Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2012

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

September 2012 edit

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:56, 30 September 2012 [1].

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars edit

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of work, the article has been promoted to A Class status, I once again return to FAC with this article. And it is ready. :) Khanassassin ☪ 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
  • Incredibly over-long and overly detailed plot section. Pretty much reads like a blow-by-blow account of the whole game.
  • Not quite so bad in the development section, but again too much anecdotal detail here: it recounts what tourist sights and bookshops the creator visited (rather than just saying the game was inspired the Templars, the Catacombs, or whatever). Then it recounts that the two guys were dining together, and which way the conversation turned. Then it says "A few years earlier, Cecil had played for a cricket team with the composer". I'm sure the core of these passages are noteworthy, but the article shouldn't be recounting the whole anecdotes to go with them.
  • Some of the reception section reads well, the parts which consist almost entirely of others' prose. I'm partial to direct quoting, especially in reception sections, but paragraphs 2 and 3 are pretty much lists of quotes from other places. It's a rather minor point considering the one above, but "said" in used 3 out of 4 statements in paragraph 2.
  • I'm not convinced about the lengthy lists of, well, lists in the legacy section. Suggest cutting out some of the less auspicious ones (e.g. 31 out of 100, perhaps those two that have the amusing "...not by LucasArts" subtitles) and introducing some commentary. Basically, this section is big on numbers and short on real info.
    • There's no was I'm removing the "NOT" lists! :P And that's not a 31 out of a 100, but a 31 out of all the iOS games ever released, with only hundred being listed. ;) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some bold statements that don't appear to have citations: "The Goat Puzzle is considered by many gamers and publications to be one of the most challenging video game puzzle of all time" and "The Director's Cut is often credited as having a primary role in the rebirth of adventure games".
    • If you want to see sources for "one of the hardest puzzles of all time", visit the article of the actual puzzle; And plus, the sentence is quickly followed by two "hardest puzzles" lists. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two is not "many". And there's no way you can make an "...of all time" claim and pass it off as "common knowledge, visit the Wikipedia article". bridies (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My overall feeling towards this article is an impression of quantity over quality. bridies (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • As well as the above; I have even more
  • Add "also known as" in front of "Circle of Blood in the United States"
  • Unlink Paris per WP:OVERLINK
  • Same goes for puzzles
  • Remove Facebook external link per WP:ELNO; then, add some other link

TBrandley 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Far too much plot and poorly written. A few examples:

  • "The game follows George Stobbart (voiced by Rolf Saxon), an American on vacation in Paris, touring Europe." If he's on vacation in Paris then he's not touring Europe.
    • When questioned by an investigator, George says: "Vacation. I'm touring Europe." Paris was one of the stops during the tour, however, due to the murder and so on, he remained in France.
  • "George and Nico return to Paris and go on their first date on the Eiffel Tower." How on Earth can you go on the Eiffel Tower? Have you seen the size of it? The sentence is inherently ambiguous in any event.
    • Uh, I don't know in what other way could I describe --this--... --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Cecil stated that he had began work on a scenario for Revolution's third game ...".
    • "he had begun working...", that's how it reads now. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following month, Cecil visited Paris for research on the Templars". Why is ref #16 repeated?
  • "When game designer and writer Steve Ince was employed by Revolution, he had begun work on initial location sketches". I can't quite parse that.
    • I believe it's better now.
  • "... he didn't want it to be like interactive movies at the time". Too informal.
  • "He made George American and Nico French to appeal to both the US and European Markets."
    • The only issue I see is the caps in "Markets", which I fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The introductory sequence and the main characters were made by animator Mike Burgess, who worked for Red Rover animation studio. The game's graphics are animated in a style which resembles classic animated films." Why "were made" but "are animated"?
  • "Cecil also drafted in the acclaimed comic book artist Dave Gibbons". You need to avoid peacockery such as "acclaimed".
    • Uh, yeah, you're right. Sorry. It's removed now. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George's journey to find out more information ...". You don't "find out" information.
    • "Obtain"? Is that correct? Just making sure. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the game received overall praise, certain publications voiced complaints." That appears to displaying the author's bias in favour of this game.
    • Nope. When I first started work on this article, I was completely new to Wikipedia, and a well-reputated Wikipedian Jimmy Blackwing was teaching me the ways of the wiki. So, originally, the reception section was just a couple of quotes from like four, five reviews. So Jimmy told me that the reception section should be formated similar to Super Meat Boy's. And as you can see, the final paragraph in the section reads "While the game received high praise overall, certain publications voiced complaints." - Sounds fimilar? And, really? You go around accusing people bias over articles because of pointing out that there were actual complaints? Jeez. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:00, 29 September 2012 [2].

Falun Gong edit

Nominator(s): TheChampionMan1234 11:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very complete article about a very important topic TheChampionMan1234 11:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it would be ready for GA nomination soon, but who knows, maybe a FA review is in order. I'll try to finish the citation cleanup I volunteered for in the next couple of days, and make myself available to respond to any other suggestions that come up. —Zujine|talk 15:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's Comment - Found un-transcluded and added at this time-stamp. Graham Colm (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, withdrawal might be needed: multiple unreferenced parts, numerous one sentence paragraphs, numerous referencing issues (including a big tag) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - I agree. This article is not ready for consideration for FA status. There are numerous other issues, including poor prose and balance. I suggest a GA review followed by a peer review. Graham Colm (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 08:31, 28 September 2012 [3].

Andranik Ozanian edit

Nominator(s): Yerevanci (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've been working on it lately and have put up so much. It now looks like it is ready to be featured on the main page. Yerevanci (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see at Talk:Yerevan that your previous FAC nom was archived on August 15; there's usually a two-week wait after a failed nomination, per the instructions on the FAC page, unless the delegates approve something faster. Not a problem, of course, and I'd love to see more Armenian FAs, but a technical glitch nevertheless. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should I wait now?--Yerevanci (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - I am removing this FAC from the list. Please do not re-list it until two weeks have elapsed since your previous nomination was archived. Graham Colm (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! --Yerevanci (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 23:09, 24 September 2012 [4].

Final Fantasy VII edit

Nominator(s): Niemti (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it just passed A easily. Niemti (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN5: caps
  • Compare FNs 5 and 7 (and similar) - which is correct?
  • FN11: italics
  • Instead of writing "Editors of...ed", just put them in the author parameter - though they're editors, in this case they're providing the content
  • Use consistent italicization
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
  • FN52: formatting
  • Don't mix different families of citation templates
  • Check website citations for consistency - for example, compare FNs 65 and 66
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for magazines
  • Dead links need to be fixed
  • FN94: page(s)?
  • FN116: formatting

Oppose at this point pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was indeed not reliable but now it is. It was valid, but objections over how citations are constructed are simply ridicalous. Mostly, because "editors of" thing was silly indeed. I fixed some problems with citations, but only those that actually were problematic. --Niemti (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 23:03, 24 September 2012 [5].

Sheriff Hill edit

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm bringing this article back for a second crack at getting FA status. This one has been a labour of love, starting from a stub and taking about two years. The last FA attempt only garnered two substantive responses; the first supporting and the second recommending a further peer review. This has since been done and the issues raised there have been dealt with, so I am hoping that I can get this through this time. Comments and suggestions are welcome and I will (hopefully) be around most days to deal with any issues. Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:View frim sheriffs highway.jpg is fine. The "date" field in File:Malcolm3Canmore.jpg is empty (if it's contemporary of that man, the century would be enough, and {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} a better license). File:Pottersfield stone(2).jpg is fine. File:Fanny pit miners.jpg should have the "information" template. File:Blue quarries road sign.jpg is fine. File:View from Sheriff Hill (Westa).jpg is fine. File:View from causeway.jpg is fine. File:Geograph-1687812-by-wfmillar.jpg has two instances of the "Information" template, fix them into a single one. File:P4020179.JPG is fine. File:Sheriff Hill Lunatic Asylum.jpg seems unclear: no author and no date, how do we know it's PD? File:QE foundation stone.jpg is fine. File:Hodkin Park Central Trees.JPG is fine. File:Ye Olde Cannon 2010.JPG is fine. File:Zion gym.jpg claims that Andy Williamson authorized it, but the source site says "The pictures on it are not for sale and may not be used commercially"; commercial use must be allowed. File:St John's Church, Gateshead Fell - geograph.org.uk - 415223.jpg is fine (it requires categories in Commons, but that does not concern this FAC). File:Sheriff Hill Methodist Church.JPG is fine. File:P4020133.JPG is fine. File:P4020143.JPG is fine. Cambalachero (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Information template added to Fanny Pit Miners image and duplication removed from geograph image. I have removed the Zion image and replaced it with a different, better licensed image (I also have a modern one of my own which can be used if necessary). Categories have been added to the S John's Church file. The Malcolm image isn't mine; I simply used it when I found it in the Commons so I have no information as to it's source at all. As the lunatic asylum was completely demolished in the 1920's, the photograph must pre-date that time and is part of Gateshead Council public archives, so it is PD Crown Copyright. I've changed the licence to reflect this but if necessary we can simply remove the image.Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-pick. There's some unusual punctuation with dashes in this. page ranges have a dash between page numbers, with a space each side of the dash, which is unusual. There's titles where there's a dash with a space on only one side, which I've never seen, and the dashes (where they aren't text based) are actually hyphens. There's one spot where a dash is used, when it should really be a comma. Suggest an editor takes a look at this. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • [sigh] Me and endashes have a real thing for one another (namely, we share a mutual loathing). I've re-re-read WP:DASH and made some changes so that hopefully this is now fixed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments in the previous FAC Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. I rather hope this attempt garners a little more feedback than the last :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - Consider rewriting "The name of the settlement derives from 'the Sheriff's March'; a ancient, biannual procession on the turnpike road held from 1278", it suggests there was a turnpike there in 1278, which is unlikely. Also, 'an ancient' not 'a ancient'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks for commenting! Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - reading through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Ye Olde Cannon, was visited bi-annually - why not plainer English "Ye Olde Cannon, was visited twice yearly..."

Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Sheriff Hill has existed in some form for over one thousand years - reads funny and leaves me wondering what has existed for over a thousand years....most hills are alot older....

Gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:: by "a retinue of native insurgents and foreign auxiliaries", - should be a straightforward rewrite to de-quote here "retinue" --> "band" etc. lots of synonyms to choose from

I was very fond of that quote...rewritten:) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::This quickly became the essential trade route between Durham and Newcastle - "essential" seems a funny adjective here...wouldn't "main" or "principal" be better?

Rewritten as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
two public houses, Ye Olde Cannon inn and the Three Tuns inn, were built alongside - do we know when approximately?
Sadly not. The Old Cannon must date from the 13th century because it was part of the Sheriff's March, but the Three Tuns is very difficult to date with any certainty at all. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::It lies on an "historic route from Durham to the north". - dequote

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::In the 20th century the village was enveloped, so that "now it is surrounded by suburban Gateshead, which has developed in dense form around it with little visual delineation" - dequote. active tense will help here too.

Rewritten and lots of removals of material. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::The result is that the suburb benefits from "striking topography" and residents can enjoy panoramic views. - dequote. actually this could probably be minimised or removed as there is a bit about the view in these bits.

I've made fairly sweeping removals in this section to remedy this. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::paint "his first remarkable picture", - dequote

Done.Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
population not economically active - err, what? link or explain...
It is the phrase used by Gateshead Council on the ward factsheet. They aren't kind enough to provide an explanation... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:: "struggle to compete with the lower prices and convenience of the supermarkets located in central Gateshead, the MetroCentre and Team Valley". - dequote

Dequoted and rewritten. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now the quoted bits in the Housing are good and add atmosphere nicely...just saying :)
Thanks! :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::The Egremont Estate is a "quiet, peaceful and very distinctive estate" behind Sheriffs Highway with entry at Egremont Drive - dequote and reduce adjectives. Does not read neutrally as is.

:: character here is "a progressive suburban development, constructed on a plateau nestling in the landscape...this has the feel of an enclosed community, with development encircling a central space" - dequote and reduce words. Does not read neutrally as is.

::Here is "an informal grouping of vernicular stone buildings, with the character of a small rural farmstead, on the perimeter of a vestige of woodland". - dequote

In light of these three comments, I've completely rewritten this entire section, reducing it in size by quite a bit and removing almost all adjectives. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more quoted bits that could probably go too.
There are less than a handful of quotes left; I've essentially removed all but a handful and replaced with paraphrases. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, quite a nice read and will be even better once there are fewer quotation marks jarring the flow. Obviously exhaustively comprehensive. I've not checked the sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think I've addressed everything you noted :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Very much enjoyed the article, and liked the history in particular, but there are quote a few problems:

  • Per Casliber, I think the number of small in-line quotations needs to be trimmed in place of paraphrasing. I don't mind them in the history section, though.
I've made sweeping changes (see above). Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1890's - why the apostrophe?
Removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnotes 53 and 54: misspelling of author name in one, problems with the year in both (should be 1827, 1834, or there is a ref missing from the bibliography)
Fixed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any other reviewers have any concern about extensive reliance on a book nearly forty years old (Manders 1973) for an article about a place such as this?
Sadly, that was the last major, published history of Gateshead; or at least it is according to the staff at Gateshead Central Library. This is a factor in almost all Gateshead articles– despite being a fairly old and large place there is an appalling dearth of secondary source material on the town and it's surrounds. Obviously a new book would be ideal, but if you can find one you are a better soul than I... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly don't think it is appropriate, in describing the urban geography, to cite a 170-year old source in the present tense: "The spire at St John's Church is a landmark visible for miles in all directions which "gives an aspect of comfort and civilisation to the district"." If the spire at St John's Church really is, right now, a landmark visible for miles in all directions then I think, per WP:CK, you don't need a reference for that. Regardless of that, however, it is not possible for us to use such a dated reference for a description of how the place look now. Given there are too many quotes, I would actually just drop the McKenzie quote altogether and just have "The spire at St John's Church is a landmark visible for miles in all directions."
Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a quote out of the geog section: "awe-inspiring".
No problem. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited the economy section to remove a quote - please check my edits
Checked and fine. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This rental rate actually declined in the preceding years,..." I think "subsequent years" is meant. Can nominator pls check?
Your suggestion is better. Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has this: "He informed local newspapers that: "…we can build houses, but we cannot build homes. Only the people themselves can do that and I hope that the spirit of ‘esprit de corps’ will prevail and this will be a model estate"[1]" I think in terms of keeping the WP article focussed on its subject and reducing the number of quotes, esp outside the history section, this can be deleted.
Not sure if I can agree. The article outlines the initial reluctance of the local council to even build a council estate and I think that this quote nicely dovetails that aspect in that it demonstrates that, even as the building was nearing completion, the man behind the project still wasn't entirely convinced that he was doing the right thing... Meetthefeebles (talk)
Ah, i see what you were getting at now. You might consider introducing the quote in that way, along the following lines. "As the project was completed, he still had his doubts:" or something like that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considered and done Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the initial period of procrastination followed a time of great ambition and pride." doesn't sound very encyclopedic. It also has a ring to it that suggests it may come from a source of the period and lost its quote marks / citation?
It isn't from a source, as I would have included quotation marks (as evidenced by my fondness for them elsewhere in the article). I've rewritten the sentence. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point :-) thnks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be overly sensitive, but maybe I am. Anyway, health para 1 has this: "Escapes were rare but some incidents were recorded." It was an asylum, not a prison. I know what is meant, but it both not particularly noteworthy, and jarring. Suggest delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't important who the doctor was in 1904 or who assisted him. Delete that sentence.
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence doesn't work: "First mooted in 1931 when a local governmental survey concluded that hospital provision in Gateshead was inadequate, work began on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital." If it was first mooted in 1931, then the second clause, telling us that work began, has to be in a later year, so we should be told what it is. Otherwise, "first mooted in 1931" doesn't work.
I've split it up and re-written. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Harrison quote in note 5 is unremarkable as a description of school life, and not particularly "local" or distinctive, and could be dropped.
It is eye-witness testimony of conditions over 100 years ago; something rare when it comes to source material on Gateshead. I could be convinced to remove it but I'm not sure... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such testimony is often handy. But it should say something distinctive that contributes to the article about Sheriff Hill, whereas it sounds like any eyewitness account of school life anywhere circa a century ago.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it has to go, I'll delete, but my view is that whilst you and I known about school conditions at that time, many of WP's younger and non-English readers might not, so although quite typical it is still perhaps of benefit? Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If no-one else has a concern, I'm dropping mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Described as a "green oasis" - well, yes, by the town council trying to talk it up. An unusual case of POV, but I've edited it out :-)
lol Fair enough Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some fairly severe edits to the stuff on the parks - i think it was too detailed, not notable, relied on local council news releases for facts, and got down to trivia such as recent pruning. But if other editors think I've gone overboard, happy to discuss.
The park is fairly notable - it is locally listed, which I think indicates it's relative importance (though wouldn't justify a seperate listing, certainly). The edits look okay but they are very severe...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few notability / reliability issues in the article. I've edited one out myself. I also really think the international pie festival thing has to go - it is a one-line reference in a lightweight free mag of a local society in favour of beer. To put it mildly, this ain't a reliable source, nor a notable fact! More generally, editors might want to check the journals etc list in particular and consider whether all of those meet the standards of WP:RS. Nikkimaria, whree are you? :-)
Is Canny Bevvy unreliable? Genuine question? If it isn't, I'll remove. Also, just had a quick check and it seems the pie festival was in the local press as well here, for example so perhaps I might simply replace the existing source with this better one? Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does CannyBevvy look like a magazine written by professional journalists with a reputation for fact checking? Well, before or after they've sampled their beloved ales? I don't think it would come within cooee of being reliable, myself. Go with the local newspaper instead. (I'm still skeptical about reporting a local "international" pie festival:-))hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your scepticism is unfounded... :) I've left it in because it was notable enough to be reported by a reliable source and it gives some modern information as opposed to the plethora of material beforehand which, whilst relevant, relates to centuries before. I've also addressed the reliability issue as best as I can; several sources and material have been removed 'just in case', the bibliography has been slashed and I am confident that the remaining sources are fine (though a check might confirm). Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know why this sentence is sitting there on its own: "Sheriffs Hill had a number of Methodist chapels but only one remains along with the Anglican church." It lacks context and isn't really a helpful introduction to the paras that follow. If that was the intention, I would delete it.
It has gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the building itself is a neat,..." once again, we can't have the present tense for a 170 year-old source.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why 'neat' might have to go but 'plain' and 'gothic' are unlikely to change as regards a church, even after 200 years! I'll have a root about and see if there is anything more recent...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have resourced to the listing at English Heritage, which is obviously a lot more recent. That should be better... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the more cosmetic (for want of a better word) of the suggestions above but those relating to the quotations will take a little more time and I will address those of both Casliber and Hamilton when I get home from work. Thanks to both for taking the time to review :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all now addressed. Thank you for commenting, and re-commenting – 'tis much appreciated :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least for now. This is like deja vu for me, because only yesterday I completed the GA review of a neighbouring suburb, Carr Hill. Unfortunately though I find many of the same problems with this article as I did with that one. I would have hoped that the nominator would have applied the same fixes to this article as were applied to Carr Hill, but obviously not. Hopefully all of the issues can be addressed within the span of this FAC, but the bottom line for me is that this nomination is premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, the Carr Hill review and your comment were slightly less than 24 hours apart! per the earlier review, I've added a climate chart, rearranged and added census data to the religion section, addressed your bibliography concern by removing the abbreviations and indeed removing those sources from the bibliography and including them instead in the references using the 'cite web' template, checked and changed all references for consistency (accessed-retrieved etc), removed a possible non sequitor from the lead etc. I've also made some fairly considerable edits to remove material which might have been superfluous. If there are any more specific concerns I would welcome the chance to consider/correct them :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned in that review that I'd be expecting to see a section on public services in a UK settlement article at FAC, but I can't find one here. I'm not at all convinced that public houses are sufficiently notable to have a section all to themselves. Are any of them particularly notable in some way? Adding the new climate table has pushed File:View from causeway.jpg down the page and created an unsightly block of white, so it needs to either moved or removed. Personally I'd remove it, as it seems overly promotional: "just one of the extensive views enjoyed by residents" looks like it was written by an estate agent. In fact much of the language seems overly promotional: "It is a remnant of Sheriff Hill's rural past, is visually warm and full of character", "The surviving grounds, enclosed by the original stone walls, also add to its character", "local residents are still able to enjoy excellent views of the surrounding locale".
The citations in the Notes section should be in with the rest of the references. What does "See Unknown (Unknown)" in note #3 mean anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as regards the public houses; one of the (the Old Cannon) was fundamental to the naming of the settlement and the other (the Three Tuns) was a focal point for village life for nearly two centuries. Both are also locally listed and have been commented upon in various published sources. This makes both notable enough in my view. I also think "written by an estate agent" is unduly harsh regarding the offending sentences; they are toned down paraphrases of much more extravagant descriptions in published, reliable sources. The view from Sheriff Hill, an urban area in an industrialised region, is a notable feature and should thus be commented upon. I'm not entirely sure what words other than 'extensive' or 'panoramic' I can use and I wouldn't consider either particularly promotional. I certainly wouldn't equate them as the language of an estate agent. Nonetheless, I have made further amendments where possible. I have nested the references in the notes as requested and I will see if I can put together a public services section. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a public service section. What words to you suggest to remedy the above impasse? I have taken source material which describes a 20 mile view in three directions as 'fantastic', 'Uncommonly grand', 'stunning' and 'striking' and paraphrased these as 'panoramic' and 'extensive'. I am at something of a loss as to where else I can go without completely misrepresenting the source material...Meetthefeebles (talk)
The best option in that case would have been to quote and cite "fantastic" etc. rather than try and paraphrase it, as it looked as if you were giving your own opinion. My last general observation is that you need to seriously review the level of detail being provided here, given that this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article and not a local guide book. Do I really need to know, for instance, that the Travellers Rest is at 1–2 Southend Terrace, or that "Trees divide the larger, floral section of Hodkin park from the children's play park", with a picture of said trees no less? Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what was originally quoted in the article and you described it as the work of an estate agent. In the event, several comments advised me to paraphrase. That is 'estate agent' and 'guide book' have been insinuated in the same day. See above for the reviewer who took the park section to task. If I remove that detail re: Sheriff Hill Park there will be nothing left. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a look at this in the new Public services section: "Sheriff Hill's Distribution Network Operator for electricity is Northern Powergrid. drinking is administered by Northumbrian Water". I very much doubt that Northumbrian Water have the authority to administer drinking. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One word missing, as I was out and about, and you didn't feel moved to make an amendment? Says a lot... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What says a lot is that you're not listening to what I'm telling you, and have been telling you for the past few days. Therefore I have nothing to add to what I've already said and will not be revisiting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you a serious question. Can you see nothing wrong with this sentence: "Drinking water is provided by Northumbrian Water; water being sourced from Kielder Reservoir"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [6].

Istanbul edit

Nominator(s): -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This marks the second time, and in some ways a continuation of the first time, putting the Istanbul article up for featured status. After a peer review in May and the previous FAC (closed just last week; more on that in a second), I am confident that this article meets all the criteria for the featured star: it's well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. Major changes, primarily in the form of condensing, were made in June in response to remarks at the peer review and pre-existing concerns about length. Minor changes (rewording, a couple additional references, etc.) were instead predominant in last month's FAC, suggesting the article had begun to coalesce around the featured level target. That FAC was closed as no consensus, ostensibly because of a lack of clear support after a month. However, it seems the more likely reason was simply the spat at the end of the FAC period (referenced by and almost directly preceding the closing statement). Without rehashing the issue, those who are interested can observe that matter seems resolved (from here and here), and that the reviewers agree that, regardless of what happened at the conclusion of the FAC, the article is at or near featured level and is deserving of the bronze star. So, I'm giving this another shot. -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on timing of candidacy. Collapsing. -- tariqabjotu 16:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get permission from the delegates for such a quick renom? --Rschen7754 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, but I don't see why I would have to. The rejection of the first candidacy was obviously related to just one issue -- an issue that wasn't really a poor reflection on the article itself -- and now that that issue is resolved, there seems no logical reason for this to be prevented from proceeding. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the top: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." --Rschen7754 04:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Well, I overlooked that. Nevertheless, I will leave it as is, and allow a delegate to decide whether to remove it. Obviously, anything can happen, but this seems like a case where the two-week window constitutes an unnecessary delay, given the source of the last FAC's outcome. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am removing this nomination - please wait until two weeks have elapsed since the previous FAC before re-transcluding it. Graham Colm (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? The instructions do not compel a delegate to remove an additional FAC if it's in the two-week window; it says they will decide whether to do so. And, so I would like to know why you decided to do so. As I stated above, this seems like an unnecessary delay, as the issue that led to the last FAC's failure has been resolved and had nothing to do with the article itself in the first place. My understanding of the two-week window was to ensure people take some time to address issues presented during the first FAC (usually of substantial nature or else they would have just been addressed during the FAC itself) and don't abuse the FAC process by repeatedly and unnecessarily nominating articles for FA status time after time.
    This doesn't fall under either of those cases: there's absolutely nothing further I could do over the next week in regards to issues that have to be resolved to achieve featured level (as there were none) and calling of this an abuse of the process would be absurd. So this removal seems like an unnecessary adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the rule (even though the letter even provides for exception). Perhaps as a punitive measure, perhaps because you truly felt -- that issue aside -- there was no clear consensus, but either way I want to know why. -- tariqabjotu 08:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporting Graham on this one, FWIW. Graham will explain better than I can. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but I'd just like to know why. It's only five days, but I'd like to know if there's something you're expecting me to do in the interim or whether this is just delaying because you all can (the latter of which is a bit unfortunate). The fact that you believe it's complicated to explain piques my interest even more. -- tariqabjotu 16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm just noting that the first one was archived two weeks ago today, so the timing is fine here ... that wasn't clear from the nomination statement. Glad to see this one back for another round. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the best way to note that. Rewrite the statement and change the timestamp of the comment? -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Closed just last week" will suggest to some people that it hasn't been two weeks; I was just clarifying. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Commons suggests that Turkey has freedom of panorama for works in public streets, but this would not seem to extend to 3D works indoors. Therefore, File:Patriarchate_Constantinopolis.jpg should have its licensing reviewed
    I don't know enough about licensing (anyone?) to perform the necessary review. But am I understanding that something in the photo would have to be considered copyrighted for this to be ineligible? What would that be, especially since the room is very old to begin with? -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In all likelihood it's all PD. The problem is that without FoP, you actually have to demonstrate this, and include appropriate licensing tag(s) for the 3D artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced the photo, so this is done. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map_of_Constantinople_(1422)_by_Florentine_cartographer_Cristoforo_Buondelmonte.jpg needs a US PD tag and a non-Wikipedia source
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sultanvahideddin.jpg needs US PD tag, and source link returns 404 error
    Replacing the source link is not a problem, but I believe I need to prove this was actually published before 1 January 1923 for this to be eligible for PD status. I'm doing my best, but this may take a bit of time. If I can't find such evidence, I'll replace it with another image. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It might also work to demonstrate this was PD in Turkey on the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the source to a link from the same archive site. The image was certainly taken in 1922, most likely November 1, 1922. An important image like this is also likely expropriated as "national heritage" in Turkey, removing copyright. If it must be replaced, I'd suggest an image of Atatürk from around the same time period, like this.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the photo was taken on November 17, 1922. The New York Times published an article on November 19 (dated November 18) saying "The Sultan left his palace by the back door, known as the Malta Gate...", the precise scene depicted in this image. As I noted in an inquiry at Commons, this image was almost certainly published before the end of the year. If The New York Times can publish an article noting the scene the day after, the photo had to be published somewhere. But this is a guess, and I have no proof of it. What's this "national heritage" exception you mention? -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I got zero response from Commons on this, so I'll probably just replace the picture. I really think it's a useful, iconic photo, but after searching extensively a couple weeks ago, I have no proof that it was published anywhere in the month and a half after it was taken. In addition, I cannot think of any way in which this can otherwise be taken as an acceptable, free photo. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Peramuzesi_nighttime.jpg: there's a claim that this image was "received for inclusion" from a museum, but there's no OTRS tag or other evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced this image, so this is done. -- tariqabjotu 13:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments at the previous FAC and on the talk page have been addressed. This is an excellent article that is informative, comprehensive, and fun to read. It is an example of what is best about Wikipedia. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On a quick look, it's odd to see the architecture section doesn't mention the city walls or Topkapi Palace. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why those in particular? We can't mention everything. -- tariqabjotu 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Topkapı is mentioned several times in the article, including in the Cityscape section right before "Architecture". I unfortunately think that Topkapı isn't particularly original architecturally. It was built erratically by different Sultans to emulate palaces in France and Austria, but without a coherent style of architecture. The city walls might be more significant, not many cities on this scale have preserved theirs. Like Topkapı though, they could be mentioned with either the parks or museums.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So just like the Vatican then? Well I'm not going to argue the toss, except that most of Topkapi was built when sultans still intended to conquer "palaces in France and Austria" rather than emulate them. The WHO don't seem to agree with you, but what do they know? The "Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses", which are mentioned in the article but are not in the WHO World Heritage Site, are utilitarian military buildings, though prettily sited. Topkapi is only mentioned indirectly in the museums section, via the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, which have 1 of 3 collections inside the palace. In terms of its collections, though not maybe the displays, the library etc make Topkapi arguably the most important museum in Istanbul. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topkapi is incredibly historic, but you'd just asked about the Architecture section. Though I do feel that Topkapı was covered under the two sentences mentioning Ottoman palaces and how European styles were brought in, I've added an additional one to mention the wide variety of styles employed in Topkapı. Thanks for the suggestion.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you make the lead section more brief?" thanks Waveclaira (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the lead is just fine as it is, myself. I would have preferred a few more details in it in fact. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Four paragraphs is within the admissible length, as defined at WP:LEAD#Length, for leads in articles with more than 30,000 characters (a benchmark this article certainly exceeds). Is there something that you think should be removed from the lead? -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The lead needs to provide a summary of the most important information in the article and I can't see anything in it that I would like to see removed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead length is fine for me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - reading through now...I will copyedit as I go (Feel free to revert if I accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is it worth adding the descriptor "promontory" to Sarayburnu in the lead?
Done. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using "draw" in that manner looks odd to me (though I agree it is nice and short) - I'd say "drawcard" or "attraction"
This is a matter of preference. Note that "drawcard" is not used in American English, the variant used throughout the article; in fact, I had to look it up. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating the English variants that still pop up to surprise me from time to time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you've got "transcontinental" in the lead and "bi-continental" in the Geography section. Might be worth aligning these. Is one more significant than the other?
They mean the same thing here, obviously. I doubt anyone would really be confused by that. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is it worth adding anything on pollution? Is istanbul particularly over- or underpolluted? Not a dealbreaker as the article is pretty big and if it is not egregiously low or high possibly not more important than anything already in the article.
I think someone else may have mentioned this at some point, but Istanbul's pollution issues are not especially unusual for a city. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, very nice well rounded article which seems to have struck balance of everything right. Nothing jumps out as omitted or in too much detail, and the prose is nice, no obvious clangers anywhere. I have not checked the sources and defer to others who have more familiarity with the city (my only experience is as a tourist many moons ago....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [7].

Constitution Square State Historic Site edit

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is presently a good article and has undergone a peer review since its promotion. The park contains the first post office constructed west of the Allegheny Mountains as well as replica buildings and artifacts that reflect the city of Danville's history as the site of the conventions that composed the first Kentucky Constitution and as an early center of political activity in the area both before and after Kentucky's statehood. A former state park, it is now operated by the county government of Boyle County, Kentucky. My interest was sparked by a visit last February where I took many of the pictures use to illustrate the article. I'm hoping for promotion to FA in time to make this TFA for October 15, 2012, the 75th anniversary of the donation of the land for the park to the state of Kentucky. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by doncram Hi. This looks like a nice article. I mostly edit NRHP articles and am not providing a complete review. But looking at the article i am struck by the mention of "The site comprises the majority of the Constitution Square Historic District which was added to the National Register of Historic Places on April 2, 1976." In which [[Constitution Square Historic District is currently a redlink. If there is a great amount of overlap, why not cover the Historic District in this article, and have the NRHP name redirect to here? From looking at National Register Information System (NRIS) data, it seems the district is 8 acres (3.2 ha) in size, is bounded by Main and Walnut Sts. and by 1st and 2nd Sts, and it includes 7 contributing buildings. It may be that the Ephraim McDowell House is included in the district but not in the site; I don't see that as an obstacle to covering the district in the site article. Or, if there is reason to keep the historic district article separate, it would still improve the position of this site article to create the historic district article at a start or stub level.

Also, I see the NRHP nomination document for the district is already given as a source in the article (PDF available at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/76000847_text. It would be good to also incorporate the accompanying photos into that reference. 19 photos, many from 1975, are included in the photos document, available at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/76000847_photos.

Hope these brief comments help. --doncram 17:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the requirements of NRHP listings and such, but having visited the site and examined the NRHP nomination form, I think there are at least three buildings that are part of the historic district but not part of the historic site. They are:
There is also something called a "brick dependency" in the district, but since I'm not sure what that is, exactly, I can't say whether it is in the historic site or not. It is not covered in this article, in any case. According to the NRHP document, the McDowell House was (is?) listed separately on the NRHP and obviously has its own article on Wikipedia. The Apothecary Shop also was (is?) listed on the Register and, if I understand correctly, is either connected to or directly adjacent to the McDowell House. It does not have its own wiki article but is discussed in the McDowell House article. That means that the Silversmith Shop is the only building presently without wiki coverage.
One option, as you mention, is to try and cover the historic district content in this article. I think that is unwise, as it would be necessary to restate (duplicate?) content from the free-standing article on the McDowell House and Apothecary Shop here. Either that, or we'd have to redirect Ephraim McDowell House to this article as well, which to me seems imprudent, since the historic site and the McDowell House are pretty clearly distinct entities.
Another option would be to make this the article about the historic district, transplant the McDowell House information here, and redirect both Constitution Square State Historic Site and Ephraim McDowell House to the renamed article. Although the title would then be more accurate, I think more people are familiar with the separate names of the historic site and the McDowell House than the historic district.
That leaves the option of creating a stand-alone article for the historic district, distinct from the other two. Either that article would contain a ton of copied content, or it would be a simple list of what's included in the district, with links to this article and the McDowell House and some meager amount of content on the Silversmith Shop and maybe the "brick dependency".
I'm not sure that any of these are really good options, but I think the third is the one I'd be most inclined to support. With my limited experience with NRHP articles, I might not be the best one to create that, though. I'd be interested on other comments from the community. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_Governor’s_Circle_at_Constitution_Square.jpg: given that the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, you need to account for the copyright status of the statue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemurbaby : You've put a lot of hard work into developing this article, and it's an interesting and informative read. Just a few points to look at. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, the over-referencing. You don't need to have a reference at the end of each sentence, especially when consecutive sentences use the same exact source/reference. I'd recommend going through and pruning so that the reference only follows the last sentence in clusters where all sentences share the same source. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear this one from time to time. It's been my practice to only consolidate refs if the entire paragraph comes from the same source, and usually I only do that if someone complains. There are a few reasons. First, the current standard of only citing "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" is much too vague for my taste. How am I supposed to know what is likely to be challenged? And further, how much of a pain will it be for me to find which source contained the information if it isn't challenged until months or years down the road? Second, if content gets moved around (by me or another editor) I'd like to be sure that the cite goes with it. Otherwise, we can get information cited to the wrong source, which is bad. Third, it encourages editors who add information to the page to cite it, since everything else on the page is cited. Finally, I'm largely unconvinced by arguments that say that citing every sentence decreases readability. I think consolidating cites potentially creates larger problems than any minor readability issues it might raise. This has been my practice on each of my previous FAs, and while reviewers do comment on it from time to time, none have been so adamantly opposed to it that they opposed the article's promotion. A few have even agreed with my method or at least my reasoning. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, consistency in referencing. For what appear to be newspaper or magazine articles I see sometimes you include the article title in the short-form note, while in other instances you leave it out but include a page number. Your system isn't quite clear for me. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to give author and page number. However, when the author is not available (as with the Spindletop report), I give title and page number. When the source is non-paginated media (like web pages), I give author and title. Finally, when there is no author and no pagination, I give title and publisher. Does this help? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third I'd suggest putting all your urls into an archiving system like Webcite so they can be accessed for all time and don't run the risk of going dead. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too familiar with this resource. You may have to help/elaborate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below I peer reviewed this article a couple months ago, so I made most of my comments then a few more small things I noticed when re-reading the article:
  • "The Great American Brass Band Festival and the Kentucky State Barbecue Festival are among the annual events held at the site." I'd suggest flipping this around, "Annual events held at the site include..."
  • "A portion of this plot was set aside as the city square, but unlike a typical city square that is located near the center of the city, Danville's city square lay near the eastern end of the city" Some repetition of "city square" here.
  • Always thought this was an icky sentence. I've made some adjustments, but I'm not sure it's much better. See what you think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is believed that advocates of the academy's establishment combined their efforts with those of the individuals who established Centre College in Danville" Not sure that there's a good way around it, but you might want to try to avoid the "it is believed" construction here.
  • Yeah, that's a little difficult, but see how it reads now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entirety of the Governor's Circle honors Isaac Shelby, Kentucky's first and fifth governor, who was said to have been responsible" There's a tense change here, might want to avoid that.
  • "The transfer took several months to complete and was finalized on March 6, 2012." I think that stating when it was finalized would imply that it took several months in a more concise way, right?
  • Yeah, that makes sense. The transfer itself didn't begin in June 2011, but that's trivial. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the court moved to Danville in 1785, it ordered that two men determine the cost of constructing a courthouse, jail, and other buildings needed by the court." Some repetition of "court" here.
  • " In 1827, Goldsmith sold the house to Dr. Jefferson Polk, a newspaper publisher who developed an interest in medicine during a cholera outbreak in 1833 and went on to become a doctor who practiced briefly in Danville before moving to Perryville, Kentucky." I feel like there might be a little too much detail here.
  • I made some copyedits, feel free to revert if you don't care for them. Overall it looks quite good. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fixes look good, any issues that I could come up with have been resolved. Great work, as usual. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not keen on the opening "...site ... is a ... site" repetition.
    • Hadn't noticed that. Dropped "historic site". "Open-air museum" is probably sufficient. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "from the state" but then, in the following para, link the state.
    • Not sure exactly what the problem you are referencing is here, but I've changed the first instance of "state" to "Department of Parks", which is more specific. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of an Indian attack". Not sure about how PC Indian is these days, but in any case, it may be worth linking Indian appropriately for international readers who may not be quite sure what people from India are doing attacking pioneers in 18th Century USA.
    • I run into this a lot, since conflicts with the Native Americans were common for early Kentuckians. Someone, maybe Kevin Myers (talk · contribs), told me the preferable way to handle it is to specify the tribe, if known. If not, as in this case, Indian is OK for period-specific references, since that's what they were called at the time. This is referencing that period, but it's also about a modern park. Not sure which applies here, but I linked to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • should that "due to" be "because of"?
  • Sorry to be picky but the reptition of dissolution in consecutive sentences is a little boring.
    • Being picky is the point of FAC, isn't it? :) Changed one of them to "disbanded", since that was the first synonym that came to mind. Feel free to suggest another. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within .5 miles " a leading zero on the conversion but not on this?
  • Are there any free maps you could use to illustrate the position of some of these things?
    • Not that I'm aware of. I might still have the brochure I got there in February, but the map on it wouldn't be PD. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you select "pound sterling" rather than just £?
    • Because my keyboard doesn't have the "£" mark. ;) Copied and pasted it in. Does the £ go before the number (as with U.S. dollars) or after? I put it before. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need to link Major.
    • I typically link all military ranks, and this is the first time I've gotten that comment. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with brick laid in common bond " is that the common bond you really meant, or did you mean Brickwork#American bond?
  • "Great American Brass Band Festival " is linked three times in the article, unnecessary.
    • Eliminated one, leaving the one in the lead and the first mention in the body, per my usual practice. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spindletop Research, Inc.. " spare period.
  • Do you need both Category:National Register of Historic Places in Kentucky and Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Kentucky and Category:National Register of Historic Places in Danville, Kentucky?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll try to respond to any further comments as soon as possible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [8].

M-553 (Michigan highway) edit

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M-553! The county road that was so good MDOT made it into a state highway. Find out why...by reviewing this article!

Ok, in all seriousness, I feel that the article meets the criteria, and after capturing some additional photos earlier this evening, I feel that it merits consideration at this venue now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I supported the article at ACR, and believe it meets the criteria. Also, disambigs and external links checked. --Rschen7754 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is "a Michigan left"?
  • File:Michigan_553_map.png: on what source(s) is this map based? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Michigan left, we have a whole article devoted to this kind of intersection. The term is linked from the body of the article, and I don't relink terms in captions.
    • Clarified, like all of our maps, it uses GIS data from the state or federal government for the creation. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR, where it was greatly improved, and feels that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [9].

Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife edit

Nominator(s): Theleftorium (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article a year ago without the intention of taking it to WP:FAC. However, I believe it is one of "my" better articles and therefore thought it would be worth a shot. :-) English is my second language so perhaps the prose isn't great, but the GA reviewer (User:J Milburn) thought it was well "well written". Thanks in advance for any suggestions and comments! Theleftorium (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Not a concern, but, could you write out the dates fully, rather 03, write March. Not a requirement.
  • FN8: "Click here to find out more!" is not needed, nor in the url
  • How is ref. 10 a high-quality source?
  • Why is Ref. 10's date format different from the rest (January 2006)
  • Ref. 17 is missing the publish date. It was "April 24, 2006" according to the source
  • Why does Ref. 17 have a publisher, and the rest don't. Either remove the publisher, or add the publishers for the rest. Either works.

TBrandley 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • In the first image, a comma is missing after "in" and before "and".
  • In Matt's image, is "enjoyed" really an encyclopedic word for Wikipedia. This has been questioned to me before.

TBrandley 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews! Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll add some other comments now. Regards. TBrandley 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  • Link animated to animated cartoon
  • Only Fox should be linked, not network
  • I believe that "American" covers that it aired on Fox in the US. So, I don't think that "in the United States"
    • I disagree, some Simpsons episodes have aired earlier in other countries and not all people know that Fox is an American company. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • people should be viewers, as it is a more encyclopedic word
    • Viewers is used in the third paragraph of the lead, so I'd prefer some variation. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • television series → comedy series
  • Which "Wife Swap" series; the British one?
  • "like" isn't an encyclopedic word
    • I've never heard that before, are you completely sure about it? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the episode" how about change to "this episode"
  • "Fox Broadcasting Company studios". No, its just "Fox studios". Thus, removed the previous "the"
  • "he" means "Charles", right?
  • "popular" is a violation of WP:NPOV
  • television series → comedy series in "Production"
  • "that was broadcast in the United States on February 20, 2011" is off-topic
    • I don't see how that is off-topic at all. Readers would want to know how far between his two guest appearances were. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories should be sorted in alphabetical

TBrandley 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Pretty solid. Great work on this article. TBrandley 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little copyediting; do check you're happy with it.

  • "develop a crush" isn't all that encyclopedic.
  • "At this lunch, he was offered to appear in and write an episode of The Simpsons." Clumsy phrasing. As written, this means that Gervais was offered in exchange for an appearance.
    • "At this lunch, he was offered to write an episode of The Simpsons and to guest star in it." Something like that? Theleftorium (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you don't offer a person to write- you offer a person a chance to write, or you offer them payment to write. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but figured that" Again, a little colloquial
    • Changed to "but came to the conclusion that" - better? Or maybe I should just use "realized"? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a Friends episode from 2000 that drew 2.8 million viewers" Do we know what episode that was? A link probably wouldn't hurt
    • It probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out, but since the sources don't mention the episode title I'm not really sure if we can. That might be considered OR? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the source doesn't mention it, don't worry about it. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That mystery British newspaper is still annoying. I'll have another dig tomorrow. The article's a strong one- definitely not far from FA-ready. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well technically we don't really have to include the newspaper part, do we? It could just say "According to Don Kaplan, writing for the New York Post, Gervais said in late 2005 that..." No? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the great copyedits! Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of something else- was this ever released on DVD/VHS? A line at the end of the first paragraph of "release" may not go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, the fifteenth season will be released this Christmas, but maybe in a year or two. :) Theleftorium (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am happy that this is what an episode article should look like. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per above changes. Good work. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs
  • Why does the lead pick out the Sky ratings after the US ratings, and in a completely different paragraph?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't really think about that before. I went ahead and removed the UK ratings from the lead, as I think there is enough information from the "Release" section anyway. The US ratings are also more important since the episode's original broadcast was in that country. Theleftorium (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: Many Simpsons staff members were fans of English comedian Ricky Gervais and his British comedy series The Office that he created and starred in.[2]
  • Source: Groening recently heaped praise on The Office, saying: "Everybody on The Simpsons is a fan of The Office - it's one of the best shows on TV in the last decade."
  • Article: When asked in an interview if the Simpsons staff learned anything from the experience of having Gervais contribute to the show, Groening said they found out "that we could stay true to The Simpsons' sensibility, with high-velocity visual gags, but also honor what Ricky does with subtlety and nuance."[4]
  • Source: MG: That we could stay true to The Simpsons' sensibility, with high-velocity visual gags, but also honour what Ricky does with subtlety and nuance.
  • Article: In July 2007, Groening stated that he would like to see Gervais appear on the show again because the staff enjoyed his performance. He also said that Gervais could decide himself if he wanted to return as Charles or a new character, should he choose to lend his voice again.[13]
  • Source: Speaking about a possible comeback, Groening said: "We loved having him on the show. Whatever he wants to do - we'd love to have his character return. Or he could do something completely new."
  • Article: Gervais has been praised by critics for his performance in the episode. In a 2010 article, Mike Bruno of Entertainment Weekly named Gervais one of the eighteen best The Simpsons guest stars,[5]
  • Source: 'The Simpsons:' 21 Great Guest Stars... Ricky Gervais ...Charles (from Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife, 2006) The source is dated Feb 20, 2012, the number of guests is given as 21 and the link is wrong it should be this one: [10]
  • Article: The Times critic Dominic Maxwell thought the "languid timing that Gervais brings to Extras and The Office was wrong here. Simpsons cameos are normally lean, but Gervais's shtick ran rampant through the second half, turning the regulars into extras."[23]
  • Source: Online source requires subscription
  • Article: He was also the first Briton to write an episode for the show.[7]
  • Source: Simpsons creator – and fan of The Office - Matt Groening asked Gervais to be the first ever British writer of an episode.
Just the one issue (in bold) needs to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like the EW article was updated this year to include more guest stars from the later seasons. I've fixed it now! Thanks for the spotchecks! Theleftorium (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I am not convinced that the prose is FA. The writing is clunky in parts and does not flow well.

  • This, for example, needs some work: "At this lunch, he was offered a chance to appear in and write an episode of The Simpsons. Groening first asked Gervais for just a guest appearance, but came to the conclusion that he might be interested in writing an episode too. Gervais told The Independent that when he got the offer, "well, I knew I had to say yes, but fear kicked in at exactly the same time."
  • Here, "He became the first person to be credited with simultaneously writing and guest starring in an episode of The Simpsons" - "simultaneously" is not the right word.
  • Here, "After the lunch with Groening and Jean in early 2004, Gervais began coming up with a storyline" - coming up with is too colloquial, it should be "to develop". There is another "came up" later.
  • This, "Gervais said to a British newspaper" sounds surreal.
  • Here, "The large amount of viewers" should be number of.
    • I would like to see more work on the prose before closing. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 16:06, 15 September 2012 [11].

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton edit

Nominator(s): Savidan 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's a good model for articles about lower court cases. It's about a land claim by two Native American tribes to the majority of the U.S. state of Maine that was settled over the course of a decade for almost $100M. I look forward to comments. Savidan 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with comments:
*Need alt text for First Circuit seal;
  • In section "Aftermath", para 3, line 1, governs is misspelled;
  • In section "As a precedent", line 2, capitalize "passamaquoddy"; and
  • It might be good to explain that traditionally the federal government and the tribe had concurrent jurisdiction in Indian country, and that the state did not have criminal or civil jurisdiction unless granted by Congress.
Very well written and referenced. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made these changes. With regarded to the last one, I have specified "outside of Maine," because, as the article notes, the prior situation in Maine was one of de facto state jurisdiction. Savidan 15:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:RogersClarkBallardMorton.jpg: source link returns 404 error
  • File:ArchibaldCox.jpg: source link returns 404 error, and file is tagged as lacking author information
  • File:William_Cohen,_official_portrait.jpg: source link returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been able to locate the Morton and Cohen images. With Morton, it appears the Commerce Dep't website just changed around the links. With Cohen, I can no longer find it on the DOD's webiste, but I can find it on Maine's website with the credit "Photo Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense" (which confirms the PD copyright tag). I cannot locate the Cox image or identify its author, so I have removed it from the article. Please let me know if you are not satisfied with the fixes to the Morton and Cohen images. Savidan 05:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:NuclearWarfare has located a link and replaced the image. I am satisfied with the link provided too. Please advise if you are not. Savidan 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did the GA review of this article and although I don't have time to examine the article again, at the time I noted some concerns which were satisfactorily resolved for GA but may be of use in assessing this article for FA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the entirety of your comments, and I have done the same Westlaw and Lexis searches that been essentially copy-and-pasted to the talk page. I readily admit that the article does not cite every single law review article that cites this case (often in a single paragraph or footnote, perhaps in a string citation). Instead, I have focused on sources that devote substantial attention to the case and go into meaningful detail. Savidan 09:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 16:01, 15 September 2012 [12].

Awake (TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), TBrandley 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after its previous failed nomination, we believe it's okay for FAC now. Awake is an American television police procedural supernatural drama that originally ran on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) for one season from March 1, 2012 to May 24, 2012. The show's concept has been considered too complex for American television. It has had extremely low ratings, but high reception since its original debut. Awake recently underwent a peer review, a copy-edit from Davejohnsan, and has already been promoted to GA status, earlier this year, in mid-June 2012. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, the "series overview" section is complete, and recently, the "Setting" section has been merged into that. The "Reception", "Distribution", and "Broadcast history" is filled with fully-referenced information, while, the "External links" area is filled with useful "External links". The article has many useful images, with "Alt" on the images. Prior to this nomination, these were the changes I made on the article for FA. My inpersation for this article was House (TV series) and Firefly (TV series). Thank you for looking at this and considering it. If there are any outstanding concerns, please write below. Thanks again! TBrandley 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I gave this article an extensive review at its previous (suddenly failed) FAC, including a spotcheck of sources. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An article which I believe was ready even at the time of the end of the first FAC. A FA, indeed. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A solid article that deserves the featured article status :) Sofffie7 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

<ref> *{{cite web|ref1}} *{{cite web|ref 2}} *{{cite web|ref 3}} </ref>

so that it shows up as a single footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my example at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to ask, but, could you do it? It keeps getting messed up every time I try. Thanks, TBrandley 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the citewebs within the group ref you created, are repeated later in the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest perhaps keeping them separate (one named reference for the later, single uses, and a group reference for the two sentences in question. Having a ref after every name is hard on readers and editors, so I don't think there's a problem with duplicating the citation templates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! I've replied to your concerns above. Cheers, TBrandley 01:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010
  • Lead: the link to Pilot (Awake) should be used when you first mention the "first episode".
  • Lead: the mention of critical commentary becomes a little repetitive and redundant (you say "critical success" and then soon after note the positive reviews the series received). I would either trim this or at least rewrite/reword
  • This is sort of implied, but it would be better if you make it clear that it was canceled due to its low ratings
  • "...show, and has been nominated for five awards." - split into another sentence
  • "Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the program, that was described as a procedural mixture that is based on the life of a detective experiencing a parallel universe after a car accident with his family" - I don't like how this is phrased. Perhaps change to "Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the program, which has been described as a police procedural about the life of a detective experiencing a parallel universe after a car accident with his family".
  • Those two block quotes in the conception section are a little excessive. I would recommend phrasing at least some of it into your own words
    • I just removed the quote itself. So, done, I guess. TBrandley 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the conception section, I don't like how everything is mashed up together (quote box, image, infobox). Can you move the image or quote box lower?
    • Done. Moved image further down to writing. TBrandley 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are redundant to use one after another: "further elaborated on the conception of the series:" and "Kyle Killen sought inspiration from the dreaming process."
  • Wikilink first mention of NBC
  • Why was Kevin Reilly apprehensive?
  • Your change just made it more confusing. Why did Reilly reject the script if he enjoyed reading it? Ruby 2010/2013 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting: Wikilink first mention of Jason Isaacs
  • Hannah's casting seems out of order; it would make more sense if you mentioned that Michaela McManus was first cast, and then added in Laura Allen. There's also a repetition of "received" that hurts my eyes

I've only read through the production section so far, but the content seems solid. Mainly just minor prose and linking issues that I've listed above. Ruby 2010/2013 04:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I addressed/replied to all of them above. Hope you can support or leave further comments. Cheers, TBrandley 21:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More
  • "His therapists insist that he is "making of all this up", and that he is helping himself "cope" with the pain" - typo?
  • The Series overview section uses the "accident" a lot; is there another word you can sometimes substitute in?
  • Lots of uses of "however" that are a bit irksome
  • "However, Ed asks for protection then he will tell him, but, then attacks Michael while he is distracted." - too many commas
  • "Michael later finds out that Carl is involved in the setup. Finally, Michael finds evidence that Tricia is also in on the setup." - these two sentences can be merged and removed of redundant wording
  • Series overview: You should mention which of the events occurred in the finale, to make Killen's comments in the following paragraph more clear
  • Series overview: "In response to viewer speculation on the meaning of the finale, Killen said that he has seen intersecting theories, stating that no one is wrong, expect for people who called Awake's finale a Dallas or a Newhart." - Huh? Very poorly written
  • Series overview: In fact, the first couple sentences of that paragraph could use a copy edit
  • The quote marks around the red and green realities aren't really necessary after you first establish what each one is.
    • Yeah, they are. Its there in every Awake-related article, including Say Hello to My Little Friend, an FA
  • Where does David Hinckley's (New York Daily News) quote begin?
    • In critical response section. Last paragraph. ?
  • The storylines of the "red reality" in that episode were praised, while the storylines of the "green reality" in the entry were criticized, which were considered "boring". - needs a rewrite
  • "Handlen thought that if the "red reality" storyline was not featured in this installment, it would not work as an episode" - This installment? I think these few sentences are meant to cover the last episode mentioned, but they are confusingly written

Ruby 2010/2013 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Have addressed/replied to all of them. Cheers, TBrandley 00:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Reading through, I see no real issues at all. A great article, and one I have come to expect from these two nominators. Congratulations! --CassiantoTalk 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Frankly, I'm disappointed in the reviewing that has taken place up to this point. There are a bunch of one-line supports from TV article editors and a comment that someone sees "no real issues at all". I see a large number of issues in what I've read, from awkwardness in the writing to an overreliance on quotes to blatant grammar errors that should have been caught before this point. I really think this needs one more good copy-edit to merit the star.

  • Conception: "which was canceled shortly after airing two episodes due to low ratings." Since the show was canceled, but the network aired it, this is awkward. How about "which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings."
    • Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: TBrandley, wasn't it cancelled before the final two episodes aired? Where's this "after" coming from? I don't remember seeing it during my read through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • For Awake, yes. Giants is referring to Lone Star. "Killen previously created the American television drama Lone Star (2010) for the Fox network, which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings". Regards, TBrandley 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps "which, after airing two episodes, was canceled due to low ratings"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. TBrandley 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not addressing the issue. It still implies that the show aired itself, not that a network aired it as the sentence should indicate. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree, but to avoid issues perhaps add "by the network" after "canceled". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I believe that would be enough to fix the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, the other reality where his wife is alive, the 'red reality', the background is infused with a brighter, golden hue color." Needs "in" before "the other reality".
  • Production team: In the last sentence, "Principal" shouldn't be capitalized.
  • Writing: The first sentence of this section is a direct copy of what's in the lead. Personally, I feel the prose should look at least a little different from the lead to the body, and would hope to see some variety.
  • Something I'm noticing throughout is that the writing is literally laced with quotes. A few quotes here and there are desirable, but seven in a two-paragraph Writing section alone is a little hard to stomach. Surely we can use original writing for at least a few of them; otherwise, this looks like just a string of quotes, which I wouldn't expect to be featured. What must the critical reception section be like?
  • "Gordon asserted that the concept of Awake was understandable if you sat down and paid attention to it properly." By using "you" like this, the writing is sort of talking to the reader, which it shouldn't do. An easy fix is "if the viewer sat down...".
  • Series overview: "After the crash, Michael is conflicted with two separate realities." Wouldn't "conflicted" make more sense as "confronted"?
  • Main characters: "Michael has a routine to help him maintain the illusions of control." "illusions" → "illusion"?
  • "in the 'green reality'. In the 'green reality'...". Don't like to see this kind of repetition from one sentence to another, especially for a whole phrase.
  • "Michael sees two separate therapists: Dr. Jonathan Lee, and Dr. Judith Evans, Dr. Lee claims that...". The comma after Evans' name should be a period instead. Surprised that such an issue made it past five supporters, who I assume read the article.
    • Good catch. Thanks! Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dr. Lee claims that Michael's two realities are a problems that are not there to help him". Clearly, the supporters didn't read this bit. I think this would work if "a" was removed.
    • Oops, another good catch. Done. Also, just a note, that was actually added after those people supported the article, I am horrible when it comes to prose. :0 Cheers, TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Directly after this is "while Dr. Evans states that it is 'remarkable'." Here, "it" is referring to the pair of realities, so this is actually a plural and should be "that they are 'remarkable'."
  • "but the writers ultimately did not get to it due to other storylines." Get to what? Making a romance between the two part of the story?
    • Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not done: The sentence is worse now: "but the writers ultimately did not to that storyline to it due to other story arcs."--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments above. How does it now look? May I ask if further comments are coming, despite your oppose? TBrandley 02:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical response: I've always heard from the real FAC prose gurus that "amongst" is awkward and that "among" is a better choice of wording.
  • "Fowler noted that Allen and Minnette's performances in the series deserve praise for playing characters who are dealing with loss". The performances didn't play the characters; the actors did. Needs rewording with that in mind.
  • "he described it as a show that will not fit into prime time television." Since the series has been canceled, shouldn't "will" be "would" instead?
  • Distribution: "with episodes appearing the day after their live airing". This needs to be updated, since no more episodes are going to air. Maybe add "originally appearing" in there?
  • All caps in ref 106 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I have to agree with Giants2008 regarding the quality of reviews by those who have supported this article. He pretty much took the words out of my mouth. I find it hard to believe that everyone missed the simple mistakes that have been pointed out.

Lead:

  • "He served as a writer, and avouched that writing the episode's scripts was a difficult process during the show's creation." Since you say "during the show's creation", shouldn't this be "writing the pilot script"?
  • " Michael's seemingly erratic behavior often causes him to clash with his team, who do not know about Michael's uncanny ability to solve crimes using details from both realities." A team is singular, one thing. Maybe "his team, that does not know"
  • "it has had large fan support campaigns who teamed up to create the "Save Awake" campaign to convince networks to revive the show." Seems to me it was "try to convince", since the effort did not work.

The first three paragraphs of Conception need work. As it stands, it is a jumbled mess of misquotes, IMO.

  • "Killen stated that the cancellation of Lone Star was a good platform to explore new ideas for a potential television show." What does this mean? How is the cancellation a good platform to explore new ideas? After reading the source, I still don't see what you are trying to say here. It seems to me that Killen is referring to the duality concept, not the cancellation.
  • "Jennifer Salke, the president of the entertainment division of NBC, encouraged Killen to conceive a concept for a future television series after the cancellation of Lone Star." This is mentioned after Killen's quote about creating the series. It seems out of place. Why jump back to Lone Star? Move to beginning of paragraph, or tack on to previous paragraph.
  • "Initially, Salke and Korman looked to sell acquisition rights to Fox." I don't see where in the source it says they went to Fox first. (From the source: "Korman and Salke slipped the spec to a handful of networks, including NBC, whose not-yet-official chief Bob Greenblatt had been a big Lone Star fan." and "Also on that list was Fox,")
  • "Although it successfully made its way into the lower executive branches of the company, the script was declined by Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly, who felt apprehensive upon reading it, stating that Killen was trying to "sneak a cable show" onto the channel." In the source, the phrase "sneak a cable show" was used in reference to Killen selling Lone Star to Fox. It had nothing to do with Awake.
  • "layered with a watery blue filter, and Michael usually wears blue himself". This is a direct copy of source, but not quoted. Don't put quotes, though, just reword.
  • "brighter, golden hue color." This should just be hue, drop the word color.

Production team:

  • "Gordon later compared the television series to The Good Wife. He said that The Good Wife has so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He compared it to Awake, saying, then, "What makes an Awake episode?"
    • Confusing: He compared Awake to The Good Wife, which he compared to Awake? huh?
    • From the source, "why is this an 'Awake' episode?" is the actual quote, not "What makes an Awake episode?". You are completely missing the meaning of what Gordon was saying. Another misquote.
  • "while Cherry Jones and BD Wong's characters were Michael's therapists in one reality." Reword, it sounds like they are both in the same reality.

Casting:

  • "Killen thought that the premise behind the series would be relatable to audiences, making it easier to expand his fanbase." - This also seems like a misquote of sorts. I see no mention in the source about it being easier for Killen to expand his fanbase. (In the source, the discussion is of Lone Star: "there were aspects of Lone Star that were more difficult to get a wider, broader audience interested in") Synthesis?
  • Is there a reason why you give the specific date of casting only once, for a recurring character, ("On September 8, 2011, Innes garnered a recurring role in the series") while general dates (e.g. March 2011) are used for other, more prominent roles? Change the sentence for Innes to "September 2011".

Writing:

  • "Stating that "things that are initially confusing to us when we are just trying to break story", Slade hoped that when viewers watched Awake, they would be instantly oriented as to what reality you are in at the time."
    • The quote here does not fit into the sentence. The wording is off. How about: "Stating that things are "initially confusing to us when we are just trying to break story", Slade..."
    • In addition, I think it would be beneficial to reword the second part, to "Slade hoped that when viewers watched the final version of the episode,", or "Slade hoped that when viewers watched the completed episode," or something like that.
    • You? use "they", as the viewer.
  • "Upon reading the script, Isaacs felt that it was the script was complicated to comprehend." - Makes no sense.
  • "According to Isaacs, knowing which reality you are in is a pleasure." First I questioned the use of the word "you", but upon checking the source, this is another case of not knowing where you got this from. (From the source: "Do you always know what reality you're in? ... That's become a [gift]. It was hard but I quite like hard work.")
  • "He stated that every pilot comes from people who have "amazing prestige", and that there are many talented people, but the head of NBC could only choose one." What is the purpose of this sentence? The rest of the paragraph deals with complexities/difficulties with the show/script. This sentence does not belong.
  • Ref 9: You link to page 2 of the article. Either link to page one, or to the option of a full article on one page.

I've only covered the Lead and Production section. (Please also note my comment toward the end of Giants2008's reviews above.) In addition, my main concerns (and those of another reviewer) from the first review regarding poor paraphrasing were never fully addressed. This, combined with the obvious misquotes I have stumbled upon, lead me to continue to believe that accuracy is a huge issue here. This is still not a Fine Article.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More...I have just noticed, well after making my comments above, that several of my issues are related to this edit where you were trying to paraphrase for FAC. Just further evidence that paraphrasing and accuracy are an issue for you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:52, 15 September 2012 [13].

Hate That I Love You edit

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I worked really hard on it for a period of time. First I promoted it to GA status and really wasted plenty energy on it. Many users helped me during its maintenance and editing including Wikipedian Penguin. I would like everyone who opposes on the review to leave the points and opinions here or eventually on my talk page so I can resolve them. Thank You — Tomica (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments - There's an awful lot of sourcing to online retailers (namely iTunes) and primary sources like liner notes. If a reputable secondary source doesn't discuss an item, then it probably isn't noteworthy. Also, I see a mistake that's been cropping up in recent song articles and that's listing when the song was issued to radio as a release date--it isn't, as radio is a promotional venue, not a form of commercial release. The prose is stiff in spots, but nothing a once-over by an experienced copy editor couldn't fix. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I share WesleyDodds' concern of the heavy overuse of iTunes sources. Also, there's an inconsistency with the use of {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. For example, FN26 uses {{cite news}}, but FN57, a similar source (in terms of the publisher), uses {{cite web}}. Be consistent with the use of one or the other. Another problem is the handful of dead links used in the article. I'll be willing to reconsider my oppose, if these issues are addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:52, 15 September 2012 [14].

May Revolution edit

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.

All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This article would benefit greatly from a thorough copyedit--Ykraps (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been several copyedits already. Can you please point any actual actionable concerns? Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bearing in mind that criterion 1a states, "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"; I found the whole article difficult to read. Many of the sentences are unnecessarily wordy, and indeed, the first 3 sentences I read had problems.
      The United States Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776 led criollos (Spanish peoples born in the Americas) to believe that revolution and independence from Spain could be realistic aims.
      Why not, "...could become a reality"' or "...was achievable". Also, ‘criollos’ sounds like a proper noun? If it is, it ought to be capitalised.
      Between 1775 and 1783, the American patriots of the Thirteen Colonies waged the American Revolutionary War against both the local loyalists and the Kingdom of Great Britain.
      We have been told which war in the previous sentence so I would have thought "Between 1775 and 1783, American patriots fought against loyalists and British soldiers" to be sufficient.
      "The fact that Spain aided the colonies in their struggle against Britain weakened the idea that it would be a crime to end one's allegiance to the parent state".
      I needed to read this sentence carefully to make sense of it. I gather this means that, because Spain had always maintained that breaking allegiance with one’s parental state was a crime, its aid to the rebel colonies was seen as somewhat hypocritical.
      "Books from the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies through Caracas, owing to the proximity of Venezuela to the United States and the West Indies".
      This sounds like books from the USA found their way to the W. Indies first, then to Caracas and from there into the Spanish colonies. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean, “Books from the West Indies and the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies via Venezuela, which was in close proximity”.
      I note some of these issues have been addressed but the whole article is littered with similar examples to the point where it isn't at all 'engaging'. I am sorry if this all sounds rather scathing, it is not meant to be, I am genuinely trying to offer some constructive criticism. It should also be noted that this is my first attempt at a featured article review so you may want to take my comments with a pinch of salt.--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Ykraps on this, I did some and will do some more soon, just juggling a bit much. Plus it is good to step back and re-examine when copyediting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Engaging" does not mean "For dummies", it is right to be concerned with excesive wordiness, but the text should not follow either a pattern "subject does action. stop. suject does action. stop. subject does action. stop." It is needed to provide details and add explanations, specially in a topic like this one, which is not familiar for most English-speaking readers before actually reading it. As for the US, the US declaration of independence and the revolutionary war are related things but not the same thing, both ones should be mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          If you really want to treat us all like dummies, you can always pipelink fought against to American revolutionary war or use explanatory footnotes to give more information.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reading through now and copyediting as I go. Please revert any changes I make which accidentally change the meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a few changes but need to prioritise some other work currently. The prose does need some work. Not insurmountable but not negligible either. Back later...
  • I will note that I used quotations marks in "May Week" at the intro according to WP:WORDSASWORDS (I did not use italics because the paragraph already had words in italics, and didn't want to abuse). It is also unneeded to fix links to redirects into links to the proper article name, specially if it is a piped link and the visible text remains the same. But feel free to continue or suggest things if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [15].

IPad (3rd generation) edit

Nominator(s): ObtundTalk 02:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has the status, and was just recently copyedited a few days ago. ObtundTalk 02:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the sales information after the initial release insufficient. What happened with the sales in the 6 months since its release? How about sales abroad? Nergaal (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are still inconsistencies in the prose and sourcing. A few examples and points:

  • First two sentences of the article start the same way. Likewise the first two sections of History.
  • A WP:MOSNUM problem is the inconsistency "3rd" vs "third". Pick one and stick to it.
  • Redundancies such as: "which also provides a platform for audio-visual media"; "Apple offers nine different variations of the third-generation iPad".
  • The uses of "also" are all redundant and removing them would not change the meaning or flow.
  • "For the rest of the world" could be condensed to "elsewhere", likewise "not available" to "unavailable".
  • "Speculation about the product began shortly after the release of the iPad 2, which improved the camera and added the new dual-core Apple A5X processor. " – The iPad 2 did not improve the camera, Apple did.
  • Information in the lead does not require citations if the info is presented further down in the article.
  • "During this time, the tablet was called the 'iPad 3'" – when exactly was this? No dates specified of the leaks and the iPad 2's release, so it's a bit unclear.
  • The four citations after "The company did not predisclose the subject of the event, but it was widely expected to be a new version of the iPad." is a bit overkill. Bundling them together would be a good idea.
  • WP:WEASEL word here, "people say the battery lasts about 8 hours doing normal tasks". Please be specific.
  • I question the reliability of some sources like this and this. There are a lot of unreliable blog sites cited.

I didn't have a thorough look, but concerns such as these worry me. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of sourcing concerns. In addition to the issues raised above, I also note multiple inconsistencies in the formatting of sources, and the use of iFixit (which is a wiki and so not a reliable source). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [16].

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact edit

Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has undergone substantial improvement as a result of the previous FAC, but that was botched as no spotchecks were performed. It is my hope that the article gets the review that it deserves in this second FAC. It is already a good article and FA is the next logical step in the article's improvement. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queries. This article is interesting and, despite some of my comments below, I generally like its discursive style. It is a tough gig: writing about something that can be only one of two things: obscure, quirky and hampered by the musings of cranks; or, the most important topic in the history of humankind. It can't be anywhere in between. It may take work, but it is a worthwhile exercise, and kudos to Wer900 for taking it on.

  • I'm not sure what's happening with the citations here. The majority of scholarly cites have online versions available (not just dois - i mean direct links), but only in the minority of cases are there retrieval dates (I am excluding websites, for which there are retrieval dates). Examples with retrieval dates: 29, 53, 54. Most other items similar in nature to those at 53 and 54 do not have a citation date. What are the criteria here, and how are editors aiming for consistency? There is also an apparent inconsistency in the pagination of citations. For example, note 57 cites an individual page of a book, presumably because that is the page containing the relevant info. That's fine. However, note 58 cites the page range for a chapter in a book, while notes 59 and 60 appear to cite the full page range for journal articles, not the relevant pages supporting whatever is cited in the text. I realise there may be a fair amount of work needed to get this ironed out, but there should be a consistent approach, whatever it is.
  • On-line versions of "real" texts are a courtesy, not mandatory. Since the text is fixed, they do not need retrieval dates. Normal practice is to give the whole article page range for journals, and the relevant page(s) for book. If a book has chapters by different authors, it's a matter of judgement whether to ref the exact pages, or the whole of a short chapter, but that should be done consistently Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, happy to run with that - looks like there just might be a small number of "real" texts where retrieval dates are better removed for consistency. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone know why there is a "see also" for European colonization of the Americas?? There's been a lot of colonisation of all parts of the world. Why this one link? I'd get rid of both 'see also's. Either write about stuff in the text, or drop it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous parallels have been drawn between the European colonization of the Americas and the cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. I've made that link in the text, although it is scattered throughout the article. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a problem with article structure in the "Background" section. I do not see why "impact assessment systems" or "post-detection protocols" are subsets of "background" information for an article about cultural impact of ET contact. On the contrary, they are central subjects for it.
These post-detection protocols in and of themselves are part of the background, as they are being written and agreed upon before extraterrestrial contact. They are about planning for contact, rather than the results of this planning. Impact assessment systems provide a similar background, as they do not cover the results of contact so much as how they are derived. This is the background, the foundational knowledge upon which the rest of the article can build. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Impact assessment systems" section begins with a sentence that sounds more like it comes half way through a para: "The Rio Scale was devised as a better gauge of the types of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization and the consequences of each type." Better than what? And we need to begin with an introductory sentence or two on the very concept of an "impact assessment system".
Better than "I think... will happen if ET contacts humanity." Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final para of that section commences: "The beliefs of the general public about the effect of extraterrestrial contact have also been studied." That doesn't sound like information that is a subset of "impact assessment systems", but a different topic altogether. Maybe the heading needs to be broadened?
  • Under "post-detection protocols", we are told about "one of the first" such protocols, and that it has been given a tick by SETI, IAU and a bunch of others. Then we have this: "A separate "Proposed Agreement on the Sending of Communications to Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was subsequently created". But by whom? And if no-one has acknowledged it (in contrast to the other one), is it being given undue weight here? Also, can an editor just confirm that the cited source does indeed say that the protocol ticked by IAU et al really was "One of the first post-detection protocols", and not the first? Has anyone mentioned what the first was?
The "Proposed Agreement on the Sending of Communications to Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was created by the SETI Permanent Committee of the IAA, just like the "Declaration of Principles." I will make that clear. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tough (1986) suggests that..." The article doesn't seem to use Harvard-style years in the text elsewhere: is the reason it has been done here? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Harvard referencing is used throughout the text. If not, someone must hav removed it. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't need to have the reference year in the text, as it is taken care of in the footnote. The only reason to mention years in the text is if the year is itself relevant (for example, if there is a discussion that reflects a chronological development of academic thought). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed those occurrences that were still in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title suggests ... no, assumes ... that there has already been contact. This alone yields an oppose from me. Tony (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scientific consensus is that at least a handful of extraterrestrial intelligent species exist in our galaxy. It's not fantasy, it's based on logic and reason. I agree that none of the information in the article, except for the "background" section, contains anything which can be certainly stated to be true, but I think that I've made it clear to any reader of the article that 1) extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred and 2) if and when it occurs, the information in the article may not necessarily be accurate and is merely based on existing research. The reason that you are stating that this is a complete fantasy is probably because of the "giggle factor" resulting from such a subject which has been covered more extensively by science fiction writers and mad people than by astrobiologists.

    Granted, there is a small chance that extraterrestrial intelligence may not exist, but this is, according to the prevailing scientific consensus, so unlikely that a few sentences in the article suffices to further that position. This link uses EXTREMELY conservative estimates (some of which recent research shows to be too conservative) and demonstrates that there may be 4000 extraterrestrial civilizations within our galaxy. Given that many estimates are too conservative (but some may be too liberal) I'd raise the number of civilizations fivefold. With ~20,000 possible civilizations in our galaxy, it's really only a matter of time before we are contacted. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Tony's issue is a different one from Mathew's. Tony's is a question of appropriate article title. Tony, what would you propose as an alternative? Did you have something like "cultural impact of possible extreterrestrial contact"? Mathew's issue seems to me not to be actionable, and in any case, there is a reliable literature that doesn't agree: obviously it is speculation in the sense that contact hasn't happened. However, it is a subject about which researchers can and do theorise etc., and is an entirely reasonable subject for a WP article.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? Tony (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of future contact is assumed by the current title. It does not assume that contact has already taken place, nor could it. I believe that is something you are reading into it. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Hypothesized cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? In actuality, we have no idea, despite speculations of today's scientists. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is the hypothesis. You guys aren't getting it. Although it is completely unnecessary, I have no objection to "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact hypothesis" if that settles the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I established a topic on the article talk page for discussion of the article title. Please comment there. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of article title. BTW, Virititas's statement, "It does not assume that contact has already taken place" is unconvincing. That assumption is the default in that title. Tony (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC) .... and do you mean "Cultural impact of hypothesized extraterrestrial contact"? That sounds better to me. Tony (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such assumption in the article title nor could there be; you've confused this subject with the pseudoscientific subject of ancient astronauts and various aspects of pseudoscientific xenoarchaeology. These topics, on the other hand, do assume contact has already occurred and that cultural impact may have taken place sometime in the distant past or even up until the present time. However, the topic currently under discussion is completely and totally different, and when an editor like yourself is confused, we create a dab header to help the reader—we don't change a valid article title and redefine the subject. The topic of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact does not assume any such previous contact, nor does the topic cover such contact. There is nothing wrong with the article title in any way, nor can you demonstrate anything wrong with it. You're just confused about the subject. The title only assumes that if contact ever occurs there will be some kind of impact on our culture. That's altogether different that your claim that the title assumes "there has already been contact". In fact, the title assumes no such thing and I challenge you to show that it does. Not only doesn't the title assume that, the very subject of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact has nothing to do with any claims of previous contact. When the literature on this subject (SETI) uses the term "extraterrestrial contact", it never assumes that previous contact has already occurred because the entire discipline is built on the philosophical foundation of the Fermi paradox—the underlying assumption that contact has not yet taken place. That's why your claim about the title is so off. The assumption of previous ET contact isn't even part of the discourse when talking about the hypothetical cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Viriditas, for bringing much-needed expertise to this discussion! I really dislike the fact that people consistently confuse this with pseudoscience assuming that it extraterrestrial contact has already occurred, which any sane thinking person knows is not true. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who is assuming the science is pseudo? My problem is the strong implication in the title that we've already had ET contact. Tony (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • MathewTownsend is assuming that this is pseudoscientific. As for you, I don't know anyone other than a hardcore Ancient Aliens, NASA's Unexplained Files, The X-Files or Chasing UFOs viewer who would assume that contact has happened. Now you don't even have to go through the lede, you just have to get to the hatnote, which I modified to make it clear that contact has not yet occurred. For anyone who does not watch the four previously listed shows, it should be clear from the start that this does not deal with an event that has occurred yet. The title is already long and complex as it is, and for people who do not watch the previously listed four shows, the title is unambiguous enough. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not assuming the article is pseudoscientific. If the article's name was Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity, I'd have no problem. But the current article's title Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact assumes there has been/will be extraterrestrial contact, when this is a hypothesis for which there is yet no proof. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, let me reiterate my argument: the current title is excessively long and complex as it is, and any thinking person would interpret Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact to mean Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity. "Scientific study of" is really redundant - "scientific study of the biology of fish" can be conveyed in the form of "biology of fish," encompassing not only the physiological characteristics of fish but the study of these characteristics as well. The fact that extraterrestrial contact is possible but not 100% certain is established very early on in the article, and is known to any thinking person. I would be glad to find a compromise title, but owing to the unnecessary length and complexity of your proposed title I cannot accept it in its current form. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, above I was accused of assuming the article content was "pseudoscientific". I don't. But there is no scientific proof that humans have experienced extraterrestrial contact. But many people do believe it has happened and is happening now, and some of them are readers of WP. So I think the article title should be clear that the possibility of extraterrestrial contact is a hypothesis. The fish article exists without "Scientific study of fish" because there is widely accepted scientific evidence of the existence of fish. The existence of fish is not in question. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Million Fax on Washington, Coast to Coast AM (take a look at the guest list of that radio show), Sightings (TV series), Ancient Aliens etc. - evidence that there are believers! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God. Do we call the page on evolution Not just a theory of evolution in order to deal with creationists? Creationists are a much larger minority than are believers that alien contact has occurred, making up 46% of the US population, but we do not attempt to refute their hypothesis in our titles of the pages regarding evolution. While evolutionary theory is not in dispute by the scientific community, nor is the belief that extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred. And while absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, that principle is accepted by me in the existence of the article - had we known extraterrestrial beings not to exist with almost complete certainty, then there would be no purpose for this article. Much as creationism and intelligent design are given pages on Wikipedia with which their position is analyzed in depth, so are ancient astronaut theories already. There is thus no need to change the current title, an accurate descriptor of the page content which is not absurdly long and does not state the super-obvious. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Would "Potential implications of extraterrestrial contact" be okay? It's short, it doesn't assume that contact has already happened, and makes it clear that the article is not likely to be 100% accurate if and when extraterrestrial contact occurs.
                    • I oppose that title as it isn't accurate. The topic is about the cultural impact of ET contact. There is absolutely nothing in that title that implies contact has already occurred, and anyone that maintains that it does is misreading it. "Potential implications" is implied in the concept of cultural impact, the most accurate description of the subject. By removing it, you are proposing to make the title inaccurate, which I cannot support. Nobody has been able to show anything wrong with the current title other than "I don't like it". You could get away with saying "cultural impact of potential extraterrestrial contact" but that is both redundant and assumes that ET might exist. We don't know if they exist or not, we just know that if they do there will be a cultural impact, just as we have observed on Earth when a more advanced culture comes into contact with a less advanced culture, as only one example of such a scenario. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have looked at the comments above and there does not seem to be much in the way of an emerging consensus. For reasons explained below anything with "scientific study" in the title would not work for me. The problems seems to me that both the extraterrestrial contact and the cultural implications thereof are both "potential" rather than actual and not having some kind of caveat in the title is therefore a concern. Having two qualifiers would be overkill. Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact would be my first choice as the first word covers both. "Cultural impact of possible extraterrestrial contact" does the job, but is for me rather clumsy. I don't accept that a qualifier of some kind is redundant.Ben MacDui 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions here (since my attempt to move this to article talk page failed :-))
  • All editors here appear to believe that 1. there has been no contact with aliens 2. aliens might exist, but we don't know, although there is a reliable literature that hypothesises their existence as likely, and 3. there therefore might be future contact with aliens, but we don't know.
  • I think all editors agree that there is a reliable literature discussing what the effects of possible contact might be.
  • The only question is how to signal the subject matter to readers.
  • WP policy on article titles states "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
  • It seems to me that some of the debate here comes down to whether, in order to "unambiguously define" this subject, we need to rule out the interpretation that might be placed on it by individuals with fringe views. I can't imagine anyone with mainstream views could possibly interpret this article as meaning anything other than "what might happen". On the other hand, if one day there is actual contact, then that contact will need its own article, so maybe we should preserve Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact for that occasion :-)
  • Of the various suggestions, I favour "potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" (per Ben Macdui); my second preference would be "cultural impact of possible extraterrestrial contact".
  • The reason I'm happy to have the word "possible" (or "potential") placed immediately prior to "extraterrestrial contact" rather than at the start of the title, is that no-one questions that there would be cultural impacts if contact were to occur.
  • "possible future" is redundant in my view. We are not designing wikpedia to be idiot-proof. If a reader already believes aliens came and drew the nazca lines, then this article will either set them straight, or it won't, but no amount of lengthening of the article title is going to change that. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, I echo Hamiltonstone's comments at the top of the page - this is a difficult topic and I admire the nominator's diligence in researching it and fortitude in bringing it here. I have two main comments, a subsidiary question and two relative trivialities.

Firstly, I agree that a better title has to be found. I am not sure whether the discussion is now happening here, on the talk page, or perhaps both at once, but like Tony I am concerned that it could be misleading. I will give this some further consideration and comment in due course.

Secondly, I am concerned about the hatnote. You may think this is not a matter of significance, but I note that the assumption of the hatnote is repeated in this discussion above. It states "This article is about the scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity." I beg to differ. It is mostly about the possible effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity as discussed by scientists and some others including theologians and lawyers. I don't think it can be called a "scientific study" in the normal sense as, whilst the Fermi paradox holds good, it is simply untestable. This does not mean that I am attempting to dismiss the topic - it seems to me to be entirely worthy and creditable. Nor am I entirely sure what the hatnote should say - perhaps simply omitting the word "scientific" would do or perhaps "… the rational study of the effect…", which would include the law etc.

  • I actually think this is an open and shut case, that Ben is right, and I have made a revision to the hatnote. Happy to discuss further tweaks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question is given that "cultural" includes the arts, it seems odd there is no detailed mention of this. At the risk of unwittingly passing some kind of debating event horizon surely one of the biggest impacts of any contact would be on… science fiction? There would doubtless be other impacts. I recognise that these are almost certainly unknowable, but surely our worthy reliable sources must have commented on this beyond the brief comment under "Benevolent civilizations"?

On to the trivia. Dyson sphere should be linked in the image and there are probably one or two other possible image links. Last and least, inter alia will be an obscure phrase for many readers and should be linked e.g. via Wiktionary. Ben MacDui 18:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Those of us with a GSOH woud surely wish to see The Martians as a "see also"?

I will make it clear in the hatnote that:
  1. This refers to a potential real-world scenario.
  2. The topic has received attention from priests, theologians, lawyers, and artists in addition to scientists.
  • I don't think specific such references are needed in the hatnote, which should be brief. I've attempted a concise revision. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter alia has been linked to the Wiktionary page.

With regard to the title, though, I am split. Certainly a "better title" is needed, but we have no clue what a better title would be. Potential cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact, as has been suggested before, is not unlike saying Not just a theory of evolution. In both cases, the title attempts to placate a significant population of people who willingly and knowingly believe in pseudoscience. Yet in the case of the page on the Theory of evolution, obviously predating this one, we don't attempt to refute the "just a theory" argument in the title. Similarly, I don't see the need to refute "contact has already happened" in this article's title.

As for your comments on the arts, literature, film, and other areas of human society which are more commonly associated with "culture", that is not really something that we can even begin to know about. Sure, as an advanced species they may see the fundamental beauty and splendor of the Universe in a similar way that we do, but their specific artistic traditions - and thus their impact on our own - are topics that we cannot even begin to think about. There are not too many reliable sources which discuss their art, as we have no specific example of extraterrestrial art or literature.

Science and technology are more set in stone, and based on the laws of physics, so we can get some idea of what they might do given their motives. These motives, however, are unknown to us, so we must group them into broad categories of "benevolent," "malevolent," and so on. Sure this is an oversimplification, but doing the same for art would result in an even greater oversimplification. It is therefore that I cannot put too much information about art in the article. Even the discussion on religion and law deals mainly regarding "what will happen if they come here" and "are they religious or not," rather than how SPECIFIC religious traditions will impact us. It's not unlikely that some groups will start worshipping he extraterrestrials, but we cannot know what specific ritual practices would arise from this. Same for art. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a reminder, Wer, that Ben isn't asking us editors whether (for example) these are things "we can even begin to know about": it is solely a question of whether the reliable sources discuss these matters. Just take a look at them and see if they do. If so, include useful and relevant content; if not, then we're done. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I share the above concerns about the speculative nature of much of this article expressed above and see nothing to add to them. In general I'm not a fan of these articles with "phrase" titles in any event - they tend to be a little essayish and this one seems no different. As a general rule if a reader cannot reasonably be expected to enter the exact article title (excepting disambiguation) when looking for the very material the article covers that suggests to me that the material itself is probably not highly encyclopaedic in nature. I have two main specific criticisms in addition to those more general comments:
  1. Images For the most part these are highly speculative in nature, even more so than the article text. Arecibo Observatory, fine, the others contribute absolutely nothing to the article unless an RS specifically discusses them. The double helix and Dyson's sphere in particular strike me as complete irrelevances.
  • I agree re images of kudzu vine and atomic explosion. The others didn't bother me, and appeared associated with key concepts under discussion. But I agree with you that they should be raised in RSs before they appear here. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudzu vines were merely placed to give an example of an invasive species. Atomic explosions were only shown to show a risk that a benevolent ET may eliminate. Both invasive species and the elimination of risks to humanity by extraterrestrials were mentioned, with nuclear explosions being mentioned specifically by one source. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Article scope This is restricted to cultural impact. Ecosystem damage or even the introductory stuff on SETI is out of place here, as is extensive discussion on the methods and means of contact, except as brief background and as relevant to the actual subject of the article. This is quite extensive - I haven't gone through it with a red pen but I'd suggest perhaps a third of the article could be trimmed out without losing any pertinent coverage. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agree this is an issue, but my suggested solution was to drop the word "cultural" from the article title. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an issue alright, but one of the fascinating things about this form of inquiry is that it is easy to forget that it is all a Gedankenexperiment. The moment someone has the thought "how might alien contact impact our ecosystems" this is an, albeit minor, cultural impact. In the absence of such contact there is no ecosystem damage, and so thinking about it is a cultural, not an ecological effect. The wording of the section probably needs amending to reflect this as these trains of thought are telling us a great deal about how we as humans tick, but, by definition, they tell us nothing definitive at all about how ET thinks or behaves. Similarly, whilst SETI is an example of scientific action, it is a significant cultural phenomenon too. Ben MacDui 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quantum, my view would be that either the article satisfies the five pillars or it does not, and in terms of the first pillar, the only debatable point might be WP:CRYSTAL. However, as this article reports current reliable source literature on the subject, it doesn't seem to me to be problem. Are you arguing that the article breaches a relevant policy? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is where it deviates from those sources: if you make ten points, backing up four of them isn't enough to assert that it is reliably sourced if the remaining deviate substantially from those sources. I don't say that every sentence needs a reference for simple stuff that is broadly in line with the sources that are given, but we need to avoid any extension, extrapolation, or deviation from those sources. Since I raised the images specifically we may as well continue with them: where are the sources asserting that those illustrated objects are directly raised in the sources? How much is extrapolation on the part of the authors? For subject matter as inherently speculative as this we can't cut much slack if any at all in that regard, lest the entire article becomes a primary source of original research as opposed to a genuinelly encyclopedic article. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think we need to hold this article to a higher standard than others in respect of illustration, but I think I can see the issue you're getting at with the images. There should not be a point made in the image caption that is not a point made in the article text, and appropriately sourced there. However, I just checked two examples - the nuclear weapon image, and the dyson sphere, and both appear to meet this condition. I actually don't think the nuclear bomb itself needs to be named in the source (though Wer says that it is): insisting on that would be to misunderstand the purpose of representative illustration. That said, I'm not at all wedded to the images, and I still think the kudzu vine and a couple of others could go. Moving away from images, I haven't examined the whole article, but it appears to be generally well-sourced, with regular statements explicitly linking the text to the authors involved. Do you have any particular examples of concerns around this?hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [17].

Economy of Iran edit

Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all the FA criteria. SSZ (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something small you would like to change please go ahead and do it. If you need assistance, please let me know. The idea is to improve the article since past comments have been very useful. The rest is unimportant to me. Thank you. PS: If you think the lead section needs to be rewritten I have the CIA World Fact book content that is perfect (which is available under   This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.). I can also assist in updating few small things such as references but first I need your feedback.

Comments by Grandiose: perhaps another FACer could advise on the usage on Encarta here.

May be I should have started by repeating that this article and set of articles do not exist in any place. So it is hard to compare it to a model. This article is setting the standard, hopefully. Wikipedia itself has no FA to compare it to. I was told the economy of India (formerly FA article) was judged on lower criteria (see previous FA review for exact quote).SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Pistachios, liquefied propane, methanol (methyl alcohol), hand-woven carpets and automobiles are the core items of Iran's non-oil exports. is taken directly from the source (Pistachios, liquefied propane, methanol (methyl alcohol,) hand-woven carpets and automobiles are the core items of Iran's non-oil exports.) which is very worrying at FAC. In any case it's a very vague idea.
This is easy to fix. Sometimes I add things, since the most important part (specially in economics) are FACTS and FIGURES, not prose. I agree, I should have paid clearer attention to this. May be there are around 10 such instance (rough estimate) in this article. From my understanding it is NOT a copyright violation since there is absolutely no originality whatsoever in the prose. Whether I say "the basket is composed of 10 apples and oranges" or "there are 10 apples and oranges in the basket" does not make ANY difference. This is not a novel. FACTS are important here. I would appreciate if during this review people could just make the correction themselves, if they feel this is important to them. Also, I am not sure I understand your "very vague idea" comment. Please clarify. Thanks. SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reference for "Since the mid 90's, Iran has increased its economic cooperation with other developing countries in "south-south integration" including Syria, India, China, South Africa, Cuba and Venezuela."? Ref currently 236, here doesn't mention it.
It is just a broad statement. Take a look at foreign relations of Iran and see sources for each country, wherever available. I have updated the information for each main partner.SSZ (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say " Iran is expanding its trade ties with Turkey and Pakistan and shares with its partners the common objective to create the ECO" but the source says "The ECO is an intergovernmental regional organization established in 1985". Since there is a change in direction, is it that the new thing is going to be inside the ECO framework? Needs clarification
Good point. It should rather read "Iran is expanding its trade ties with Turkey and Pakistan and shares with its partners the common objective to create a single economic market in West and Central Asia through ECO." I will make the correction. SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't get [18] to work.

Just a few things, plenty more to examine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the link with webarchive. Again if there are things that can be fixed by the reviewers, I would appreciate if you just go ahead and make the change, since it is more helpful. Thank you.SSZ (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to see an FA out of this, but I examined just the first sentence and found the following: the two citations do not support the figures "17" (PPP) and "26" (nominal GDP). Those numbers aren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't supported by those sources. Yes, this does say "17" (in fact, has the president himself saying it), but the primary source should be used (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)). Meanwhile, the infobox has "17" and "25" rather than 26. Dates should be added to qualify these numbers. If this attention to detail is indicative, there's a ways to go yet. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong. This article pays a lot of attention to details.
Economic data is updated every month. I can change it to make it uniform. Often those rankings go back and forth within a month (I think the CIA World factbook gets its data from the EIU :) SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "US sanctions against Iranian banks ironically ensured Iran's immunity from the global financial crisis" is an exact copy of source 257. (Edit: here is the diff that added the sentence.) Two short reviews have found two instances of copying. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above comments.SSZ (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this can motivate the editors and reviewers here, NO SUCH SET OF ARTICLES COVER IRAN'S ECONOMY IN ANY LANGUAGE according to the US Library of Congress (2008). For the rest if you really want to get this to FA, then please do a copy-edit. The 6-year work was do the research and make it into a coherent set of articles (~1,200 pages). False modesty aside, The IMF , World Bank, World Factbook and Encarta are very far (despite their institutional resources and the central importance of this subject today) to have produced something similar in terms of content and quality. Please see references given in the article for comparison. Thanks again for your contributions. SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SSZ, really important topic, and not an easy one given that the sources are likely to be variable in reliability, since the management of Iran's economy is not really an open affair. You might wish to withdraw and bring on some word-nerds and editors who can review the sourcing, then renominate? Tony (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Tony. I wish I had more time for this FAC promotion. I will seek advise and renomiate in two months. SSZ
  • Comment I note that this nomination has been withdrawn, but as a quick comment I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on Iranian news reports given that the Iranian media is subject to censorship. I know from experience in military topics that PressTV publishes all sorts of nonsense when directed (I assume) to do so by the government, so I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Military info is different from economic info. In times of wars "truth becomes the first casualty". PressTV is no less reliable than BBC, FoxNews or CNN. They are all under the direct influence of the their respective governments in such matters. For the rest, this article presents the same facts and conlusion as the CIA World Factbook, which is reassuring to a large degree. This also disproves any question about the reliablity of the cited sources. Now, if you have any specific comment, please go ahead. I will be more than happy to correct - whenever your comments are true and verifiable. I can't see ANY at present (and nobody was able to disprove anything in 6 years as far as I can recall). SSZ
Since when are the BBC, Fox News and CNN under the direct influence of their governments? (I bet Barrack Obama wishes that he could tell Fox News what to report!). Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic. SSZ
      • FAC review closed.***


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [19].

Government Hooker edit

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born This Way, the second studio album of American recording artist Lady Gaga, was released to the public on May 23, 2011. The album produced varying responses from music commentators, and many felt that the album was subpar from Gaga's previous efforts. However, a number of tracks on the album were praised, including "Government Hooker", a song that many of her fans profess to being Gaga at her best. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it fulfills the FA criteria. I've put a lot of work into this article, and it recently got a copyedit from Lfstevens. A previous nomination was closed not too long ago, but GrahamColm has given me permission to re-nominate the article within the two week limit due to limited feedback. —DAP388 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose While this seems comprehensive given that the song was never officially released as a single (to the extent that matters these days!), the article's prose needs a fair bit of work. Much of it contains jargon or reads like something from a magazine. My comments are:

  • Both the paragraphs of the lead start with "Government Hooker"
  • "Government Hooker" was previously an unused track that Shadow and DJ Snake created, and was revealed as he was introducing numerous tracks to Vince Herbert for Born This Way." - this sentence is really difficult to follow.
    • Fixed. I removed the latter part of the sentence, as I don't think it is relevant. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recording sessions for the song took place at the Studio at the Palms in Las Vegas, Nevada." - when?
    • I'd assume in August 2010, since that is when she visited the city during her Monster Ball Tour. The album notes states that it was recorded in 2010, but nothing more. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gaga performed the song at various live appearances including the Born This Way Ball." - what the relevance of this? It's routine for artists to play all the songs off their most recent album during tours.
  • What's the purpose of the quote from DJ White Shadow? It essentially says nothing other than that he likes the song.
  • "This came out which when Shadow met up with Vince Herbert, Gaga's label boss, to introduce hip-hop beats for prospects." - poor grammar, and the whole 'it was revealed'/'it came out'-type phrasing is not necessary - just say what the events were.
    • Fixed. I think the quote just reiterates what was being said. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We were in this studio in Vegas," he remarked, - who the 'he' here is unclear given that the previous sentence mentions several men
    • Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that "We were in this studio in Vegas," Shadow remarked" is much of an improvement to be honest; this still reads like a magazine article (ditto "'We were sitting there thinking how to make a computerized voice," reminisced DJ Shadow") Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Government Hooker" was previewed " - are songs really 'previewed'? Surely 'played in public for the first time' or similar is more factual.
  • How is a song 'imbued' with elements of different genres?
  • "Amy Scarietto of PopCrush proclaimed that the opening was akin to Gwen Stefani incorporating the yodeling of The Sound of Music's "The Lonely Goatherd" (1959) into "Wind It Up"" - what's the relevance of this?
  • 'professed' seems an odd choice of words to use when describing a review
  • "Rolling Stone declared "Government Hooker" as the twenty-eighth best song out of Gaga's discography" - did they really 'declare' this? It seems rather unimpressive given that she hasn't released a huge number of songs to date.
  • "Another journalist at that publication, Jody Rosen, affirmed " - 'affirmed' is rather odd in this context
  • All the comments from reviewers are positive, even those referenced to Amy Sciarretto (you've left out her concluding sentence of "'Government Hooker’ should get a–es moving on the dancefloor, but it is not the best song on ‘Born This Way.’")
  • "In creating the vignette, Gaga wanted to give her fans an inside look of her daily life. "I really wanted it to be real, and I knew that MTV wanted it to be a true documentation of my life, and as someone that lives halfway between reality and fantasy, so do all my friends. So I felt [it would be] an injustice to not sort of honor them in this short film that we did."" - what does this have to do with the song? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. Apologies for the late response.—DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for my late responses! Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed; nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! :) —DAP388 (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hmmm, I saw the title and wondered whether this was some form of state-run prostitution.

  • "The song's lyrical content subsumes feministic themes"—Is "subsumes" the right word? What about the plain vanilla "includes"?
  • ""Government Hooker" begins as Gaga sings in a melodramatic, operatic fashion." I'm not a fan of "as" in that context. I first comprehended ""Government Hooker" begins as Gaga ...", meaning begins in the form of Gaga. Then I had to reverse into the intended meaning.
    • Done. I changed it to "when". —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song then catapults into the chorus"—OK, as long as it's a very energetic transition into the chorus.
    • Meh. "Progresses" is a better word in this case. —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the breakdown commences, the lyrics "Put your hands on me / John F. Kennedy / I'll make you squeal baby" suggests of the rumored affair between Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy." Can we go plain? "At the start of the breakdown, the lyrics ... allude to the rumoured affair ...". And you can't suggest of.
  • Projection verbs. No no: the variation to avoid repetition is forced. I've bolded each:
"Roberts asserted that the song was a "funky" exception to the "obnoxious" nature of Born This Way.[5] Caryn Ganz of Spin avouched said that Lady Gaga's eccentric and outlandish persona—the so-called "nutty come-ons"—were apparent in the "grimy doom disco" of "Government Hooker".[12] Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine described it as "filthy-fabulous",[13] while Jocelyn Vena of MTV called the song a "massive club track".[3] Rolling Stone journalist Jody Rosen felt that the production of the "requisite kinky song" was captivating, and pinpointed including its "shape-shifting assemblage of buzzes, beeps and clattering beats".[4] Dan Martin of NME opined wrote that "Government Hooker" was is inimical to the campy nature of the album, and felt that as the track starts, Born This Way effectively transcends into "claustrophobic" techno beats."
"asserted" is pretty strong, so I hope the context deserves this marked verb. Otherwise use the default verb for projection, which is "said". "Said" can be repeated a little without sticking out ... but not too much. "avoiched" ... ouch ... is that from a thesaurus? "called" and "described" sound natural, as does "felt". "Pinpointed"???? I hate "opined". The rest of the projections are ok.
  • I think "asserted" is appropriate with the context. As for "pinpointed", I'm not sure what's wrong with it. This is what the journalist noticed when they heard the song. Maybe I should use "noticed" or "observed" instead? And I'm a little confused by the "natural" comment. What does that mean? —DAP388 (talk) 020:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in two countries."—better a colon.
  • "Gaga performed "Government Hooker" at the Clinton Foundation's Decade of Difference celebration, an event that occurred at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, California." Clunky. Please take a look at these exercises, and be more conscious of the need to make your prose plain. In English, uniquely, plain is elegant. Tony (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses: Sorry, "sound natural" meant "they're fine". "Pintpointed" works only if the target is tiny; but it's not. I've tried to suggest improvements above. Tony (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsOppose - Hi DAP. Some suggestions and comments after having taken a look at the article. Note that I am a WP Lady Gaga member. Most are easily amendable tweaks, but two unsourced assertions and overusage of quotations are leaving me concerned.

  • "It was composed and produced by Gaga in collaboration with Fernando Garibay, Paul Blair, and DJ White Shadow." – "in collaboration with" seems a bit wordy here. Why not just "... by Gaga, Fernando Garibay, Paul Blair, and DJ White Shadow"?
    • I believe saying "in collaboration" would avoid any confusion on the writing and production credits. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How so? The credits section does suggest that all three did both production and writing. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It makes sense now, given I originally got confused between Paul Blair and White Shadow (they are the same person). Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Shadow created in collaboration with DJ Snake."
  • "Recording sessions for the song took place in 2010 at the Studio at the Palms in Las Vegas, Nevada." – Redundant "for the song". It's obvious what the sessions were for. Note that this should be applied in the lead as well as Background.
  • "experienced commercial success" → "charted"? More concise and accurate.
  • Avoid state-of-mind expressions (e.g. decided to). They are redundant.
  • "Herbert was particularly enamored by the prototype of "Government Hooker", more so than all of the beats that he heard during the session." – A bit confused here. What were these beats? He was working on other songs?
    • Shadow played other beats during the session beside the "Government Hooker" prototype. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't quite find this fact ("more so than all of the beats that he heard during the session") in the MTV link cited. Another thing, I think "enamoured" is a bit too strong here. Simply "Herbert liked the new prototype..." sounds accurate. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done with the enamored bit. As for the beats, I got this from here: "We were in this studio in Vegas, and I was playing some hip-hop stuff [for Gaga's label boss Vince Herbert], and I ran across this [old beat I had made], and we were talking about faster songs, so I sped it up and I played it for Vince." —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gaga constructed the lyrics" – Simply "wrote" sounds plainer.
  • "While writing, security guard Peter Van Der Veen was recruited to provide vocals; this process was chosen in lieu of devising computerized vocals." - sounds a bit rough and unplain. Also, the "while writing" implies that Peter was the one who was writing the song. I think we can make this a bit smoother. How about "During writing, security guard Peter Van Der Veen was recruited to sing in lieu of computerized vocals." If this changes the meaning of what you intend to say, then let's try something else.
  • "Alongside with 'Scheiße' and a remix of 'Born This Way'" – "alongside with"?
  • I'm not so fussy about a song containing elements. Sounds a bit awkward, but that's just my opinion. You could just say "dance-pop song with elements..." and "the song has 'deliciously' amalgamated elements..."
    • I changed one of them to avoid any repetition. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think changing the other one would be repetitive, but I'm OK with it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the delicious amalgamation tidbit sounds more like it would belong in Reception as it is a praiseful opinion on the song.
    • Meh. I think it'd be better in the composition section because of the references to the songs. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about remove "deliciously" then? It doesn't fit into the section. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song's lyrical content includes feministic themes". It'd be a bit hard to understand how the music would have feministic themes. ;)
  • ", which consist of the lyrics," – just replace with a colon. Redundant phrase.
  • "A call and response ensues as a male vocalist accompanies Gaga's lyrics" – Original research.
  • "As the breakdown commences" – Original research.
  • The Reception section is a bit too heavy on quotation usage and borderline quote farm. Try and see if any quotations can be trimmed and/or converted into original prose.
    • I used some synonyms to replace those single word quotes, and I did paraphrase one of the bigger snippets. Not much else I can do without removed some of the oomph, in my opinion.
  • "The song was featured in a promotional video for the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards,[20] which aired on August 18, 2011, coinciding with an episode of Jersey Shore." – Cut "which aired", which makes readers think it was the awards show that aired in that date, not the promo. Also, why is the fact that it aired during Jersey Shore relevant?
    • I was just taking advantage of the specificity. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there is a direct connection between the promo and the Jersey Shore episode, it comes off as fancrufty. You might be able to say "...on the night of August 18, 2011", but that's likely as specific as you can get. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The singer was a candidate for several awards." – Has nothing to do with the song.
  • Tracklist? The song was never independently released.
  • The chart peak table needs to be formatted per WP:ACCESS with plain row headers.
    • Huh? Is it not already formatted like that? —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PopCrush does not look like a reliable source.
    • I was a little reluctant to use PopCrush as a source, but it is the only website that verifies the promotional video info and the song's hook. As for the "reception" section, it's a bit thin to begin with, so I added it because only a handful of other publications reviewed the song. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't find any editorial information/qualifications on Amy Sciaretto, so that does not look promising. It's hard to say it would even pass muster for GAN, much less FAC. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a page number for ref 1?

I will be happy to withdraw my oppose when my concerns have been responded to. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments...

  • Never released as a single... --> This is a bit awkward. Perhaps "Despite not being released as a single"?
  • Genres in composition should be linked where possible.
  • According to the music sheet published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing on Musicnotes.com --> Not necessary
  • Also as pointed out above, PopCrush isn't a reliable source for FA. Till 07:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:31, 14 September 2012 [20].

Pony Express edit

Nominator(s): →gab 24dot grab← 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...it seems to meet the all-around criteria, and it would be nice to have it as the Today's Featured Article in six weeks, on October 26, 2012, the 151st anniversary of the decommissioning on the Pony Express (we missed the sesquicentennial anniversary last year). I personally fixed the handful of minor Toolbox issues earlier today. →gab 24dot grab← 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest Withdrawal - While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the article, it is quite a ways from featured quality. There is a significant lack of referencing throughout the article, which is the largest issue. Other, more minor, issues include a lack of reference detail (publishers and access dates for web references, pages for books, etc), MOS issues such as text sandwiched between images, and image issues such as a gallery with a rather indiscriminate and repetitive set of images. At this time, the article would take a significant amount of work, which I believe would be best complete outside of the pressures of FAC. Due to this, I would suggest withdrawing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:59, 9 September 2012 [21].

Mulla Effendi edit

Nominator(s): User:Kooosar (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is complete and ready to be a featured article. It has almost been five years since it was published. I worked for over two years to gather information and sources by meeting with concerned people with the article. Also, before publishing the article, I have submitted the article to English language professionals at Oklahoma State University and St. Thomas University in Houston for review.

  • Oppose - Too many images, too many quotes, several unreferenced sections, and the article does not follow the WP:MOS — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - Hello Kooosar, and thank you for your interest in improving this article. I agree with most of the concerns raised by Crisco above, and suggest that this article might benefit from a good or peer review prior to bringing it here, as at this point it doesn't really meet the FA criteria. Some more specific suggestions:

  • Aim for a minimum of one citation per paragraph, usually more
  • Rather than including extensive quotes, try summarizing the salient points (with citations) and quoting only the key phrases
  • Try to be consistent in how you present material, particularly in citations - several of your current citations are incomplete
  • Be very careful with image licensing. I notice that many of the images used were uploaded by you, with the claim that you hold the copyright. Keep in mind that being the uploader does not give you copyright, or the right to release images from copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 05:35, 6 September 2012 [22].

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints edit

Nominator(s): Waveclaira (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looking for feedback to improve on

  • conciseness of article
  • helpful content that is missing

anything that has to do with references and sources will be updated, included, etc. so no need to comment on that. no need to comment on neutral point of view either. you should edit the article yourself instead of just commenting on anything you'd like improved.

Waveclaira (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Waveclaira, welcome to FAC. Have you notified the main editors of this article already? See the instructions at the top of the WP:FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

im a main editor. there's no instructions about notifying. you should quote word for word. like "this"Waveclaira (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and there's a template onthe talk page so everyone is automatically notified, just so you knowWaveclaira (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical comment. I am very concerned that this article does not (and perhaps, by its nature, cannot) meet criterion 1(e) [stability] — or whether we can get a stable consensus for criterion 1(d) [neutrality]. People are constantly arguing over the content and changing things back and forth in an attempt to make the article read according to their views (pro or con) on the topic. Am I being too pessimistic here? What do others think? — Richwales 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest this be speedily closed--the nominator is a new account whose only activity has been to nominate this. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:19, 3 September 2012 [23].

Curt Roberts edit

Nominator(s): Secret account 05:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Roberts was trailblazer in his field whose name is relatively unknown today. First black player in Pittsburgh Pirates history, but only lasted a few seasons and went on to a obscurity. Hell most of his former teammates didn't learn of Roberts death until being approached by a journalist writing a major piece on him nearly 20 years later. I used or saw just about every source I have access to on the subject. There's a good number out there but it's simply not encyclopedic as it is rather trivial game detail. Thus the article is a bit on the smaller side. Thanks for Sarastro1 for the GA review and Giants2008 and The Rambling Man for the peer review feedback.

I saw the sources Giants2008 gave me and I used the two main ones he linked as a citation once, as the first book "Crossing the Line: Black Major Leaguers, 1947-1959" is riddled with errors and original research with no sources to back it up, including its section on Roberts. The second book is about Roberto Clemente discusses Roberts (a bit off-topic as well) from the Pittsburgh Courier perspective, which is a very interesting tidbit, but confusing to the reader unless I get a hold of the archives of the Courier which seems to be available only though the University of Pittsburgh library archives. So knowing that, I'll try to fix any concerns as quick as possible but note weekends are very hard for me. Thanks Secret account 05:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose The article lacks a picture (a requirement), seems under-referenced, and may be a bit short for a Featured Article. However, it seems well-written. Pokajanje|Talk 22:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is no length requirement for featured articles--check out the bottom of this table. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this "under-referenced"? And pictures are not a requirement, per WP:FA?. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 3: "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status." Images are a requirement. Pokajanje|Talk 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not at all. Perhaps read the sentence aloud. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That criterion is confusing. Does it read "It has images, and other media where appropriate..." or "It has images and other media, where appropriate..."? It could be taken either way, and I took it as the first. (In any case, the article lacks any media at all in its present state.) Pokajanje|Talk 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject played during the 1950s, and died very young a free image is practically impossible to find for the subject, unless I use a very low quality newspaper photo. Most of the images I've seen of the subject comes from the Associated Press or Topps both of which are way too risky and invalid for fair use. If someone can find a free image of Roberts go right ahead, but unless I'm required to put a image (ping FAC delegate), I rather pass for now at least. Secret account 01:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a viable image possibility presented, it's not required. Sometimes there just isn't an available photo under a usable license. (That being said, there may be opportunities to include images not of the article subject, at your discretion). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did an image search myself. All baseball cards of him are 1954 or 1955 Topps, which are still copyright; had I found Bowman (which I was hoping to) or a Baseball Digest image, then those would have worked. Adding the Topps one in would be okay under non-free criteria, but it doesn't need to be done just to be done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topps is particularly strict with their copyright. There was a OTRS complaint a few years back on using their cards even as fair use so I'm not going to bother uploading them. I do wonder however, if material from The Sporting News was ever renewed. They have some high quality images that can be used. Secret account 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't switch from mdy to dmy within refs
  • Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 21. Look for similar inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but I don't think the writing is strong enough to meet criterion 1a at the moment. Also, while I can't say that I find the oppose that convincing, I do think there's a point to be made that one or two key details are missing. Sorry to hear that the Crossing the Line book wasn't that helpful.

  • "After becoming the starting second baseman for the Pirates in his rookie year, Roberts playing time decreased...". Apostrophe needed at the end of Roberts.
  • Not sure why "Minors" is capitalized at the end of the first paragraph. I also think it could be made "minor leagues" to aid the understanding of non-baseball fans.
  • Early professional career: "the same high school future professional athletes Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson, Bill Russell and Curt Flood, went to all within a few years of each other." I'd recommend removing the last comma and moving "all" to immediately following Flood's name.
  • I know that Negro League statistics are lacking in general, but is there anything more that can be added? We're basically covering four years of his career in one sentence, which makes the coverage appear less than extensive.
  • Comma would be nice after the first use of Andy Cohen's name.
  • "and started to build a reputation as a excellent fielder". Second "a" should be "an" instead, as in "an excellent fielder".
  • Major League career: "pressurized the team to integrate their team roster". Second "team" is a redundancy and isn't needed to get the sentence. It can easily be dropped.
  • "Roberts finished the 1954 season as the primary starter in second base". "in" → "at".
  • "the" should be added in "prior to 1956 season."
  • One of the issues I have with the article as a whole is that it implies that Roberts was the victim of harsh racism, but doesn't go all the way to describe what he was going through. In the Clemente book, page 73 has a sentence that goes like this: "Christine Roberts, the player's wife, told Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Ed Bouchette that when she attended games at Forbes Field she heard constant shouts of 'Knock the nigger down!" and "Hit him in the head.'" This is quite disturbing to read, but it's informative in showing how racist some of the people in Pittsburgh were towards Roberts. Without some information like this showing the challenges that he faced, I can't say that this article is fully comprehensive considering that racism was the key issue any black player faced at that time.
  • I'll also add that the snippet above has the name of Roberts' wife, which the article lacks. If a key biographical detail can be added, by all means do so.
  • Later career: "Neither Jacobs nor McMahan lasted beyond the 1956 season in Majors." "the" is needed before "Majors".
  • Pittsburgh Courier needs italics here.
  • MVP should be spelled out a sentence earlier than it currently is.
  • "where he led the league in fielding percentage with 987.". Period should be moved to before the number.
  • "was" should be added to "but his playing ability diminished by the injury".
  • Post-baseball: "A major piece written by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette journalist Ed Bouchette discussed Roberts career and struggles". Apostrophe needed again at the end of Roberts' name.
  • Playing style and statistics: "Former teammate Nellie King called Roberts the best handler of "chopper" he ever seen." First, "had" should be before "ever seen". Second, to avoid a grammatical error it's okay to make the quote "chopper[s]", using the brackets to make it work better in the sentence while maintaining the intended meaning.
  • "King cited the main reason why Roberts had a short career in the Majors was because..." just doesn't work well at all. Perhaps try "According to King, the main reason why Roberts had a short career in the Majors is that the Pirates...".
  • Legacy: "the most notable whom was future Baseball Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente." "of" should go before "whom"; also, the Hall of Fame was linked earlier and doesn't need a repeat link.
  • No need to capitalize Black or Hispanic.
  • Another apostrophe needed after his name in "mentioned that Roberts legacy...".
  • "for the opening of Pirates Highway Legacy Square Negro League exhibit in PNC Park." "the" should go before Pirates. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed all the grammar issues, some of which was careless writing on my part, other is due because of my dyslexia. With the extra information, let me find if I could get extra information. I'm back in my studies so I should have access to some information that otherwise would have been beyond a paywall. Give it a day or two, class got canceled because of Tropical Storm Issac on Monday, so I have the time to search for the information. Thanks Secret account 06:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [24].

Hoodwinked! edit

Nominator(s): Jpcase (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked! was a computer-animated film released in 2005. Though it probably isn't as widely known as most recent computer-animated films, it is notable for being one of the first to be completely independently produced. Since I started working on the article a number of months ago, it has gone from Start class to Good Article status, and undergone a peer review. I believe that it is now ready for Featured Article status. Jpcase (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passing comments from Crisco 1492:
Image review
File:Hoodwinked.jpg is fine
File:Hoodwinked st.jpg is too big and pretty much redundant to the poster. Doubt it passes the need for contextual significance (NFCC #8)
Any free images of the director or cast?
Prose review
Several sections are only a sentence or two long.
Several paragraphs are only a sentence or two long.
Direct quotes need citations.
Percent symbol should not be used, use "percent"
Kinda worried as you have 5000 words depending on a grand total of 50 footnotes (I've hit 50 just going to 2000 words) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for leaving some suggestions. I've changed all uses of the % symbol to the word percent. The only paragraph I see that is under three sentences is the following;
"Hoodwinked! received a one-week, limited release in Los Angeles on December 16, 2005 to qualify for Oscar consideration. A nationwide U.S. release was scheduled for Christmas Day, 2005, but it was moved to January 13, 2006 to avoid competition with other films released during the holiday season."
I'm really not sure how this could be expanded upon. It covers information regarding the film's release thoroughly. If you have any suggestions on how to expand it, then I will be happy to add them to the article, but I don't really see any problem with the current length of the paragraph. Are there any other paragraphs under three sentences that I am missing? All quotes in the article are referenced. If a reference doesn't immediately follow a quote, it is just because all of the subsequent information is sourced with the same reference. Am I supposed to always follow a quote with a reference, even if the same reference is used for the subsequent information? As for the number of references, I'm not sure why this should matter. Everything in the article is properly sourced.
Would you suggest removing the image of the film's soundtrack? I'd rather not, since I feel that info boxes look bare without images, but if its use isn't justified under copyright laws, then I am willing to remove it. I'm honestly not sure whether there are any free images of the director or cast. There probably are, but I'm not very knowledgeable about copyright law, so I wouldn't know what is okay for use.--Jpcase (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest it, yeah. This suggests that it isn't really accepted by the community (check out the deletion debate they link to)
Regarding the paragraphs, that "release" section is the least of my worries. The last paragraph of "plot" and "accolades" are bigger problems, methinks.
Regarding quotes, it's generally a good idea to give a citation immediately afterwards (at the very least at the end of the sentence), for easy verifiability. I can't find a specific guideline or policy for that though, although WP:WHYCITE emphasises that quotes and opinions need cites.
I may have time to give a fuller review later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed the image, and combined the last paragraph of the plot section with the paragraph preceeding it. It feels somewhat disconnected with the rest of the information in the paragraph, but there really isn't any way that I could expand the last paragraph without going into extraneous detail. As for the "accolades" section, what would you suggest doing here? The film was only nominated for one award. I could delete the accolades section and simply mention the film's Saturn nomination at the end of the "Critical response" section, but it would still have to be its own one-sentence paragraph. I've added a reference to the end of every sentence that includes a quote, except for in the first paragraph of the "Analysis" section, since it would require putting the same reference at the end of every sentence. It seems a lot simpler to just use the one reference for the entire paragraph. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In articles such as Ruma Maida generally I keep the prose regarding awards short, allowing me to introduce a table. Other editors write what the film lost against for its individual awards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that a table would work here, since the film was only nominated for one award. The article already states that the film lost the award to Corpse Bride. --Jpcase (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do that, but it will still only be one sentence. Personally, I would prefer to leave it in its own section, so that readers won't have to navigate through the whole "Critical response" section to find information on an award nomination. Is there an actual rule on Wikipedia that a section has to be more than one sentence? --Jpcase (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pulling that out. I still feel that the article would be more convenient for readers if the sentence was included in its own section, but I will go ahead and merge them, so as to comply with policy. --Jpcase (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments:
  • "It tells the story of the Little Red Riding Hood folktale as a police investigation," - "It retells the folktale Little Red Riding Hood as a police investigation,"
  • "before expanding nationwide" - perhaps "having a wide release"?
    • Hmm, I'm not sure. "before expanding nationwide" sounds much better to me. Is there any important reason why this should be changed? --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was released internationally too, n'est pas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but not on January 13. The film's nationwide US release seems notable enough to be mentioned in the lede, but I'm not sure that its international releases need to be alluded to there. --Jpcase (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was in part based on director Cory Edwards' concerns over exposing children to the high level of cynicism that can often be found in the genre." - Perhaps just "Edwards'"?
    • Since there were two Edwards involved in making this film, I feel that it is important to distinguish between them. --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright.
  • "Critical reception to the film was varied. Negative reviews criticized the film's animation and considered it inferior to the Shrek series, while positive reviews praised the film's script and cast." - Perhaps merge. "Critical reception to the film was varied; although the film's script and cast were praised, its animation was panned." or something similar.
    • Personally, I prefer this as it is currently written. Why do you suggest the change? --Jpcase (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To avoid repeating "reviews" and to condense it a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to "Critical reception to the film was varied; although the film's script and cast were praised by many reviews, the quality of its animation was heavily criticized." --Jpcase (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's even better! Alright, I'll leave some more comments tomorrow (my time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink on the first occurrence, or just don't include the casts' names in the plot.
    • I removed the cast names from the plot section. --Jpcase (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and led by detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers), Red, Wolf, Granny, and the Woodsman are all questioned about the events leading up to the incident." - Perhaps "and Red, Wolf, Granny, and the Woodsman are questioned by detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) about the events leading up to the incident."
  • A couple of the testimonies may be able to be merged into single paragraphs.
    • I merged the paragraphs detailing the Woodsman's testimony and Granny's testimony together. --Jpcase (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boingo plans to add an addictive substance to the stolen recipes, and then explode the forest, making way for new real state for expanding his business." - Any indication how the two are related?
    • They are just two different ways of improving his business. The addictive substance would likely increase sales of his snacks, and the new real estate would provide various other ways for him to make money. A diagram that he shows in the film suggests that he would build a zoo, mall, amusement park, casino, etc. --Jpcase (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast section: If its not a full sentence, it should not have a period.
  • That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names should be linked on first occurrence outside the lead.
    • Thanks for taking care of some of those yourself. I also linked Todd Edwards the first time his name shows up in the Production section, since he isn't listed in the cast section anymore. Should all words linked in the lead, be linked again in their first occurrence outside of the lead? For example, "computer-animated", "Little Red Riding Hood", "Rashomon", and "stop-motion"? --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so, yes. The lede is generally counted separately for linking purposes.
  • References with multiple pages benefit from {{sfn}} or {{harv}} templates.
    • I don't really understand what I am supposed to do here. --Jpcase (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch overlinking
    • Thanks for taking care of some of these as well. Should "The Walt Disney Company" in the Distribution section be de-linked? It is the first occerence of the company's full name, but a previous use of "Disney" links to the same page. --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't link it.
  • previously been employed with an ill-fated independent animation studio which Hoodwinked! producer David Lovegren had helped to start. - Name?
    • Unfortunately, the reference does not give a name. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found the name of the studio in another reference and have added it to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (such as ones produced by Pixar) - Doesn't seem necessary
  • Avoid contractions like "couldn't" in original text
    • Looks like you've taken care of this. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and dirt was rubbed into the colors" - Avoid figurative language. Perhaps a more literal phrasing
    • The actual quote from the reference is "We wanted it to look as organic as possible, even with the color palette. We rubbed dirt into all the colors so that the look wasn’t the candy-coated, brightly colored pastel world that a lot of CGI films have." --Jpcase (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sentences are rather long (lots of clauses) and could be split.
    • Which ones? --Jpcase (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anything with four or five commas could probably be split. "The Nightmare Before Christmas was cited as an inspiration for the filmmakers to try to bend the shapes of characters into extremes, and choices unconventional to computer-animated films were intentionally made, such as making one of the Woodsman's eyes bigger than the other, and giving Red only four fingers, so as to make her look more like a doll." is an example.
        • I've split that sentence, and rewritten a few other sections. Tell me if there are any other specific sentences that need to be split or shortend. --Jpcase (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm down to "soundtrack". More tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that you tagged the sentence, "After unsuccessfully trying to find new opportunities for the brothers, Montgomery set up a meeting for them with Kanbar, who had invested in Chillicothe." "Them" in this sentence is referring to the Edwards brothers. Is this unclear? --Jpcase (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, nix that.
  • "to avoid competition with other films released during the holiday season." - Which films?
    • The reference doesn't name any specific titles. Chicken Little, Zathura, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 were some of the family films in release at the time, but could I mention them without it being considered Original Research? November and December are always major release months ever year, so I don't think that it is really necessary to name which specific films Hoodwinked! would have been in competition with. The point is, Holiday Season = Lots of High Profile Movies Coming Out. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$50,000 short of the box office's number one spot." - Held by?
  • Perhaps note that 47 percent is "rotten" on RottenTomatoes
  • Fix the quotation marks from the slanted ones to straight ones. Overall you may want to paraphrase some of the quotes. A lot of this stuff is just taking the summaries from their reviews, by the looks of it.
  • Several of these quotes in the reception and analysis section are rather wordy and should be trimmed or better paraphrased.
  • Associated Content is not a reliable source. See this. Is Mr. Sexton a previously published author on the subject?
    • Here is Timothy Sexton's profile [25] It says that he has published two novels, and contributed chapters to two other novels. I see that you have tagged every sentence in that paragraph, besides the last one with a "citation needed" tag. I explained above that I wanted to just use the one reference at the end of the whole paragraph, since I thought that it would be less cluttered than to place the same reference at the end of every sentence in the paragraph. Is this not acceptable? It seems clear that all quotes in the paragraph come from the same article, so I would think that one reference for the whole paragraph would suffice, but I will add references for each sentence if you think it necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As posted above "Direct quotes need citations.". Paraphrasing would help cut down on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • More information on the sequel (quantification for the commercial and critical failure comment) may be useful.
  • After going through the critical reception and analysis section I'm not too pleased with the quote farming in those two sections. A bit of paraphrasing can go a long way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
  • FN1, 21: formatting
  • FN38: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Rotten tomatoes, see this essay. WikiProject Film accepts it and MetaCritic — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Reception — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but those links allow the use of RT in very specific circumstances, and its current use in this article is not limited to those circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which specific circumstances are you referring to? --Jpcase (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Review consensus scores and external links. The article currently uses the site for run time, a quote, and a release date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The quote is Rotten Tomatoes' consensus. The essay linked to by Crisco 1492 states that "Rotten Tomatoes' reported 'consensus' and Metacritic's 'metascore' description are prose that may help readers understand a film's reception." As I understand it, Rotten Tomatoes' consensus and percentage of positive reviews should not be used if the film was released before 2000, or if only a limited number of reviews for the film have been collected on the site. Hoodwinked! was released in 2005 and the site has over 100 reviews for the film, so this should not be a problem. I replaced Rotten Tomatoes with Justin Chang's review of the film for Variety as the reference for the film's run time. I assume that when you say that Rotten Tomatoes is being used for a release date, you are referring to the release date of Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil. I was actually just using it as a reference for the film's negative critical reception and hadn't thought to include a reference for the film's release date. Would this be an acceptable reference? http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=74032 --Jpcase (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fullecircle blog post is an interview with Cory Edwards, the director and co-writer of the film. The authenticity of the interview can be verfied, since it is linked to on Edwards' own official website (see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95). I asked whether the interview would be an acceptable reference on the reliable sources noticeboard (see here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview) and was told that it might be okay, as long as the verification from Edwards' site was also included. As for cinemareview, I've been somewhat unsure of the site's reliability, but since it was never questioned in any of this article's previous reviews, I assumed that it was probably okay. I am willing to remove it though, if you feel that it is not an acceptable reference. --Jpcase (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I've removed the cinemareview reference, and rewritten that section of the article. The Nancy Churnin review for the Dallas Morning News doesn't seem to have been officially uploaded to the internet, however the actual newspaper issue that contains the review can be viewed online through Google News (see here - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=20060118&id=iQEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5595,552315). I do not know whether this would be an acceptable link for Wikipedia. If you feel that it is okay, then I will link to it in the article, but otherwise, I don't think that any link is necessary in order to use the review as a reference. What are the formatting issues that you are referring to? --Jpcase (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [26].

Georgi Kinkladze edit

Nominator(s): Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinkladze is a Georgian footballer best known for his time in England. For a period in the mid-to-late 1990s, he was pretty much the only reason I kept going to matches. The article has had one previous nomination, four years ago (where does the time go?). He's been out of the public eye in the intervening time, so little is new since then, but it should hopefully be more polished now. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've read down to the end of the Man City section so far. No major problems, but I noticed several instances of tabloid-style journalese, which is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia and suggests POV. Plus a few instances where the prose could be tightened. A general copy-edit wouldn't hurt at this stage. I'll try and look at the rest in the next day or two if I can. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead looks a little short, and per WP:LEAD, should cover all the main points in the article. It should say more about his early career and his Man City career based on what I've read so far.
  • "In 1991, Georgia became an independent state again, but independence brought civil war as rival factions fought for control.": This looks a little forced here, coming between information about Kinkladze's career. Unless it can be shown how this affected the player personally, there may not be too much need for it. But it may be part of the slight problem with chronology in this section, per the next comment below.
  • Second paragraph of "Early career" is a little odd. First sentence: signs for Dinamo; second sentence (no date); second sentence: Georgian independence in 1991; third and fourth sentences: senior international debut in 1992. Then the start of the next paragraph returns to his first season for Dinamo. This needs looking at, I think.
  • "the pair combined for one of Georgia's six goals": This is slight journalese, particularly for the non-specialist who may be a little lost!
    • Not sure what to do with this. The source quotes Arveladze, mostly about his friendship with Kinkladze. As part of it he mentions this match as the first time they both played for Georgia, and says "he [Kinkladze] provided the assist for my first goal". If "combined" is no good for a non-specialist, using "assist" would be little better. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think a linked assist would actually be better as it is a technical term, rather than jargon. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Footage of Kinkladze's performance resulted in interest from clubs in Italy": Clunky prose. Maybe "Italian clubs became interested in Kinkladze after seeing footage of his performances"?
  • "Georgia thrashed Wales 5–0": More journalese, and potentially slight POV issue.
  • "At the return match": Will non-sports fans understand this?
  • "Kinkladze had scored 14 goals in 21 outings": Sporting journalese here with "outings"
  • Is there a relevance to Kinkladze being Ball's first signing?
  • In the early life section, there is not much about his performances. How did he perform? How many goals did he score? Did he win awards? What did critics say? The only detail is about his struggles at Saarbrucken. However, I understand that not much detail may be available.
    • Beyond what's already in the article, there is very little, and what sources do exist often contradict each other. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manchester City's form stuttered…": More journalese.
  • "Kinkladze quickly became a terrace hero": Ditto, and I'm not sure everyone will know what a terrace is.
  • "The first win, by 1–0 against Aston Villa, finally arrived on 25 November 1995": Not sure everyone will know that this was some substantial distance into the season.
  • "press and supporters touted Kinkladze as the star player of the Manchester City side": More precision needed here. Any specific people may be useful to give at least one short quote, but why use "touted" here?
  • Not sure the Kinkladze v Juninho part adds much here.
    • It attracted quite a bit of press attention at the time. For example if you look at the ref, it says "Kinkladze" or Juninho" more times than the other 20 players put together. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not personally convinced, but I have no objection to it. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he instead opted to stay at Manchester City…" Need to lose either "however" or "instead"
  • "Manchester City's freefall…": Journalese?
  • "He had a reputation for playing defensive midfielders, which led to his Everton team being nicknamed the "Dogs of War".": I don't think the detail about Everton is necessary.
  • "He made his return at a muddy Vale Park": Is the state of the pitch relevant?
    • Kinkladze was slight. His attributes were suited to a passing game, and completely unsuited to a physical battle played out in a quagmire. The match was a watershed moment in his City career. Going into a lot of detail for a single match would be undue weight, but I tried bringing it together with the Royle quote to highlight two themes of his final season at the club: getting kicked into the air at shabby football backwaters, and his fractious relationship with Royle. Similar thinking was behind the "Dogs of War" background – an attempt to explain Royle's seemingly paradoxical position of deciding his team would play better without its most gifted player. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, if it is shown in the sources that this was a watershed moment, it is worth going into a little more detail. I don't think that the match comes across as pivotal in the way it is written at the moment, and the "muddy" comment seems a little odd out of context. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that wasn't right... ...too often since his arrival": Why the repetition of the ellipsis? Just one is required.
    • It appears that I have used ellipses incorrectly my entire life! Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…contained hardman Vinnie Jones,": Journalese and POV.
    • Jones was notorious for his violent approach, moreso than any player in his era. The sentence could do with something to convey this, suggestions would be welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe "Kinkladze was targeted by Vinnie Jones, a played with a reputation for a violent approach, even in the tunnel...". But to include this, I think it may need a ref for his reputation if this is not in the source already. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded using a quote from a piece about Jones. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but calamitous defending, including a freak own goal": And again.
    • Press reports of the match variously describe the first QPR goal as "comical", "a calamity" and "a horrendous mistake", but even these descriptions pale in comparison to those of the second, an own goal, which was unquestionably freakish, and is invariably included in those top-10s of best/worst own goals e.g. [27] [28] [29] [30]. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but a more encyclopaedic wording is needed: maybe "but poor defending, culminating in an unusual own goal"? Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "City no longer controlled their own fate": This is not really needed.
  • What about international football at this stage of his career? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented or addressed except where I've commented. With regards to international football, the Wales games were something of a high water mark for Georgia. After this they were mostly cannon fodder, so Kinkladze rarely had the chance to shine. I'll see what I can add. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've read the whole article now, and looks good generally. Just a few more suggestions. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but starts were a rare occurrence": "but he made few starts".
  • "Kinkladze was not even issued a squad number for his second season"
  • How was his tactical request to Smith received? Accepted? Ignored? It's kind of left hanging.
  • "and played the full 90 minutes in a 1–2 third round home defeat against Rangers.": Why does this need five references? Even for a more controversial statement, five refs seems excessive.
  • "for Rubin's consolation goal": Journalese.
  • The 5-1 win for Rubin seems to be covered in too much detail (and there is another "combined"!) for a relatively unimportant games. I don't think any other match receives so much.
  • "He provided an assist in four consecutive matches": Is there no better way to cover this than to use 4 refs?
  • "In the new season, Berdyev intended to switch to a 4–3–3 formation and use Kinkladze alongside Damani Ralph and Vladimir Bairamov in attack.": This seems an odd piece of phrasing. Did he or didn't he?
  • Why is Georgian national team linked in this section rather than earlier?
  • "despite reports to the contrary by some Russian press sources": Not really necessary.
  • I think the sections after Derby County suffer a little from overdetailing in places, which may reflect the source quality and coverage. Parts read like they are describing current news events. But not a huge problem, just needs a quick check.
  • "Unwillingness to tackle and accusations of a lack of effort were also the source of Joe Royle's omission of Kinkladze from his Manchester City side": Cause, rather than source, I think.Sarastro1 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing does become a problem for the latter part of his career. There's little in English, so I received sourcing help from User:Jhony, a Russian speaker. Unfortunately, he is long inactive, so I cannot ask him about the Russian language sources, and I'm stuck for additional ones. I've removed a couple of parts; the 4-3-3 part isn't so relevant as Kinkladze got injured the first time the formation was used. The bit about Smith would need the help of a Russian speaker for me to reword, so I've removed it as well. For the assist refs, those sources are all I have, but I've bundled them into one. Not so tidy in the references section, but better than having it look unsightly in the body. Other comments from this batch should hopefully all be addressed. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support: Pretty happy with this now, although I would like a few reviews from football people before committing to a full support. I also want to have a last read through myself, but overall looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't have time to read through the whole article now, but one thing from the first sentence: "also spelled as... Gio". Looking at the reference, it's clear that Gio was a nickname rather than an alternative spelling so this shouldn't be included. The others (Giorgi, Georgiou) are fine because they're just different ways of transliterating from Georgian, but Gio is definitely not. BigDom 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to "or shortened to". Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair compromise. I'll try and have a look through the rest of the article now I've finished the one I was writing earlier. BigDom (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just minor comments over sourcing and prose, I'll have another look later on

  • "The team failed to win a single game in the first three months of the season" slight inaccuracy here. Checking the season article, they beat Wycombe Wanderers 4–0 in October, so perhaps it could be rephrased to "In the league, the team failed to win a single game..."
  • Ref 1 was published on BBC News – BBC Sport Online was only launched in 2000
  • Ref 20, 22, 26, 28 were published on The Independent on Sunday
  • Ref 68 was published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper Lemonade51 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Been meaning to return to this, apologies for the hold up:

  • Is it teammate, stated under Early life or team-mate used elsewhere?
  • Likewise be consistent with first team (is it that or first-team)?
  • Where's the citation for "Italian clubs became interested in Kinkladze after seeing footage of his performance, and the Italian press nicknamed Kinkladze the "Rivera of the Black Sea", but no concrete attempts to sign him took place."?
  • Should it be titled 'Club career' when it also includes his international career? Perhaps rename to 'Playing career'?

Otherwise happy to support. Refreshing article to read. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Redundancy in "Kinkladze stayed with the club despite relegation to the Football League First Division in 1996, but the club continued to decline." Don't like the two "the club"s here, especially in the lead. Could make one into Manchester City.
    • I still see this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, definitely now done. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still think there's one too many words in "stayed with the Manchester City", namely "the". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • *wipes egg from face* I must be the world's worst proof reader. Sorry about that. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career: There's no need for another Dinamo Tbilisi link here, given that there's one already in the previous section and one in the lead.
  • Manchester City: "Manchester City were relegated to First Division". Should "the" be added before First Division?
  • Ajax: Since Maradona was linked before, we don't need another link in the quote.
  • Derby County: A word too many in "but none resulted in the a contract offer."
  • Anorthosis: Why was the win over Trabzonspor historic?
  • Should "the" be added before Cypriot Super Cup?
  • Publisher of ref 111 should be italicized.
  • Conversely, Soccerbase shouldn't be italicized in refs 157–160. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks like a well-written and referenced article, but here are some comments

  • it would have been better if some images of him on the field were put (only if available)
    • I agree entirely, but sadly no suitably-licensed ones exist. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the following line is really appropriate for this article: In an effort to resolve his homesickness, his mother moved to Manchester to provide him with familiar food. It can be either wholly removed to replaced by His mother moved to Manchester to provide support
    • I'm unsure. Clayton's book devotes a full page of material to this, with food clearly the most important aspect. "Support" seems vague to me, but perhaps there is another wording that would be suitable? Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMON NAME: Internazionale → Inter Milan
    • While the article is currently at Inter Milan, it is currently the subject of a contentious Requested Move debate. Though Inter Milan is a commonly used name, it is also technically incorrect, a bit like saying Everton Liverpool. I would contend that it is better to educate our readers by using the proper form, particularly as it is wikilinked. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinkladze's former international team-mate → Kinkladze's former Georgia national teammate (only my own opinion, can be ignored)
  • I would recommend to title the last paragraph of Rubin Kazan section under "Post-retirement"
  • Also, shouldn't there be a section about his International career?
  • A small section about his personal life wouldn't hurt

If you have any question, please let me know. I'll try to contribute to the article myself as well if necessary. --Yerevanci (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While writing the article I considered the possibility of both a separate personal life section and separate international career section but in each case decided against it. In the case of personal life, there is little in the public domain beyond what is already in the article, so the result would be a small stubby section, or the messy chronology that would result from tacking events later in his life to the current "Early life" section. Likewise, a "post-retirement" section would only be two sentences due to paucity of available sources.
His international career was a tougher call. Much of his international career was intertwined with his club career, this made me decide that the narrative of the article would be better served by including significant international matches as they occurred chronologically. Early on it was the Moldova match that piqued the interest of scouts in other countries, then the Wales games that alerted British clubs and press to his talent. Later his international involvement generally depended on how frequently he was playing at club level. Another factor was that Kinkladze never played in a major tournament, and for most of his career Georgia only won one or two competitive matches a year. The exception was Euro 96 qualifying where Georgia were third; Kinkladze's most notable matches in this period are covered in Early career. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [31].

Arsène Wenger edit

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Arsène who?' This article documents the rise of an ‘unheard-of’ Frenchman, who has arguably become one of the most influential managers in modern football. He made a domestic name for himself managing Monaco, fine-tuned his skills in Japan and became the first foreign manager appointed at Arsenal, where he will be entering his 16th year this October. Wenger does not hold an array of trophies like a Ferguson or Mourinho but his ability to produce stylish football and spend sensibly has earned him plaudits. I believe this article is ready for a crack at FA (my first nomination here), given it has passed a thorough GA, been through two PR’s and I have attempted to extract as much useful info as possible. Comments, critique, et al is welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Why are 'single quotes' used sometimes but "double quotes" other times?
Think I've sorted that out now
  • First sentence: I think you should give primacy to "manager of English Premier League side Arsenal."
Have done
  • Lead: second para is huge.
I decided to split a chunk of it into two, his achievements at Arsenal probably merit a standalone paragraph.
  • "net transfer record" - is that a commonly used term? I haven't heard as a fan, and I wonder if non-fans reading this article will be understand the term without a short explanation in the lead. (it's better in the article body)
Removed
  • Early life and playing career: mention the Second World War + I think a few more war-related links can be made.
  • "He made the first team at age 16" - looong sentence.
Split into two
  • Eleven, twelve, but 16.
1 to 10 numbered, 11 onwards spelt
  • Not sure why but I find his playing career very confusing. Will elaborate/copy-edit it soon.
  • Double-check throughout for vagueness—"the club's sporting director" - which club? "Platini in later years" - Aldo? It's a bit unclear because his son is the famous one, and is linked too.
Addressed
  • "losing the same number of matches" - losing six matches or losing the same number as Bordeaux? (and why is this worthy of mention either way?)
  • Doesn't Coupe de France need to be clarified as France's domestic knockout cup tournament?
Have clarified in the main body
  • "whom he had met during the 1993 match-fixing scandal" - how exactly do you meet someone during a scandal?
Rephrased
  • "Several English players have started their careers at Arsenal under Wenger, including Cole, David Bentley, Steve Sidwell, Jermaine Pennant and Matthew Upson while young English talent such as Theo Walcott, Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere are still building careers at the club." - source?
Added two sources, one for the players previously at Arsenal (and Walcott), another for the latter two.
  • Don't see how Pardew's Swedish wife is relevant at all. I think you can end that exchange at "passports."
Have done
  • Can the very-large "Arsenal: 1996–present" section be split in two?
Split from 1996–2003 and 2003–
  • "The Arsenal defence, which set a new record" - which year?
2006, added now
  • "Wenger's early Arsenal sides were criticised for their indiscipline, receiving 72 red cards between September 1996 and February 2008." - why justify criticism of "early Arsenal" with a stat that goes to 2008? And how does this stat compare to other clubs? Also, is The Daily Mail a reliable source for football criticism?
Have replaced Daily Mail with a Times match report in October 2010. Between then and Wenger's arrival at the club, Arsenal recieved 80 red cards. The red card tally is a staggering amount. Arsenal captain Vieira was sent off twice in two consecutive matches, Jens Lehmann and José Antonio Reyes dismissed in consecutive finals. In his defence, he joined a club notorious for disciplinary problems. Journalists would not compare his red card situation with other managers because the others haven't been in their jobs for so long (only Ferguson stands up against him in terms of longevity).
  • Haven't any biographies of the man been written yet?—indopug (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been numerous: The Professor by Myles Palmer, another written by Xavier Rivoire, Jasper Rees' Wenger: The Making of a Legend. Each have been cited in the article in some form or another. While all narrate his life story very well, I relied on extracting the bulk of information from newspaper articles. Many quotes from Palmer's book on Wenger for instance were taken from Evening Standard/Daily Mirror interviews. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The semi-colon before "though they have won awards for sporting fair play" should probably be a regular comma instead. Minor, but important not to have glitches like that in the lead.
Removed
  • Early life and playing career: "and was appointed the coach of the RC Strasbourg's youth team." Don't think second "the" is helping anything here.
Removed
  • Nancy and Monaco: Given that there's a Ligue 1 link in the next-to-last sentence of the prior section, I doubt we need another one here.
Removed link
  • Same goes for an RC Strasbourg repeat link.
Done
  • 1996–2003: Tell me if you can spot the error here: "including the controversial arrival of Tottenham Hotpsur defender and captain Sol Campbell on a free transfer...".
Fixed spelling error
  • 2003–present: "A run of three consecutive draws in March ensured first Manchester United...". Feels like "for" should be in there.
Added
  • As a general comment from the half or so of the article that I've read, the punctuation is rather odd in places. There are a few areas where stray punctuation appears, and many more that appear under-punctuated. I hate to give the generic advice to get a copy-edit, but I think that's the best course of action. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've had a crack copyediting the punctuation style myself, given I'm not sure who I could ask to give a quick copyedit at such short notice. I'm not using the serial comma format, so commas before 'and' are omitted, unless between adjectives. Did notice that conjunctions were underpunctuated. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Team indiscipline and fair play: "to allow Sheffield United's Lee Morris receive treatment for an injury." Is "to" missing before "receive"?
  • Relations with others: "after he found guilty over communicating with Arsenal's bench". "was" is definitely missing from this bit.
  • Plaudits and awards: Billy Beane is a general manager, not manager. He's never been the actual on-field manager. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have corrected all points. Thanks once more. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sourcing: I have not read the article beyond a quick glance, but I am a little concerned by two related points: a heavy reliance on press sources, rather than longer-term considered views, and the above comment that there are "numerous" biographies that have not been consulted. I am not convinced that press coverage of the books is sufficient to claim that the books have been cited. For FA level work, consulting such print sources is crucial, and I would require some convincing that this article could meet criteria 1b and, in particular, 1c. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All three books have been cited, where appropriate in this article. Palmer's for his early life and education, Rivoire's for his stint at Monaco and Rees' for his Japanese book. I haven't placed a bibliography section, as all books are cited in a unison fashion on the advice of a GA review. What I meant in my earlier point is that with the autobiographies, I found not much information to construe out of them. Wenger is a very private individual and as with many autobiographies, they rely on first hand accounts with friends and family to learn about him. When researching about his family life in order to beef the section up, none of the books had anything new to share. So I consulted newspaper archives and found a David Bond interview with his parents in the Evening Standard, the only one they did for the British press. The Mirror did a series of interviews with Max Hild, his mentor, which later served the basis for Palmer's book. The Times ran an exclusive in August 2004, uncovering his father being conscripted into the German army. The books were written at a time when Wenger was successful, fast forward five years and he is at a crossroads. So you don't get a real overview, hence why comment pieces from sports journalists are used to cite his failings. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine as far as I'm concerned and you obviously have consulted the sources, which was my main concern. No problem at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment From a quick read, the article is looking impressive, but I noticed one surprising omission: there's no mention that before Wenger, Arsenal had a dour reputation ("Boring Boring Arsenal") that went back many years, but Wenger completely transformed the style of play, and with it, the club's reputation. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit on it in the plaudits section, as I would think it would look lost anywhere else. Cheers, Lemonade51 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of issues on sourcing before I support:
    • I don't think a self-contradictory article in The Sun is enough to support the statement that the Anelka transfer contributed to the funding of the training centre – the source implies that the £23.5m transfer funded £24.2m of purchases and contributed to the training centre.
Have added an Evening Standard article, which states "After all, the club already have a monument to remember Anelka by. It's called London Colney - the training ground built with the profits of his sale."
    • Should we be using an Amazon listing as a source for book publication data? Oldelpaso (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat could be an alternative, but Amazon is the only site I can find to state the date/year of publication. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support either way, but I'll leave this one open in case anyone else wishes to comment. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've read down to the end of Nagoya Grampus Eight so far, and it looks pretty good. I've made several copy-edits so far, but feel free to revert any or all if they don't work or you don't like them. Hopefully more to follow in the next few days. Here are some specific points/queries. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Wenger is credited for revolutionising football in England in the late 1990s…": Either credited with, or perhaps a little better, "is given credit for".
Used the latter suggestion
  • "Wenger obtained his manager diploma in 1981": Either "manager's" or "managerial".
Corrected to "manager's"
  • Given that he spent most of his career at Arsenal, I might expect a little more in the lead on his time at the club. The lead feels a little light in general.
Have added more as requested and up to the present day.
  • "Wenger became the only manager in Premier League history to go through an entire season undefeated": Surely the team, not Wenger, were undefeated? Also, this is a little misleading. Was it not also achieved in the dim and distant past, long before the Premier League was the top flight?
Ah yes, corrected.
  • "a run which ended at 49 matches": The rest of the sentence is about an undefeated season. How can this end? Maybe better to say "and the team were not defeated for 49 matches".
Fixed and split this to two sentences.
  • Date in lead for the move to the Emirates?
Have added → 'August 2006'
  • "along with his older sister and brother, Guy.": Who is older? One or both? Do we have a name for his sister? If not, I may be inclined to leave out the brother's name.
Removed brother's name, given his sister's has not been publicised.
  • The kibbutz quote and "at about the age of six" both look like Wenger said them, but neither ref is by him. Could it be clarified in the text whose words these are?
The latter quote is from his father, and I have stated that now. As for the kibbutz one, it's from Wenger but I'm not sure how to clarify it. Help?! (Found the article for it)
  • Note a: Is it correct to say he played in a variety of positions, or are the sources simply unclear?
I guess the sources are contradictory. Have added in the infobox that his position is 'Uncertain' but feel free to change.
  • "Staying on as an amateur…" Staying on where? The previous sentence is about his university.
Removed
  • "Primorac remained Wenger's 'right-hand man' for years to come": Why the quotes, and why single quotes? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed quote marks. Thanks for your review.

More comments: Read to the end of Managerial Career now, copy-edits continued as well.

  • "but he did have direct input in the team's defeat to Borussia Mönchengladbach in the UEFA Cup, suggesting "one or two changes" to caretaker manager Pat Rice...": For this to make sense in context, a date for the match should be given to compare to his appointment.
Date added
  • "Arsenal finished third in Wenger's first season, missing out on second place (occupied by Newcastle United), and hence Champions League qualification on goal difference": Goal difference needs to be linked or explained. Or ideally, both.
Wikilinked and explained
  • "The success was built on the inherited defence": I think this may need explaining more clearly: i. e. he had not signed the defenders, and the defence was already pretty good.
Explained that it was assembled by former manager George Graham
  • Is "flourished" (in discussion of his new signings) a touch POV?
Reworded to 'profited'
  • "Wenger made no fewer than six signings in the summer, including the controversial arrival of Tottenham Hotspur defender and captain Sol Campbell on a free transfer[61] and midfielder Giovanni van Bronckhorst from Rangers, as a replacement for Petit.": A few things here. First, why "no fewer than"? This does not seem an especially large number. Why was Campbell's signing controversial? Many (but not all) English readers will know of the Spurs-Arsenal rivalry, but others may struggle and this should be made clearer. And "as a replacement for Petit": this is the first we hear of Petit leaving.
Have added that he moved from local rivals, wikilinking the North London derby. Bit on Petit and Overmars moving to Barca added now.
  • "who threw away a two-goal lead": A bit tabloid-y?
Fixed
  • "The team enjoyed another relatively strong league campaign...": Perhaps make it clear this is now referring to the season following their unbeaten one?
Added season now
  • "In the summer of 2006, Arsenal relocated to the Emirates Stadium, which Wenger said was "vital" to the club's future, in order to compete at the top level.": Why was this? It may not be immediately obvious to everyone.
Clarified
  • "ultimately came up short": Tabloidese.
Fixed
  • "In spite of going 21 matches without defeat in all competitions, securing fourth position in the league and reaching the semi-finals of the Champions League and FA Cup, Wenger was subject to open criticism from Arsenal fans – something he alluded to as "like being a murderer".": A horribly long sentence! Needs splitting somewhere.
Split to two sentences now
  • It is probable that this is mentioned in the sections I have not yet read, but it may be worth briefly mentioning the impact of some of his signings in the overview of Arsenal's seasons, and maybe a little more about the controversy and impact of selling the better players on the team.

More to follow, looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next comments: Read first four paragraphs of Approach and Philosophy. A few concerns over sourcing here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wenger has been described as a coach who "has spent his career building teams that combine the accumulation of silverware with a desire to entertain and attack", and as "a purist, dedicated to individual and collective technical quality".: These quotes require in-text attribution.
Done
Not done: in-text attribution needs "described by X as..." Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, hopefully done now.
  • "His style of play has been contrasted with the pragmatic approach of his rivals, but he has assembled teams to produce disciplined performances, markedly the 2005 FA Cup Final against Manchester United.": A few problems here: who has contrasted his approach? The link to the Syed column just goes to the Arsenal section of the Times website, and I'm not convinced that the latter part of the sentence is supported by the refs. The Syed ref makes the contrast in styles, but the other ref is a match report to the FA Cup final. Who is saying that he is capable of disciplined performances? This looks a little like synthesis here. We need a source which says something along the lines of his teams were attacking but could defend on occasion, such as the FA cup match. Not just link to the match.
After some digging, have found one from The Times in March 2010
  • "Although Wenger for a number of years employed a 4–4–2 formation, since 2005, he has often relied on 4–5–1 with a lone striker and packed midfield": The ref does not support the 4-4-2 formation, and a match preview from 2006 cannot be used to say that he has used this formation since 2005.
Been specific and rephrased to Champions League matches in the 2005–06 season, which is now cited.
  • "Beginning with the 2009–10 season, largely due to the development of Fàbregas, Wenger has instituted a fluid 4–3–3 formation at Arsenal, with the front five attackers changing positions freely during the match": Not reflected in the source. The source previews the 2009-10 season, and cannot possibly justify the sentence as given. And it does not really mention the development of Fabregas.
Have added a match report focusing on Cesc's role, removed the bit about 'changing positions freely' as it isn't accurate.
This now works better with the ref, but "Beginning with the 2009–10 season, largely due to the development of Fàbregas, Wenger has instituted a fluid 4–3–3 formation at Arsenal." is not quite reflected in the source, which suggests Fabregas benefited from the change rather than caused it. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked language
  • "The team, as a result have been criticised for lacking a "killer touch", being one-dimensional and want[ing] to score a 'nice' goal as opposed to shooting.": Is this a quote or not? If not, why "want[ing]"?
"want[ing] to score a 'nice' goal" should have been quoted, corrected now
As above, requires in text attribution ("criticised by X") Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done now hopefully
  • The "losing his cool" paragraph has a slightly random appearance. Again, instead of choosing one-off incidents, I think it needs a source which says "in recent years, he has lost his cool, for example X, Y and Z."
Decided to remove one-off incidents and chose to summarise his touchline antics being likened to Basil Fawlty, cited of course.
This sort of works (I'm not sure how appropriate Basil is as a comparison, but never mind!), but I think you have the wrong source. The one cited does not mention Fawlty or Wenger's "antics". Did you mean this one?. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, used this one now.
  • As a general comment here, it may be an idea to go over the article and make sure that the sources are saying what the article is saying, and that there is no synthesis going on. I am slightly concerned at finding 3 sourcing issues here and one or two instances of possible synthesis. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will certainly do so. The majority of this section had been rewritten after the GA review, which meant certain sources became redundant and as I did not have much access to archives, it all became a bit messy. Thanks once more for taking the time to review. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More: Apart from the new problems above, a few more sourcing issues. Most of the rest looks OK down to the end of "Approach and philosophy". Sarastro1 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In England, Wenger is regarded for underlining the importance of diet and nutrition in football. He cited the culture of the country being at the root of the problem, adding "It's silly to work hard the whole week and then spoil it by not preparing properly before the game. As a coach you can influence the diet of your players. You can point out what is wrong."" This is cited to a 1996 newspaper article. How can this reference the idea that he is admired for his stance towards diet given that it comes from the start of his career?
Cited the first sentence. Rephrased the second to make it clear Wenger said that when he first joined the club.
  • "The innovations had a desirable effect on the team as it prolonged the careers of players over the age of 30.": The source does not say this at all. It comments that Wenger believed players were finished at 30, and several players proved him wrong. It then goes on to list his innovations.
Answered
  • "Regardless, Wenger has been able to sell his players at a higher cost": Not sure what this means here.
Removed, given it is a tad inaccurate. Young players at Arsenal are generally on good wages, so it has become difficult to shift them in recent seasons. If they do leave with and are sold for a profit, it's usually marginal. The better players leaving every summer has become a bigger concern.
  • Team indiscipline and fair play: A little too defensive here perhaps? An opinion is given and then shot down, but many would probably agree on the indiscipline. Also, has Wenger not also been criticised for always defending a player who was sent off, or claiming not to have seen it. On the other hand, most managers do this, so unless a source specifically singles him out, this may not be possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I see this is covered in the next section. Not a big deal, but possibly it would be better here than later, but feel free to disagree. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it as suggested

Final comments: I've read to the end of the article now, and while there are still a few issues to be ironed out, it looks good. I'm a little confused over the structure at the end, though. Surely combining the praise and criticism into one section would make the article a little more balanced at the end? Not a huge issue overall, though. When the final issues are addressed, I'll have a last read through. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to think of ways of how I could do this. Lazily merged the praise and critic sections in my sandbox, which looks a tad lengthy when you exclude the indiscipline and foreigner bits. Of course it could be shorten, but I do think how the article currently is, works well. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with copy-editing disclaimer: I've copy-edited this article fairly heavily, but I'm happy to support. There are parts of the prose which could still be smoothed (this was the main focus of my copy-editing) but I think it meets the criteria. The content and balance is very good, and while I wonder if parts of it are a little too friendly towards Wenger, I have no doubts that it is balanced and does not contain any POV. My only reservation is that further spot-checks may be needed: I found a few issues earlier (none since then, however) and it may be worth another editor taking a look at the sourcing. A good piece of work on a subject who I suspect is not easy to research or write about. Just one last point below. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The war left the community "mentally scarred," with those choosing to rebel being subjected to "threats about what they would do to your parents."[7]": Just wondering if this is needed at all? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the sentence. Thanks once more for your thorough review. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments An image review and spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Journalists give Wenger credit for revolutionising football in England in the late 1990s, primarily through the introduction of changes in the training and diet of players while implementing a philosophy of entertaining football on the pitch.
Nobody can "implement a philosophy of entertaining football on the pitch.
Do you mean that he sought to implement a philosophy that football, on the pitch, ought to be entertaining?
  • Born in Strasbourg and subsequently raised in Duttlenheim, Wenger was introduced to football by his father.
Two problems here.
  1. Don't presume that I (or anyone else) know where Strasbourg is. One of the interesting facts about this man is that he wasn't born in the UK. State the country, preferably in the first paragraph.
  2. Born in Strasbourg and subsequently raised in Duttlenheim, Wenger was introduced to football by his father.
Stringing together unrelated ideas doesn't work, meaning-wise, and doesn't read well. Wenger's place of birth has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that his father introduced him to football. The two statements belong in different sentences. Actually, unless you mention the fact that his father had some connection, any connection, with the sport, then the fact that his father introduced him to it, Doesn't need to be in the intro. Does it mean that his dad watched a lot of footy on TV, or does it mean that he coached the Duttlenheim Warriors to glory against Barcelona?

Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe I have addressed both parts now. Thanks for your comments. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:14, 3 September 2012 [32].

.hack (video game series) edit

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year and a half since the previous FAC. In the intervening time, the article passed GA. I believe it is ready to become a featured article. This article is unique because it discusses a series of four games as if they were one, which is true in a sense. As such, it features the infobox for a single game (because the VG series infobox is missing some relevant parameters) but a review box for a game series (to show review trends across releases). The development section, a sticking point of the previous nomination, is more than double the size it was before the 2nd nom and I believe it represents everything that the internet has to offer about the subject. I merged a stub article on .hack//fragment to this article because I think it is properly part of this series: it features an identical game engine, graphics, story, and gameplay, but with some online components. If there are any other editorial decisions that seem confusing about the article, please feel free to ask. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced theotaku and MusicBrainz. RPGFan is reliable, per linked discussions at WP:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
  • File:Logo dotHack.svg is clear PD-simple in the US. However, it's not only the uploader's work (company should be credited)
File:Dothack gameplay.jpg could be downsized a bit (300px * w.e.) to be safe. Also, the FUR could use a bit more clarification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did what you asked wrt the PD logo? I also reduced the size of the second image. What exactly are you asking to be clarified in the FUR? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified the logo a bit, although I'm concerned as the official website doesn't have "dot" in the dot (i.e. not like the vector version).
A bit more clarification of the purpose of the screenshot would be useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "dot" appears on the cover art of the games (e.g. [33]) but I don't see it on the website at the moment. I expanded the description in the FUR to explain the different gameplay elements that the screenshot shows. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support As someone who knows nothing about the series, I was able to follow what was written in the article fine. I didn't find any notable issues, though some parts seem like a game guide at times. I'll support this article for FA unless other editors are able to find issues with the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. What part felt like a game guide to you? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good article, and am glad it's in good shape, as I played the games a bit. :) Obvious support. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support — Sorry for the delay. It's mostly good, here are my thoughts on remaining issues:
    • "However, this power also increases the level of infection of Kite's player character, randomly causing harmful side effects. The infection can be cured by defeating monsters normally." — source for this?
    • Meeting BlackRose at the Chaos Gate... -- What is the Chaos Gate? Is it really important to mention what it is?
    • The one section that needs restructuring to me is the reception section; it reads as a laundry list, rather than a summation of critical comments for the series. You could either treat them as a whole, or go through each game, but listing each reviewer's thoughts for each game, one after the other, has got to go.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Working... Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've fixed all of the above except for the Reception section, which I'll need a little more time and brainpower to reorganize and draw in more sources. Working... Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for your patience, David. I had to take a break from Wikipedia due to work. I hope you find the new reception section more readable. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
  • Considering this isn't that big of an article, and we're neighbours, I'll take a look at prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without requiring the player to connect to the Internet." - if the MMORPG is not real, this is rather confusing. Perhaps "which does not require..."
  • "as a result of The World" - your phrasing in the article body is better, "result of playing The World"
  • "a fellow newbie" - You didn't say Kite is a newbie, just an average player
  • "Their teamwork destroys Fidchell " - Which is? And Gorre?
  • Fix the citation needed tags
  • (such as Wavemaster, Twin Blade, etc.) - Do we need the "etc." there?
  • Not many issues. I did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the CE and review. I think I addressed all of these points. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Looks reasonably well written, fairly easy to follow, and interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I see there's been at least a couple of supports and I actually went to the article to do source-checks and thus help it along; but just giving it a once over I have to beg to differ:
  • The reception section - which I think would be on the short side for a single, old game - is way too skimpy for a whole series of recent titles. And the gameplay and particularly plot sections are vast in comparison. As it stands, I don't believe this article fulfils the basic expectation that it focus on real world coverage and at the least is sorely lopsided towards in-game discussion.
  • Looking at the other sections: The ".hack//frägment" starts promisingly but turns out to largely discus the mechanics. The music section is good in terms of introducing critical commentary to the article, but this isn't enough to redress the imbalance. On the contrary, one questions why the soundtrack album's reception is proportionately large compared to that of the games. Ditto that the section on the spin-off .hack//frägment appears to be about as long as the reception section.
  • And I'm not sold on the style as being of a professional standard:
  • Someone disliked the reception section's "laundry list" of one-liners format, and I'd probably concur at least regarding the latter part (it, that is the reception section, does start quite nicely in terms of prose at least). I think this format can work (I've managed it I think... ahem) if dealing with sources short on actual critical commentary (old console print magazines for example) but I'm sceptical that this would be the case here.
  • Since I'm whining about the plot section... Take for example: "In the first dungeon they visit, they encounter a girl in white being chased by a monster with a red wand." Is it important that the girl is in white? That the monster has a wand? That the wand is red? Are these details necessary to understand the gist of the story?
    • Of course it's not important, but "they encounter a girl being chased by a monster" is literally the most generic sentence ever. I also specify "girl in white" to refer back to her in the next paragraph. These details aren't critical to understanding the story, but without them, the reader cannot generate an image of what's going on in his/her head because there's no imagery in the text. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And sentences like: "He meets BlackRose and they go to a cathedral area where they are attacked by a powerful monster" I think are taking "simple, clear and readable" into children's storybook territory. It's subjective, but for my money the prose in the plot section is some way from a professional standard. Some redundant and/or possibly editorialising adjectives ("powerful monster", "mysterious encryption") and more prevalently and-then-and-then detail, in addition to the generally insipid style.
    • I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. Would you prefer "He meets BlackRose and they go to a special area called Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground where they are attacked by a high-level Headhunter monster"? The monster must be powerful, or else it wouldn't be a thread. The encryption must be mysterious, or else they would just hack it. I'm only half-kidding since I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say "professional standard". Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That illustrates my point: "monster" already indicates something frightening and powerful, so "powerful monster" is redundant (one might feel the need to clarify if they were attacked by a tiny weakling monster). By "professional standard" I'm referring to point one of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, that the article's prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Forgetting about "brilliant", the prose is - IMHO - neither engaging nor of a professional standard. In the plot section it's too insipid (as I put it) or generic (as you put it) and just adding more descriptive detail makes it worse, not better. It's just too "They do this. And then they go here. And then they do this". The examples I gave were just examples, I'm pressed for time at the moment, but here's a couple of pointers (ultimately though, my advice has to be rewrite it so that it's both "engaging" and "professional"):
  • In the first dungeon they visit, they encounter a girl in white being chased by a monster with a red wand. The girl attempts to entrust an item to Orca but the monster attacks him and The World's servers crash. Kite discovers that Orca has fallen into a coma following the attack and resolves to discover why.[18] He meets BlackRose and they go to a cathedral area where they are attacked by a powerful monster. monster, monster, monster (and 2 further times before the end of the paragraph). Why "cathedral area", and not "cathedral" or whatever is meant by that? Lack of clarity: Is "...and The World's servers crash" co-incidental or caused by the monster attack?
  • Server instability aborts a planning meeting at the start of .hack//Quarantine. I don't think this makes sense. The instability must cause someone to abort the meeting.
  • "even more powerful than before", again stretching detached and descriptive.
  • Another big issue is that the the plot section is written almost entirely in-universe, which is doubly confusing because some of it takes place within a game, within the game (yo, we put an in-universe style in your in-universe style, so you can be confused while you're confused). Trying to figure out whether Harald Hoerwick and Emma Wielant are real people, whether stuff is happening to characters or characters' characters is confusing (examples again). bridies (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minor style points I noticed which I may as well point out: "team up" (bit too informal), "which they escape from." (prefer "from which they escape." /pedant) and in the lead: "the lengths it goes to preserve suspension of disbelief", which I'm pretty sure should be ""the lengths it goes to, to preserve suspension of disbelief" (ungainly and would need changed in turn). bridies (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the gist of your oppose is that the reception section is too short in comparison to the rest of the article, a comment made by David Fuchs above. I wrote this article in 2010 and haven't really touched it since and I agree that the reception section was a little too trim. As such, I rewrote the section, bringing in almost 30 new sources. I hope that addresses some of the imbalance in the article. I've tried to address your other points about the plot section as well, and have responded to some comments directly, above. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:09, 3 September 2012 [34].

Elizabeth of Bosnia edit

Nominator(s): Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've been improving it step by step for three years now and, if nothing else, I'd like to be told what else should be done to improve it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing clear; I think that whether or not Croatia has freedom of panorama (and has a suitable definition of 3D or whatever), the plain text in File:Street of Elizabeth Kotromanic in Zadar.JPG would not attract copyright. Others certainly fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Kellog or Kellogg?
  • Missing bibliographic info for Jasienica
  • Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
  • Use endashes for ranges
  • Fine or Van Antwerp Fine?
  • No citations to Klaić, Labuda et al, Mosher Stuard, Opfell, Tomašević et al
  • Parsons: ISBN? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I think. There were no citations to the mentioned authors because I had revamped the article using other sources, so I removed them from bibliography. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "(see family tree)": I don't have a position, I just want to point this out. Normally, we avoid "see ..." at FAC; instead, a link is added to text that sounds natural in context, perhaps: "Both were descendants of Duke Casimir I of Kuyavia, related in the fourth degree ...". But I don't know of a prohibition on ever saying "see ..." at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with France and Hungary recognising different popes, Clement VII and Urban VI respectively": with France recognising Clement VII as pope and Hungary recognising Urban VI. (Avoid "respectively" if it's easy to do so.)
  • "misestimated": not in several dictionaries I checked; try another word.
  • "toward/towards": consistency. BritEng has a slight preference for "-wards".
  • "but was neither talented nor qualified to prepare Mary and Hedwig for their roles as monarchs": I don't understand what "[not] talented ... to prepare" means.
  • "Crown of St. Stephen": consistency on the full stop/period after "St" - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Talented" means "politically talented", so I made that clear. I agree about the family tree link, actually, and that's how I intended to pipe it. However, I was not sure if it would be considered an Easter egg link. I'll gladly change it. I've corrected everything else. I hope it's better now. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) I enjoyed the article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (still reviewing) - interesting topic, looks comprehensive and well-sourced at first glance. Reading through the first three sections showed some issues with clarity and essay-ish phrases, which seem to continue throughout the article. Comments for first half up until Marriage:

  • Lead - "... and was her father's most significant achievement." ==> Several problems: Elizabeth, not her father, is the article focus; it's a quite strong, judging statement (source?) and it is not repeated in main text (lead is a summary, so all its statements need to be expanded on in the main text, or atleast repeated similarly).
  • "The royal couple [went on to have] two more children, Mary and Hedwig, while Catherine died in 1378..." ==> improve flow and clarity of timeline, maybe "The royal couple had two more children, Mary (b. 1371) and Hedwig (b. 1373 or 1374), but their eldest daughter, Catherine, died in 1378."
  • "When Louis [himself] died in 1382, [the elder surviving daughter,] Mary, ascended to the throne of Hungary, ..." ==>"When Ludwig died in 1382, Mary ascended to the throne of Hungary,..." (order of succession is already established in last sentence and "himself" is redundant).
  • Content of second lead para ==> you should add a few more details: who opposed? why? who were the "enemies" finally defeating her? Not the whole story is needed, but some more general background information to establish the context.
  • Descent ==> why are 1350 (2nd para) and 1349 (3rd para) events in reverse order?
  • "In 1350, Tsar Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia attacked Bosnia in order to regain [ ] Zachlumia." ==> not wrong, but adding "his former province" would add some clarity (maybe it's even worthwhile to mention, that the province was previously lost to Stephen II? Not sure about that.)
  • Marriage - "Louis married Elizabeth in Buda on 20 June 1353, hoping to defeat Tsar Dušan with her father's help [or as his successor]." ==> "or as his successor" is non-parallel and "his" is ambiguous. Maybe "either with her father's help or as his eventual successor to the Bosnian throne." to clarify the structure a bit.
  • "... [and became a new source of trouble.]" ==> too informal and adds nothing new (the reader already knows, that he beat Louis to the throne. If there was additional trouble (?), it should be specified in detail).
  • "In 1357, Louis [summoned] the young ban ..." ==> "Summoned" implies some kind of authority - would "invited" be more fitting?
  • "The new queen of Hungary subjected herself entirely to her controlling mother-in-law [and does not seem to have had her own court, as] her retinue included the same individuals who had served the queen mother. " ==> sounds speculative (and in editorial voice), the sentence would read better without the middle part.
  • "However, things suddenly took a different course ..." ==> Avoid terms like "however" or "also", when they are not really needed. When the contrast is already clear in its context, "however" is just filler. Maybe "This provisional arrangement ended, when the queen ...".
  • "Securing marriage to one of the princesses soon became a priority [of] European royal courts." ==> "in European royal courts".
  • "It appeared probable that the crowns would pass to one of Elizabeth's underage daughters and, by 1374, it became certain." ==> probable to whom? certain to whom? how did it became certain? The situation should not be analyzed by the article on its own, so a reliable source for this assessment needs to be attributed (if ref 21 covers this analysis aswell, please duplicate the ref behind the related statements).

I can do a check of the remaining sections during the next weekend and copy edit some minor points. GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GermanJoe. The first issue had already been pointed out by another user so I guess it is a genuine problem. I'm removing the contentious claim altogether. The word "summoned" correctly implies authority, as Tvrtko and Stephen were vassals of Louis. As for her relationship with her mother-in-law, the latter part of the sentence ("her retinue included...") doesn't make sense if the lack of her own court isn't mentioned. Since presiding over a court was a privilege of queens consort that marked them as first ladies of the realm, I reworded it. I hope the impression of speculation is gone now. Ref 21 does cover the analysis as well, so I've duplicated it. It does not specify who found it probable or certain, most likely because it was the general feeling at the time - it was becoming less and less likely that the couple would have a son and Louis was paving the way for the accession of his daughters. Is it alright to leave it as it is or should it be reworded? I've fixed other issues. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my above points Done, thank you. I am not completely happy with the last point, but on the other hand i have no good idea to improve the description without going into too much detail. Dropping that minor point, unless someone else has a great idea. GermanJoe (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (Poland-themed article, reviewing for WP:POLAND):
  • I would like to see her Hungarian and Polish names in lead.
  • I don't believe the article links to Poland. I think this should be remedied, presumably through the more correct link to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)
  • "until 1370, when Louis succeeded his maternal uncle, Casimir III the Great, as king of Poland". Polish Wikipedia lists a concrete date, 17 November, and names a specific treaty, red-linked "układ budziński". I think we should do the same, provided of course a proper reference, and an English name for the treaty (Treaty of Buda?).
  • Links to Poland and Hungary added. The problem with the names is that it wouldn't be only Hungarian and Polish names in the lead; the Bosnian name would have to be there as well. Since Bosnian language uses both Latin and Cyrilic script, that would mean four non-English versions of her name before explaining who she actually was, which is rather silly. Adding a footnote with her names would be much more convenient. As for the Treaty of Buda, I think "when Louis succeeded his maternal uncle" would be best - if there are sources that confirm the existence of such a treaty, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A footnote would be fine. Regarding the treaty of Buda, it is from 1355, also known as privilege of Buda. I see numerous sources for "Treaty of Buda" 1355 on GBooks so you should not have much trouble verifying this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the pipe " Vladislaus the Short" used instead of the article's name at Władysław I the Elbow-high? (also, Vladislaus is used later, so ensure consistency)
  • I think king of Poland is no ilinked on first use.
  • "the Polish nobles" should probably link to Polish nobility. Further, I think this is a bit too general of a term. Which nobles? I expect the sources should name them (the leaders of the faction).
  • "Palatine Nicholas I Garay led the movement". What movement? Did it have a name? Is it notable enough to warrant a link?
  • I am uneasy as upon closer reading I see the article often relies on end of the para references (ex. first para of Widowhood and regency).
  • "her regency in Poland was discontinued". In addition to this sentence being unreferenced, I am not very clear on this meaning, please explain (what does it mean discontinued, and by whom?).
  • "Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania". Grand Duke of Lithuania should be linked.
  • "Modern historians tend to describe...". Is this how the Parsons put it? Does he talk of other historians?
    • There doesn't seem to be a fixed consensus here; I can say that, when you get an objection which is more or less per WP:WEASEL, simply giving the name of the historian or historians generally makes everyone happy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two see also links. They should be incorporated into the text, I don't see why they couldn't be.
  • A final comment I have here is that the article may be suffering from avoidance of red links. For example, I see the mention of the Polish-Hungarian personal union, but it is not linked. Sure, it has no article on en wiki yet, but it has one on pl wiki: pl:Unia polsko-węgierska. For now, this and the Treaty of Buda seem to be the only red links that I can think off, but you may want to see if anything comes to mind. Red is good. (Stubbing, of course, is even better...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. "Vladislaus" is used because the source called him Vladislaus, and also for consistency with other Polish kings (Casimir and Louis) and his Bosnian namesake. The source does not name the nobles; in fact, I've just checked several others and all refer to either "Polish nobles" or "Polish lords". I can only assumes it refers to the szlachta as a political body. The movement is described earlier in the paragraph - "change in the personnel of the government". Thank you for pointing out the sentence about the regency in Poland; it was the only sentence that survived my revamping of the article ([35]). I've removed it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I struck issues that have been addressed. Waiting for the name note, and for replies on other issues. I believe that in the Polish context Vladislaus is wrong; please use the name that the article has. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, I'm not sure this is right. We're talking about Vladislaus of Bosnia, right? If there's a different name or spelling in Polish articles, why not list both names at first occurrence, and if there is a second occurrence, go with whatever name is most appropriate for these sources and this article? - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (second half), section "marriage" and following:

  • Marriage - "Elizabeth is known to have written a book for the education of her daughters, a copy of which was sent to France in 1374." ==> Just curious, why a copy to France? Any known detail?
  • Widowhood - "John asked Tvrtko for help, but was ultimately defeated by Elizabeth's army and forced to flee to Bosnia." ==> Did Tvrtko agree to help or not? If he agreed and allied with John, what happened with Tvrtko after the defeat?
  • "The marriage would be celebrated in 1386." ==> more straightforward: "The marriage of Hedwig and Jogeila was celebrated in 1386." Also, the linked Hedwig article notes "March 1385" as her wedding date - which one is correct? (1386 sounds more likely, the marriage took place after the Union of Krevo).
  • ''Death and aftermath - "Charles's widow Margaret insisted that Elizabeth [be murdered]." ==> "be killed" (without trial) or "be executed" (after trial). "be murdered" would imply an unlawful killing. As there was some kind of back and forth rebellion going on, it's probably best not to take a side (unless reliable, neutral sources say otherwise of course) (NPOV).
  • Sigismund's rescue actions appear confusing, atleast for me: First he "intents to reach Novigrad and rescue the queens, [but his attempt failed]", then "news of Sigismund's approach reached Novigrad", then the text adds "At the moment of her death, Sigismund was on his way to rescue his wife and mother-in-law" ==> "but his attempt failed" should be stated near the end of this narrative to provide a chronological timeline (assuming all 3 statements relate to the same attempt).
  • image caption of assault: "Garay was slaughtered by the rebels ..." - do neutral sources speak of an especially brutal assault? Otherwise the caption should use "killed" (NPOV)
  • image caption part 2 "...and his head was sent to the queen of Naples." - out of curiosity, why? (probably shows, that i didn't get the whole picture yet).
  • Legacy - "Modern historians tend to describe Elizabeth as a formidable woman, ..." - "formidable" is ok as a summary judgement, but could be specified with more details of her character (if reliable sources provide such detail).
  • Family Tree ==> a brief footnote, why Mary and Hedwig are considered "kings" would be helpful for the layman. GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for the book, I am not sure why; it was sent the same year Elizabeth's eldest daughter was betrothed to the younger son of the King of France, so I suppose the engagement had something to do with it. I hope the outcome of John's rebellion is more clear now. 1386 is correct; I've corrected the other article. As for the heads, Grierson says that "their severed heads [were] sent to console Margaret". Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated some points, please comment on the remaining minor ones, when you got some time. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:00, 3 September 2012 [36].

Independence Day (India) edit

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article on behalf of the WikiProject India as a featured article candidate. The article has passed a detailed good article nomination. The article follows summary style, and uses title case for the references. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: the historical images lack a US copyright tag. I'm afraid I can't tell you which. In terms of the rest of the article, I'm a bit unclear on whether the article is on on the day of Independence in 1947, or the commemoration of that day every year, and whether this matters. One perhaps other commenters here can think about. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I am not well informed on the technical details and requirement of the copyright status of the images. If the images lack US copyright tag, can not they be used in the article?
The article is on Independence Day, comprising both of history of the day (how independence came on this day in 1947), and also how it is celebrated afterwards. Is the text in the article confusing on its scope? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the former, yes, they do. They should be deleted if not, the guys at WP:MCQ should be able to help. On the second point I'm not sure, I haven't had the time to consider the options. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least Template:PD-US will not be applicable here, I think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the question there. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been answered there. The historical images are not in the public domain in the US and have been nominated in Commons for deletion. I have removed the images from the article. Thanks for guiding us. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment as an outside editor, there is no way this is yet ready for FA (dont een know how it got GA). There is plenty of vague commetns (csome i just edited). It is also not comprehensive as it deals primarily with Delhi's even s (with brief mention of northeast in passing). Lots more work to be dne to compete itLihaas (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lihaas for the comments and the edits. Due to your edits, several of the vague comments got more concrete; we will address the tags soon. Please continue to edit the article and add tags as you think appropriate.
Regarding describing events elsewhere other than Delhi, the article says, " Similar events take place in state capitals where the Chief Ministers of individual states unfurl the national flag, and parades and pageants follow." And then, the whole third paragraph of "celebration" section describes the way the day is celebrated in the whole country, not just Delhi. Do you think that the third paragraph of the "celebration" section seems to describe only Delhi, and not whole India? If you think so, can you please suggest a way so that it can be more explicit in saying that the events described are pan-India phenomena and not just in Delhi?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see the tags are answered, thats hte point of tags.
I see some mention of other parts but its too general with UNDUE emphasis on delhi (granted national capital will have more, but dont think it should have that much more emphasis). Also mention the celebrations in other countries. For example, i went to an event at the indian embassy in tel aviv once, i imagine similar stuff happens in other embassies. Possibly historical negatives in pakistan? (dont know for sure, just throwing things out there). Do the embassies have local dignataries attending? the indian one in went to didnt but the usa one did on july 4 in tel avivLihaas (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • —Dominion of India (later Republic of India) and Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan); the partition was stricken with violent communal riots. - I cannot get a flow that is a must. Both sentence do not go well with each other in a way it is. Either make a new sentence or remove it. + Is the last part focused? (tells more about the consequences of partition and nothing about the day)
First of all, thanks for the comments. We've been waiting for comments :)
The body of the article says about partition as this coincided with, and was an offshoot of, the independence, and officially happened on 15 August 1947. The lead merely summarizes the article. So, this is not off-topic.
Regarding semicolon, please read the "Additive relationships: how close are the ideas?" part in User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Sentences. A link with a semicolon is used for linking "reasonably close ideas". In this case, the full sentence reads, "The independence coincided with the partition of India wherein the British Indian Empire was divided along religious lines into two new states—Dominion of India (later Republic of India) and Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan); the partition was stricken with violent communal riots". The first part of the sentence describes the partition, and after the semicolon it says the partition was full of violence. These are very much related ideas. Well, I am far from being an expert in semicolons; so, this may be discussed with an expert. In any case, using a full stop also won't stop the flow radically.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever "Independence Day of India" is used, the I and D are capitalized but they are also made at other places so is it appropriate?
We could not find any specific guidelines on whether to use capital letters or small letters in such cases. However, what we have made sure is we use one style consistently. If you see any inconsistencies, please change it or notify here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox; "speech by the Prime Minister" - I believe that our President also delivers a speech.
Added President's speech in the infobox.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add something about "pre-celebration" such as vendors start selling accessories, shows start telecasting relevant shows etc before I-Day.
Of course it is possible, we just need some reliable sources to support it. We'll search for this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The features in the act go strongly off topic. What does it have to do with the day? There is one line but it is merely useless as it is covered in the other way. The features tell more about the partition rather then the day. Please remove them.
The listy features of the Act has been removed. Only the most salient points have been incorporated in the text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheSpecialUser TSU 03:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also add DD and ohter channels' tricolour logo changeLihaas (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a reliable reference for this? If yes, we can easily add this information, with reference. (Unfortunately it has been extremely difficult to find references for such common things. We may even add this without reference, since this is witnessed by the whole country; but, will that be ok for the Wikipedia community?)--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "...the President of India delivers the "Address to the Nation", which is televised nationally." ... Only televised? I am sure they play it on radio also.
Agree. Changed telivised to broadcasted. BPositive (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..the Prime Minister highlights the achievements of his government during the past year,.." ... Of his government or of the country?
Certainly of the country. Done. BPositive (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image's description reads "A child with a replica of the national flag"... What's replica? Is there only one original?
I've changed the caption. Please have a look at it. BPositive (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Indian national anthem, Jana Gana Mana is sung." ... Jana Gana Mana should not be italicized but be inserted in inverted commas.
Done. BPositive (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newspapers have reported a trend that the celebration pattern... " .... This line is suddenly out of place.
I've reconstructed the sentence and placed it at the end in a separate paragraph. Please have a look at this and let us know if it's fine. BPositive (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short, one-sentence paragraphs are considerd "choppy", and are generally discouraged. So, that sentence should be included within a larger paragraph. I did include the sentence as the last sentence of the paragraph. I made the celebration by diaspora a separate paragraph. This also is a short paragraph; but, we are going to slightly expand that as suggested by another reviewer Lihaas.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Google doodle one sentence is sufficient. Two is too much.
Even I felt the same. I have removed the additional sentence. Just keeping the fact that Google commemorates I-Day with its doodle. BPositive (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See Also" section should be removed. See WP:LAYOUT. Insert those links somewhere in the article.
  • Is kite flying really a celebratory event throughout the country worth mentioning in the Infobox? Kite flying is associated with Makar Sankranti.
However, sources do indicate that it also takes place on I-day. Hence, we have kept it. BPositive (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it is okay. But not in the infobox. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I got your point. Done. BPositive (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Times of India has also cites commercialisation.."... "has also cited".
Done.BPositive (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might come back with more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
In the lead section —

  • "Citizens rejoice the day..." ..... I don't think this is a correct usage of rejoice. Rejoice can't be used as a synonym of celebrate, observe, commemorate etc.
  • "..displaying the national flag on their attire, household accessories..." ..... Not household accessories, please clarify this or remove it.
  • "vehicles; varied activities..." ..... More issues here. Since this is the third problem in the sentence, let me try a rewrite. "Indian citizens celebrate the day by displaying the national flag on their attire and vehicles, flying kites, listening to patriotic songs and watching patriotic movies." .... any better sentence formation that results in a better flow than the current one will do.
  • "Security concerns over militant attacks and sporadic calls for boycotting the celebration by separatist outfits occasionally limit the celebration in some places." ..... This is a vague duplication of a much better phrased sentence "Some organisations have carried, out ....", which comes right after this one. The former is redundant and should be deleted.
Reply. Thanks for the suggestions. The citizens sentence has been structured now in the way you suggested. The security concerns sentence was really redundant, thanks for catching that. We have removed that sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the history section —

  • "The present-day India was a part of the British Indian Empire. Although the British..." ..... This paragraph has an unencyclopedic once upon a time kind of a start. A possible alternative to this could be to start with facts... "European traders had established outposts in Indian subcontinent by the 17th century. British East Indian company emerged as the dominant...." ..... anything like this will do.
Reply. Fantastic suggestion, made change in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the British East India Company started trading in India in the seventeenth century, Company rule in India started from 1757 after the Company's victory in the Battle of Plassey." ..... If you are going to use although, it should be clear what is it exactly that you are contrasting. Besides, "Company rule" is vague. Do you mean through their overwhelming military strength, East India company had managed to subdue local kingdoms and establish themselves as the dominant colonial force in India?
Reply Once again, wonderful prose improvement suggestion. Incorporated this to the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to the British Crown assuming" ..... this looks like plusing to me. (learnt this from Dwaipayan recently)
Reply I was not sure if this sounds like plusing. Anyway, changed the sentence, and now it uses "to". Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The period after World War I was marked by British reforms but also repressive legislation, by more strident Indian calls for self-rule, and by the beginnings of a non-violent movement of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, of which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become the leader and enduring symbol." ..... This sentence is phrased in such a manner that it makes repressive legislation, Indian calls for self-rule and the beginning of a non-violent movement look like completely independent events. Moreover, chronology of the three events isn't absolutely clear. Don't use ", by" to connect the phrases.
In the process This change suggested is a problematic one. This sentence summarizes a massive part of the history. However, it does not necessarily do it in chronological order (is chronology needed in this case? These are occurring nearly simultaneously and over a decade or two). And I am not sure how to establish the inter-dependency of these events in the sentence. Will try to think; any suggestions are more than welcome. For now, have kept the sentence unchanged.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 The period after World War I was marked by British reforms but also repressive legislation, simultaneous strident Indian calls for self-rule eventually leading to the beginning of a non-violent movement of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, of which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become the leader and enduring symbol." -- How does it sound?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You have to clarify what the reforms and the repressive laws were. It could confuse the readers otherwise. How about "The period after World War I was marked by British reforms such as the release of political prisoners, but it also witnessed the enactment of the repressive Rowlatt Act and strident calls for self-rule by Indian freedom fighters. The widespread discontent of this period crystallized into nationwide non-violent movements of non-cooperation and civil disobedience under the leadership of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who became the enduring symbol of the India's non-violent struggle for independence." Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more suggestions, if you take my comments positively. :) Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to CorrectKnowledge Thanks a ton for the excellent suggestions. We need more of such prose improvement tips. Please continue to provide feedback. Replies to individual concerns are written above. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more suggestions. In the history section —

  • "During the 1930s, slow legislative reform was..." ..... Do you mean legislative reform was slowly/gradually enacted by the British?
done reforms gradually enacted by...
  • "...slow legislative reform was enacted by the British; the Indian National Congress won victories in the resulting elections." ..... The relationship between the two sentence fragments is missing. For instance, did the legislative reform call for an election which the INC won?
Reply The second part of the sentence ends with "resulting election". That is supposed to mean that the elections resulting from the reforms. If the meaning is not clear, we will change the structure.
  • "The next decade was beset with crises: Indian participation in World War II, the Congress's final push for non-cooperation, and an upsurge of" ..... Can "Congress's final push for non-cooperation" be called a crisis? Maybe political turmoil would be a better word.
done Used political turmoil.
  • "All were capped by..." ..... All what were capped? Besides, capped and tempered don't go together. The first fragment should show that events of Independence were that of jubilation, exuberance, joy etc. for them to be tempered.
done Restructured. Please have a look.
  • "In 1946, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither..." ..... ", and conscious" does not appear to be correct, dropping the and might help. This sentence has too many commas. It needs to be broken into more sentences.
Done. Restructured, got rid of the last clause which is redundant (the next sentence says the same thing in a more concrete way).--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence..." ..... a)There are two fors in one phrase. b)Why is there a scope of increased violence? Is it because of partition? Then add a sentence on it before this one. c)Why did Mountbatten advance the date instead of delaying it? Did he fear for British lives? d)Don't start with "With the...". After adding all the missing information the sentence might have to be broken into two.
In the process I will first try to consult the books to see if we find any exact cause of Mountbatten's advancing the date, then will address teh sentence structure issue. I checked the Metcalf and Metcalf book, and that mentions nose-diving economy of UK as the reason for transferring power quickly. I will check some other books (such as Wolpert), and then address this. OK?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have the book by Read, Anthony; Fisher, David (1999). The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 459–60. ISBN 978-0-393-31898-2. offline. According to this book, Mountbatten advanced the date of handing over power to 15th August because a)Indian leaders demanded independence within two months when they met him at the beginning of June 47 (there is no written record of this but it coincides with Patel's demand for independence in two months) b)with fresh squabbles arising between the Congress and the League virtually everyday, Mountbatten opined that the collapse of the interim government was a serious possibility. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 01:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the principle of partition of India" ..... Do you mean the plan for partition or the idea of dividing British India into two states? Please clarify this.
done please have a look.
  • "Viceroy Mountbatten chose 15 August as the date of power transfer; he chose this date as this was the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in the World War II." -> Viceroy Mountbatten chose the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in WWII, 15th August, as the date....
done
  • "The Indian Independence Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6 c. 30) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom..." ..... No need for "was an". The Indian Independence Act 1947 of the parliament of United....
done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back for more. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayan, the article looks better for your effort. However, I'll be able to comment on the changes only after I've gone through the whole article once. In the Celebration section —

  • "The Congress called people..." ..... should be "...called on people...".
Done --BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...to take pledge on that day until India attained complete independence" ..... to pledge what? Their support to the Indian Independence movement?
Done. Used parts of the pledge within quotes in the sentence, also provided the last paragraph of the pledge announcement as a quotation in the reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1930 and 1947, 26 January was observed as the Independence Day of India, and carried symbolic value to the Congress." ..... Do you mean to say "... was observed as the Independence Day of India as it carried symbolic value to the Congress." Even if this is not what you meant, still try to rephrase the sentence without and.
Done
  • "Independence Day is one of the three national holidays in India (...) and is observed in all Indian states and union territories." ..... again use of and feels inappropriate, I could be wrong. How about "Independence Day, one of the three national holidays in India (...), is observed in...".
Done
  • "The speech is followed by march past by divisions of..." ..... two bys here. How about "... followed by a march past of the..".
Done
  • "paramilitary forces, and parades and pageants showcasing events from the struggle" ..... and needs to be removed and "parades..." sentence fragment should be made into a new sentence. "Parades and pageants showcase, scenes from the freedom struggle and the various cultural traditions of India."
Done --BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Chief Ministers of individual states unfurl the national flag, and parades and pageants follow." -> "...of individual states unfurl the national flag, which is followed by parades and pageants." Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 02:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks for your suggestions, CorrectKnowledge. I've made some changes to the ones I could agree with or was sure. I've left out ones where I was confused/ could not reframe the sentence. I'll leave that to other editors. Cheers! BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the Security Threats section —

  • "Islamic fundamentalist militants" ..... drop fundamentalist, it's redundant. There are no liberal Islamic militants.
Done --BPositive (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Security measures in the country are intensified before the Independence Day celebration, especially in major cities such as Delhi, Mumbai and in troubled states such as Jammu and Kashmir. The celebratory events are anticipated to be the target of terrorist attacks, particularly by the Islamic fundamentalist militants" ..... These two sentences can be combined into one sentence. "In anticipation of terrorist attacks, particularly from Islamic militants, security measures are intensified before the...".
Done --BPositive (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " United Liberation Front of Assam and National Democratic Front of Bodoland in Northeast India have, on more than one occassion, boycotted the celebrations and have carried out attacks on and around 15 August." ..... "boycotted the celebration" is not necessary. The fact that these outfits have carried out attacks on Independence day already suggests that they don't participate in celebrations.
Done --BPositive (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "looming tension" ..... this is probably an incorrect usage of loom. Actually, the two sentences on NE can be combined into one. "Celebrations in the Northeastern states of India are often marred by calls of boycott and terrorist attacks by separatist insurgent organisations like the United Liberation Front of Assam and National Democratic Front of Bodoland." This isn't perfect yet, it has two consecutive bys, but it avoids few of the problems in the earlier formulation. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Calls of boycott and terrorist attacks by separatist insurgent organisations like the United Liberation Front of Assam and National Democratic Front of Bodoland often mar the Independence Day celebrations in Northeast India." Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems better and I've made the changes in the article. Thanks for it. Done --BPositive (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost done. In the popular culture section —

  • "Over the decades, according to The Times of India, the number of such film(→ films) broadcast has decreased as channels report that too many patriotic films would overwhelm the audience(→ viewers) who want popular entertaining films instead, to enjoy the holiday."
Done --BPositive (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The population cohort belonging to the Generation Next..." ..... belonging to -> that belong to
Done --BPositive (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outfits displaying the three colours of the national flag—saffron, green and white; use of food colours to make savouries and delicacies resembling the tri-colour; cloth-designs reflecting ideas gleaned from the cultural traditions of India are example of such mixtures." ..... an alternative way to write this could be, "The mixture of popular culture with nationalism is exemplified by outfits and savouries dyed with the tricolour and designer garments that represent the various cultural traditions of India." Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --BPositive (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Probably the first one here. I see no problems in the prose anymore. I get a flow while reading and it is what I look for in a brilliant article. The article is certainly improved from what it was before GAN. TheSpecialUser TSU 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support Support - A very few major prose corrections still need to be done. Otherwise, the prose looks up to par. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues raised by the reviewers have been taken care of. I am happy to support this. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although some very good work has been done on the article, I feel it isn't ready yet. I feel the GA review was inadequate, and didn't ask many basic questions about the article:

  • Existential question: is this article about the historical event that happened on 15 August 1947 or the annual holiday? It seems to be about the latter, but why are most of the artistic inspirations (Train to Pakistan, Midnight's Children) about events arising from the former? I don't think both these things should be clubbed in the same article, as they deal with completely different things.
  • Article name: why not "Independence Day of India", in line with infobox and lead sentence?
Reply This I do not know. The naming is in line with wikipedia articles on the independence day of many other countries such as US,Pakistan, Finland, and so on. The nae has existed in this style perhaps since the article was created.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about this, and the article-name is fine. We celebrate Independence Day, not Independence Day of India. Hence, the (India) is a disambiguator. I've rewritten the lead sentence to reflect this.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: have all major sources been consulted? I'm no historian, but even I know famous works such as Bipin Chandra's India's Struggle for Independence and Ram Guha's India after Gandhi, neither of which have been consulted. I also notice a greater number of books by Western authors, who may be propounding a imperialistic historiography of the Raj. More scholarly sources need to be used throughout: why is a American web-only entertainment/celebrity news and review publication used to source what happens on Independence Day?
Reply Books that were consulted include "A Concise History of Modern India" (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1 (by Metcalf and Metcalf); "India". University of California Press. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-520-22172-7 by Wolpert; Sarkar, Sumit (1983). Modern India, 1885–1947. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-90425-1. These are well-known general history books on India. Ramchandra Guha's "India after Gandhi" is agreat suggestion, will try to consult that. Undoubtedly, availability of books is a factor limiting the use of varied books. Do you have in mind any specific area/sentence that is doubtful?
The Monster and Critic page that has been used displays a news supplied by the agency IANS, the Indo-Asian News Service. This news briefly tells bout the ceremonies in multiple states. We could not find any other sources which described the ceremonies in so many states together. Of course there is news on celebration in different states. Since the sentence discusses celebration in many states, we used this as a reference. Otherwise, multiple references for different states would be needed. I understand Monster and Critic does not have as much acceptability as, say, Yahoo. But sourcing of the news item to IANS is acceptable. Can you suggest ny other alternative? I have not found any non-trivial books describing the ceremonies in various states. Will search more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update Found an article in Outlook magazine describing the ceremonies in different state capitals. Have added that reference after this sentence, alongside Monsters and Critics. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness:
  • the brief history of colonial rule jumps from 1858 to the First World War.
Reply. Now we have added the emergence of public life in the decades following rebellion. I did not add more specifics as the article is written in summary style. What is your opinion now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Purna Swaraj declaration look strange in the Celebrations section; I think it should be in Background, along with the other historical stuff.
Reply Agreed. I moved the part on Purna Swaraj declaration in History. However, that 26 January was celebrated as I-Day between 1930 and 1947 is kept in "Celebration" section. I will add some info on how that celebration was (Ramchandra Guha's book actually has some example of that).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why mention the first Governor-General of Pakistan but the first Prime Minister of India?
Reply India is prime focus here, so both PM and Governor-General have been mentioned. Pakistan, while very important, is not the main focus; so only the most prominent political figure's (Jinnah) post is mentioned. If you insist, we can add the name of Pakistan's first PM (Liaquat Ali Khan) as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Security threats: IMO there needs to be more specifics here. Have there been any major incidents on I-Day? When? Did anything like this happen in the 60s and 70s? Since when (and how) have ULFA or Islamic militants been causing trouble? Also, note that you mention Islamic militants as the main threat, but elaborate with examples of Assam/J&K separatists and Maoists.
Reply What do you mean by "major incident"? Nothing like 2001 Indian Parliament attack or 2008 Mumbai attacks has happened. However, bomb blasts taking away tens of lives have occurred on many years, including 2012. We did not add all such years, as that would be too many years. However, going through your suggestions, I think adding the decade when it all started (the attacks) would be a great idea. I will try to find a good reference, and then add this information.
Why we need 1960s and 1970s? The news, books that have been consulted do not say anything specifically about those decades. However, since 1980s, ULFA threats were there.
The opening sentence says, " In anticipation of terrorist attacks, particularly from Islamic militants, security measures ...". SO it is the anticipation of Islamic militant attacks, and not actual militant attacks on 15 August that prompts security increase. This sentence is well-supported by references. We did not add any example of Islamic militant attacks as we did not find such example (of course we may have missed the news; will add if we see such news).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will start working on this section soon; will try to gather more specifics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivia: the second paragraph of In popular culture is basically a list of every artwork to be set in 1947. It is unnecessary to mention them all, and many of these are only tangentially about the event; Train to Pakistan for instance is about the horrors of the Partition. Instead you should look at why Independence Day (specifically, not Partition or the freedom struggle) is such a fascinating topic for writers and artists.
Reply Removed such indiscriminate list of names. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy: "birth as a sovereign nation" - is this really accurate? India, nominally at least, was still just a Dominion, and the Queen its head of state.
Fixed this myself in the lead.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: not the best, but definitely improvable. But this can be looked at once the article is there structurally and comprehensiveness-wise.—indopug (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial Reply Thanks a lot Indopug for your comments. As I am busy this weekend, I will work on your suggestions and reply in detail from Monday/Tuesday. Thanks again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your effort with this important article. Replied to a few of your points above for now; will try to give a thorough section-by-section review starting tomorrow. In the meantime, I suggest trying to get more reviewers (also, alert Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics about this FAC).—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a. It's got legs, but needs a thorough, careful run-through by a word-nerd. Just had a look at the lead:

  • Optional comma after "disobedience" ... up to you.
Did not add the comma.
  • Please: wherein, hereafter, abovementioned, hitherto, hereupon ... these do not belong in modern English. Here, use "in which".
Removed the archaic use of wherein.
  • Deictics required: the Dominion of India; the Republic of India), et al.
Have added. Will comb through the article in case we have done the same mistake elsewhere.
  • "the partition was stricken with violent communal riots"—stricken is too strong in the wrong way, so we wonder for a moment whether the partition survived the riots and went ahead: it did. So "was accompanied by" would be better.
Done.
  • Remove "then" ... the sequence is obvious.
Done.
  • This list is problematic in a number of ways: "Indian citizens celebrate the day by displaying the national flag on their attire, accessories, homes and vehicles, flying kites, listening to patriotic songs, watching patriotic movies, and bonding with family and friends." Do we need "the day", which clangs a bit with "disPLAYing", and isn't really necessary in the context you've set up. Now, the first four items are about displaying the flag on things, yes? Then we get to quite different constructs ... so "... vehicles; and by flying ...". It's really two big items, each of several sub-items. Do you need "citizens"? Unsure ... but if you want, "Indians celebrate ...", since it's already a long sentence. Up to you.
This list has been problematic since the beginning! Thank you for guiding us. Please have a look at the list now, "Indians celebrate the day by displaying the national flag on their attire, accessories, homes and vehicles; by listening to patriotic songs, watching patriotic movies; and bonding with family and friends.". How does it sound? Do we need to change anything in "by listening to patriotic songs, watching patriotic movies" segment?
  • Not happy having to link to the article on bandh to learn what it means. Do link it, but is it possible to explain it in just a few words in the main sentence? "... declared bandh, a strategy of civil disobedience, and ..."?
Replaced bandh with strikes.
  • "Several books and films feature the independence and partition in their narrative."—I'd be gobsmacked if they weren't featured in books and films. This seems too obvious to put in the lead, as though you're mentioning it here to summarise the article. A lead isn't a summary like that, but functions as an overview and introduction for readers.
I am so happy you brought this! We had to add this sentence for the sake of summary. There are reviewers who ask for summary in the anatomical sense, that the lead should have summary of major sections. I'd be very glad to remove this sentence from the lead, if nobody disagrees.

Spot-checks, further down:

  • "In February 1947, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Clement Attlee announced that the British government would grant full self-governance to British India by June 1948 at the latest." (and please no secondary link for PM ... that's in the Atlee article. (But "viceroy" is unfamiliar, and might be reasonable as a direct link from this article.)
Done.
  • the royal assent.
Done.
  • where the new border lines divided -> where the borders divided
Done.
  • Gandhi decided to stay in Calcutta and help mitigate the communal carnage -> Gandhi stayed in Calcutta in an attempt to stem the communal carnage
Done.
  • Again, the Dominion of India.
Done (sorry for these silly mistakes)
  • first prime minister ... lower case, please. Generic, not a specific title here.
Done. Done the same in other instances.
  • "Between 1930 and 1947, 26 January was observed as the Independence Day of India as it carried symbolic value to the Congress.[15][16] The celebration of 26 January as the Independence Day was marked by meetings where the attendants took the "pledge of independence"." Not quite sure I comprehend the "as it carried symbolic value" ... why? Is it in the second sentence? If so, it's unclear. And let's rejig the word order to avoid 1947, 26. "As" is dangerous in English; does it mean "because/since", or "at the same time as"?
The day carried symbolic value because in 1930, 26 January was declared as the Independence Day after the Purna Swaraj declaration. This was discussed in the History section. I have now changed the sentence to remind the reader about that: "Following the Purna Swaraj (Declaration of the Independence of India) promulgation in 1929, the Congress observed 26 January as the Independence Day between 1930 and 1947". Is it more explanatory now?
  • Space after the ellipsis points. And then before them in the next one. Actually, you can probably remove both: does the reader need to know here? And a point is required after the closing quotes.
Added non-breaking space after the ellipsis. Removed the second one.
  • "in the country" ... sounds like country vs urban areas. Safer "throughout the country".
Done
  • Two subset items? "In some cities, such as Delhi". Better "In cities such as Delhi", or "In Delhi and other cities,"
Done.

Tony (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks a lot for the review. If you have time and have interest, can you be that word-nerd you mentioned ? One plus-point is the article is not too large, it won't take much time for you! Thank you for using one sentence from this article in your ambiguity spotting exercise.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All lovely changes you've made. The ambiguity exercises are hardly started, and are supposed to be a secret. Please wait. Tony (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Author Unknown, "Houses for the Workers of Gateshead – Costly Scheme Begins", Gateshead Post, 28 October 1920 at para 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2012&oldid=525815141"