." since when was a state considered female? Is there some official designation or is this just a floral term? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I guess it was just floral. "The" will work just fine here.--Patrick «» 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some time out problems with several links, and also some disambiguation probs too: Battle_of_Bull_Run, Chub, Consulting, Dace and even Virginia. --Tufacave (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check every link, and it's just the checklink tool that is blocked. Those disambiguation wikilinks are intentional. It links to Virginia (disambiguation) at the top of the page where it says "This article is about the state, for others..." Thanks for your comment though!--Patrick «» 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Kudos on the work done so far, but this needs significant improvement, beyond what can be accomplished at FAC. Historical facts should not be cited to sources such as websites for Prince William County Schools or a student project at Lehigh University. There are some really strange citation sources - the Freedom Forum's goal/mission is cited to an article about journalist deaths in Iraq, published in the New Zealand Herald? Referencing is the biggest issue, but other work is needed, too. Examples:

  • The Flora and fauna section needs better organization to avoid placing emphasis on less important aspects. The second sentence is about mountainous areas, but most of the state is not mountainous. The first linked word in the whole section is prickly pear cactus; while there are a probably handful of Opuntia species in Virginia, it's hardly a common plant, and should be mentioned only after the common ones, if at all.
  • I see many assertions that are uncited, for example: USA Today is "the nation's most circulated newspaper"; UVA "is a UNESCO World Heritage Site"; "the medical school of Virginia Commonwealth University, which is home to the nation's oldest organ transplant program".
  • "Unlike the nation-leading education system, Virginia has a mixed health record" - the first half of this sentence is contentious; it does not appear to be supported in its current form by the previous section on education.
  • "Major performance venues in the state include The Birchmere, Norva Theatre, John Paul Jones Arena, Nissan Pavilion, the Patriot Center, and the Verizon Wireless Virginia Beach Amphitheater." - I love the Birchmere, and it has served many artists well, but calling it a 'major performance venue' is hyperbolic: it seats perhaps 400 or 500. I'm not familiar with the NorVa, but it looks to have less history, and likely less impact, than the Birchmere.

I would love to see this article brought up to FA status (and would be glad to help to an extent), but it's not there yet. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things, USA Today's and UVA's status is sourced in the text, not in the image captions. But the bigger issue this nomination is facing is criticism of the sources. The reason I feel that this still deserves your consideration is all citation are from reliable sources. I don't believe Wikipedia sees gradations in reliability. Either a source, like a newspaper or a University, is reliable or it isn't. Why would a school history department be unreliable for history information? I understand that different users have different feelings about which materials make the best sources, but I don't feel that Wikipedia does.--Patrick «» 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia as a whole may not view gradations between reliable sources necessary, but most editors at Featured Articles do. I certainly do. An article's content should reflect what the bulk of the authority of reliable sources on the subject says. --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the image captions; neither the USA Today claim nor the UVA claim is sourced in the text, either. As to the larger issue, according to WP:RS:
"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
The examples I gave - the websites for the Lehigh student project and for Prince William County Schools - contain no information about what sort of fact-checking went into the creation of the materials. Additionally, it's unlikely that the project's (student) authors could be considered 'authoritative in relation to the subject at hand', and the PWCS site contains no authorship credit of any kind. Maralia (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are by professors, not students. I don't know how to get more expert. The Lehigh source looks like a compilation of their digitized library's primary sources, with author information. Since it is only used to source the date of the Jamestown landing, I'm sure another can be found if it is a real problem.--Patrick «» 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The credits on the Lehigh site indicate that the contributors were members of graduate seminars in 2003 and 2006. The page at the Lehigh site which is cited here is not a reproduction of a primary source document, but a compiled timeline. As I said previously, there are no credits on the PWCS site at all. How do you conclude that these sites are by professors? Maralia (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There may be a few things to nitpick about, but overall this is an excellent article. Comprehensive, well-illustrated, and a credit to the project. I would have no problem with seeing this article display the FA star. --Elonka 22:13, 3 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [78].

Aaron Eckhart edit

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I asked the author for the usage of the image and told me to distribute it with the GFDL license, see here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From that page:
  • Shelby: Is there anyway to license the image so it can't be used commercially?
  • Zerorules677: Yes there is a way, you would have to change the license of the image to "Some Rights Reserved" to comply with the GFDL licensing
Absolutely not true; GFDL does not allow for non-commercial use. I'm concerned the author received misinformation. Was this correspondence sent to OTRS? Эlcobbola talk 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a link to the author of the GFDL page and agreed to distribute the image with that license. I forgot to send one when I added the image, but I just sent one right now. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if OTRS clears it there is no problem. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if not, then I'll replace the image with the ones available at commons. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not entirely sure what's expected of an article of this type, so I'm not gonna support or oppose it. In my opinion it's a bit weak on biography, and ends up being a long summary of his various roles. Anyway, here's some copy-editing I did:

  • "his father's job relocated the family to England when he was 13" - his father?
  • "Five years after parting ways, Eckhart…" – Eckhart is the subject of this sentence, and one person can’t part ways
Would "Five years after they parted ways" work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Lampman (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collaborate" – used in two consecutive sentences, a bit repetitive
  • "the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – it doesn’t seem right to repeat the "the" here
  • "This led to him taking a few years off…" – did earning his diploma lead him to take a few years off?
  • I think "made-for-television" is normally hyphenated, see e.g. the Television movie article
  • "who was "cured" by surgery" – quotation marks should be used for quotations
  • "fourth and last collaboration with LaBute" – they’re both still alive, how about "latest"?
  • "The film was met with mixed reviews and was number three at the box office after the film's release." – is three bad? I guess that depends on how much money went into production and marketing; if it’s not bad then it should be "but" rather than "and", to denote a contrast between critical reception and commercial success. In any case, it goes without saying that the box office position came "after the film's release"
    • I really hope I got this, if not, do you think it might be best to remove it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not meet the expectations of Dick's adaption of the story." – don’t quite get this one, did Dick’s adaptation generate expectations? I’m guessing it was rather his original story that created expectations, Dick did not even write the movie adaptation. (PS: spelling of "adaptation")
    • The main reason the film received the negativity was because it didn't "live up" to the book's story. Again, I think its trivial to include, but I would like to know if it is important to include or not. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At first it looks as if no more will be demanded of Eckhart than to be the stalwart good guy in pursuit of the deranged genius bad guy." – this is just the first part of a sentence, and makes little sense on its own. Then again, including the whole sentence might be a bit excessive. How about: "Eckhart is a classically handsome leading man…but Merhige demands of him…complexity and anguish"
  • "In his theatrical debut he starred on the London stage in David Mamet's Oleanna opposite Julia Stiles, which ran in mid 2004." – 1.) "theatrical debut" – you already said that LaBute cast him "in several of his original plays", 2.) I’d switch it around: "In his theatrical debut he starred on the London stage opposite Julia Stiles in David Mamet's Oleanna, which ran in mid 2004", she’s not the one running, 3.) "mid 2004" – hyphen
  • "he plays Sergeant Leland" – you’ve been using past tense till now
  • "he, along with Josh Hartnett's character, try to investigate" – this should be singular form of the verb, I’m pretty sure
  • "the real 1947 crime" – you could link this to Black Dahlia
  • "did not top Mostly Martha" – in what way, box office, critically? The way it's written now it looks like an unsupported POV statement
No, the film, No Reservations, was the adaptation of Mostly Martha. Hope that made sense. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, but it seems like a subjective statement. Lampman (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, after reading the sentence quite a few times, I don't think its relevant to include with the sentence. Do you think it might be a good idea to remove it or... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try "and was unfavouably compared to the original", and put the ref at the end. Also, you should write "Dick's original short story" instead of "Dick's adaptation of the story". The adaptation was written by Dean Georgaris, not by Dick. That's all. Lampman (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added your suggestions. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the main things I could find. Lampman (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I got your concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but not quite; there's still a few things that weren't addressed. Look at what I wrote about "after the film's release", "Dick's adaptation" and "try to investigate". Also, the second sentence of the lead can mean that they moved to England when his father was thirteen. This was clearly not the case, but the sentence needs to be unambiguous. "when Aaron was 13" would be better (first name to distinguish him from his father). The discrepancy between "Neil LaBute...cast Eckhart in several of his original plays" and, later, "his theatrical debut" needs to be addressed. Lampman (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The writing needs scrutiny throughout, preferably by someone new to the article.

  • Please audit throughout for the massive overlinking, so that your high-value links are no longer swamped. Are our readers so ignorant of English that they don't know what "photography", "film" (twice at the top), and "poet" mean? Spell out "United States" at the top, and please don't link the names of commonly known countries.
    • Never wanted the readers to feel "ignorant" and you ended up fixing the overlinking problem. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he participated in school plays"—what, as stage hand?
  • "He left the school without graduating, but earned his diploma via a correspondence course." False contrast: "and"; and drop the comma now.
  • Readers forced to code "BYU" for only one subsequent usage. "while at Brigham Young".
  • Unsure the last two sentences are appropriate in the lead.

Down from lead: the "nee Lawrence"—place after Eckhart.

  • Fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His father's job moved to England; did his father follow it, or was he just made redundant?
    • His father's job forced the family to move to England, since the company were relocating over there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rejoinder:
    • Overlinking: no, I fixed it just at the start. The whole text needs auditing for overlinking, although the lead was probably the most glaring example. Very few readers click on links, anyway: it has nothing to do with their self-perceptions of ignorance, and more to do with editors' toys, I'm afraid.
      • Alright, I just went through the article and un-linked the terms that don't need to be linked. If I missed any, I'll make sure that they are un-linked. Also, I meant no harm to make anyone look like an ignorant, if that was the case being made. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Job moving": the wording implied the wrong thing; I hope I got across that it needs to be tweaked.
  • The last two sentences are too detailed for an overview—they're out of step with the broad sweep of the rest of the lead.
  • I see what you mean, Tony, but in your opinion how should the "Personal life" section be summarized? Per WP:LEAD, shouldn't something from his section be mentioned included? (p.s., I helped copy-edit the article, but I hope that ThinkBlue took my advice to get further help?) María (habla conmigo) 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these were just examples of why the writing needs to be worked on throughout. Do you have new collaborators organised? Tony (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left requests on user's talkpages for this particular reason. I have yet not heard if they will accept/decline the request. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article feels incomplete with such a short "personal life" section. It also is not at the end of his career/life so this article will change significantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, that is the only available information that has been found with reliable sources. If I were to include information without the verifiability of the sources, that would have be challenged to be removed from the article. True, that it is not the end of his film career, but when would it be the right time to nominate an article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its only a comment, not an oppose, and it would be good for someone to state such a thing and bring it to attention during the FAC in order to mitigate any future problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, that's what I meant with all due respect. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, good. I hate when there are disputes with my comments, when they are only comments and not opposes. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per 1(a). Note that these are merely representative examples; fixing these few problems is highly unlikely to induce me to change my !vote:
  • "Now, Eckhart performs" When is now? Unencyclopedic prose.
  • "and makes out with Osborn" unencyclopedic prose
  • "Eckhart has given up the habit of drinking and smoking. He has also recently developed an interest in photography. While in London performing in the play Oleanna, Eckhart did a lot of street photography, often taking pictures of people without them acknowledging he was photographing them. " See WP:NOT regarding trivia. Also "did a lot of" clumsy prose.
  • "via a correspondence course. This led to him taking a few years off" The correspondence course caused him to go on holiday?

Oppose: As with above, I think there are many prose issues, as well as other confusions, of which these are examples:-

  • Link to Cobham Hall School: This goes to an English country house/girls' boarding school. What was Eckhart doing there?
  • Aaron in the first line, thereafter Eckhart. "Eckhart" is over-repeated in first part of second paragraph.
  • "pony-haired"? Pardon my not knowing, but is this Am-Eng for "ponytailed"?
  • "Now Eckhart performs..." When is "now"?
  • "children's book author and poet" doesn't need "book". If "children's" only applies to the books, you could call him "poet and children's author..."
  • A senior year in Australia, another senior year at Cobham Hall?
  • I don't understand how a correspondence course diploma "led to" his taking a few years off. "This was followed by..." would be better. Also, "taking a few years off" is vague (how many years - two? three?) and informal-sounding.
  • Do you "land" agents? Or do you employ them or perhaps sign up with them? Also, when (in what year) did this happen?
  • Date of TV debut?
  • "What is a "guest starring role", or a "guest role"? How do they differ from normal roles?

I could go on, but there are rather too many problems. I'm sorry to say that the article is not ready for FA yet, and needs rather a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [79].

2008 invasion of Anjouan edit

Nominator(s): TheFEARgod (Ч)


I hope it fulfills the criteria and becomes "my" first FA TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Your references are a mess. Lots of plain links with no publisher or last access date. And most of the rest don't have last access dates even when they have publishers. Every website needs at the least a publisher and a last access date. If the author is known (which it probably will be for some of these news articles) the author should be given also.
Lots?? I don't see one plain link... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, a lot are missing accessdates. I'll try to clean up the refs for you. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, help is indeed needed--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you change the scale used for the coordinate template so it shows exactly the location of the invasion? I'm also leaning towards removing it as I think it is pretty useless in this article. Eklipse (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there was not a single location--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least make it to show the Comores instead of the whole of Africa and the Indian ocean. Eklipse (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
gosh, it shows the only island of Anjouan to me..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • "Presidential elections in Anjouan were scheduled for June 15 and June 29, 2008." - unsourced.
the well-sourced article about those elections is already linked. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure how the use of brackets are on Wikipedia outside Wikilinks. I may suggest removing them.
      • What? The only brackets I can see are used correctly as part of quotes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've never used brackets like that, so I wasn't sure - but I still have other matters.Mitch32(UP) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last thing, solve some red links, awful lot.
done --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck.Mitch32(UP) 23:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Image:Anjouan invasion.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8, and FA criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's the case. No-one has questioned that when the article was for A-class discussion, and even a photo was requested. You really want to block the article because of one photo and on a disputed basis? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The promotion to FA status of any article that fails to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria should be blocked Fasach Nua (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first argument stands. Other thoughts? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w FN. It fails WP:NFCC8 (readers could understand the article perfectly well without this photo) and more importantly NFCC2 - this is a recent AP photo that everyone else has to pay to use. This is a non-transformative use of the work and is likely copyright infringement as well as a policy violation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. There's no dispute now so I hope FN changes his decision--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's good to see an Africa-related topic here at FAC, though there are some issues to address before I can support:

  • Overall, the article needs copyedits.
  • In the lead section, "Mohamed Bacar managed to escape to Mayotte by March 26", saying "by March 26" is awkward since this was only the next day after the invasion.
  • Change "could not extradited" -> "could not be extradiated"
  • "A French analyst said" - who? which French analyst? why is this person's opinion significant here?
  • References need to be placed after punctuation. There is one misplaced in the "Tensions rise" section.
  • "France, the former colonial power, has also assisted the operation by airlifting AU troops to the area" - by saying "has also", it sounds like the assistance is still going on and they are still bringing troops in. Though, from the context, I think this needs to be worded in the past tense. Please clarify.
  • "On March 3 2008, a fuel ship" - a comma is missing in the date. Same problem with "On the morning of March 24 2008", and "Bacar's asylum request was rejected on May 15 2008."
  • Reference 49 is not formatted properly.

--Aude (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all done.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:10, 2 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [80].

Harry Potter edit

Nominator(s): Thehelpfulone (talk)
previous FAC June 2007


Hi there, I would like to nominate this good article for FA. I have worked on the article for quite a while now, and through Peer Reviews, I think that the article is ready for FAC. The other major contributor is Serendipodous who is currently unable to co-nom because of another FAC. I will be ready to make any changes, if required - thank you for your time! :) The Helpful One (Review) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All the issues have been addressed —— RyanLupin • (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—The prose is generally good, but I shouldn't be able to find these issues easily in the lead. This means that another run-through by someone fresh is required throughout: not a big job, though.

  • "he seeks to subjugate the Muggle (non-magical population) world to his rule"— "population" doesn't work as an eqivalent in this sentence.
  • "has sold more than 400 million copies and been translated"—another "has" required.
  • "English language versions"—hyphen required, esp. in BrEng.
  • Wrong date format used. I'll zip them now with the script.
  • Spaced en dash required for the ranged publication dates.
  • Monetary worth: needs "as of [year]".

Tony (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not alter reviewers' comments. Add your signed and threaded comments below theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link here when buzzing my talk page? "English-language versions" (not British language- rather than picture-book versions). Can you persuade someone else to go through the rest of the article, please? Tony (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry. I asked one user, Szyslak to have a look at it, but I'll still look around. The Helpful One Review 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I asked Juliancolton to copy edit the article, and he has gone through it and copy edited the mistakes and the prose. The Helpful One Review 19:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Accio Quote ref can be subbed with the original article. Mugglenet always provides links to articles so it shouldn't be too hard to find the original sources. Serendipodous 17:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The MOS link titles, ref 86. The Helpful One Review 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for mixing the cite and citation templates, when you go to edit the article, you can scroll to the bottom and see a list of templates used in the article. You're using both the cite family and the citation family, which give inconsistent results. You need to use either only citation or only cite templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Done. The Helpful One Review 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed all of the source problems, replacing with reliable news websites. See the history for verification. The Helpful One Review 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments

  • Current ref 28 (Harry Potter and the Mystery of J K's lost initial) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 30 (WILD ABOUT HARRY) has a link title in all capitals. Per the MOS, we don't do all capitals even when the web page itself is in all capitals.
  • Still one muggle.net ref http://media.mugglenet.com/movie5/redcarpetvideo/ootpredcarpet.mov current ref 123
Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Ref 28 and 30. Muggle Net citation removed. The Helpful One Review 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please Remove the done comments from another editor's post; only the reviewer or editor who wrote the comment says when they are done. Please follow talk page conventions and do not append commentary to another editor's comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak opposeComment. Just at a quick glance, the section on Series overview is very heavily under-sourced. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is basic plot description; the novels are acting as the primary source in this case, are they not? Steve T • C 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Asked another editor, who said general consensus is that plot summaries should be fine without them. The Helpful One Review 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you point me to a discussion on that consensus? I'm leery about not having a citation for such an important part of the article (and if the books would be that citation, wouldn't that be considered a primary source, which is somewhat frowned upon?). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • <--Better. There are still a few paragraphs that end without a source, but I am much happier that there are citations for the section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't the time for a full review, but a quick read through shows up a few issues that I suggest you consider addressing:
    • The prose is OK, but contains various unnecessary intensifiers (examples only: "This formula was completely broken"; "The novels are very much in the fantasy genre"). The sentences work OK without them. Take another look at the other sections too.
    • Certain common terms are linked, especially early on (examples only: "book series", "merchandise", "eponymous"). These don't really add to a reader's understanding of the topic at hand, and I would expect the majority to know what these words and phrases mean.
    • On my browser at least (Firefox 3, resolution of 1280x800), the image in the "Universe" section impacts upon the "Structure and genre" section below it, pushing the heading 1/4 across the page. Steve T • C 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck these. Steve T • C 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.Fixed the image part, removed the size. Delinked the extra common terms. The unnecessary intensifiers (I couldn't find any...)The Helpful One Review 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • Why is a set of stamps used in the infobox of an article on a series of books? (And why does the caption need a ref?)
  • "his best friends from" - does this need a link? (and I dunno, the "best" sounds... childish? Can they just be friends?)
  • "his quest to conquer the Wizarding world" - is this supposed to be capitalised? (I don't know. Serious question.)
  • "As of June 2008, the book series" - I doubt book series needs a link; going by the lead so far you've (hopefully) made it obvious what you're talking about.
  • Ref 3 formatting is odd; why repeating the publisher with and without italics?
  • The seventh and last book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was released on 21 July 2007" - does a statement like this belong in the lead?
  • "Publishers announced a record-breaking 12 million copies for the first print run in the United States alone." - clarify the first print run of the last book (again, if something this specific deserves to be in the lead)

That's just from the lead. Agree with Tony; prose needs some love. Giggy (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: HP release date. Delinking of best friends, removing best. Delinked book series per previous comment, fixed ref 3 formatting. Capital of Wizarding world removed, shouldn't be capitalised. Removed record breaking information from lead, in main of article. Removed the ref for the caption, but kept the stamp as its the only picture showing the book covers, if this article becomes FAC, I will use the Free Image of J.K. Rowling in the article to put on the Main Page. The Helpful One Review 13:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why the infobox needs a nonfree image. Giggy (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is because there are no free ones to replace that image available, and the books need illustrating. The Helpful One Review 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need illustrating. We add it if it's going to significantly improve reader understanding (see NFCC). How does an image of stamps of the book covers do that? Giggy (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stamps show the book covers. The book covers are required as it improves reader's understanding by showing what the books look like. This would allow them to understand aspects of the article more easily, such as the Plot - as they would be able to see from the Book Covers what each book is about. The Helpful One Review 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The book cover does nothing to assist in the plot understanding. If the plot section is that unclear, you have a different issue, but if not, then an image of two boys in a flying car really doesn't convey the entire plot of The Chamber of Secrets. They're unnecessary nonfree images. The same applies to the image in the Universe section, which (along with its caption) does nothing to increase reader understanding. "It's a castle" would do just as much as that image does. Giggy (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound harsh, but how does the cover of Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings help the reader? It's the same context I think! The Helpful One Review 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to respond with a lame WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS style argument too? If you have an issue with my article, raise it at its FAC. Otherwise, address the issues with your article, please. Giggy (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no available fair use to replace that image, and the image illustrates the book covers. What do you suggest that I do, or replace the image with? The Helpful One Review 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The favoured style for the introduction is surely to have as few footnotes as possible, since it should be providing material that's dealt with in more detail and referenced within the article. The second paragraph has a lot of footnotes and some detail there appears to be in conflict with the article (67 translations / 65 translations; 400 million copies /375 million copies). N p holmes (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A formatting triviality: newspapers and magazines in the footnotes are sometimes in italics, sometimes not. Consistency is needed.
  • You expect ref. 84 (the first in the Literary Criticism section) to lead to the various newspapers just cited. In fact it leads to a page of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. This isn't the publishers' advertising matter is it? Because: i) direct quotations would be more appropriate; ii) of course publishers aren't going to put adverse reviews (or the unfavourable parts of mixed reviews) in their books. Striking this now – I (and others) have made some changes to your changes (mostly formatting, but I also removed the ref to the publisher's advertising matter, which is now superfluous and seems undesirable to me). N p holmes (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your footnote for the A.N. Wilson quote is leading to the wrong article in the wrong newspaper. N p holmes (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Italics - changed to no italics. A.N. Wilson quote, with the correct article for the correct newspaper. Removed footnotes from lead, did the 67/65 translations. Also the 400 million copies sold. The Helpful One Review 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reference for ref 84 (now ref 83). The Helpful One Review 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward. I see the same applies to the article about the book. If none of the reviews are online, might you demonstrate its good reception with the prizes it won (the Nestlé Smarties Book Prize was a major children's book prize)? Otherwise perhaps cut out the direct quotations and say in the footnotes what the page of the book is that your citing? Are there books on the series that talk about the first book's reception? N p holmes (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have no idea what you just said. I found one book on Google Books which gives a little info on these newspaper citations. Will this suffice? The Helpful One Review 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a brief summary of what that book says about the first book's critical reception and reference to it should do very well. N p holmes (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: See this edit. The Helpful One Review 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, to aid the FAC director, or his delegate, in determining whether the issues have been properly resolved, it should be made clear who has struck these concerns out. Otherwise, this page history must be laboriously stepped through to make sure it wasn't anyone other than the editor who brought the concerns. Steve T • C 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't strike, the commentor did. :) The Helpful One Review 21:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it probably was, but it should still be made clear. I'll add some diffs in a minute. Steve T • C 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. The article is not ready for FAC. I believe it fails the comprehensiveness standard and needs an improved standard of prose.
  • Should Prisoner of Azkaban summary mention that Harry is learning skills well beyond his grade level?
  • Goblet of Fire overview seems very very short.
  • Order of the Phoenix overview should probably mention that Harry develops a mental link with Voldemort, often "seeing" what Voldemort is doing. It also does not mention the Order of the Phoenix at all - that seems important. Should the DA also be mentioned - Harry training others in the skills they need to defend themselves?
  • There is no info about Tales of Beedle the Bard being released widely (I believe it is scheduled for December 10?).
    • Umm, this ref gives information regarding these handwritten books. As well as the release date on Amazon for December 4th for the printed books. The Helpful One Review 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article does need a good copyedit. Among the issues I see (these are examples only):
    • Clause confusion "Many of its institutions and locations are in towns and cities which are recognisable in the real world, such as London" - is the "such as London" referring to ""the real world", 'towns and cities" or "institutions and locations"?
      • Done: Is Many of its institutions and locations are in places which are recognisable in the real world, such as London any better? The Helpful One Review 20:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overly detailed info in a few places - "There is no educational equivalent to college..." is unnecessary in this article, cited or not.
      • Done: That pargraph. Could you tell me anywhere else where there is too much detail / sections which could do with some shortening? The Helpful One Review 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pronoun confusion "In many respects they are also bildungsromans" - ' is "they" the books, the "structure and genre" (that is the title of the section) or something else
Restored first sentence; I have no idea why it was removed. Serendipodous 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • passive voice - "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was completed in 1995" should be "Rowling completed HPATPS in 1995".
    • Sections often don't being well. "The series has also garnered a large following of fans" - in addition to what? This is the first sentence in the section. (see also previous point on "they")
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, short quotations (under 4 lines) should not be offset. Instead, they should be inline.
Done. The Helpful One Review 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably wise to explain that there are 2 Bloomsbury versions (adult and child) before casually mentioning "cover art for the Bloomsbury Adult and Child versions and the Scholastic version were released"
  • The "After Deathly Hallows" section repeats some information already elsewhre in the article. It also includes info that is not very relevant (Rowling is currently penning two books... does not need to be in this article). I think the whole section could be yanked.
  • The cultural impact section needs work. Part of it is written in a tone that makes it seem like the events are still ongoing (i.e., they will happen again with future books...but no more future books).
    • Not done: I don't know exactly what to do here, the section seems to be in the present tense ... could you elaborate? The Helpful One Review 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It shouldn't be in present tense when discussing things that happened in the past. Present tense implies to me that some of this is still ongoing. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably worth mentioning here that the New York Times created a separate bestseller's list for children's literature primarily because Harry Potter books remained at the top of the main bestseller list for so long.
  • This needs a citation "In November 2007, the magazine Advertising Age estimated the total value of the Harry Potter brand at roughly $15 billion (£7 billion). Only a fraction of this value was derived from the book sales. The rest was drawn from a wide range of ancillary works, from films to video games to merchandising."
    • Removed: I looked for this before, but was unable to find a reference - and am still unable to find one! The Helpful One Review 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations need to be immediately followed by a citation, even if this means that there might be citations duplicated across subsequent sentences. There are issues with this in literary criticism.
  • This article does not really discuss the themes of the series. There are several overarching themes to the series - journey through adolescence, courage and loyalty, spiritualism, etc, etc. This is a major oversight.
    • There was a Themes section for this article, but it was removed as it was mainly talking about death. The Helpful One Review 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Death is only one theme. There have been many books written about religion/spirituality in the Harry Potter novels, and there are many other themes that I'm sure have been covered in some sources, it is just a matter of finding them. This is a huge gap in the article. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do all FA's need to have a theme's section? (For books!) If so, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy doesn't - are there any articles you could recommend as a model? The Helpful One Review 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that most books should have a themes section to be comprehensive, provided that the themes have been well-discussed in reliable sources. Numerous sources do go into depth on the themes of the Harry Potter works, so I feel this article needs to reflect that. I think there is probably enough information available to write a whole article on the themes and summarize here. I am not surprised that some older FAs don't - standards have improved in the last few years. To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel that has recently been promoted to FA. Other good recent examples: El Señor Presidente, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is heavily cited to newspapers, and I think more books and journals need to be consulted. This may very well be why the article seems more of an overview of the pop culture phenomenon - because that is what is more easily accessible. here are some examples of books that would likely be good sources:
    • The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon by Lana A. Whited (2004)
    • Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays by David G. Epstein and Giselle Liza Anatol (2003)
    • Females and Harry Potter: Not All That Empowering by Ruthann Mayes-Elma (2006)
  • Please note that books need to have the page number cited.

Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the examples of prose issues that I gave above were examples only. The same problems are rife throughout the article, and it needs a copyedit by an external party. I also redid the structure of the article today, so that the TOC gives appropriate weight to the topics that are included. This should help you to see better where the article has weight isses (compare, for example, the section on style and genre and the section on Origins and publication history - style and genre should have as much if not more info than Origins). This type of weight issue could be due to a misplaced level of detail in some sections. The themes section, while an excellent addition, is not comprehensive enough. The section reflects what Rowling says, but not enough of what independent critics thought (no real discussion of religion, which is a shame considering the number of books written on that piece). You've done good work so far, but there is a lot to still be done. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now You're putting Harry Potter up for feature. Rock on. It has incredible company in literature topics that have reached FA status. Kudos to you for taking this on.
  • Two sentences in a row end "in history". You should change one. Both, I feel, need citations, even in the lead. When discussing records that have been set and broken, cite it.
  • I think you can add more to the lead, particularly how the themes have affected the popularity of the novels, answering the question of what about these books resounds for readers so well.
  • They can be considered part of the British children's... It's more definitive to say who considers them part of the boarding school genre. Remember that it's more impressive to include the opinions of scholars than it is to state as fact what they have said. Try "According to scholar..." and similar tie-ins.
  • I'd like to see more insight as to why Rowling chose death as a theme of the books. I mean, there is a LOT of death. Did it affect her as a child? As an adult? What is she working through?
  • What's this? nomalcy and the quest for making children normal Can I get an example from the books, preferably something scholars have used?
  • This “the conflict between the paradigms of transcendence of context and adaptation to context” needs at least one example.
  • Ironically, I suppose, the Structure and genre section should be restructured. You're highlighting three or four genres here (is structure necessary?) and should address each in turn. Yes, fantasy must seem self-explanatory, but give cited examples, please. Dedicate boarding school to a paragraph, and another for school rules? Is that its own theme or is that bildungsroman - because that's not clear.
  • The story of how Harry Potter came to Rowling is much more compelling than is expressed in this article. Expand this, join the first two paragraphs.
  • In Origins and publishing history, dates are not as important that numbers sold, and records broken. I'd change the dates to years only and expand on the other facts, or take this information out completely to concentrate on the impact of the books in the Achievement section.
  • What's this? Golyshev's tendency to snub the Harry Potter books in interviews and refer to them as inferior literature may be the reason he did not return to work on later books in the series. your view or someone else's? If it's someone else's, state whose. If yours...shouldn't be in there.
  • Best of luck on this. For real. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [81].

Melbourne Airport edit

Nominator(s): Mvjs (talk)


I'm nominating this article because I believe that it has reached featured article quality. Back in July, the article was given good article status and the reviewer felt that the article close to FA quality then. Since then, a peer review has been conducted as well as two copyedits. The article has 117 citations, a good bunch of images and an informative terminal diagram. As there's only one airport featured article, it's hard to gauge against, but I feel it meets, if not exceeds its quality. The two copyedits have ensured the article is well written and comprehensive whilst the 117 citations ensure the article is factually accurate. The article is very much stable and the good article nomination has made the article well and truly neutral. The article has a concise lead, and is appropriately structured to the appropriate WikiProject's guidelines and all citations use the appropriate template. There are several images, all with captions and the appropriate licences. All comments and suggestions will be taken on board. Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I have helped the nominator with this one and I think it meets FA criteria. Keep in mind the tables, and organization are way ahead of any Airport FA or GA we currently have at WP:AVIATION. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Support 1) You two supporters above cannot really support the article as main contributors. From what I've seen, it doesn't really count. Additionally, I support this article as Featured Article as it is very well written, referenced, layed out and really offers so such a broad range of information. Well done. Domiy (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for Image:Melbourne Airport Terminal Map.png Eurokick's version was released under a GNU Free Documentation License from what I understand, hence it would be reused for the new version. -Marcusmax (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the image? Link? Эlcobbola talk 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted twice for being having unfree images, like airport and airlines logos. The deletion log can be found here [82]. -Marcusmax (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the 737-800 image, I've updated the copyright tag. As for the terminal map, this is more complex. User:EuroKick was the original creator of the terminal map but he included the logos of the airlines and the airport - which are obviously non-free and can't be used in the diagram. This was brought up at possibly unfree images and the image was deleted. I contacted EuroKick and requested that he remove the non-free images from the terminal map. He has thus far not responded. So, I went ahead and modified the terminal map to remove the non-free logos. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators should not be supporting
  • There are a few places where the prose is poor
  • The airport has its own suburb boundaries with the area officially named Melbourne Airport, adjacent to the suburb of Tullamarine and has the postcode 3045. - clunky. How about The airport has its own suburb named Melbourne Airport; it is adjacent to the suburb of Tullamarine and has the postcode 3045.?
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1960s, worldwide demand for air travel grew, the nearby Essendon Airport was becoming insufficient to meet the needs as the primary airport for Melbourne. - Should there be an as somewhere?
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With privatisation, following the lead of most major Australian airports, the name was changed to simply Melbourne Airport. - perhaps After privatisation, the name was changed to Melbourne Airport, following the lead of most other major Australian airports
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • "after Sydney Airport" - I don't think this needs to be said... the wikilink to the list of busiest airports should be sufficient if anyone's interested.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A busy, curfew-free airport,..." - we established it was busy last sentence
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First three sentences of paragraph 2 of the lead all start with "The airport"
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/vic/Strathmore/EssendonAirport/15807 (ref 14) doesn't work

That whole website seems to be bung at the moment; none of the article are working. Hopefully that's something they'll fix soon. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It a commercial mirror of the Government heritage databases - have swapped for the official version. Wongm (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check throughout for this stuff. Magazines/newspapers/etc.
Fixed the ones I found. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although in practice there are few passenger aircraft movements between 2 am and 4 am, only freight aircraft." - a reference wouldn't hurt
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recently, there has been..." - see MOS:DATE#Precise_language
    • "Recent works have been undertaken to prepare the airport for the late 2007 arrival" (especially since that's in the past now)
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Prospective users and routes section should have en dashes (in the toolbox under the edit window, that's the first from the left, the slightly shorter one)

Giggy (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canberra, Sydney, and many other cities are linked many times. They really only need to be linked once or twice.
I've attempted to reduce the overlinking. Mvjs (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melbourne Airport passenger numbers have hit a record high," - recentism (precise language linky above).... I'd just remove this statement.

Giggy (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous WP:DASH issues in the tables (hyphens used on date and number ranges rather than endashes) and many image layout issues that breach WP:ACCESS (order of items in sections and images within section, not above them). A MoS review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at this. How did I go? Mvjs (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the webmaster of that site has removed all old press releases. I'm not sure what can be done about it. Here's the Google cache if you are interested. [83] Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to proper site, not commercial mirror. Wongm (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project of the The City of Moonee Valley
The above two sites are published by proprietary companies, Agents Support Systems Pty Ltd and Allesto Media Pty Ltd respecitvely. They aren't some fly by night sites setup on Blogspot. I believe they satisfy the reliable source criteria. Mvjs (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That site is published by the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation [84]. Mvjs (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out little known abbreviations in the references, such as IATA
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the prose is improved significantly. One of the most obvious problems is close repetition. Here are examples:

  • busiest busiest, plus more later in the lead
  • hub hub
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is, it is
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • suburb suburb
Reworded. Mvjs (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • over over over
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the airport, the airport
  • "Melbourne Airport is the recipient of the IATA Eagle Award[5] and two National Tourism Awards,[6][7] and has been ranked in the top five airports worldwide numerous times.[8][9][10]"—I don't suppose the cluster of three refs can be conflated somehow ...? "is" is odd; unnecessary passive voice.
Fixed. In terms of the citations, it's certainly possible to remove two or all of them, as they are already cited later in the article but then all the citations in the lead would have to be removed, as it's cite all of the lead or none of it. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • four star airport: hyphen missing (see MoS)
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in that same time."—not elegant
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "located in"
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • operate operations operations
  • "additionally"—ungainly.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please get someone else to work on it too. Tony (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked three people if they can do a copyedit, hopefully at least one does. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has the postcode 3045"—well, who cares? Why is that boring fact in the lead?
Removed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "located"; "... centre, and is ..."
Fixed (I think) Mvjs (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and Wongm have given the article a good going over, how is it looking now? Mvjs (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-visit: spot check of "Route developments".

  • "Over fiscal year 2008–09, there has been an influx of capacity increases at the airport resulting in 725,000 new international seats." That fiscal year is only two and a half months old. Are you sure?
Yes, I am sure. "Over the next 9 months Melbourne expects to see one of the biggest increases in international seats it has experienced in the last decade with over 725,000 new international seats direct to and from Melbourne. " [85] That is, the next nine months from the end of August 2008, hence fiscal year 2008-09.
  • "Also" hanging at the end of a clause.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South Korea", is it?
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commence" sounds like ballet school. Try "started" or "began".
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upping" is too informal.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "de-linked" mean here?
Clarified. Mvjs (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Won't this section date very quickly? The readers in 2011 will wonder what all the fuss was about back then. Who will update it? It's like an in-house news bulletin. This extreme topicality is in evidence elsewhere.
  • "under serviced"—one word.
Fixed. (my dictionary indicated otherwise) Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flags in the bottom two tables: the state flags of Australia? Hello. They're so similar, and what could these icons possibly add after the explicit name of the airport and city? Then, when you do need to know where the hell, you get this funny striped flag from who knows where (no. 4, left side). Are the flags just to pretty it up? I'd get rid of them.
Is the funny stripy one you are referring to the Flag of Thailand? \ / (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above this, the year-range column should be wide enough to prevent wrapping at normal window sizes. There's huge white space in the other two columsn. % change means from the previous ... calendar year? Vague.
I'm not sure how you set a manual width for a column. Any guidance here? Mvjs (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find no reason to change my "oppose". Tony (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rejoinder: Thanks for fixing these exmples, but they are merely illustrating why the whole text is unsatisfactory. I believe it would be better to withdraw the nomination, work on it seriously for a month (with further collaborators), and to resubmit. Tony (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this candidacy remain open. It has been the opinion of three editors (not including nominator) that this article satisfies the featured article criteria. It has been the opinion of one editor, yourself, that it does not. I would like to hear the opinions, comments and suggestions of some more editors. Myself and the other handful of editors who have been making a concerted effort to bring up the quality of the article, and hopefully bring it up to your expectations, will continue that effort. Mvjs (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey has done what I think is a brilliant job copyediting the entire article. Now, how is it looking? Mvjs (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 29 May 2003, Qantas Flight 1737 en route to Launceston Airport was hijacked shortly after takeoff. The flight attendants and passengers managed to subdue and restrain the hijacker, and the plane landed safely at Melbourne." - this isn't paritulclary relevant to the airport, and it's not sourced. Is it worth keeping in the article? Giggy (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft hijacking is basically unheard of in Australia, so it's extremely notable. The plane took off and later returned to the airport after the incident - so the airport is definitely involved. The sources are in the linked article and I will now add them to that section. Mvjs (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mvjs (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the limited time I have spent at Wikipedia, I have been involved with the development of this page. There has been significant improvements in the prose and substance, particularly in the history section. As far as I can tell, most of the criterion for a FA as been met. However, 1a appears to be the major concern currently. It is hard to create prose that is extremely engaging for this page, because most of the articles content has no 'x-factor' - the runways section is hardly going to excite. It's not to say it's impossible, just many sections would require a fundamental rewrite to become slightly more engaging. With that in mind, it is my opinion that many parts of the article have been improved to as feasibly as possible. When you compare the prose to that of another airport of FA quality, such as Ben Gurion International Airport, I believe the two are comparable. \ / (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to excite, but it helps is it's a smooth read. Let's do another spot-check: "Awards and accolades":

  • "Melbourne Airport has been the recipient of numerous awards and accolades." Replace four words with one.
  • "the Melbourne" is not a good abbreviation. "Melbourne" might be OK in the context.
  • The list of awards ... oh, I suppose so. It's a bit puffy, though, and goes on and on and on. "At the 2000 Victorian Tourism Awards, Melbourne Airport was inducted into the Hall of Fame." Yawn. The Victorian hall of fame for something or other ... WOW.
  • Now, can't this section be trimmed and merged with the stub "Accidents and incidents" at the bottom? I don't know what to call it, but why not "Miscellaneous" or "Incidentals"? It certainly needs to be played down. WP is not an in-house advertisement for the shareholders of Melbourne Airport. You might relocate that ad for "Other facilities" into such a more anonymous section, too.
  • The text is long enough to reduce back to a less POV article.

I have to declare Quick-fail. The article has been here for some time, has sucked in reviewer resources, and still requires major work. It would be fairer and more practical to withdraw it and resubmit after two or three weeks, having revamped it in your own time. More collaborators required. Tony (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere I notice glitches.

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [86].

Connie Talbot edit

Nominator: J Milburn (talk)
previous FAC (01:14, 6 August 2008)


I am nominating this article again as I feel it meets the featured article criteria. I feel the last nomination was closed a little early, and since then, I have kept the article updated (for instance, with news of the video game) and worked with the suggestions from the original FAC- minor fixes. The last discussion was a little clouded by some discussions about the article which are now resolved, and I can't see there being any further major objections. I am more than happy to work with people's suggestions, but I am finding that my time on Wikipedia is, at the moment, pretty limited, so I may take a little while to reply. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Last time, if I recall, there were concerns about going into personal detail. Do you think it's still too detailed to give her hometown? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of sources say her home town, and it's a fairly large area- completely different issue to what came up last time. I don't think it's an issue, and I certainly feel that we wouldn't be able to have a comprehensive article without it. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check - all images offered as free via OTRS- I'm going to contact someone with an OTRS account to verify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I got OTRS access myself. Permission verified; images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was rereleased 18 June 2008 with a new track listing" - not that notable event, is it worth mentioning in the lead?
    • It feels like it- the press certainly paid it a fair amount of attention.
  • The lead really focuses on the album too much, I feel. I know it's a different circumstance, but look at some other musician FAs and compare...
    • Again, other than her personal life and her connection with the TV show, all that the press have really talked about is her album and her (brief) tour of Asia. I honestly don't think there's much else to talk about. I'm open to suggestions, obviously.
  • "Talbot had been joint favourite (along with Potts) to emerge as the winner of the first series of Britain's Got Talent" - sounds a bit awkward to say now that it was the first series... maybe start the paragraph by mentioning that instead.
    • Fixed.
  • "Rainbow Recording Company, an offshoot of record label Rhythm Riders made specifically for Talbot" - maybe it's just me... but she signed with an offshoot of a record label made for her? Why not go with her record label? Am I misreading?
    • Rainbow Recording Company was made specifically for her- I gather that the management at Rhythm Riders did not feel it was appropriate to treat a young child in the same way as their other artists.
  • "It was later reported that the album was named Over the Rainbow" - just say "It was called Over the Rainbow"... use "it was reported" if it turned out to be false
    • I use "it was reported" as the next part (the news about the first single) later turned out to be false- the single was never released.
  • "but it was then reported that the single was cancelled in favour of an album-first release" --> "but the single was then cancelled..."
    • Done.
  • "there was much speculation about Talbot and the album" - can you be more specific?
    • Next clause? "with music experts describing her as potentially being "the next Charlotte Church"." The phrase "there was much speculation..." was placed in in the last FAC, because someone pointed out that the "Charlotte Church" bit had nothing to do with the previous sentence.
  • "At the event, on 7 December 2007, Talbot was quoted as saying "I love it here, it’s brilliant, really fun" but had to be ushered off-stage by the police" - throw in a comma after the quote and change "was quoted as saying" to "said"
    • Done.
  • "Sharon Mawer, of Allmusic, praised Over the Rainbow by saying" - remove the commas
    • Done.
  • "to replace the Christmas-themed songs on the original album" - to avoid overuse of "album", maybe "to replace its Christmas-themed songs"?
    • Done.

Giggy (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. I don't think the prose is quite there yet and the article is too detailed.

  • I think that there is too much detail in the article. Is it important that she turned on Walsall's Christmas lights and performed in their store or that she made appearances on a new show?
  • There is a contradiction in the paragraph on the rerelease. Was the preorder in May or March? It only really needs to be mentioned once anyway.
  • The writing is a little clunky: (example) "Talbot's "signature song", "Over the Rainbow", is the song that she sang at her grandmother's funeral, due to the fact she and her grandmother enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz together"
  • Watch for repetition. For example, we're told twice in the Over the Rainbow section that her album was released on 26 Nov 2007.
  • Watch for passive voice. Examples: "The team behind the album was John Arnison, who also managed "...could be changed. "In October 2007, it was reported that Talbot had signed with the Rainbow Recording Company for a six-figure deal." - who reported it?

Karanacs (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really should oppose this, but I feel bad bringing up the same point - This is an 8 year old girl. This article is definitely going to expand over her life. These sections are going to be trimmed down because they will no longer be as important via weight. Thus, the article in a few years will be quite different than now, and that would mean an FA would be pointless. When it was a figure like Michael Jackson who, at the end of his life, isn't doing much worth while, then yeah, I can approve of it. But not this girl who will only become more and more famous and thus have to radically alter her page to keep up. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had similar arguments on articles for the US presidential candidates, but the consensus has been that information will likely change very gradually, so the article will meet the stability criterion. If the additions reduce the quality of the article, then it can be brought to FAR at some point and revamped. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an 8 year old, not a person who is above 50 and had most of their major career. I really don't care what consensus may say, it is unreasonable to allow these articles to reach FA when they are prone to major changes. It is dishonest and would only lead to an FAR. One of the FA rules is a stable page. Regardless of how other may define it, I will always hold long term stability as part of stability. I will keep doing that until consensus removes it, and then I will keep it to comments and not oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is currently stable, from what I can tell. The FA criteria does not say anything about the possibility of future instability; any biography about a living person has the ability to become unstable. What if your fifty year old washed-up performing artist was murdered in the streets tomorrow by the president of their fanclub? Certainly the article would become unstable despite their seniority and lack of expanding career. New sections ("Murder", "Trial and conviction", etc) would appear. Users would edit war and IPs would vandalize. What I'm trying to say is that no article is essentially stable for the long haul, and you can't judge FACs on their potential for instability. Otherwise no BLP could ever become Featured, which would be absurd. María (habla conmigo) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its only a comment, so whats the problem? I should be able to comment about the future state of a potential FA, shouldn't I? And Maria, I would believe historical biographies would be far more stable than someone who is 8 and at the beginning of their career. I really don't like the idea of allowing articles to become FA when someone is still a live for a large list of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2008 (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 User:Moni3 20:30, 3 October 2008 [87].

Sri Lankan Tamil people edit

Nominator(s): –Taprobanus (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC (15:53, 29 August 2008)


The article was nominated previously and requested to undergo complete copy edit, which it has. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and follows style guidelines. Taprobanus (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is comprehensive, well referenced and backed up by brilliant pictures. I do have a few concerns however:
  • "Most modern Sri Lankan Tamils descend from the former Jaffna Kingdom in the north and Vannimai chieftaincies from the east." - north and east of where? I didn't know when I first read this.
  • "They constitute a majority in the Northern Province, live in significant numbers in the Eastern Province, and are in the minority throughout the rest of the country." - I think "but" would be better than "and" in in the Eastern Province, and are in the minority
I made it north of the island Taprobanus (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is little scholarly consensus over the presence of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, also known as Eelam in early Tamil literature, prior to the medieval Chola period (circa 10th century CE)." - this is a little hard to read, I think the commas would be better if replaced with em dashes — — — to help break it up and make it easier to read.
  • "Sri Lankan Tamils are culturally and linguistically distinct from the other two Tamil-speaking minorities in Sri Lanka, the Indian Tamils and the Muslims." "There are two groups of Tamils in Sri Lanka: the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils." In the intro you say there are three groups of Tamils, yet later on you say there are only two. Have I misunderstood something here?
Yes there are three distinct groups of Tamil speaking communities in Sri Lanka, two of them identify as Tamils (with their respective hyphens) and the third does not identify it as Tamils simply as Muslims, which is ethno-religious identity. Taprobanus (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from these minor things I must completement you for this, it's a great article.--Serviam (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per the earlier nomination. It was the prose that was the real concern in the earlier nomination and that must have improved considerably by now. Hope the article closes favorably this time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The infobox pic will need to be replaced - i just nominated the component image Image:Coomaraswamy01.jpg for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to update the pic with less the Ananda K. Coomaraswamy pic. Hope it works 99.247.129.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Spot-check of a subsection at random:

  • "The indigenous Veddhas are physically related to Dravidian language-speaking tribal people in South India and early populations of Southeast Asia, although they no longer speak their native languages."—"Dravidian language-speaking"—eeuuw. Pipe to "Dravidian-speaking" please. "early populations of Southeast Asia"—it's just idiom to use "in". I don't get the logical connection of "although".
  • "centuries before the Christian era"—why is christianity a benchmark? Cultural subservience? We probably have to live with the BCE common era, with it's arm's distance relationship to the christian era, but this example left me wondering whether christianity spread to Sri Lanka early on.
  • "Settlements of people culturally similar to those of present-day Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu in modern India were excavated at megalithic burial sites at Pomparippu on the west coast and in Kathiraveli on the east coast of the island, villages established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE.[16][17]" Hog of a sentence; can you split it?
  • "were dated by archeologists to 10th century BCE"—"the" is missing. Another instance later in the subsection.
  • "occur at least around 9th or 10th century BCE"—what does "at least" mean here? "As early as"? "During those centuries and probably others too"?

Oppose. This strongly suggests that the whole text has improved insufficiently from its parlous state in the previous FAC to warrant promotion this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, October 2, 2008

  • Question Could you help me? I see this quote and cte.. the first assertion is clearly rflect in the source, but i cannot find the second: "This was opposed by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of Tamil nationalist Federal Party, and most Tamil people.[ http://www.uthr.org/BP/volume1/Chapter1.htm "Missed Opportunities and the Loss of Democracy: The Disfranchisement of Indian Tamils: 1948-49"]... where does the source refer to "most Tamil people"? In fact, the text I see says "What was surprising, however, was that almost all of the Tamil elite representing the Ceylon Tamils through both Mr. Senanayake's United National Party and the Tamil Congress, either voted for the bills or were not serious about opposing them." That would seem to contradict the assertion about "most Tamil people"... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to reluctantly Oppose at this time. I'm really rooting for this article, but later parts of it left me quite confused after reading. As just one example, I still can't quite make out the paragraph beginning "Britain, having control of the whole island by 1815..." This is a Very Good Article, but not quite FA yet. Sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else you may want to point out ? I have changed sentence in questionTaprobanus (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • I did some copyediting, including some blind edits that ask for more detail.
  • As someone who writes about South Asian topics for a primarily English-speaking audience, surely you must know that many of us have very little familiarity with your subject. I found I require a lot of help in understanding many of the terms for groups of people. Please remember that your readers will need assistance in identifying these new words, understanding what they mean, and remembering them for the entire article. For instance, in this passage: They follow a caste system similar to the South Indian or Dravidian kinship system. The Eastern Tamil caste hierarchy is dominated by the Mukkuvar. The main feature of their society is the kuti system. Although the Tamil word kuti means a house or settlement, in eastern Sri Lanka it is related to matrimonial alliances. It refers to the exogamous matrilineal clans and is found amongst most caste groups; men do not remain members of the kuti of their birth, instead joining the wife's kuti upon marriage. Kuti also collectively own places of worship such as Hindu temples. Each caste contains a number of kutis, with varying names. Aside from castes with an internal kuti system, there are seventeen caste groups, called Ciraikutis, or imprisoned kutis, whose members were considered to be in captivity, confined to specific services such as washing, weaving, and toddy tapping. I don't know how the caste system in South India is unique (help me). I don't know who the Mukkuvar are - can I get a brief explanation to help me remember them? What are they known for? I have to understand kuti very quickly in order to understand and read beyond the word. Can you put it this way: "The main feature of their society is the kuti system, a unique caste hierarchy where members are related by matrimonial alliances..."?
  • It would make better sense to me to state how the first people arrived at Sri Lanka. The first sentence in Pre-historic period discusses Veddhas as if I, or other readers, know who they are. Walk us through how the island was populated, please. Step by step. Can you change that to state "The first inhabitants of Sri Lanka are believed to be the Veddhas..." and then go into a discussion of their culture?
  • I find it's easier to understand and follow the article if you discuss facts first, then evidence. For instance, These villages were established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE is after information about archeological excavations. The fact that's most important is the settlement of villages and when they were settled. That sentence about archeology should be after the most important sentence. I found the same paragraph structure in Historic period. Try restructuring the article to move this way in a paragraph: Facts about people (where and when settled, attributes and characteristics), evidence that supports their history (including artifacts, works of art, and accomplishments), and observations by anthropologists, including quotes to describe peoples and societies.
  • Can you include a map identifying where these groups of people were located? That would help loads.
  • I moved the image placement because the article looked a bit sloppy on my browser. I just don't know what to do with that Sri Lankan Tamil People template, but the blocking of text between that and the image of the Koneswaram Hindu Temple looks bad.
  • Scartol told me never to start a sentence with "There" and I thought he was joking. How can you not start a sentence with "There"??? I hate it when other people are right. Only I should be right...
  • Difficult to understand: In 1949, the United National Party government, which included G. G. Ponnambalam, leader of the Tamil Congress, stripped the Indian Tamils of their citizenship Is the point of this sentence that the Indian Tamils were stripped of their citizenship or Ponnambalam was in the government? I think it's the citizenship thing. If so, please remove the information that detracts from that. If you want to place it elsewhere, that's fine, but I don't understand why these two issues are related.
  • In Society, what separates or makes these groups unique? Language? Culture? History? This should be the utmost top in describing how many different groups there are and what makes them different. Right now, it's language, and regional, I think. I can't tell. This should be the first sentence in the Society section: "Sri Lankan Tamil people are categorized into X groups based on (language?). Of these, dialect and other cultural attributes further separate inhabitants of the island into XX subgroups."
  • I know you've worked hard on this, but I am unable to move past the confusing text. I think the article needs a rewrite, and I'm willing to help you, but when I have to pick apart paragraphs like this, it doesn't appear to be ready for FAC. Anthropology and groups are very interesting to me. I've always been fascinated with different cultures. But the writing assumes the reader knows too much to be basic, it uses terms and concepts that are naturally elementary in Sri Lanka and completely foreign to other places. I can't understand the terms, and I have no context to draw upon for these things to make sense to me. You've lost me before I began, and I need too much help to get caught up to speed. I know that I can be fascinated by these people if you show me how. Let me know if you want assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination and work with Moni3 to improve it. Taprobanus (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (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 User:Moni3 20:59, 2 October 2008 [88].

Manu Sharma edit

Nominator(s): =Nichalp «Talk»=


With current talk on short FAs (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Very short FAs), I'm testing my luck. The article is as long as reliable and verifiable references permit me. I have gone through over 500 press reports, but nothing much on the person can be gleaned other than what's listed in the article that I had saved from an AFD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The prose is not up to scratch. See my recent edits to the article for some initial indications of the kinds of things that need to be fixed. With short articles such as this one, there's really no excuse for clumsy prose, let alone typos and bad grammar. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ha! Call this short! Try 4 down from here. This raises a somewhat different issue, about the available information, and what to do if adequate sources don't exist (although they could). I'm reluctant to support any biography based only on press reports by crime reporters for FA. The article doesn't even say what his religious/ethnic background is, surely a rather important point in India of all places, or his education. The bit about hostile witnesses is very confusing - hostile to the prosecution I suppose. Who are SMS?? Who ostracised him? Fails on comprehensiveness and prose. Those wanting a test case on shortness should go below. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why religion should play an issue here. I'll work on the other two issues you raised, it should be a five minute fix. Now back to the issue. Could you point me out to alternate sources? If you consider stories by crime reporters to be biased, could you suggest where I could dig out other alternate sources? =Nichalp «Talk»=
No I can't - I'd never heard of him until 10 minutes ago. This I suppose raises the issue as to whether it is always "actionable" to oppose on lack of comprehensiveness. But the info must in this case be out there somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you where to find the sources, but rather what 'other' sources you have in mind. The information will be there somewhere including his date of birth and location of birth. But then, the question to be asked is how I can I satisfy WP:RS and WP:V if I do add these details? =Nichalp «Talk»=
  • Oppose
  • Perhaps this is due to lack of information or lack of finding information, but too many questions arise from the article.
  • The article does not say where he was born and raised.
  • In an article about a murderer or a victim of injustice, I hope to see a lengthy discussion on how his psychopathic tendencies came to be, or - why he felt murdering someone would solve his problems. If he was a victim of injustice, such as Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, an extended discussion should be in the article about how he was systematically oppressed.
  • If he has become a symbol of escaped justice or a cause for marginalized people, how has his experience changed things in India? Or changed him?
  • In all, it seems to be a shallow look at an unremarkable case. It appears to be unremarkable because the case for its fame has not been made or does not exist. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not because of the article's length, but because it is clearly not comprehensive and the prose is not up to scratch, as has been said above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have not actually read the article, but the lead looks short. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Refs 1 and 3, maybe others, need author information. Ref 14 needs publisher info. Otherwise sources look good; links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick-fail—1a. This needs considerable work and is way underprepared for FA status. Please withdraw it and resubmit after two or more weeks' work on it in your own time.
  • Opening sentence: "Siddharth Vashisht (born 1977), better known as Manu Sharma, is a convicted murderer, serving life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of model Jessica Lall. Sharma is the son of the former Indian minister Venod Sharma.[1]" Bit repetitive and jumbled ... "Siddharth Vashisht (born 1977), better known as Manu Sharma, is the son of the former Indian minister Venod Sharma. Since ?, he has been serving life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of model Jessica Lall.[1]
  • Other timings given at the opening, but not of his conviction.
  • The lead is a bit short and thin. Could we be told there that he's from a family of industrialists as well as politicians?
  • "Sharma is known to be asthmatic and was given special attention in his childhood.[5]" What kind of "special attention" was this? Medical?
  • "He was educated at the elite Mayo College in Ajmer, after which he was asked to leave." "After which" indicates that he finished ... yet he was "asked to leave", which in itself is vague.
  • "then"—what about the years instead? Tony (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've only now noticed that my good friend Nichalp is the nominator ... Sorry, but it doesn't change my assessment. Tony (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. 1a is the issue. I agree the prose is not up to the mark. I was testing to see if short articles can be featured. Since alternate proposals have come up on the talk page, I am withdrawing this nom. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to make the point that this article as it stands probably wouldn't even have got through GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just passed as GA! I was surprised too when I read it... --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I'm going to take a look at that GA review ... it may not be a GA for long. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [89].

Paul Gondjout edit

Nominator(s): Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)''


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an article about an important Gabonese politician for which little information is present. In my own biased eyes, it is short but comprehensive and well-written, though I want to see if you think it meets the criteria. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 02:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose (see below) My friend, might need a careful copyedit; some of the claims as currently stated are a little unclear:
  • 'and founded the Cercle amicale mutualiste des evolues - can you state when, and what the group was (politcal party, lobby group, dating agency, revolutionists or whatever) and who they represented. Google throws up nothing.
Ah; I was going to suggest you contact Nishkid64, but ye already know each other. Yes please send and I can work with it. Ceoil sláinte 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"joined" seems a bit weak my friend; I assume he took over the group at an early stage? Ceoil sláinte 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, but not when he first joined. Forgive my utter lack of copyediting experiance, but what would you suggest. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aubame and Gondjout fled Libreville ,[31] but were later captured. - When, where and by whom. How long were they on the run.
  • From the night of 17 February to the early morning of 18 February 1964, 150 Gabonese military personnel, headed by Lieutenant Jacques Mombo and Valére Essone, arrested President M'ba, President of the National Assembly Louis Bigman, and several ministers. This is very odd, I'm trying to imagine 150 officers, lead by the president, seperatly arresting 8 men.
  • Soon, however, M'ba overthrew Gondjout as head of the BDG. Again, put in exact dates as far as possible.
  • Instructions were given to transfer M'ba to Aubame's electoral stronghold, Njolé By whom.
  • The last sentence of the lead tells us He served as Minister of State during the abortive 1964 Gabon coup d'état and was sentenced to 20 years hard labor. Grand but what happened while he was in prison and afeter he got out. Did public perception of him change while in prison or was he forgotten, did he serve the full 20 yrs, was M'ba still in power when he was released.
    • Oh, did I say that he was sentenced when he was really acquitted? That was a mistake; fixed. No we really don't know anything from when the trial occured to Gondjout's death. We have a few passing mentions of his wife's death in 2006 but coverage of his life just skips a time period. I'm assuming he stayed out of politics (I certainly would if I were him) and lived in Libreville,. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 23:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November 1960, a crisis broke out within the majority party. After deciding to reshuffle the cabinet without consulting Parliament. No context or motive given what so ever.
  • where he was supplied, according to US ambassador to Gabon, Charles Darlington, "with all the whisky and beer he [could] drink and all the girls he want[ed]". As there is no earlie indication of the man's character this comes accross as at best trivial, at worst propaganda used against him.
    • Propaganda? This was written by the US ambassagor to Gabon during this tumultuous time period. Darlington's basically making a statement that being in jail really wasn't as bad as it seemed for Gondjout. I see no reason why this should go. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again the claim: Upon his release, M'ba appointed Gondjout to the mostly symbolic posts of President of the Economic Council.[18]. Why did he do that? Seems starange, appointing an ex prisoner and enemy of the state to a hight profile (at least) position.
  • 250 kilometres from Libreville North south east or west - fill in the detail.
  • Gondjout was sentenced to two years in prison. What were the charges (2 years seems lax for treason), any details of the trial, public reaction, and so forth.
Have a read through it again and try and imagine you know nothing of the man or his times. Would you be able to get the jist? As a small point, some of the page no.s in the refs have full stops after them, some don't. Small thing, but annoying, I'm afraid. Ceoil sláinte 04:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the refs somewhat. I know, this article is not a great represetation of this man's life, but that is due to lack of sources available. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image Afrique 32.JPG has been nomed for deletion. Ceoil sláinte 09:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it will be kept. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this closer, once you get past the bad prose the article is slight, has logical errors and seems confused as to the signifance of events, eg the 1964 Gabon coup d'état, where the article does not seem sure of the signifance of roles of the participants, or their motives, or of the wider historical context, or of the later consquences. Its fact fact fact, but they are not weaved together into a convincing narrative. I'd say this is a good start, but more research needs to be undertake. I'm switching to oppose, but don't take it too bad, you have the outline of a stong article, just need a bit more elbow greece. Your still my friend, though ;) and I hope to see an stroger version back here in the future. Ceoil sláinte 12:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? I put a brief intro to the 1964 coup, though I'm trying not to focus on it. Basically: Gondjout was Minister of State during the coup. That's about all the souces tell us. I've contacted User: Biruitorul to copyedit it. Could you help, too? the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by jimfbleak Just lead for now
A interesting article on a neglected continent, but the prose needs work still jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Although the title Laure Gondjout Secrétaire particulière du président should warn the reader its French. It states so in the citation tempate, and the template contains the publisher also, but templates being templates (ie best avoided) the info is not transcribing. Ceoil sláinte 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an issue? Ceoil sláinte 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should just be noted that it does, it doesn't disqualify the ref. Although if it's a online source of a item also available in print, it should give the print version information too, so folks can find it at a library. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Ealdgyth, makes sence. Clarified. Ceoil sláinte 15:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ed, look, I'm giving constructive criticism, I barely even passed this as a GA, what makes it an FA? All the best. ;) —Sunday 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's comprehensive. Really, if one could expand it 1kb, that would be amazing. Considering an article of this size is even being considered for FA gave me the inspiration. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a biographical article and is missing detail on nearly 30 years of his later life. Isn't this partly a representation of the content in the general 1964 and other articles translated from French wiki? Isn't the 1964 Gabon topic covered enough now? I find it very odd that given the very reason why the 1964 article was not promoted, you have now nominated this for an FA. I think there is a big difference between a GA and an FA. Why do you think this would pass FA with sources such as Echec aux militaires au Gabon en 1964 and Biteghe 1990 which you admitted haven't been verified in the way they hadn't in the 1964 article? I'm not questioning that the sources aren't reliable, I;m just wondering why you think this has a chance of passing FA when the 1964 coup article didn't which partly uses the same sources? The Bald One White cat 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nishkid write it though? Is it your own work, or partly a representation of another person's work rather than based on primary sources? Don't get me wrong I think it is a very good article given the circumstances and lack of info available on Gabonese subjects and the encyclopedia is far better for having it, I just think there are numerous problems which affect an upgrading to FA which others are bound to pick up on. Best The Bald One White cat 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid and I both wrote it. While I am the main contributor in the "history", I stole forked from his work. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [90].

José Sarria edit

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)
previous FAC (04:05, 23 August 2008)

I nominated this article several weeks ago because I believe it meets all of the standards for FA status. I did most of the writing, so forgive me if I sound immodest, but I believe the writing is strong, the coverage is comprehensive, it's verifiable, neutral and stable, well- and consistently-referenced and includes appropriately licensed images.

At the last FAC, one person supported promotion whole-heartedly. Another initially opposed and then supported conditionally and the condition was addressed. Others opposed on the basis of the length and detail of the lead. One person (who is apparently something of a problem child when it comes to the FA process) said it was missing citations and "not brilliant enough." SandyGeorgia expressed some concern about citations, finding it odd that a woman would go from being a member of the upper class in her home country to working as a maid in the US.

Following the close of the FAC, I left messages on the talk pages of each person who opposed the promotion, in hopes of getting additional feedback. With the exception of Sandy's, I got none. As I said in the first FAC, it's rather difficult to know what the reviewer is looking for in the way of additional sourcing or prose that isn't "brilliant enough" with no guidance as to what that reviewer believes needs to be sourced or where the prose needs to be brilliant-er. I believe I addressed the issue of the lead in the course of the first FAC and I believe I've addressed Sandy's concerns regarding attribution. I hope that if those same reviewers choose to participate again and still have concerns, they will try to help me improve the article by articulating them a little more clearly.

Apologies for this long-winded opening. Looking forward to going through this again and hope to see a different result! Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image request - Please link the licence for Image:JOSE1.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what you mean by "link the licence". The image is tagged as having been released into the public domain. Otto4711 (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know it has been released into the public domain? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to say where you obtained the image, so the PD claim can be confirmed. Give a url if it's from the web, or a publication reference (inc page if appropriate) if it's scanned from a hard publication. jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't obtain the image. It was uploaded by User:Njcraig who identifies himself as the creator. Otto4711 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still need to verify the information, so this will need to be resolved. On the one hand, it says "Photo provided to the public domain by the International Court System.", but on the other hand, Njcraig says he's releasing it. Which is it? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left a message on Njcraig's talk page, asking him to contact OTRS regarding the license. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Njcraig has gotten back to me, saying that he has "full permission" to use the photo. He also says that the photo was given to him by Panzi. I have also emailed an officer with the Imperial Court who's in charge of their Internet operations. What exactly are the steps that need to be taken to assure that this image is usable in the article? Talk to me like I'm six, because this image stuff confuses the hell out of me. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they have a website with the image on it, they can put a note on the site giving the licence datails, or they can use the WP:OTRS system, whereby they email WP the licence Fasach Nua (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Njcraig has indicated he doesn't understand what he needs to do through the OTRS system and I don't understand it either. A step-by-step breakdown is needed explaining exactly what needs to be done. Otto4711 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: On reading over the image issues again, I think that the images should be acceptable under fair use at the very least, and I see Otto is working to get further documentation that they are free. I don't believe these should hold up the nomination, so I have changed my !vote to support. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments by karanacs. I really enjoyed this article. The prose is very compelling and the topic is interesting. A few smallish things and then I'll be ready to support.
    • The order is a bit off for me. Sarria's military service is briefly mentioned in the early life section, and then it goes on to speak of events that happened afterwards. The next section backtracks several years to discuss the military service. I would move the last paragraph of early life to later in the article.
      I've relocated the last two paragraphs.
    • Is it known whether Sarria had a medical condition that left him so short?
    • Not that I know of.
    • I think this needs a source: "is much revered within the hierarchy of the Imperial Court System and is affectionately"
      The Imperial Court System's official site notes the nickname "Mama" and states "He is truly a living hero and role model for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people or anyone who admires courage and optimism against daunting odds." Is that sufficient as a source?
      This is an instance where a self-published source is appropriate, since the sentence is essentially describing an internal point of view. Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Added source.
    • Is there any information on what Sarria did between the late 1970s and the early 1990s?
      He was as far as I can discover just living in retirement and working with the Courts. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lead is still too detailed. For example, It's not necessary to point out in the lead that his parents were from an upper class background or from which country.

Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've pulled that detail and tinkered a bit with the wording. I don't know what else to pull out without affecting its utility as a summary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I noticed that the lead begins with unlinked dates in month day year format, so I started changing your (previously linked, ISO format) accessdates to the same format - only to discover later in the article that there are quite of few instances of linked dates in the text itself, too. The cite templates are wonky—it seems most people don't know how to make them output unlinked accessdates—and I thought I was just tweaking things to follow your preference. Now I'm not sure what your preference is for date formats. If you could clarify whether your intent is linked dates (technically deprecated per MOS) or unlinked dates, I would be happy to finish 'fixing' things in either direction. Sorry for the confusion. Maralia (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Sandy unlinked the dates in the lead during the last FAC, because of the odd situation of the double birthday. I was unaware that linked dates have been deprecated in MOS; I was doing the citations according to WP:CIT. Which I guess is my way of saying I don't care one way or the other. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I did; this date was neither linked nor delinked, it was ni fu ni fa. Maralia is asking what date format you want to use, since there are other inconsistencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I don't know what "ni fu ni fa" means. It looks to me like you removed the links around the dates but maybe I'm not understanding. I have no preference as to the date format so whatever is easiest for Maralia to do is fine with me. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmm, confused my languages I guess while reading about a hispanic and talking to someone I assumed spoke Spanish. Ni fu ni fa is neither one nor the other. You had one date linked, and one date unlinked, yet a solo year linked (which is never done) so it wasn't clear which way you were going with date linking but all needed fixing; I thought you would clear that up after my edit. At any rate, dates are now commonly delinked, so it would be fine to delink all dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and converted all the dates to unlinked, month day year format. Maralia (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


additional image comments

If the source for the main image is found, it may provide a rich vein of free images of the subject, and make these comments irrelevent Fasach Nua (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that Sarr1 doesn't significantly increase our understanding of the subject by serving to demonstrate the difference between the public persona Sarria presented in his daily life and the persona he adopted to run for office. WP:FOP is an essay. Otto4711 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roll of WP is not to demonstrate but to document, and the change is persona can be documented by GFDL text. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Are you really going to hang this on my choice of the word "demonstrate" instead of "document"? Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, this was ill-considered and borderline uncivil. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the plaque picture is probably not appropriate fair use - a free version could be created. I think that the image of Sarria in a suit should stay. Yes, the text can and does describe Sarria's transformation for his election race, but the image provides a much broader understanding to the reader. I think it is needed to contrast with the picture of Sarria in drag so that users understand just how dramatic the transformation was. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the Creative Commons license was sufficient to allow use of the plaque picture regardless of whether a free version can be created or not. Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photography may be of an appropriate licence, but the subject may be copyrighted, which is why I suggested looking into freedom of panorama, in order to get it under a completely free licence Fasach Nua (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama doesn't work in the US, but since the only artistic element of the actual plaque is the portrait, apparently a simple reproduction of a photo, the copyright status of the original photo, plus the photo of the plaque, are the only issues. ie, the plaque is not a copyrightable 3D work of art. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the plaque picture is not appropriate fair use. It does not add significantly to readers' understanding, and a photo of the street sign for Jose Sarria Court would be free and serve the same purpose (anyone live in SF? you could also ask flickr users here and here to relicense the images). I also agree that the suit photo does add to readers' understanding. What a difference it surely made in his public image! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but I have to say, I find image usage the single most frustrating thing about Wikipedia. I understand the necessity of and desire to use as much free content as possible, but the image use policies and guidelines are so damn complicated it's a wonder that any non-free images survive. Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To update the infobox image issue, I am in contact with several officials from the Courts and have apprised them of the situation. If they can't track down the copyright holder of that specific image then they will release another that they do hold the rights on into the public domain. Otto4711 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • Image:Sarrplaque.jpg - doesn't have a copyright tag (!!!) and appears to be freely replaceable/not minimal (NFCC#3A - the image of Sarria thereon is redundant and of inferior quality to two other images of him in the article; NFCC#1 - the prose thereon could be included as a quote). The purpose of "For illustration and critical commentary" is neither specific (NFCC#10C) nor detailed (WP:FURG)
    • Image:Sarr1.jpg - does not attribute a copyright holder (NFCC#10A); otherwise, I don't see a problem with its inclusion.
    • Image:JOSE1.jpg - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP). The copyright tag is not supported. How can we confirm ICS has authority to license this image and has it to the public domain? This image does not appear to be on the ICS site and the site does not appear to have "free" content. It's all well and good that a free license is being sought, but we don't have it and are, therefore, making an entirely unsubstantiated PD claim. Эlcobbola talk 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly understand your concerns with these images.
  • I have contacted the copyright holder of a picture of the Sarria Ct. street sign, which sign if I'm understanding the above discussion is not copyrightable. He's agreed to release it so I just need for him to finish the process of releasing the image and I'll pull the plaque photo.
  • Sarr1 is campaign literature created by Sarria, so do I just need to put "copyright Jose Sarria 1961" on the image page?
  • I am in contact with several members of the Court, including the President. If they can't prove they hold copyright on JOSE1, they will select an image that they can prove copyright on and release it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above conversation is, well, bizarre. The plaque, of course, can be and is copyrighted. Per USC 17: "Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". Freedom of Panorama does not exist in the United States, so I have no idea why it was even brought up. As a derivative work, we would need permission from the creator of the plaque, not just the photographer thereof.
  • Not the plaque. The street sign, being just a string of letters, is not copyrightable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<moved extended discussion here> Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plaque text is copyrightable as text - the situation is no different showing a photo of it cast in metal to quoting it in the article text. The portrait I have discussed above. The plaque itself is not an "original work of authorship" - do you think the foundry wrote the inscription? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone designed the plaque; it is absolutely an "original work of authorship". Publisher and author have copyrights to books; the printer and binder are irrelevant. The plaque's designer has copyrights. The foundry is irrelevant. Эlcobbola talk 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The design would fail on "original" as it is so plain; I agree other fancier plaques might have a design copyright. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if it were just text; the image element passes. The image is either based upon a photograph (in which case it is a derivative needing the release of the photographer) or the original work of the plaque designer - in either case, a work substantially above the threshold of originality. Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the point about the photo waaay above; I'm glad we agree about the plaque. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes no difference as I have removed it from the article and since it's now orphaned and I uploaded it I'll have it deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Sarrplaque.jpg has been replaced with Image:Sarriact.jpg which is licensed under creative commons and which contains no non-free content. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but Image:Sarriact.jpg will need a verifiable source (i.e. a means for us to confirm Jones has indeed licensed it as CC-by-SA 3.0). This could be his contact information, an OTRS ticket, a Flickr link (if that's where it's from), etc.
  • If Sarria is the holder of the copyright for the campaign literature, that would work just fine.
  • Fully appreciated. We just can't promote a featured article using images with unsubstantiated claims. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I am still waiting for clarification from the Courts regarding either the copyright on the existing image or the release of another to which they hold the rights. The people I'm in contact with are meeting this week so may not be able to get back with me for a few days. If this is the only issue preventing promotion, can we either a) hold this open until they have a chance to respond or b) temporarily remove the image to allow promotion? Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support as soon as a few small issues are resolved:
  1. All image issues, as described above. This is the deal-maker. Other issues are kinda trivial.
  2. There are two cites to "Miller" but no Miller in the refs.
  3. named refs needed for Gorman p. 150 & Bullough p. 377.
  4. The very first ref says glbtq, which I assume means Gay & Lesbian Times Quarterly. Is there some reason why this isn't spelled out? Before anyone jumps in and says it doesn't have to be, I'm just saying it would be nice if it were.
  5. The page numbering... can you look up the web page of whatever format you're using (APA or whatever) and let me know if "Gorman p. 14–6" is acceptable? I've see things like "146-8" before, where the first number has three digits, but with two digits it looks a little odd.
  • D'oh! I copied over the info from Miller from my work on Black Cat Bar but forgot to copy over the reference. Fixed. Not sure what you mean by "named refs". "glbtq" is the name of the site. It doesn't stand for gay and lesbian times quarterly. "glbtq" means gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning. It's not spelled out on the site so shouldn't be spelled out here. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Named refs are for duplicate refs; they make them point to the same note, and put a b c d before the sequence of links.. the article already has several; the first example I see is <ref name = pettis> Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, OK. I think I have them all fixed but my eyes are sterting to blear when I look at the article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment This has no bearing on the FAC, but if you know anyone who can retake the pic of Image:Sarriact.jpg, that would be good. The sign that has Sarria's name is in the shadows. In the article, I can clearly see "Pond" but have to squint to see "Sarria". The angle is nice, with the trees and the flag and all.. but I dunno, if I can't read it, it isn't helpful. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [91].

Concerned edit

Nominator(s): Diego_pmc Talk


The article passed through GA and PR, and I decided to nominate it for FA status, and see what improvements it could use. Diego_pmc Talk 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - With the exception of Image:Concerned logo.png, I can't see any of the images passing WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you can see I tried to make detailed descriptions of their purposes, and I think they meet the criteria. Especially when they are all all used with permission. I don't think FU can get any better than when you have permission to use the image.
    Besides that, they are not excessive either, and they are appropriate to the sections they are in. Diego_pmc Talk 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the images use Valve's textures for generating the comics, they are still derivative works and thus are non-free - the artist's permission is nice, but doesn't make this a magic bullet to bypass other concerns. That stated, I think only one image (outside the logo) really helps here: the Counterstrike crossover is purely decorative, so I'd stick with the second one (the floating can one). --MASEM 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I forgot they are originally from HL2. Okay, I removed the CS:S one. Diego_pmc Talk 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found those three sources on Livingston's site ([92], [93], [94]), so it's pretty safe to assume the interviews are not altered in any way. About #27, there really is no publisher, but I put "Norman N. Black" in the author field. Diego_pmc Talk 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'll prove they aren't altered, yep! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be nice to see more independent sources. Right now the majority of them are from Concerned itself. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sources from hlcomic.com are used to cite either important comments of Livingston (for example that he won't continue through HL2: Ep1), or various points from the plot, and in either case hlcomic.com is the most reliable source for these purposes. The two sections that absolutely must avoid hlcomic.com as much as possible (Reception and Publication History), only use the site few times, and only for claims such as those described above (plot or the author's claims). Diego_pmc Talk 16:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, although at a glance, it might look like there are 90% primary sources, because Christopher Livingston is listed first, that's a side effect of using {{cite interview}}, which puts the interviewee's name first. This means that some secondary sources do look like Livingstone is the author, when he isn't. -- Sabre (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Should titles such as "half-Life 2" be italicized in quotes, or should they be left the way they were in the original quote? Diego_pmc Talk 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Italicise them, they are titles regardless of whether they are in a quote or not. -- Sabre (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a set rule either way, but I agree with Sabre. Giggy (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose about the primary sources. If it's just plot, we can remove the citations (current ref 16), but using it for themes smacks of WP:OR and synthesis. The plot section is unintelligible to someone who has never played the game, and the prose throughout needs some serious work ("Frohman this. Frohman that", " However, Frohman falls right onto Breen, killing Breen.") --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statements made in the Themes section are not WP:OR. The author mentioned in his notes to what aspect of the game he made reference to in his comic - I should have included refs to the notes as well. Also about the prose from Plot section, it was already written when I started working on the article, and all i did was to remove some redundant details - I did not pay attention to repetitions.

I will try to address these issues in a couple of days. I don't understand what you meant when you said that the plot section is "unintelligible to someone who has never played the game", though. That it is a spoiler, or that it is confusing for someone unfamiliar with the game? In either case, I tend to disagree with you. WP is not censored, as I'm sure you know, so spoilers are accepted, and it doesn't seem confusing either - you only need to understand what's happening, not to actually be able to make the connection between the events in the comic, and those from the game. Diego_pmc Talk 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I have only one nitpick — could you please remove the redundant phrases? —Sunday · (Testify!) 13:56, 1 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [95].

Homer Simpson edit

Nominator(s): –Scorpion0422 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC 1
previous FAC withdrawn

I've slowly been chipping away at this page for about two years and I started doing serious FA driven improvements 3 weeks ago and I believe this is the hardest I have ever worked on a page. You will notice that the article does not have an appearances section like other character articles, and the reason for this is simple. While a show like Lost has continuous storylines, The Simpsons has little or no continuity whatsoever, plus Homer has appeared in 420 episodes, so such a section would be a huge mess. Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by myself. -- Scorpion0422 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa you are way ahead of schedule. Gary King (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I resolved the disambiguation link, replaced all dead links with archives, and unlinked some dates. It should be good on those fronts now. Gary King (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Schedule"? Gran2 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conspiracy :] Gary King (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you changed all of the access dates, some of those links actually were added as long ago as 2006. -- Scorpion0422 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checklinks tool does that. I guess it does it when it finds that the URL still works. Gary King (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the Peer Review needs to be closed. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates are the last time the website was checked if they were still containing the cited information. This is an issue for wiki based site like Valve's developer documentation and some other sites. Old accessdates indicate that sources haven't been checked in a while. Admittedly the tool does get this a bit wrong, it should prompt for each link, however I've found that rather tedious. The tool will only prompt to update the links if any of the accessdates it would update are before 2008 and will only work on white/good links. — Dispenser 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow...you've done a great job, I haven't spotted anything wrong with it at all. References all look good, no bad ones...brilliant work. The structure is brilliant, though sometimes you leave out a citation and only add it several sentences after the statement it's supposed to back up.--Serviam (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - The four non-free images Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg seem to fail WP:NFCC, the fourth image conveys no more information than Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png, failing minimal usage. The variation on the last three non-free images is not significant enough to meet criteria 8, indeed the change in appearence could be put down to expression, rather than character evolution. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, gotta love the bully tactics. So if I revert to the earlier version without the 2007 image, would that make the image acceptable to you? -- Scorpion0422 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. -- Scorpion0422 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Homer has a low IQ of 55" - stating this flatly makes it sound as if it's an objective fact about a real person. Haukur (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My image comments
    • First off, I would suggest merging all the content in plain text for the images into a template, {{Non-free fair use rationale}}. It makes it easier to see what's missing from rationales and condenses the source information in as well.
    • Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png - nonfree, used for identification of the subject, low resolution. I have no issues with this. Especially if you take my recommendation below, I would clarify this is his appearance in the 2007 film (after all, production values were higher).
      • Actually, it's a normal promotional image released in 2006 as promotion for season 17. -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg - on this, I think it might actually be a better idea to revert to a blank version like this and then just crop out the last version, as it is really not that different from the infobox image. I think stating the year and appearance of the screencaps in the thumbnail would work better (also wouldn't have the blocky aliased text issue.)
    • Image:3D Homer.png - while it's an interesting shot of Homer in a different form, it seems extraneous as it is not directly supporting text to the side. I would remove it.
      • I'm not sure if you missed it or not, but the bottom paragraph of the section does discuss his 3D appearance. -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah I did, but I'm still not sure it's that major to merit an image (it was a single episode, and only for a few minutes.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:HomerStranglesBart.jpg - I have no issues with this image. It is being used to support the text, and also shows an early design of the character, as well as better pointing out an aspect of the personality described.
    • All other images free and have proper source/author/license information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2000, Homer, along with the rest of his family, were awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." should be "was" in the lead and in the "Commendations" section.
  • "Homer ... would gladly sell his soul to the devil in exchange for a single doughnut." Since the soul-selling incident was in a Treehouse of Horror episode, can it legitimately be said to be part of his personality?
  • Would it be worth adding a mention of Castellaneta's appearance as a Homer Simpson impersonator in an episode of L.A. Law? Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because that would be akin to an in pop culture section, and I really would like to avoid that. - Scorpion0422 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Oppose for now. I opposed this rather strongly last time it came up, so I felt I should give a thorough review again to assess the changes. First of all, let me say well done, this article in infinitely better than it was when I last read it. I do however have some reservations, particularly about the prose and one of the sections, which I have laid out below.

  • "The episode "That 90's Show" (season 19, 2007) contradicted much of the backstory;" - to make it clearer, perhaps use "established backstory", and maybe give a very short note on why (if you know) this was done.
    • My guess would be that they did it because they wanted to make fun of the '90s. However, there is no RS to prove this.
OK, but that is definately something to look out for.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In "When You Dish upon a Star", (season 10, 1998)" as this seems to be corroborating the previous sentence, use "For example" at the start of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • "In the season seven (1995) episode "Treehouse of Horror VI" . . ." - why is this paragraph in character development, when it has nothing to do with the character's development? Maybe put it in creation as that seems to cover animation development.
    • I would say that it belongs in development more than creation.
Why? It doesn't develop the character at all, in fact the episode it appears in is non-cannon. Can you explain your reasoning for including it in this section.
Alright, I moved it.
  • "and he usually overlooks Lisa's talents, but does everything he can to help her." - presumably this sentence should have some kind of qualification, otherwise it contradicts itself.
Still not clear. Maybe "to help her when made aware of his neglect" or similar.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "In the episode "HOMR" (season 12, 2001) Homer had a surgery to remove the crayon from his brain, boosting his IQ to 105. Although he bonded very well with Lisa, his intelligence made him less happy. As a result, he had Moe insert the crayon back into his brain, causing his intelligence to go back down" - too much discussion of a single episode which doesn't logically tell us anything not already stated. Either use it to prove a point, or cut it down to a bare minimum.
    • I'm actually not sure where that came from. Cut down.
Its still quite long for what is really a very minor point. Nevertheless, it is no longer a vital part of my oppose.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big problem here: "Cultural influence" - This is where the last FAC fell down completely and again here, whilst an improvement, there is a serious issue. There is no narative to this section, which looks a bit like a prose list - items are thrown at a reader without cohesion and unlike in the analysis or most of the production sections which preceed this I'm not sure what points are being made - Homer Simpson is a massive cultural icon, so why have these things been chosen specifically and what do they represent?
    • Basically I added anything with a source. The thing is (and I found this very surprising) that there is actually very little out there about his true influence. I've found some quotes about how great he is, but what I was really looking for was his influence on some of today's characters, and basically all I could find was a comparison of him and Peter Griffin. And it's not that I haven't looked hard enough, I've done google searches, google news searches, google books searches, newsbank searches and searched a dozen specific news sites and what you see is what I found. I can work on the flow, but I doubt I'll be able to find much more.
Much better, but one or two minor problems: "Homer Simpson is one of the most popular influential television characters" doesn't make sense, perhaps "popular and influential television characters ever"? or similar. "Homer has also had an influence in countries other than the United States." - This is redundant as the previous paragraph discussed the UK and France. "In 2008, a Spanish euro coin was found in Avilés, Spain, with the face of Homer replacing the figure of the king Juan Carlos I." - Presumably a fake Euro coin? If so, so what? (so to speak).
Done on the first few comments. As for the Homer euro coin, I clarified that it was fake, but I couldn't find any news stories that would allow me to expand on it. Do you want me to remove that part? -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general problem throughout the article, of which this is an example, "The spoken word d'oh is a trademark of 20th Century Fox. In 2006, "D'oh!" was placed in sixth position on TV Land's list of the 100 greatest television catchphrases." - The addition of "and" between these sentences would give them both more causality and clarity and would greatly smooth the reading process. The article has many such short sentences that might be better presented as part of one longer sentence.
    • I'll see what I can do, but I don't think it should be done in that case because the two sentences have no connection. -- Scorpion0422 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, this is a very nice article, an I would be neutral but for the problems in the cultural influence section. I think the text needs a closer look, as described, to help it flow better and on occasion I was left wondering why information had been included when it didn't seem to connect with anything around it but on the whole this is a very fine effort and is not far from FA quality. Any questions, just ask. Regards, --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fully revisit the text when more of the issues above are addressed. There have been a lot of improvements, but still a reluctant oppose at this stage. See my responses above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I haven't forgotten, I will come back to this after others have reviewed it (so as not to review prose that is going to change). Thought this might be interesting for you regarding pop culture items though: [96]. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It's not exclusive to Homer, it includes several other cartoon characters, including Marge Simpson and Felix the Cat. So, I would say no for now. -- Scorpion0422 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the comments by Jackyd101. Pretty much hit the nail right on the head from my point of view. As much as we all love Homer (well I do at least) and as great as this article is, it may have some work to do. I have some of my own input that may help as well:

  • The first paragraph (which is always the most vital) is a little bit confusing and hard to understand. First of all, Homer is a fictional character from the animated series "The Simpsons". The word 'fictional' is of extreme importance and should be included right away.
    • Just a small note on that first sentence, it seems that everyone has a different opinion of how it should be introduced. IPs are always changing it and the word fictional used to be included, but a reviewer suggested that having the word fictional in there was overkill. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Homer was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening while he was waiting in the lobby of James L. Brooks' office" What on earth are you trying to say here? You should keep this entire first stanza simple and better worded, there are a fair bit of dates which constantly appear, and some of the prose confuses me to stop and really think before I read it. Nothing major, just some small tongue-twisters.
    • I'm not sure what it is you think is wrong with the sentence. It seems pretty straight forward to me (and there is more detail in the next sentence). -- Scorpion0422 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Simpsons uses a floating timeline in which the characters do not age, and as such the show is assumed to be set in the current year." Can this be immediately referenced? I think it should be as it is a highly challenged statement. My knowledge of the show has become very vague over the past year, but something tells me that there have been a few instances in some episodes where the characters do get older; ie - birthdays! Doesn't Maggie have a birthday in an episode? And Mr Burns constantly changes his age. In one episode, it is revealed that his PIN number for the ATM is "the same as his age". He momentarily enters 4 digits, implying that his age is very, very old in the fictional show. However, at other times, the range of his age is expressed when he talks about his childhood or other historical years and gives specific dates. It's clear that some characters do actually age in the series, although it is not physically visible. I think this is something more appropriate to be said, and please reference it if possible. Domiy (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone's age fluxuates. Homer's been 36, 38, 39 and 40 at different points (and not in that order). Same with Marge, while Burns' age has also gone up and down. Would it be better if I changed it to "physically age"? -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of weak Support - Prose is really, really, nice, and who doesn't want to feature Homer Simspno on the main page? lolz! But, Jack has some pretty valid nitpicks. —Sunday | Speak 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments (because I love the series - note: didn't read the above).
    • I found the opening sentence a bit bland for such an iconic topic. Has that sentence been agreed upon
      • Any suggestions?
        • The change you made looks much better.
    • I also noticed there are a lot of instances of passive voice. While that is alright to use occassionally, in formal writing it should not be used too often.
    • The first four sentences of the first paragraph are unsourced. I haven't checked much elsewhere in the article, but we all know that a reliable source is needed to prove every statement in the article. The first citation in that section is to the episode Mother Simpson, which, IIRC, does not mention Homer being raised on the farm.
      • Done.
    • Is there a reason the Character development section is so long? It would be nice seeing it split into two.
      • Done.
    • The end of the first paragraph of Personality is unsourced.
      • Done.
    • Do'h! Err, I don't think that section needs to be so long. There is a sub-article, after all, which should contain more of the info.
      • I've shortened the section.
  • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! -- Scorpion0422 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two more things after a quick look. First, when describing the character in the lede, you say, "[Homer] is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, thoughtless and lazy." However, some of that can be argued against, particularly "thoughtless". I can think of several episodes where in the end Homer is hardly thoughtless. Perhaps even his change in character could be mentioned in the lede, since, as a fan of the show, that change has been important. I have a small quibble with "Homer is one of the main characters on The Simpsons, appearing in every episode to date." First, that should be sourced, and second, is that even true? Treehouse of Horror V has one segment that excludes Homer entirely, so would that be an exception? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mentions of thoughtless and "appearing in every episode to date" because although it is true, I can't find a source for it. -- Scorpion0422 17:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Moni3

  • Don't tell anyone I reviewed a pop culture article. But I love Homer.
    • Well I appreciate the review.
  • I'd quote and cite the significant statement by the Sunday Times in the lead about Homer being the "greatest comedic creation of modern time". That's quite a whopper statement.
    • The reason a quote isn't used is because their specific statement is "the greatest comic creation of our time", so we'd have to alter the quote anyway.
      • I think it's worth it to alter the sentence to make way for the quote.--Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I'll do it. Thanks for the support, by the way. -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several instances where the writing in the article could flow better and read a bit snappier. We are, after all, discussing an extraordinarily influential fictional character. I think the same standard of writing should apply to Homer as it would to Cyrano de Bergerac. I hope you don't mind that I copy edited it a bit. And oops for the typo.
  • Can you give examples of Jerkass Homer as opposed to a kinder, gentler Homer? The character development section can be expanded a bit with a few examples: In early seasons, Homer appeared concerned that his family was going to make him look bad. Why?
    • I know the perfect quote for this, and I added it.
  • Whoever stated Homer is a borderline alcoholic - that should be in quotations with a citation. Because that dude is all alcoholic in my opinion.
    • Done.
  • "The Simpsons's"? Ack! Must get a grammarian!! Use the bat phone.
    • It has been fixed.
  • What are Homer's feelings for Grandpa Simpson?
    • Fixed.
  • Castellaneta's normal speaking voice has no similarity to Homer's says who?
    • Everyone.
      • I'm not everyone. As the actors get older I can hear their normal speaking voices. It was a curt way to ask for someone to quantify that statement: a poll or survey, "According to ..." or something. Sorry for being curt. --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Castellaneta really does sound nothing like Homer (his normal speaking voice is closest to the Blue Haired Lawyer) but I know what you're saying. I'll try and find a quote from a writer/producer that I can add. -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Homer Book, about Homer's personality and attributes, has been published and is commercially available. How about a review or something about this book. Otherwise, it just thuds.
    • Done.
  • I would love to support the article, and feel it has only a little ways to go to get there. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see you reverted my edit to Role in the Simpsons. That is your prerogative, of course, but my copy edit unified the concepts of the section. I noticed that many of the sections addressed issues over and over, scattering the ideas and making the reading a bit tedious. I hope you'll consider the restructuring or be able to explain why age, role, age, and occupations is a logical flow. Even Homer deserves brilliant compelling prose. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I moved the bit about the floating timeline is because it refers to everything in the section, not just the age. It's sort of a disclaimer. -- Scorpion0422 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support; copyedited this one not long ago, and it's looking even better now. Well done. Giggy (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the series focus primarily on Bart for the first couple of years, but then Bart was (relatively) de-emphasized to make Homer the Main Guy? That wold seem to be important... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I would say that that is an accurate statement. However, I have not been able to find a reference for it, and to say so without a ref is POV. And, there have been edit wars in the past over it. -- Scorpion0422 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be POV, it would be WP:OR. :-) I'll look tomorrow. Good night. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I say POV is because there have been edit wars in the past where people have said Homer is not the sole main character, he's one of five and to say he is the leading character is inappropriate. Personally, I agree with you, but I'm just trying to avoid future edit wars. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 1 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [97].

New York State Route 311 edit

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I need a break from the usual hurricanes. :) Seriously, though, I helped promote the article to GA a few months back, and after a recent massive expansion, this is clearly the most comprehensive account of this small road in the Hudson Valley of New York. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roads are as bad as hurricanes (I'm still trying to decide if one is actually worse :P) Images check out, all free with author/source/licenses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously. Roads are fun to work on, though, and more importantly, they're easy. Note, though, that I'm someday going to find a way to combine the two! Hurricane Lane (2006) qualifies as half-road/half-hurricane, right? ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • "historical sites, each with their own distinct histories." - <slight cringe>, the repetition of "history" isn't pretty
  • "crossing over the northernmost portion of the lake" - WP:EGG
  • "and soon intersects with NY 164" - the "soon" sounds a bit travel guide-ish IMO.
  • "where it continued east on an overlap with U.S. Route 6 at the time" - is the "at the time" necessary?

Giggy (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything. Thanks for the review, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One dablink needs fixing (I tried to, but had no idea which one you wanted). Giggy (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Giggy (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First (and sufficient for an Oppose), this article has too many things that walk and talk like padding. Details about Carmel Lake, about the Vietnam war, etc. are only tangentially related. Second, a quick look at "Special Acts and Resolutions of the State of Connecticut ...1857" reveals some interesting historical info that could be included.. why does the article say a "mild rain" swept away the bridge, but the document above refers to a "great and unusual ice flood" etc. ... Do other sources reveal more info? Apparently the Phillipstown Pike was abandoned for a while... On the whole, I think this article needs more thorough researching and rewriting than can be accomplished during FAC period. It's very unlikely that merely repairing the the few concerns I've mentioned here will induce me to change my !vote. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment. I'll start looking for more information right away. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've come up with a little more information about the turnpike, and I removed some extra detail from the recent history section. I copyediting the article somewhat, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:17, 1 October 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [98].

Cloud Gate edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Torsodog
previous FAC (05:04, 2 September 2008)


I'm renominating this article for featured article because it is one of the better articles in the WP:CHIFTD. We have responded to recent WP:PR, WP:GAR, WP:FAC and talk page concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image comments - Three images are labeled both non-free and creative commons. The images should be arranged, alternating left and right per Wikipedia:MOS#Images Fasach Nua (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the subsections to make the alternation of images more appealing. I have also removed the CC licensing from 2 of the 3 non-free images. The last one (of the omphalos) I will do after work when I have time to beef up the rationale a bit while I'm at it. --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the sides of the images as per WP:ACCESSIBILITY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images should have both non-free and creative commons labels. There are multiple copyrights to consider: the copyright of the artist (which is non free) and the copyright of the photographer (creative commons). —Jeremy (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this when making these edits, but since I'm not all that knowledgeable when dealing with copyrights, I assumed the first comment was correct. If this is indeed the correct policy, I will revert my edits. --TorsodogTalk 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the infobox images are non-free (or contain non-free components) then only one can be justified under WP:NFCC minimal usage Fasach Nua (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous FAC, the images and their FURs were discussed individually, case-by-case until it was agreed upon that the current three images in the article were the only ones that could be rationally included. I was under the impression that the image issue was resolved in the last FAC... --TorsodogTalk 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point us to policy or prior discussions at WP:FAL whereby more than one FU image was deemed overuse. I am wondering if you are just making up a new interpretation here or if there is any established basis for your complaint. We have been at FAC several times over the past few months with various Millennium Park features and people have said get the FUs down to three or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cant put a number on the quantity of non-free items allowed in an article, obviously the Frank Zappa article has more sounds than this, as they are key to understanding there, and irrelevant here. I would refer to you my previous comment for the appropriate policy, and the particular clasue I have mentioned Fasach Nua (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really it comes down to his own opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have both read WP:NFCC several times. If you would refer to the previous FAC or look at the FARs for the images on their respective pages, reasoning is provided why all three images are essential to understanding the sculpture. --TorsodogTalk 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No No I am agreeing with you, its Fasach whose just creates his own opinion on what is too much and then wars about it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you snuck in a response before me. That previous response was indeed supposed to be for Fasach Nua. --TorsodogTalk 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of images (Criteria 3), Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg and Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg do not contain significanly distinct information to allow them to be used together, and still meet the minimal use requirements of WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, after all of the work we did in the last FAC with the images, I'm actually pretty shocked the first oppose is because of WP:NFCC. Really, too bad. --TorsodogTalk 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are views from completely opposite sides of the object. That in itself makes them about as different as they can be and contains information that cannot be seen in the other. -Djsasso (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the caption that made it clear why we needed both?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to move the text at the end of the first paragraph in history back to the caption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see how that makes it anymore clear as to why both images are needed. I also think when you add the names of all the buildings to the caption it gets pretty big for just a caption; that was the reason I originally moved it. Honestly though, I'm pretty frustrated with this entire image issue and don't really mind what happens regarding them anymore. --TorsodogTalk 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were not any complaints about the pair of lead images before with the old caption and now there are. That says something. Has Awadewit (talk · contribs) commented since we got the number of FU images down to his desired number. Also, JeremyA (talk · contribs) has been helpful on some image issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unindent The caption does help the justification, and I am reconsidering my oppose on that basis. Has the article been tried using a single non-free image of the sculpture, and free images of the two panoramas it is reflecting? Has any attempt been made to contact the artist to release images under a GFDL compatiable licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not whether the photographer would release the images, but rather whether the sculptor would grant permission. There is a lengthy explanation on this issue in the Millennium Park article, but reproduction for commercial use of these images would not likely be granted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I understand it (though I may be wrong), when the sculpture was commissioned the City of Chicago paid Anish Kapoor for an exclusive license to publish photographs of the sculpture. If that is true we are unlikely to be able to get permission from Kapoor to show photos of the sculpture under a free license. —Jeremy (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to revert the image caption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that would be sufficient for user:Fasach Nua. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - source concerns resolved at last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on images - I looked at the fair use rationales for the three views of the sculpture again. I am satisfied that they meet the NFCC criteria. The two exterior shots of the sculpture show the distinctive shape of the sculpture and how it reflects the buildings around it (I agree that this could be better described in the caption). The one interior shot doubles as an interior shot and as an "in process" shot, that is, it shows the sculpture being constructed - it shows the seams before the polishing of the sculpture. In my estimation, this is an acceptable use of fair use images. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what caption improvement you desire, but I made a minor change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article seems to be moving into Support territory, but I have questions about a few things. I would urge the nominators to avoid immediately deleting or changing something just because I (a FAC reviewer) mention it. However, if it makes sense, do it. :-)
  • I am turning the organization of some sections over in my mind, but the thing that jumps out immediately, in my mind, is the one-paragraph-long "AT&T Plaza" section. I'm not really sure that its contents need to beincluded in this article, even though obviously it is the location of the work.
  • We have forked the article and as part of a WP:GTC effort turned the forked article into a GA. You are probably right that the reader should just find out about it from the links if interested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does polished 98% mean? 98% of its surface was polished? Or is there some sort of polishing jargon referring to relative... what... degrees of polishedness? :-)
  • I do not know if this means 98% of the surface was polished or the entire surface was polished to 98% completion. I no longer have the original source. I am not sure if a Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking person would understand the meaning of this or not. I just added the project to the talk page of this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 5-step welding sentence and the subsequent table seem a little out of place in their current position, but am not sure where they might fit better. Will think.
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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [99].

9.0: Live edit

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Rezter, Blackngold29
previous FAC (04:18, 5 September 2008)


I'm giving this another go after a copyedit. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • I have doubts about comprehensiveness, but to heck with it, here are some prose issues:
  • Critical reception was generally positive, with Adrien Begrand of PopMatters calling it a "very worthy live album". Not sure if it applies in the lead, though all quotes are supposed to be cited.
  • Dallas redirects to Dallas, Texas. Not a big deal.
  • When Slipknot produced its second DVD, Disasterpieces, in 2002, the band members were inspired to produce a live album when they noticed how well they performed when they knew they were being recorded. "when they noticed...when they..."

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose support is this? No sig attached. If it belongs to Giggy, he has supported twice, if someone else, it needs an {{unsigned}}. Please sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is a Slipknot album, it is rather jarring to be met by approval from a webzine called "PopMatters". Surely we can find a positive statement from a more relevant magazine. That is, not something with "Pop" in the title. For when I think of "pop music", I think of this—yikes.
  • and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from debut album Slipknot due to copyright issues. - oddly worded. I think there's a missing word here.
  • A staged vocal introduction to 9.0: Live was recorded prior to a show, informing the audience that the band would not be performing in an effort to incite anger in the audience. - This feels like a random thought that was added on to the paragraph. Is there any way it can be worked into the prose to make things flow better?
  • Slipknot German Chart history times out.
  • I really could not find much wrong. It is well written and satisfies all the criteria (despite being short) so far as I can tell. The only thing I would like to see is an explanation that 9.0 refers to the fact that there are nine members in the band, but I think finding a source for this would be difficult. - Yohhans talk 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. PopMatters, good point, but the other reviews talk about specific tracks and I'd say that's the best quote about the album overall that we can find. Gary King (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there is not much else that can be found online, but surely something better exists? Also, to comply with the comprehensive criteria, I think it would be good to include negative criticism regarding the album. An example can be seen in the comment(full article can be found through Lexis Nexis for free) made by Boston Globe journalist, Saul Austerlitz, that, "the experience of listening to both discs of "9.0: Live" roughly comparable to being hit in the head repeatedly with a two-by-four two hours of sludgy, indistinguishable songs, punctuated by profane outbursts about how the idiot media (thanks, guys!) has ignored and abused them." - Yohhans talk 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have LexisNexis access but I've asked someone if they could get the article for me. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just recently got a hold of LexisNexis myself. I've added a negative reaction paragraph :) Gary King (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I did not necessarily want to disparage the band or the album, but I knew that not everyone could have liked it as much as I did. Thank you for taking into account my suggestion. Everything looks good to me! Changed my position to full support. - Yohhans talk 20:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album begins with a staged vocal introduction to 9.0: Live was recorded prior to a show, informing the audience that the band would not be performing in an effort to incite anger in the audience." - needs rewording... the "was recorded" needs fixing (read it in context), and you should add a comma (at least) after "performing" to make it clear the audience wasn't told they were supposed to get angry... Giggy (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gary King (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: had another look and I think it's now ready. Giggy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of support, but your prose needs polishing: the thing is, it's within reach of being very good, but I'm seeing the same old patterns; shouldn't be hard to fix.

  • In the lead: "Many of the included tracks are rarely played live, and the album's version of the song "Skin Ticket" was its first live performance." (1) Spot the redundant word. (2) These two statements, joined by "and", don't seem to have sufficient logical connection. Have you been encouraged by the commonality of "live" to jam them together?
  • You do mean "Austria" and not "Australia", do you?
  • Percussionist Shawn Crahan said the band made an effort to pay more attention to detail than usual during the tour, saying, "when you've got a microphone hanging onto your every note, you tend to give maybe 115 percent instead of 110 percent."[2]—Hardly a thrilling quote; it could be improved by dropping the last four words ("maybe 115 percent ...", if you can cope with the shift in meaning; is it naughty?). Said ... saying, in the same sentence. Can you audit all of your text for such repetitions?
  • I'd love to nuke the Latinism "prior to"; "before" is native Germanic, and much nicer.
  • "the audience" twice in one line .... hmmm.
  • "also includes"—do we need both? And there an "includes" in the previous sentence. Sorry to be fussy, but just changing a few nuts and bolts in your writing technique will yield superior results.
  • A spare "also" in the "Promotion" section (which is stubby).

Gary, you might consider going back to some of your earliest FLs/FAs and scrunitising your prose in them. That would provide strategic distance, which I usually find instructive in my own writing. Tony (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I think I got everything. Gary King (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't like supporting an article about an album that only has 20 references, which feels awkward following 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake. However, I think that article had much less references available but still had more than this one. No offense, but FAC is a critical place, and you should use the criticism to further improve this article. Would it be possible to copyedit the article further? —Sunday | Speak 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but on what grounds are you opposing? Number of refs isn't part of WP:FACR and therefore not a valid reason to object to. If there are specific sections that you think need copyedited or something that hasn't been adressed, than please cite them, but this article has been though an FAC, a copyedit, and now a second FAC; if that's not copyedited, I don't know what is. Blackngold29 23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with Blackngold here; if you are asking us if we think the article can be copyedited further, then no. If you can point out specific issues in the article, though, then we'd be glad to copyedit them. Gary King (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. I can't find anything objectionable, but I still feel awkward supporting.
  • Oppose Article seems far too short, with little explanation of content of the album, and features a section ("Promotion") that is far too small for a Featured Article. I learned almost nothing about what the album was about. Nothing about style, themes, or anything. This article should be at least double the current size before it could be considered comprehensive. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this album is a live album all songs are explained (musically and lyrically) in the articles concerning the studio albums they were released on. This comment has come up before and I still see no sense in repeating this information. Blackngold29 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please summarize them in a section and include wikilinks to their articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The third sentence of the article states: "9.0 Live features tracks from Slipknot's first three studio albums: Slipknot, Iowa, and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)." I don't know how one would expand on that, let alone write a whole new section. Blackngold29 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with Ottava - the style of the three incorporated albums could be briefly summarised. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't see how to do that without repeating information. This was brought up on the past FAC and the consensus was that the info shouldn't be repeated. Blackngold29 01:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need to repeat information, please do. This article needs an expansion. I would like to know themes of songs, trends in songs, what was emphasized, what wasn't, etc. I would like to know about important solos. I would like to know about alternative versions. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a traditional "Musical and lyrical themes" section can be created. The only info about what the actual songs contain comes from reviews of their studio albums, which are obviously different versions than the live recordings presented here. It would be inaccurate and misleading to quote a review of Iowa in this article. Now, I would love to include what the differences are from the studio versions along with "important solos and alternative versions", however we are limited to what we can cite, and the ones that we have are what you see in the reception section. Slipknot has never been and doubtfully never will be a "mainstream" band, and with that comes limited sources. If I had this info, it would be in the article within seconds, but the fact is that a live album from a non-mainstream band which makes specific attempts to keep info about themselves private isn't going to attract a whole lot of attention. Blackngold29 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose, due to length concerns. I don't really like the rash of them we've gotten at FAC, but I can't help but feel this article is a bit too short to provide a non-Slipknot fan like myself enough context. "..and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from the band's debut album, Slipknot, due to copyright issues.[6] It also contains tracks that are rarely played live, such as "Iowa" and "Get This",[7] as well as the first live performance of "Skin Ticket".[8]" What were the copyright issues? Why are the tracks rarely played live? Who decided that they would record these tracks and play them live? What were the songlists at the venues like? Did they choose different cuts of the song played at different venues? Perhaps not all these questions can be answered by reliable sources out there (and I feel it would be unfair to expect you to answer any question someone throws out,) but I'm still left with the feeling after reading that I haven't "learned enough." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these issues have been questioned in the past FAC, if you want more you're obviously welcome to read through it, but basically it comes down to a lack of reliable sources. As I stated (right above your statement) Slipknot has never and probably will never be a "mainstream" band and thus recieves less coverage from major news outlets. The copyright issues are addressed in further detail at Slipknot (album)#Controversy, I will link that in the prose, but we can find no sources explaining why it was allowed for release on this album and not that one. Blackngold29 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference indi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Oatts, Joanne (2007-03-07). "War, death and rubbish for spring on Channel 4". Digital Spy. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  3. ^ Welsh, James (2007-08-24). "Channel 4 pledges "creative renewal"". Digital Spy. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2008&oldid=248890407"