Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2014

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2014-09-30 [1].

Sleeping Dogs (video game) edit

Nominator(s): Czar (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UFC), Tezero (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 video game Sleeping Dogs. I have made my absolute goal to take this page to FA, and alongside Tezero and Czar, I think I'm on the right track. This is the first time I nominate an article to FA seriously, so please help me. Also, the article has appeared in the main page DYK, in case anyone is interested. URDNEXT (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: While I too feel it fits the FA criteria, I cannot support this, being a primary contributor behind URDNEXT. I'm not sure how much czar has done or, accordingly, whether he would be able to vote. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero Add yourself as a nominator! URDNEXT (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Tezero (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar edit

Resolved comments from Jaguar

Urdnext asked me if I could do a source review first, so I'm going to find and check the authenticity of some sources within the article:

Replaced with the NeoGAF link. Though I'm not sure if it is reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 leads to a different domain, but could this just be me? And is Filmmusicsite.com a reliable source?
I removed that source, and replaced it with a metacritic page. Pretty sure it's now reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 and 47, is United Front Games a reliable source too?
That's the developers' official website. It's a primary source, though reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see! My mistake. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Nobody is perfect. URDNEXT (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 69, 70 and 71 - these Metacritic links are virtually identical but are used more than once?
@Jaguar Each source is used twice: one for the prose, the other for the reviews box. It's common throughout every article in the VG project. URDNEXT (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what he's saying. The citations are basically identical, but they're instantiated more than once instead of just having one for both. It'd be like declaring the same reference twice instead of using a "ref name" tag in an article without list-defined refs. Tezero (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but I have no idea of what to do with this issue. @Jaguar What am I supposed to do with these refs? URDNEXT (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, never mind; that's not what it is. They're not virtually identical; they're used for the different-platform (Xbox 360, etc.) versions of the game. That's stated in the title, Jaguar. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tezero and Urdnext, I should have been more specific. Despite them looking similar I think I overlooked the different platforms. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 3, 2012, information on cross-promotional content for the PC version of Sleeping Dogs was posted on the game's official website" - is this sourced?
Now it is. URDNEXT (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the main issues of the references out of the way. I know that the source review wasn't very comprehensive but I'm sure someone will come along and double check over every one. Aside from the dead ref and the liability of a couple of sources, the references look in pretty good shape. The majority of the citations are in the correct places and the article is generally broad, comprehensive and well referenced. The sources could have easily passed a GAN however since this is a FAC this has to showcase some of the best work on Wikipedia. I will leave the full copyediting/prose review tomorrow morning. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Jaguar! URDNEXT (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the prose review now: ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can't wait for it. URDNEXT (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention who published the game, it says "released by Square Enix" but neglects Namco Bandai
  • "Set within a fictionalized version of Hong Kong," - just curious, is the game set in present-day (or 2012} Hong Kong?
  • "...with a primary focus on Shen's fighting and shooting abilities, parkour skills, and gadgets that can be used in both combat and exploration" - too many conjunctions in this sentence
  • Huh, didn't see this for some reason. I just moved "third-person" to the lead altogether. Tezero (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some parts of the lead's prose seems choppy. "When not playing through the story, the player can freely roam the city of Hong Kong on foot and in vehicles" - again, the prose of this sentence could flow better by changing it to something like When not playing through the story, the player can freely roam the city of Hong Kong both on foot and in vehicles, and may participate in side activities
  • "but was canceled by Activision Blizzard in 2011" - did Activision Blizzard own United Front Games at that time?
  • In the infobox, it states that the game was released for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One but this isn't mentioned in the lead?
  • The game will be rereleased in October 19 for nextgen consoles. URDNEXT (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead summarises the article well, so this shouldn't be a concern for the FA criteria
  • "Some of the team members pushed for English, since most gamers would not understand Cantonese" - Cantonese dialect
  • "The music present in the in-game radio stations was handled by Joe Best; he was responsible for integrating the licensed tracks into the game." - how about The music present in the in-game radio stations was handled by Joe Best; who was responsible for integrating the licensed tracks into the game
  • "Sleeping Dogs was promoted through the use of various Internet and TV trailers" - why is internet capitalised?
  • "A Hong Kong-themed map, Kong King, was available on all distributing services" - this doesn't make sense, is this still referring to Team Fortress 2?
  • Yes, thank you! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blyth called the supplementary characters "brilliantly recognisable stereotypes" - recognizable?
  • In the sales section, how did the game do in other territories such as Japan or Australia?
  • I'll see what I can find. The problem is I don't speak Japanese, but I'm sure I can get something off the Japan wiki using Google Translate. URDNEXT (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there isn't any information on the sales of the game asides from the one we already know (ww sales). This has something to do with Square thinking the game didn't sell well. They probaly avoided releasing sales stats. URDNEXT (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the sequal section at all be expanded?

Those were most of the issues I could find with the prose in the article, however overall it does look promising. The only real concerns I could find were a few choppy sentences in the first half of the article that could use with some reconstructing! For example there were too many conjunctions ('ands') in one sentence that interrupted the flow of the prose. I know that the FAC process is harsh, but if those issues were addressed and some sentences reconstructed then this article should have no problem passing! Good luck, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar We have adressed all of your concerns. What do you think about the article now? Also, thanks for the help here, really appreciate it! URDNEXT (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing all of those concerns Urdnext and Tezero (and Czar?). I'll support this one and it looks like this is on the road to finally becoming FA. I wish it the very best of luck in it doing that! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Jaguar! I really appreciate your help here. Look forward to seeing you again in FACs/GANs in the future! URDNEXT (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ɱ edit

I have looked over the images used in the article, and they all appear to meet copyright policies. I skimmed through the text and references and found no issues; if I have time I'll look forward to analyzing it more. Still, this receives my general support to become a FA.--ɱ (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ɱ! URDNEXT (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Close to FA-material, here's 2¢ from me;

  • "These weapons, though they can cause greater damage to enemies than normal attacks, do not last long and break with overuse"..... needs source
@SNUGGUMS Done. Are you satisfied with the article now that I've adressed all you concerns? URDNEXT (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the player can restart from the last checkpoint"..... needs source
Done. URDNEXT (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official PlayStation Magazine" is a DAB
  • The "Official PlayStation Magazine" page can refer to any of the following (as listed on its page):
  1. PlayStation: The Official Magazine
  2. PlayStation Official Magazine (UK)
  3. Official PlayStation Magazine (Ireland)
  4. Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)
  5. Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine
Simply link to the one you were referring to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. Everything will be done as soon as the missing citation I previously mentioned is added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN69: Unlink Metacritic
  • FN73 "Edge Magazine" should not be part of the title
  • FN78: See above note for "Official PlayStation Magazine"
  • FN97: Unlink "Computer and Video Games"

I'm almost ready to support, just some minor fixes to do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments, SNUGGUMS! URDNEXT (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, get to it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I adressed all your concerns. The only thing left is whether [2] is reliable or not. URDNEXT (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

As usual, mostly looking at the references and reference formatting here.

collapsed resolved referencing issues
  • The Davies ref is missing commas between day and year for both publication and retrieval date. The same thing is true of the retrieval date for the Jeff Tymoschuk Metacritic profile. I may have missed others; all dates need to be audited for missing commas.
  • Why is Train2Game a reliable source?
Interviews as long as they are not fake, can be reliable, even if the website isn't that popular. Also, as long as the site doesn't have any viruses, which makes Train reliable. @Squeamish Ossifrage URDNEXT (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose a nomination on the back of one marginal source, but this is pretty far short of the standard for determining reliable sources that I'm accustomed to. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if we were citing facts created by the site's authors, but WP:VG's convention is to allow interview sources by default if they're not excessively sketchy. It's even better if you can find some kind of confirmation from the interviewee that it's real, as I was able to do for a couple in the Sonic X article (I linked to the interviewee's website, where the interviews were referenced), but this isn't always available. My guess is that it's because interviews tend to be hosted on fansites and things that wouldn't normally lie about what someone's saying, plus it's significantly more work to try to impersonate a famous person (and get away with it without the other members of your site knowing) than to just make things up and claim them as facts. Tezero (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the original source with a new one published by Square Enix. Hopefully it's considered reliable. Also, I recommend someone archive it. URDNEXT (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Game Network source lacks a retrieval date.
Done. URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what's up with the timestamp in the GameSpot review reference. Template shenanigans, maybe? There's another one of these in the Xav de Matos reference from Joystiq.
Removed timestamps. URDNEXT (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you link publications the first time they appear in the references, you have to be careful that doesn't catch you: you don't link Computer and Video Games in the Ivan reference (currently at #9), but then you do link it in the interview currently at #27. This probably needs audited overall to check for other problems, too; for example, you cite Gamasutra twice but link it neither time. And I think you link United Front Games every time you cite it. Really, you can choose any option: not linking publications in references, linking them on first appearance, or linking them every time. But whatever you pick, you need to do so consistently.
  • I think @Czar is better than me to handle this. Can you do this, Czar? URDNEXT (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done czar ♔ 17:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • VG247 is a blog, but it's an award-winning blog of an industry expert, so I'll tentatively give it a pass on reliability, although if it's replaceable, that'd be ideal. The same probably applies to Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency.
  • Why is Designing Sound a reliable source? Its site policy doesn't suggest there's much in the way of editorial oversight.
The VG project had a discussion last week about whether interviews coming from small sites could be considered reliable. The conclusio was that as long as the interview is real (not stringed), and the website is stable (not viruses, etc), the source can be considered reliable. And also, that interview gave A LOT of information on the game's development. URDNEXT (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Electronic Theatre a reliable source? It appears to be essentially a small group blog by pseudonymous authors.
Replaced it with a GameSpot article. URDNEXT (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Year of the Dog" reference cites Valve as an author rather than publisher or site, which isn't really consistent with the way you format other web cites without specific named authors.
  • I happened to notice that the Tamoor Hussain reference has a publication date at the site (June 27, 2012) that isn't included in the reference. It's probably a good idea to check all the references that lack author attribution and/or publication dates to make sure they really aren't available.
Done. URDNEXT (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Well, the Tamoor Hussain reference is done, but it's clear that no comprehensive source audit has not been done:
  • It's not quite the same issue, but references #3 and #4 seem to be the same source, but have different publication dates listed (and one is linked to an archive, one to the original). If these are the same source, the differences need to be rectified and the references combined. I'm concerned about the publication date discrepancy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kotaku source at #29 has a credited author (Brian Ashcraft).
  • The Eurogamer source at #30 has a credited author (Wesley Yin-Poole) and a publication date (May 8, 2010).
  • The Gamasutra source at #33 has a credited author (Christian Nutt).
I stopped checking at this point, but the bottom line is that all the sources without authors and/or publication dates need to be carefully audited to see if that information is available. Many legitimately aren't, but more of this should have been caught before FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding of the MOS that article titles like the Luke Karmali one should be styled in appropriate case rather than ALL CAPS even if the source does otherwise; someone else may wish to confirm that I'm correct here.
What do you mean by styled? The source looks fine to me. URDNEXT (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few refs (currently #71-74, I think) where you italicize Metacritic, unlike all your other web references (indeed, it shouldn't be).
  • You give Future as the publisher of Edge in the Brown ref (#32) but not the review at #76. I don't think you need it.
  • Almost all your authors are formatted Last, First. That's not true for the last two with Mitch Dyer and Andy Robinson.

I haven't really looked much beyond the reference formatting, so other than these issues, I'm neutral on promotion. Although, as a matter of personal preference, I'm not very fond of either of the big nav templates at the bottom. I just don't think there's enough content to warrant them here; there's not even a franchise parent article, so the Sleeping Dogs template doesn't even have its header linked anywhere. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VG247 was deemed reliable at WP:VG/RS. Fixed some of the ref stuff czar ♔ 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the nav template at the bottom. URDNEXT (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage We have adressed all your concerns. What do you think about the article now? URDNEXT (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck resolved issues. Leaving a couple unstruck while I evaluate my position and whether there's a remaining actionable issue with references/ref formatting. References aside, I also did a quick image check; several look mostly good. I'm not sure that File:Sleeping Dogs - Environmental Kill.jpg has an adequate NFCC#8 use justification (and probably needs the copyright holder more clearly stated), and File:Sleeping Dogs - Hong Kong.jpg needs a NFCC#2 statement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done that image stuff. Tezero (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing those reference issues. There are certainly still things about the references that I would do differently, but that's not the standard. As noted below, use of publishers for periodicals is not necessary, but I don't see any indication that they are forbidden either, and you seem to be consistent about their use. To the extent that I had problems with referencing, I think you're good to go. Unfortunately, moving on to the body of the article, I have concerns about the prose:

  • From the lead:
    • "carjacking, street racing, joining a fight club and visiting a karaoke bar": Consider at least changing the order here to avoid making this an example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.
    • I'm dubious of the wikilink of "heat" to fugitive. I could probably be convinced otherwise, but this is a little close to WP:EASTER for me as it stands.
  • Heat is just the name United Front Game gave the wanted vicinity so it wouldn't be the dame as GTA. Grand Theft Auto V uses fugitive with no problems, and it's an FA. URDNEXT (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Through various activities such as fights, races, and driving": The elements in a serial list like this need to be in agreement. Fighting, racing, and driving; or fights, races, and drives. I'd prefer the former. Actually, though, I'd prefer this whole sentence be reworded to be more active and to avoid the dreadful "various activities".
    • The sentence about United Front's development research feels out of place in the development history section. It's not, but perhaps the lack of connecting clauses is what gives that impression.
    • "Six months of downloadable content packs": So the content lasted six months? Or takes six months? You mean, I am sure, that it was released over six months, but that's not really what this says. Also, that's not a parallel construction when you cite the number of expansions. Is there a discrete number of DLC packs to reference here? Oh, and wikilink downloadable content.
    • "currently" in the lead does not make me a happy reviewer. Consider saying when it was announced, or when development began, or something. Even an "as of" construction would be better.
  • From Gameplay:
    • [T]he player...
    • I know CR4ZE made some suggestions here, but I think you need to find some way to mention (and link) that the Sun On Yee is based on the nonfictional Sun Yee On (assuming you've got a source for it, anyway).
    • "undertaking side-missions and several other activities": Vague.
    • "a circular mini-map ... that displays a small map": Yes, a mini-map would be expected to display a map.
    • "Shen's health is shown by a semicircular meter on the left side of the mini-map, while another one on the right represents his face, which allows Wei to regenerate life during fighting when it is full, then empties after a short time.": This whole sentence loses me. You have real antecedent problems, I think. A semicircular meter represents his face? His face allows him to regenerate life during fighting? And then his face empties after a short time? I'm not sure how to fix this, because I'm not really certain what you're trying to convey.
    • "melee combat has been frequently compared": That's not what your source says. It compares the mechanics, yes, but doesn't indicate that they have been "frequently" compared. Perhaps cut that wording?
    • Oh, so the face thing above is because it's actually called a "Face Meter"? Much of this section needs to be reordered to make sense, then.
    • "when the player is upgraded": My long hobby of tabletop roleplaying makes this read as a clear error. The player doesn't get upgraded; the character does. That is, the player is the person playing the game. You get this right a couple of sentences later when the "player ... press[es] a button".
    • I'll agree that the description of environmental attacks seems unnecessarily detailed.
    • "The game also features a shooting mechanic using a cover system": Perhaps "The game also features a cover system"?
    • "The player respawns at hospitals when his health drains.": When it is exhausted? When his health meter is empty? When he is defeated? I'm not sure what the best way to word this is, but "when his health drains" implies that it is actively draining (that is, when he is losing life), which is not at all correct.
    • My problem with the list of open world activities applies here, too.
    • "Going out with girlfriends": Seems informal.
    • "The successful completion of the side missions": They were "side-missions" with a hyphen earlier in this section. Pick one and stick with it (probably without the hyphen).
    • "Sleeping Dogs tracks the acquired skills in areas such as hand-to-hand combat which improve through experience and their usage in the game.": Verbose and awkward. As written, the "areas" improve through experience, not the "skills".
    • "Through various activities such as fights, races, and driving, the player can accumulate Stat Awards.": Near-duplicate of the wording in the lead, which isn't my preference. All the problems this sentence has there, it has here as well.

And I'm stopping the prose review there, assuming that the rest will read more or less as the first two sections have. This really needs a thorough copy-edit before I would be comfortable supporting promotion. Accordingly, oppose at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above looks improved. I'm holding off a detailed re-read of these sections (and further into the article) for the moment, as I'm aware that there's a significant copyediting effort underway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492 edit

  • Not to step on anyone's toes, but since there's a request at my talk page... but first a reference comment: your "accessdate" parameter for the references "Weapons, Vehicles, and Clothes Gameplay" and "NeoGAF Games of the Year 2012 Awards" is malformed
  • Huh, I thought I'd mended all of those. Well, thanks. Kinda comes off as a good-natured attempt to please both American and British readers. Tezero (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
collapsed resolved image issues
  • No replacements available. I'll just crop it instead. URDNEXT (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sleeping Dogs - Hong Kong.jpg or similar. If we're noting how realistic the portrayal of HK is, wouldn't it be better to compare, say, the shopping district of Kowloon as in the game, and the photograph we have? It works much better than an image of an unrelated part of HK, one which many people wouldn't know if it's realistic or not
  • This image is simply there because Grand Theft Auto V has one of Los Santos as well. It also looks pretty nice. URDNEXT (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image displays the open world of the game, as well as its graphics, draw distances and art style. Is that good now? Crisco 1492 If not, then what should I do? URDNEXT (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 Screw it, I removed the image from the article. Can you please delete it from the site as it's no longer being used? Also, do you think the images are all good now? URDNEXT (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're losing your temper over policy, I think you may want to wait for Tezero to get back. You can still use an image in that section, to illustrate how realistic the game's portrayal of HK is... but it needs to be better supported. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 Can we just move on with the review and forget the image? The pic wasn't that necessary anyway... URDNEXT (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a shame to scrap a perfectly good image just because the FUR hasn't been completed. Is it still around? I'll write an FUR if you don't want to, because the environments really were very widely covered. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is still a blue link (see above). The issue is not the FUR, but rather the use in the article. The article's use is to illustrate that the image is a good representation of the environment of Hong Kong. Somebody unfamiliar with the city cannot be sure of that claim with a single illustration. Pairing a non-free screenshot with a free photograph of the same or similar area would have a much stronger fair use claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 This is why removing it would be a better choice. I can't find any real life vs. in game screenshot that matches. What now? URDNEXT (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 If I had it on PC... I only have it on PS3 and I don't have a capture card. Taking it with my phone would be useless. Is there anything else from the game that is available on the internet useful for replacing the current pic? URDNEXT (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero and P: [3] Pair it with this, and we got Chrsitmas. URDNEXT (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, yeah, it'll be much easier to find a match for the top or bottom of these. Tezero (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero What d you think we should do? URDNEXT (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 Just out of curiosity, how did this pass FA?[4] As far as I'm corcerned, it's exactly like the one we use here. URDNEXT (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd have to ask the individual who did the image review there. I personally think there are too many FU images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. GTA 5 has 5 FUs, while we only have 3. This is bull. URDNEXT (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raw numbers is not part of the NFCC. It depends on what is being illustrated. The difference between the PS3 and PS4 releases, for instance, would not be applicable here, and would be rather silly to get rid of in the GTA5 article. The one on waterboarding, however, would probably be removed without causing any significant damage to a reader's understanding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 So if we remove the one in reception, would it make a difference? URDNEXT (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem rather eager to remove the image. I'd rather we work to make the article the best possible. I've already mentioned an image that might be relatively easy to find something similar to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going out for a couple hours soon. I can when I get back if you want, though. Tezero (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to see if I can handle it myself then. Though if I can't to them all, your help would be appreciated. URDNEXT (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 I adressed all your concerns. Do you approve the images now? URDNEXT (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 Tezero Ok then, here you go... File:Hong Kong streets at night vs SD.jpg URDNEXT (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, URDNEXT. Just add the source for the bottom image. Tezero (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. @Tezero, can you write a FUR for the image? URDNEXT (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 Tez is going out again, is there any way you can write a FUR and downsample the image? URDNEXT (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm back. (They put the rice entirely on top of my stir-fry - weird, but somehow not bad.) Downsize all you like, but I'm about to start the FUR. Tezero (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tezero Can you downsample the image too? I can't do it on mobile. URDNEXT (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and I've also written an FUR, though you should edit it and look for the hidden comments, where information about the bottom image is needed. Also, I don't mean to be a nag, but technically Wikipedia doesn't have the rights to the bottom image if it isn't hosted on Wikimedia Commons; you may need to find a free replacement and edit the double-image accordingly, or ask the blog's owner to freely license their work (which czar can help you with). Tezero (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much the freely licensed photo would matter in this case because it's already part of a composite unfree image with a FUR now. Of course we would ideally use a free image for comparison with the in-game image, but the point might just be moot now czar ♔ 03:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair use is supposed to be minimal, and I don't think an argument that we couldn't find a free photograph of Hong Kong would hold up in traffic court. Tezero (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 I updated the image with the image you gave me from commons. Is it all good now? Tezero we have a whole lot to do with the cr4ze concerns. URDNEXT (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image kinda has to be in the article first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to link the original file on commons and attribute the creator, and you need to downsample the non-free image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: Done. Though downsampling the image would cause it to not be clear as the image is already pretty blurry. URDNEXT (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about in the article. I'm talking about the actual file. 1900 pixels on each side is much more than we allow for fair use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 So that means the image review passes? URDNEXT (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, first things first, thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GoingBatty edit

URDNEXT asked me to take a look at the article. I made some copyedits and added some wikilinks.

  • I'm wondering if some of the information in the lead could be trimmed, such as the last two sentences in paragraph 3.
  • I requested an update for the Triad Wars sequel, since the full reveal is scheduled for today.
  • There still hasn't been information released by the developers on the game. I'm wondering if they're gonna do it at midnight. URDNEXT (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #80 is a dead link.

Good luck with the article! GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GoingBatty I think we adressed all your concerns. What do you think about the article now? URDNEXT (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Thanks for addressing some of my comments. Two more comments:
  • Now that the lead states the sequel "is set to be released in early 2015", should that info also be in the Sequel section with a reference?
  • I removed the unnecessary |publisher= parameters.
Nice job with the article! GoingBatty (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GoingBatty! Also, thank you for removing the publisher parameters. I just mentioned the released date in the sequel section as you asked. I there anything else you'd like to add about the article? Any problems? Any errors? URDNEXT (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Thanks - no other comments from me. GoingBatty (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CR4ZE edit

Unfortunately guys, I have serious concern with the prose

  • @Czar, can you please copy edit the article to comply with CR4ZE's concerns? URDNEXT (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responded below czar ♔ 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead looks disproportionately long for the article's length and could be snipped to three paragraphs.
  • The paragraphs and release/marketing on the lead are massively important. If there's one paragraph that could merge with another is the gameplay one with the first paragraph. But even then, it'd be a long shot. URDNEXT (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've condensed it to three paragraphs; see what you think, you two. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player controls Wei Shen ... as an undercover."—very awkward sentence. Try "The player controls Wei Shen, a Chinese-American police officer who infiltrates the Sun On Yee Triad organization undercover" or similar, and move "named after the real life Sun Yee On" into an efn to stop the prose being skewed.
  • "Shen, a martial arts expert..."—A laborious sentence given the amount of commas having to be employed. I think it could be split in two.
  • Done, and organized as locomotion vs. combat. Tezero (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shen's health ... empties after a short time."—another. I began to think about how to fix it, but the second half of this sentence stumps me. No idea what it's talking about.
  • "... heavily inspired by Batman: Arkham Asylum's combat system"—clear WP:OR. Checked through the IGN review (next source used in prose), which doesn't mention Arkham Asylum at all, thought it actually gives Arkham City a passing mention.
  • Erm, it still says that. For what it's worth, I wrote the initial version of the Reception section in its current structure, and I remember seeing lots of Arkham Asylum comparisons, though I'm not sure if any of them mentioned actual influence - not that reviewers would necessarily be adequate sources for that, anyway. Perhaps "The game's melee combat has been frequently compared to that of Batman: Arkham Asylum" or something would be in order? Tezero (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When full, the player's screen will turn yellow". The screen can be "filled"? The arrangement of this sentence is awkward, and what is meant by "other benefits when the player is upgraded?
  • All that detail about environmental attacks seems to stray into game guide territory to me. Could be summarised.
  • "These weapons ... break with overuse"—flip the inversion around. ("Though they ... , these weapons ... break with overuse".)
  • "The game also features a shooting mechanic"—"shooting mechanic" is vague. Fix the repetition of "use". Also, can players only use weapons behind cover? That's what the sentence makes out to me.
  • Refer back to the player as "they" instead of "he". I find using "players" instead of "the player" gives prose better flow, but it's a personal preference. The problem is there's occasional switching to "players". Pick one and go with it.
  • I think it's better to keep the player instead of changing it to players. URDNEXT (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the heat system is adapted from GTA V, so unless you're telling me that it functions exactly as it does in GTA V, it needs to be rewritten. Is there a cooldown mode? Does the line of sight of officers display on the minimap? What is a "wanted vicinity" and why is it being introduced now? From that, is there line of sight or vicinity, or both? Because in GTA V, the line of sight displays on the mini-map but the vicinity doesn't. Is it called a wanted level or a heat level? These are distinctions that need to be made.
  • Link jargon like head-up display and checkpoint.
  • "Despite campaign missions ... at their leisure—is a mouthful that can be easily snipped. Lose the redundant "being necessary to progress through the game" and go from there.
  • "When not playing through a mission, players..."—lose repetition of "play" and "can".
  • Description of XP system is quite vague, giving examples of how it is earned but not how it actually changes gameplay. Drop the italics on "Melee Skill Tree".

This sentence needs better reference support, because the IGN review does not go into as much detail leaving some bits here unsupported.

  • I won't read into Synopsis as I'll likely pick the game up on PS4 and want to have fresh eyes.
  • I think there's been a little too much snipped from the article about its rocky development since I last looked at it for the GAN. Certainly, it's better without all the trivial marketing bits, however the cancellation under Activision was a major roadblock in the game's development and I thought Van Der Mescht and Hirshberg's comments were interesting. As is Square Enix's reasoning to pick the IP up again.
  • I inserted the quotes back. Now I'm just waiting for someone to copy edit it. URDNEXT (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were intrigued by a game idea ... to the open world genre"—"and felt it would be" is awkward. This sentence could be rephrased slightly.
  • "and the game was released worldwide in late 2012 as both a critical and commercial success, selling over 1.5 million copies worldwide within a year of its release."—source doesn't cover the critical success claim. Also, I would try "... in late 2012 to both critical and commercial success".
  • The prose in Design seriously lacks flow and needs a lot of work. I'm seeing lots of waffle like "because they aimed to", "found that there are", "so they decided", "Kaskamanidis did not have trouble reviewing dialogue in a language he did not understand", repetition of "the game", "the team", "the developers" and "DJ" that can be fixed by recasting sentences, "since they did not" et cetera. I am also seeing several grammar errors ie mixing up of singular and plural like "The team wanted to find voice actor who had", and simply incorrect phrasing like "Tsunami's suggested the developers to get a package deal". What is the error in "really instil"? This section needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
  • "Prior to the release, United Front Games relied heavily on viral marketing"—There is no subject in this sentence.
  • Unfortunately the prose in Marketing suffers from similar problems.
  • Think about how the section is arranged. Why is there a paragraph on a Just Cause 2 easter egg in the middle?
  • More waffle—"through the use of", "were utilized by",
  • "A Limited Edition of the game ... and "Police Protection Pack"."—awkward sentence, needs rephrasing. "A special edition for Australia ..." sentence has the same problem.
  • "eight battle-type items"—what's that?
  • "Anyone who has a save file for ... safehouse closet"—really awkward to navigate this sentence. It needs to be rephrased, and shouldn't feature "Anyone who has" or "as soon as the player gets a chance". Also not clear which game you play to get which outfit.
  • "add[ing] to the ambi[a]nce of Hong Kong"—really vague, doesn't mean anything. Why has the quote been butchered like that? If you need to fix typos in it or slightly reshuffle, just do it as per MOS:QUOTE.
  • "new tasks like money hidden around the city"—what does this mean?
  • "November, 2012 s the"—typo?
  • I can't find this in the article. URDNEXT (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It must have been fixed already before you saw this. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through February 2013"—what does this mean? Throughout February? In February? After February? Also, how is the "Wheels of Fury" half of this sentence related to the other?
  • "a gangster ordered dead by Uncle Po who has risen up from the underworld to take his vengeance on the Sun On Yee"—Confusing. Is he dead or ordered dead? And if he's dead, how does a ghost rise up through a criminal underworld?
  • "Shen fights Cat's army ...'"—this material is unsourced and skewed by commas that make it difficult to understand. In fact, the following paragraphs' plot details are unsourced, too.
  • Can't find sources for the plots. URDNEXT (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is excessive journalese in Reception. Many of these quotes can be summarised or removed.
  • I've summarized a few. I don't think too much of it's redundant so I haven't removed any, but if you can give me any such examples I'll take a look. Tezero (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that there's too much exuberant language both in the text and the supporting quotes i.e. 'The leveling system was widely commended, being described by Ryckert as "stand[ing] out from the open-world pack"'. "Widely commended" claim is supported by Ryckert's review, which naturally features journalese, so I think there's a tone issue with the writing here. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now I'm confused. The reviews were strongly positive; why shouldn't we mirror that? (I myself haven't even played it, and I'm not the biggest fan of Western open-world games in general.) Tezero (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite think an ~80 aggregate score qualifies as "strongly positive" for a video game, but that's just my opinion. My issue was with the exuberant general statements being supported by journalese quotes from reviewers, although the balance looks better now. Mind "Moriarty lauded the game's depiction..." and similar statements because their construction is awkward, and using "lauded" and "liked" within the same sentence feels odd. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for repetitive phrases throughout, like "praised the other characters, praising the voice actors", "Blyth called the supplementary characters ... though he found some characters".
  • Fixed some of this stuff; see what you think. Tezero (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is serious work to be done before this article can reach FA quality. Unfortunately, I have to oppose for now until there is a serious copy-edit to improve the prose. Some sections will need to be revamped, but I know the three of you together are capable of doing so. Please ping me once you think you've solved the issues and I'll reconsider my opposition. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CR4ZE Although the copy editing is not done, we have adressed all the concerns you had. By the way, I know it's off topic, but have you seen Captain America 2? URDNEXT (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Replied below. No, I haven't seen it, and I'm not huge on most superhero films, excepting one of my favourite films ever The Dark Knight. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from JimmyBlackwing edit

Have to back up CR4ZE on this one. Prose is awkward right from the first sentence.

  • "Sleeping Dogs is an open world, third-person action-adventure video game developed by United Front Games in conjunction with Square Enix London and released by Square Enix and Namco Bandai Games for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles, and Microsoft Windows." — Huge run-on, broken up only by an inexplicable comma near the end. Could probably be halved in size, or split into two sentences, without loss.
  • The word "release" appears, in one form or another, four times in the first two sentences. And two of those instances preface unnecessary full dates, which could (and should) be shortened for readability.
  • "Set within a fictionalized present-day version of Hong Kong" — Could be reduced to "Set in contemporary Hong Kong" (or even "Set in Hong Kong") without loss.

A few random samples from the article body:

  • "Despite campaign missions being necessary to progress through the game and unlock certain content and access certain parts of the city, players can complete them at their leisure." — Packed with redundant words and far too light on punctuation. Then it ends with the informal phrase "at their leisure". Could be reduced by more than half, and merged with the next sentence (also shortened), without loss: "Although players must complete missions to unlock content and to continue the story, they may instead wander the game's open world and participate in activities such as carjacking, street racing, joining a fight club and visiting a karaoke bar."
  • "Kaskamanidis did not have trouble reviewing dialogue in a language he did not understand, because according to him, 'you can always detect quality acting through a person's performance.'" — Needlessly long and clunky. An example: "Kaskamanidis did not understand the language spoken by the actors, but he reviewed their work under the assumption that 'you can always detect quality acting through a person's performance.'"
  • "It is revealed that Po gave Pendrew high-ranking Triad members to distract him from Po's own business operations, leading to Po's rise in power, and Pendrew murdered him upon finding this out." — More unnecessary words ("to distract him from Po's own business operations, leading to Po's rise in power") and informal phrasing ("finding this out").

Given the size of this article, it's tough to say whether there'll be enough time to solve such deep prose issues. One thing is certain: it needs a thorough cleaning, from its first sentence to its last. Simply fixing the examples CR4ZE or I provided will not be enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JimmyBlackwing Do you know any good copy editors that are available? I don't know when Czar will, of if he's even using the site at all. URDNEXT (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already overbooked for the near future, so doubt I'll have time this week for such a great undertaking, but I can try to take a pass this weekend if I can muster the time. I should add two things: (1) that my copyediting ability has been criticized recently and thus may not be worth much here, and (2) that my thoughts on the prose are registered on the article's talk page (most recently, the 13th). Wish I had more time to give this. Anyway, we can request at GOCE for now. czar ♔ 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Most of the people I could recommend have been retired from Wikipedia for years. The only two I can think of aren't really viable in this case: Tezero (already a nominator) and CR4ZE (already opposing). I suppose you could ask Tezero to revamp the article, but I'd guess that he's too close to the text at this point. I agree with Czar that you should contact the GOCE, even though that project's track record is spotty. The prose needs a lot of work and there isn't much time in which to do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing I'll find a way to get someone to do the prose. URDNEXT (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. I should add that Czar's rewrite of Marketing and release is already a huge improvement. It's a shame that he has so little time to work on the article: his help is needed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing Quite honestly, I'm not sure if the article has even chances of passing goven the amount of current concerns with the prose. URDNEXT (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's only been nominated for five days, I think you have a chance. I've seen some truly horrendous prose (on articles that I nominated) salvaged during FAC. There's no reason to withdraw yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping me when the copy edit is finished and I'll take a look. As Jimmy said above, don't be discouraged about the FAC yet. It's still early days into the review and there's a fair chance that the issues raised by Squeamish, Jimmy and I can be fixed for this to pass. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blackmane edit

Hi, as URDNEXT has mentioned above, I've received their request to run a copyedit over the article and have asked them to list a request with WP:GOCE, which they've done and I've accepted. I would highly appreciate it if editing to the article is kept to a minimum and that any prose related comments be directed to my talk page. This isn't so that I'm taking ownership of the article, it's just to avoid any edit conflicts that may result in too many people trying to help. I've largely worked my way through the first few sections and am working on the Design section, which has quite a great deal to pare down. I would appreciate if a second (or even third) set of eyes have a look over the preceding sections and check them for flow, readability and sense. Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've pretty much gutted and rewritten the Design section, particularly the paragraph on audio design. I found a number of exceedingly close paraphrases that were closer to being blatant copyright violations in that section. It was over detailed and added little to the article except bloat. Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmane Sounds great. John will be doing a c/e on release/marketing and downloadable content, so if you could, please avoid making edits to those sections to avoid conflicts. URDNEXT (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to do the second run-through that Blackmane requested. I'll start once he's finished with the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also remark that Blackmane's copyedit of the Development section was a bit overzealous. The section is now far from comprehensive—and, after recent edits from URDNEXT, it appears to have been corrupted. I can't any make sense of it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing Is it better now that John went over it? I hope it is. URDNEXT (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's much better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing Do you think it can pass now? URDNEXT (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for John to finish the entire article before deciding. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Please be careful when you add huge chunks of text into the article that you are asking us to check. I picked up a copyvio (might have been two) in the text you added to the development section. I think the text came from previous versions of the article, but please make sure you check in future. I'm not sure if the diffs need to be revdel'd, I might have to check with some of the copyright specialists. Blackmane (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blackmane Alright, sorry for any incoveniences. CR4ZE was the one who asked for more info on the cancellation and when Square picked up the game. URDNEXT (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, we all need to be careful about where the text comes from. Just copy pasting a few lines into Google to see if it appears anywhere already. This is especially the case when resurrecting older text. Blackmane (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @URDNEXT:, @John:, @JimmyBlackwing: @Tezero: I'm going to try and finish up as much of my copy edit as I can. I will be traveling for work from Oct 1 and am unsure as to whether I'll be able to get online from that date. With some luck I'll be back online at the weekend, but after that I will be on only very intermittently as I will be moving. Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further prose comments from JimmyBlackwing edit

Working through the article, I'm noticing a lot of crufty information and redundant words. It's melting away without much trouble. However, I just reached the plot summary, which is (no offense) quite possibly the worst I've ever seen in a VG FAC. It's an avalanche of character and organization names, interspersed with snippets of generally unnecessary plot information:

  • "After Dogeyes attacks the Golden Koi, Winston retaliates with an attack on a warehouse owned by Dogeyes. Shen convinces Winston to spare Dogeyes' drug maker Siu Wah to avoid the wrath of Uncle Po, leader of the Sun On Yee. Shen destroys the warehouse and captures Siu Wah, earning the trust of the Water Street Gang."
  • "As a reward for saving his life, Uncle Po promotes Shen to the rank of Red Pole, succeeding Winston as leader of the Water Street Gang. At the request of Mrs. Chu, Shen captures Johnny, who confesses that Dogeyes was behind the wedding massacre. Shen captures Dogeyes and delivers him to Mrs. Chu, who kills him."
  • "When fellow Red Pole Henry 'Big Smile' Lee attempts to take over the Water Street Gang's territory, Shen resists and instead agrees to an alliance with Red Pole 'Broken Nose' Jiang. During a meeting with the other Red Poles and a hospitalised Uncle Po, Jiang nominates Po's nephew 'Two Chin' Tsao as temporary Sun On Yee leader to prevent Lee nominating himself."

It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Cut it down to 2-3 paragraphs; eliminate all character and organization names non-essential to the thinnest, most straightforward description of the story. Leave character introductions for the "Setting and characters" section. And, if possible, introduce citations—they're standard issue for VG FAs. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot citations aren't necessary for Plot sections of anything - if you're disputing any details, though, I suppose some could be provided. Tezero (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't necessary, but it's typical to include them in VG FAs—as the argument goes, a video game plot is not as easily verifiable as the plot of a book or film. Plus, video games have a limitless amount of potential events, so citations help to separate the wheat ("The game begins when...") from the chaff ("Protagonist guy beats up thug 242 and..."). That seems particularly relevant with this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my first run through of this section, I rearranged a lot of the existing text rather than cut into it much. So instead of a scalpel, I'm going to break out my chainsaw on this. Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmane Yay! Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've brutalised the Synopsis section with my chainsaw. Let me know if I was too brutal. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Blackmane The only problem is you ignored Winston's death, and to mention who Shen's friend is. URDNEXT (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a good foundation, but it's a bit too short and vague as-is. Important characters discussed in the Setting and characters section can and should be mentioned by name in the synopsis, for example. A bit less generalization of major events in the story would give the section more weight as well. That said, it's already a big improvement in terms of intelligibility—I can actually tell what the story's about now (!)—despite the imperfections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both your comments. It's important that I get feedback from outside eyes. As I've copy edited a great deal of the material much of it becomes immediately obvious to me but may seem obscure to people who are just reading. I'll go back and spend some more time reworking it. Blackmane (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to stir the pot, but it looks WAY too short - like, not even half as long as it should be. Is it really appropriate to have what on my monitor is about a page and a half of development but not enough Plot to even know the basics of what happens? This is anti-crufting gone terribly mad. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately pruned it hard to get at the core of the material. Per URDNEXT's and JimmyBlackwing's comments I've readded some detail to flesh it back out without being excessive. Blackmane (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the page need to be pruned hard for the core of the material? This would be an adequate amount of coverage for, like, a Sly Cooper, Spyro, or '90s Zelda game, not a lengthy, fully voice-acted triple-A offering. I mean, look at our other video game FAs - heck, what about Grand Theft Auto V? That's pretty comparable in narrative depth, right? But it goes into a much more reasonable level of detail, I think. Tezero (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It needed to be pruned because it had grown into an unreadable mess. If you look at GTAV's plot section, you'll notice that organization and character names are kept to a minimum, and that plot-critical events take center stage. It's a solid, coherent and (considering the game's size) spare summary. The same cannot be said of the old Sleeping Dogs synopsis. I agree that it's currently too short, but you have to start with a firm foundation. Here, as it stands, is what needs to be done to finish the Plot section:
  • The characters mentioned in "Setting and characters" should line up with those mentioned in Synopsis; no others should be included.
  • Synopsis needs to be beefed up in detail without returning to name overload, and the story's core arc should be clear.
  • Character nicknames (where necessary) should be introduced in "Setting and characters", then used without introduction in Synopsis.
  • Likewise, all organizations ("Water St gang", "18K gang", "Lee's gang") should be defined in "Setting and characters" and never again.
These steps will bring boring, hard-to-read sentences ("The group leader of the Sun On Yee Triads, David Wai-Lin 'Uncle' Po, is also critically wounded in the attack but is saved by Shen.") back to life: "Uncle Po is critically wounded in the attack but is saved by Shen." If you want to use GTAV as a model, it's the clarity and succinctness—not the raw length—that should be borrowed for this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd add that GTA V's plot was never much of a problem. It was short from the get-go. The Development section had to be split off because there was good material that was disproportionately long, and Reception got massively culled after the peer review. I think this article's scope is decent, and I agree with you that raw length is irrelevant as long as the material is succinct. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, I believe I am going to have to step back from the article. As it is now, I'm not copy editing it so much as actual editing the core material. I'll close the request at the WP:GOCE page as the text isn't stable enough for a copy edit to be done. Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I come back to the article, something's changed, so I don't think it would be fair to revisit my vote yet. I'd encourage all of you to keep going through and making sure the prose is tight. I'm seeing a couple of instances of jagged prose in Gameplay and Reception right now. The article's definitely getting much closer, but I'm not ready yet to reconsider my opposition. @Blackmane: Regardless, your copy edit insofar improved the article a lot. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, what now? URDNEXT (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the main editors of the article discuss what material is missing and sources to go in, as per the usual BRD. As long as the reviewers agree that it has the right sorts of material for a FAC, barring a copy edit, then you are always welcome to drop another request at WP:GOCE for a copy editor. The guild can only do copy editing when the material and sourcing is largely stable, so that the only thing we really need to do is tidy it up grammatically, spelling, flow that sort of thing. It's not really our role to dive into the main editing and I've kinda violated those guidelines (not that it's the sort of guidelines that people get sanctioned for). If you do go for another request at the guild, feel free to ping me to see if I'm available for another run at copy editing it again. Best of luck! Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: At this stage, I don't think the article is prepared for FAC. Initially it seemed like prose was the main issue, and that's fixable. Unfortunately, huge content problems have emerged during the nomination, what with the messy Plot section, the thin Development section and the allegations of copyvio. I hadn't bothered to oppose officially until now, but I think CR4ZE's restated opposition and Blackmane's departure have put the final nails into this nom's coffin. I suggest that the nominators withdraw, revamp the article, do a peer review and then renominate in a few weeks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm gonna work as hard as I can on this. If it doesn't pass, then I'll retire from the site. This article has literally been my life for the past weeks, and I even almost lost my job because of how much time I spend on it. URDNEXT (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • URDNEXT, an FAC failing, assuming this one does, isn't the end of the world. My first one did on prose concerns - I didn't understand because I was 14 and thought it looked fine, but the other editors saw something afoul in it I didn't. Eventually it passed, and here I am now with six FAs and an FL on my Wiki-resume. Hell, even after czar orchestrated the merging of a bunch of pages I'd created, several of them GAs, I'm still here, as is he after what looks like the first serious prose-related oppose votes on one of his FACs and me tearing apart one of his GANs on clarity concerns - and not only are we not biting at each other's heels; we're both co-nominators here. Things like this happen, and I encourage you to look on the bright side of what you've already done here and what you still can. Tezero (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first nomination in which I was involved failed per 1a, too. The nom process was a disaster awfully similar to this one. Now, six articles on which I've made large content contributions have been TFAs, and I'm the main editor on WPVG's largest featured topic. The sky's the limit if you don't quit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help guys, but I quit. I really need to focus on my life and career. I can't keep on doing this anymore. However, I will be back one day. Thanks for all the good times you've given me, Tezero Czar Jaguar URDNEXT (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I sound like a douche saying this, but I need to stay away from Wiki a bit. URDNEXT (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing edit

Since URDNEXT appears to have retired, and so many problems with the article remain, I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn by User:Tezero or User:Czar. I don't see much hope for this thing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm fine with that if czar is. I've never been especially attached to this subject like URDNEXT presumably has, and I've got plenty else to be focusing on both on- and off-wiki, like a GAN dating back to late July and a Data Structures test in two days. As soon as URDNEXT does return, though, I'm available to help once more. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame though because this has only been open for ten days and there was still the possibility of it passing eventually. It would have been difficult, with 3 opposes needing to change including my own, but not impossible. Hope to see you back on the site soon URDNEXT. Unless Czar steps in, there's nothing else that can be done to rescue the article, and this nom should be archived. CR4ZE (t • c) 00:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assessment is fair. I don't think the article was ready for FAC, which descended into a full-scale cleanup and peer review (which is an admirable collaboration in some ways, but also so far from what FAC is supposed to be). It's a shame it had to get to this point, though, and a shame it ended so explosively. I'm sure subsequent maintainers of this article will very much appreciate the contributions from the past few days. czar ♔ 14:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FAC really isn't the place for copyedits by multiple editors; I hope y'all can get together with URDNEXT to improve the article but any rescue efforts should take place outside this process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with those who have commented at this FAC. I think it's a shame though that this is all we can manage after so much work has been done on the article in the last weeks. Would it be better to relist in a couple of weeks, or to unarchive with a new nominator? I feel the article is now very close to the requisite standard. --John (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very happy to see this back at FAC when you guys are satisfied it's up to scratch, but let's observe the usual two-week period from archive to new nom (starting as of yesterday when I closed it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Jefferson–Hemings controversy edit

Nominator(s): Monkelese (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson controversy, the main editor, Parkwells, has created a great article, it deserves a star Monkelese (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, and urge withdrawal.. I'm sorry to have to say it, but this simply is not ready for FAC; indeed, I would not pass this article at GAC in its current state. The first thing that jumps out as a problem is the overall article structure. I can't imagine supporting promotion for any historical article that has "Facts" as a section header (the implication is that the rest of the content is not factual). The paired "1998 DNA study" and "1998 DNA study further discussion" headings are problematic. My problems with the use of current notwithstanding, "Predominant current view" and "Current scholarship" as separate sections is troubling. Looking beyond the section headers, it is clear this information is presented in no particular order; it is certainly not chronological. "Representation in other media" should almost certainly be rendered in prose rather than a bullet-point list, needs to be sourced properly in lieu of simple external links, and should very likely be more discriminating about which works are considered significant enough for inclusion. Reference formatting lacks any real sense of consistency, and many of the references lack information or are simply improperly cited. I did not evaluate the prose itself; the structural and referencing problems are too severe for me to believe this candidacy would come down to prose issues. Again, I am sorry to be harsh, but the FA standards are high. This is a significant historical topic, and I hope the editors involved with its writing will take the opportunity to revise this text in consultation with others, and consider preparing first for GAC on the path to returning here with it in a better state. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a whole lot of opinion but thanks for it. If it wouldn't even pass a GA status, then it does need work. I'll wait for one or two more opinions and I guess it will go from there, if not then it is withdrawn. (Monkelese (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure: This is a rare vote for me; I usually support, oppose, or comment, and in some other types of discussions I'll vote "neutral". In this case, I agree that the citation styles completely need work, but this might not take that long, and I think the "Facts" information isn't necessarily out of place; the information should just be redistributed elsewhere. I only oppose when I think an article is unsalvageable, and this isn't necessarily the case. It's a fair assessment, though, that a significant amount of reorganization alone is necessary, barring any other issues. Tezero (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Tks guys, the nominator did ask elsewhere to withdraw this and I while I agree that it's not unsalvageable, the improvements would best be made outside the FAC process, and the article submitted for GAN and Peer Review prior to renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2014-09-25 [5].

Michelle Obama edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified
Projects: WP:OBAMA, WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:POLITICS, WP:WMNHIST, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
Leading editors: User:Tvoz, User:Loonymonkey, User:Bobblehead, User:Happyme22, User:HughD


This article is about the First Lady of the United States. Now that she has been in office for 6 years, there have been a lot of eyes on the article and there has been a lot of refinement since the last nomination 4.5 years ago. This is a very odd nomination. Among the 18 people with at least a dozen edits to the article, no one has edited the article since November 2013. Thus, we can see that the article is now very stable. I think it is greatly improved over the previously nominated versions. Although I remain the leading editor in terms of number of edits, the vast majority of those were prior to FAC1. Nonetheless, I will take the lead on this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noahcs edit

Comments - Several things stand out to me when I read this:  Noahcs  (Talk) 15:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • LGBT Rights section has one sentence that is over half the paragraph. Also, with the repeated use of the phrase "his support"", it appears to read like an advertisement for Barack instead of Michelle.  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but the first paragraph still seems off to me. First, they are not reflecting on Michelle Obama herself, they are mostly referring to policies and personal views that Barack Obama shares. Second, the comments were given at what was basically a fundraiser which seems to be incompatible with WP:NPOV. It still reads like an advertisement written for Barack. Perhaps if you changed it to something like "Both her and her husband have been committed to _______. Together they support _____. They feel ______. They both have been _____." I assume their viewpoints match on these issues?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that same issue, shouldn't the Let's Move section be bigger? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her healthy foods program her signature program?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's Move! has its own article. This section summarizes that and has a {{main}} tag to send the reader to a more detailed coverage of the topic. This article is not about Let's Move. The dedicated article is 7449 characters of readable prose, while this section is 1541 characters. Note that the WP:LEAD of that article, which is also suppose to summarize the topic is only 1371 characters. That is a good size for a summary. If that article were really large and it had a full-size LEAD (about 3000 characters), I would be more worried about the content here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two sentences and one source under "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns".  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we merge "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns" and "2008 Presidential campaign and election" to a "Early campaigns"? How much encyclopedic content do political wives have regarding their husband's early careers. I might be able to find content about how the couple considered his foray into politics. In fact, some content may have gotten thrown out with the bathwater during some of the high vandalism periods.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that the family section has a lot of content related to how his political career affected the family. Do you think all the content is where it should be?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think her life before and after meeting Obama should be more distinct; the article blurs the line between them. I would definitely consider moving the section about her daughters to the bottom under "First Lady". I'm not sure if I would give "Religion" its own subsection, but that's fine either way.  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that meeting Obama now is the start of a subsection. What stuff about her daughters are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm referring to the section starting at "The Obamas' daughters attended the...". It seems that there should be a family life section under "First Lady" that shows their lives while they are in office.  Noahcs  (Talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything in that paragraph before "Malia and Sasha now attend Sidwell Friends School..." belongs where it is. That is not FLOTUS content. I am not sure how to fit the rest of the paragraph in the FLOTUS section either although an argument might be made that it belongs there. I am not sure it really does.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Family and Education" seems a bit long, couldn't it be split up into other sections?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's a tough subject to write about because so many things overlap with her. This article has to balance information about Michelle, Barack, her role as first lady, his presidency, and their family as a whole. I think the nominator has done a good job, but I'm not sure about Featured Status just yet  Noahcs  (Talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that it just jumps around a lot without relying on summarizing issues. It's just not tightly edited. This section in particular is a mess. It talks about her hiring Jackie Norris then goes to military families then to criticism of her being a "feminist nightmare" and then to Sasha and Malia in China?  Noahcs  (Talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WereSpielChequers edit

Comment This version

  • On March 20, 2012, Michelle Obama said her husband's Supreme Court nominees will weigh in on decisions that will determine whether Americans can "love whomever they choose." "Jarrett, Michelle Obama pushed for gay marriage". Washington Wire. 5/9/12. Retrieved January 22, 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) That link is to an unrelated photo at Time. The date 5/9/12 is ambiguous and should be turned into prose.
  • On her first trip abroad in April 2009, she toured a cancer ward with Sarah Brown, wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Do we need this? What does it tell us? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using that as a highlight of her first trip abroad, sort of tells us about what type of person she his. It is not like they dragged her around town kicking and screaming. Also, she surely has her own publicity machine. If this is the first highlight, we should show the readers what her publicity machine produced as her first highlight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am off to the gym. I will look at these in a few hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. I've checked prose and a couple of the sources. This is broadly there, glad you didn't trivialise this. But I have a couple of queries. I think there is a clash between "As the wife of a Senator, and later the First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women" and the later bits about her being the least known candidate's spouse. She may still be less well known than Hilary Clinton's spouse, but there were other candidates in that race. Do you have sources for her being a fashion icon as a senator's wife, or would it be more accurate to say something like "As the wife of a presidential candidate, and especially as First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women". "Obama advocated of her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." may make sense in American English but to me it jars "Obama advocated for her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." would I think be slightly better; if it means that she lobbied Senators and Congressmen to support certain bills then I would prefer that you say that. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • See "In July 2007, Vanity Fair listed her among '10 of the World's Best Dressed People.'"- She was clearly a fashion icon at least a year and a half before becoming FLOTUS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • of --> for--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Tony. July 2007 was five months into the presidential campaign. Is there anything indicating she was considered a fashion icon before the campaign when she was just known as a senator's wife? ϢereSpielChequers 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Oppose I'm sorry Tony, but this is not FA-material.....

Infobox
  • I don't think we need to give Malia and Sasha's birth years here, they should just be in article body
    • This follows Barack Obama's article, which is a very closely watched article for all elements of style. Unless you can convince me that removing it would be supported there where every content addition and removal is highly scrutinized, we should keep it here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I wouldn't have done it in his article, either.
  • "Christian" is unneeded in "Protestant Christian" since Protestantism is a division of Christianity.
Lead
Family and Education
Early life and ancestry
  • Unlink Fraser Robinson III since he doesn't have his own article
  • "Her grandfather Fraser Robinson"..... either this is missing "Jr." or you forgot "great" before "grandfather"
  • "Irish and other European roots"..... be more specific than just "European"
  • "son of her grandfather's sister" would be one's "first cousin once-removed", not "first cousin"
  • "The family enjoyed playing games such as Monopoly and reading"..... how is this significant?
  • I think if her father was an alcoholic who left his family or beat his wife, it would be encyclopedic. This is a rare statement of the opposite, depicting a close-knit family. I picture them getting in a wood-grained panelling station wagon and doing all kinds of things together as a family. It paints a very clear picture for me and thus I view it as quite helpful. I have played scrabble with my grandparents, but I don't recall playing board games with my parents. I have a distinct feeling about her family from this statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be simpler to say they were close, happy family Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Craig should link to "Craig Robinson (basketball)", not "Craig Robinson (basketball coach)"
  • Why did she and Craig skip second grade, exactly?
  • If you are asking why they each skipped a grade, I would presume it was intellectual maturity. If you are asking why they each skipped the 2nd grade as opposed to another random grade, that is a different question.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why they skipped a grade at all, assuming this bit is to even be included Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Family life
  • "The couple's first date was to the Spike Lee movie Do the Right Thing"..... trivial
  • It tell's us the couple's first date was in the summer of 1989 and carries additional socioeconomic information about them as a couple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine to say they began dating in the summer of 1989, but it's not really important what they did that day Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for their two children"..... daughters, let's be more specific
  • "Now, Jarrett is" → "Jarret is now"
  • "However, despite their family obligations and careers, they continue to attempt to schedule date nights"..... is "date nights" really the best term to describe their time together?
  • I think that term is O.K. My problem with this content is that it is from a pre-White House source. We need to make it clear that this was a statement about their pre-White House life. I have added the phrase "while they lived in Chicago". If we were talking about their White House lives, time together might not be regarded as date nights. I think what they probably had in Chicago amounted to date nights.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could just say they found ways to be together, "schedule dates" tends to be used when a couple is unmarried Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info on Malia and Sasha's education would belong on articles about them, not Michelle
  • The entire fourth paragraph simply doesn't belong- info on Malia and Sasha's education would belong in their own articles rather than Michelle's, the other bits are trivial
  • It might have been fourth when I first reviewed this, but still is the last paragraph of the section Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Education and early career
  • "took advanced placement classes,was a member"..... needs a space after the comma
Religion
  • I'm not convinced this warrants a separate section. Her Methodist upbringing could perhaps be mentioned in a previous section, but the rest doesn't really seem needed. In any case, such a subsection doesn't belong under a section for "family".
  • No, I'm saying that this section goes into excess detail Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Career
First Lady of the United States
Let's Move!
  • Unlink Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Barack Obama
Public image and style
  • The fifth paragraph is fluff, and the last two sentences of the first paragraph are trivial.
  • It seems that WP tends to be a pop culture focused encyclopedia and FLOTUS articles seem to have a lot of ligher fare. The content that you are asking to have removed seems to be consistent with the more popular content elements of WP and the generally accepted practices for FLOTUS articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References

There's simply too many problems right now, better luck next time. I suggest withdrawal and taking to peer review before renomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNUGGUMS, please revisit this. It would be helpful if you struck the items that you feel I have addressed and commented on the others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better, but I still oppose and suggest withdrawal. In addition to the unresolved bits, Crisco and Designate brought up another major problem: none of the footnotes cite any full-length biographical books on her. We cannot say this article is comprehensive if it doesn't reference such books, and this still suffers from superfluous detail in certain areas. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Designate edit

Comment Were any of the full-length biographies consulted for this article? All of the inline citations are to news sites. One of the criteria is "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". —Designate (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editors have included three biographies in further reading. I assume the text has been guided in some ways by those sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 edit

  • Oppose for now. If there are three full length biographies of the subject, yet they are not referenced even once, and the main contributor has not consulted them, how can we say that this article is comprehensive? Even if the current article is a reasonably thorough look at events in her life (possible; it looks reasonable), the three biographies likely include analysis which is useful for improving on the causality of events, and discussion of how her actions as First Lady (and before) have been seen by others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Not only does the article eschew the biographies as sources, I couldn't see clear evidence of any books being used as sources. Articles and online sources of course aid in spotchecking, but they don't offer a level of comfort that a broad range of references has been employed. The article isn't suffering from excess weight at the moment so I think further sources could only be a benefit, and that should take place away from the FAC process (I might just add that even given its current length the lead seems light on). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose on 11:48, 12 November 2014 [6].

Little Athletics edit

Nominator(s): NickGibson3900 Talk 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a type of junior athletics in Australia. On the 17 July 2014, Little Athletics turned up on my SuggestBot suggestions. I had a look and this is what I found: A POV, unreferenced, messy and factually incorrect article. Over time I have found 29 refs, 2 pictures and reworded the whole article.

I would like to thank: User:TheQ Editor for his GA review, User:Valfury for his copyedit, User:EricEnfermero for his peer review, User:86.38.235.33 for finding a photo and adding sponsorship information, User:Mitch Ames for his response to my request at the Australian wikipedians noticeboard, User:Oceanh for nominating Little Athletics for DYK, User:Cwmhiraeth for reviewing the DYK nomination and User:211.27.69.120 for creating the article in October 2004. This is my first FAC and any comments (positive or negative) are welcome. -- NickGibson3900 Talk 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 1b/1c (and others), and urge withdrawal. I don't want to sound unduly harsh, but this really falls short of the FA criteria. The references represent a significant problem. Most of these references are not independent sources. For several of them, I don't see any evidence that they are reliable. "Little Athletics Early History" is a Microsoft Word document with no publication data and somewhat unclear authorship, converted to a PDF. That's not a reliable source. The results hosted at assets.imgstg.com with no publication information aren't reliable sources, either. There are other issues here, too; there's no discussion about the proposed (and failed) merger with Athletics Australia, for example, and no clear explanation of the difference between Little Athletics (the events and program) and Little Athletics Australia (the governing body). But the fact that this article is referenced the way that it is overrides the other concerns; I would not have passed this through the GA process as it appears here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Wow, ok. The GAN was completed by User:TheQ Editor and there has been no referencing changes since then. TheQ Editor is pretty experienced when it comes to GAN. I am quite annoyed that the DYK nomination nor the GAN picked these problems up. The DYK was by User:Cwmhiraeth a very experienced editor and Wikicup winner. If you understood Little Athletics you would realise that the assets.imgstg.com ref is reliable. The results of state championships are entered straight after each event, assets.imgstg.com don't publish them, but just host the results. The results are published by the state Little Athletics branch. If you contacted Little Athletics Australia they would provide confirmation or you could AGF. Also I will withdraw shortly, if another user agrees with you, just in case their is a mis-understanding. -- NickGibson3900 Talk 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment Squeamish Ossifrage is right. FA standards are much higher than GA (and, obviously DYK) and this article does not come close to the quality of referencing required for promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but the references aren't even at GA standard, I don't think. GA requires reliable sources. It's just that GANs don't typically scrape as deeply for problems, so maybe their questionability wasn't noticed. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please close this Graham Colm. Thanks - NickGibson3900 Talk 04:03, 24 October 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2014-09-19 [7].

Andranik edit

Nominator(s): Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a GA right now and has underwent significant peer reviews. It has great encyclopedic value as this person is not a well known figure in world history. A lot of hard work has been put into this article recently and I would love to see it rise to the FA status it deserves. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Étienne, welcome to FAC. On a procedural note, you don't seem to be one of the main editors of this article -- per FAC instructions, have you notified major contributors of this nomination? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose (talk · contribs) Hello Ian, yes I did. Here's the diff: [8]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods Done
  • The Russian Revolution section's map could stand to be larger Done
  • File:General_Andranik.jpg: the given tag relies on either author death or publication date being more than 70 years ago - can you demonstrate that either is the case, and if the latter that the author is truly unknown? Same with File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg
  • File:Rank_insignia_of_Старши_лейтенант_of_the_Bulgarian_Army_(horizontal).png: what is the copyright status of the original design? Same with File:IRA_F6MajGen_1917_h.png
  • File:Andraniksignature-1-.png needs a US PD tag Done
  • File:Andranik_fedayee.jpg: source link is dead, without a known author we can't verify date of death as being over 70 years ago, and if we could we would still need a US PD tag. Latter two apply also to File:Andranik_on_a_horse.jpg DONE
  • File:Armenian_monastery_of_s_apostles_in_moush.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Also needs a US PD tag. Both issues apply to File:Zoravar_Andranik_in_Sophia_1912.jpg, which also needs a more specific source DONE
  • For both this point and the previous one, not done: dead link is fixed, but none of the sources given provide a named author (what you've got in the author field are the publication details, which are helpful, but don't support the tag you're using). That being said, for pre-1923 publications you could simply substitute the same tag being used for File:Andraniksignature-1-.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Location_of_the_1894_and_1904_Sasun_uprisings.png: what is the copyright status of the source from which this was derived? Same with File:Western_Armenia_September_1917.png
  • File:Andranik_Caucasian_Campaign_circa_1914-1916.png: under which rationale is this claimed as PD? Done
  • Not done: as with the previous point, using that tag requires a known author and a US PD tag added. However, as above, this could be fixed by selecting a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Andranik_Zangezur_1918.png: if Andranik is in the photo, who took the photo? Done
  • File:Andranik_hat.png: source does not support pre-1923 publication. Same with File:Andranik_1919.png Done
  • File:Cimetière_du_Père-Lachaise_-_General_Antranik_Toros_Ozanian.jpg: since France does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the monument?
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_poster.jpg: scanning a 2D image does not give the scanner copyright of the image. What is the copyright status of this poster?
  • File:MilitaryOrderBravery-Ribbon.gif: the uploader does not hold copyright to this design. Same with File:Vladimir_ribbon.jpg, File:OrderStGeorge4cl_rib.png, File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg, File:Greek_War_Cross_1917_2nd_class_ribbon.png. Each of these is either not original enough to warrant copyright or has been copied from somewhere and needs its original copyright status clarified.
  • File:Order_of_Saint_Stanislaus_Ribbon.PNG: who is the author and what is their date of death?

Oppose pending resolution of image issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Please give me some time so I can sort out the problems accordingly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are lots of language problems here, including these from the first paragraph:

  • "the most famous": See WP:PEACOCK. The main problem here is avoiding the word "famous"; the idea is not objectionable. DONE (fow now I removed it, perhaps use the term well-known?)
  • "fedayi": Generally, give a quick translation for foreign words so that the reader won't be left without a clue unless they follow the link. "Irregular" might work here. DONE
    • You've still got the problem that when the word first appears, there's no translation. - Dank (push to talk)
  • repetition: "Armenian" or "Armenia" shows up seven times in the first three sentences. DONE
    • Okay, now it shows up six times instead of seven. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along other": along with other DONE
  • "and along other fedayi, he sought": and, along with other fedayi, sought DONE
  • "living in their ancestral homeland; an area known as": comma, not semicolon DONE
  • "he disagreed with its cooperation": he disapproved of its cooperation DONE - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note: @Nikkimaria and Dank: Guys, what's the status of your opposes given the nominators responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added notes above, and that was just in the first paragraph. Still opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposing given the number of things yet unfixed. Etienne, given what's been done so far, you might want to seek out a collaborator to help with fixing those remaining items. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt responses, and apologies Dan for not noticing that those points were just from the first para, which would have given me pause too. On that basis I intend to archive this as I think improvements should be made outside the FAC process. I have a couple of suggestions for Etienne, firstly to act on the suggestion to seek out a collaborator if possible, and secondly to put the article through MilHist A-Class Review before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2014-09-16 [9].

Oliver Evans edit

Nominator(s): Unus Multorum (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Oliver Evans, whom I discovered the existence of while travelling through Delaware. He's a bit of a unsung hero of the industrial revolution, and despite a string of really important inventions and designs he has virtually no profile in the minds of the wider public (though not entirely without cause!). After my first FA with Stanley Bruce last year I decided to give it another whirl trying to bring Evans' story to greater attention, so intensively invested to pretty much write this one from scratch. Successfully went through the GA process, now keen to have to shepherd it to the next level. Comments and critiques welcome and appreciated. Unus Multorum (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for working on this. My first thought is about the lead: four well-composed paragraphs are enough. I realize cutting down is difficult, especially when a lot of work was put in the body of the article, but as an introduction and summary it's too much. Hekerui (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've shortened the lead section. Unus Multorum (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I don't know why this interesting-looking article has attracted next to no commentary, but as the review's been open a month now it's time to call a halt. Given the lack of comments, you can renominate before the usual two-week waiting period after an archived nom if you'd like to. Alternatively you could try to generate more interest at Peer Review, and then return to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2014-09-16 [10].

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) edit

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Through a period of four weeks I have worked on the article and expanded it from this to what it looks today. I found a decent amount of information which I placed within the article page. I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I hope the prose is good since I'm not a native English speaker. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero edit

  • I think "arena rock" should also go in the genre field per the source; listening to it, simply "experimental rock" really doesn't do it justice. It's a rather mainstream song.
  • The term "arena rock" doesn't really indicate a music genre. It is rather an influence or tendency which is primarily related to touring, as the article arena rock states.
  • "It was engineered by Jamie Reed Schefman and mixed by Serban Ghenea. The song was engineered for mix by John Hanes at Mixstar Studios in Virginia Beach, Virginia." - Wait, what? Which is it?
  • That's what the liner notes say [11].
  • "the oldest song created by the band" - on LLFD or over their whole career? Jared Leto's a busy guy.
  • Clarified.
  • I'm kinda uneasy about the organization of info into Background and Composition; there's stuff about the song being an ode to LA in both sections. The first sentence in the second paragraph of Background is pushing it; the rest of that paragraph totally fits more with what's in Composition.
  • The info which I put into Background are related to the recording and the inspiration behind the song; I changed its title to Recording and inspiration.
  • I was still uneasy at first, but I think you've improved it sufficiently. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, within Composition the focus seems to carom back and forth between musical composition and themes. I'd organize it along those two tenets.
  • Fixed and reorganized. I also renamed it Composition and theme.
  • "general acclaim" - kind of an oxymoron. I'd prefer "a generally positive response", "critical acclaim", or something in between like "very positive reviews".
  • Fixed.
  • Another organizational gripe: It talks about the music video's themes in the second paragraphs of both Development and Release. Please reorganize this information somehow; as it stands it comes off as retreading old ground.
  • In second paragraph of Development there are info about people who worked on the short film and the role of Leto as director, there's nothing about the video's themes. In Release, that is the official statement by Leto at a press release for the short film.
  • "The short film begins with Kanye West associating objects and people with Los Angeles, including James Dean and Howard Hughes as well as architecture, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe." - What do you mean by "associating"? Is he describing their significance and relation to the city, or just gesturing to images/film clips? If the first, are there images and film clips or just Kanye? Or is he just being a gayfish?
  • He is relating them to the city. Fixed.
  • Not a requirement, but you might want to cite the video through a YouTube upload of it or something where the paragraphs end without citations, just so no one mistakenly pops in a "citation needed" tag later.
  • Where? In synopsis?
  • ""City of Angels" was included in the Carnivores Tour, co-headlining with Linkin Park, usually appearing approximately halfway through the set." - Did the song include Linkin Park as a guest or something, did other parts of the 30 Seconds concerts include them, or was Linkin Park just another artist on the same tour? Ambiguous syntax.
  • Linkin Park was another artist on the tour. Fixed.

Tezero (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Tezero. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's not often that an article passes FAC without a prior GAN, but I believe this is one of those that deservedly could. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead edit

Lead
  • The second sentence could be split. The two clauses discuss unrelated topics–production and lyrics.
  • Is it really necessary? It would be: " Written by lead vocalist Jared Leto, the lyrics of "City of Angels" were inspired by his experience of living in Los Angeles with his family and were influenced by the city's culture. Leto also produced with Steve Lillywhite." It would not be so different and I'd actually prefer the current version.
Let it be then.
  • the third sentence is grammatically wrong. It should be either "as well as music from the 1980s" or "music from the 1980s as well", but not the way it is now.
  • Fixed.
  • a song can be broadcast on radio; "service" is not the correct verb
  • It is commonly used in music articles [12].
  • it received acclaim (only) from music critics; critical is redundant, thought I'd prefer "was acclaimed by music critics"
  • Fixed.
  • hailed→praised; "of the track" is extra;
  • Fixed.
  • you need to specify which were the nations, or if you don't want, write international charts.
  • Fixed.
  • "parent" is not needed
  • Removed.
  • a song can be performed on a tour, or included in the set (not in the band's tour).
  • It is commonly used in music articles.
Recording and inspiration
  • it is useful to note who Jared Leto is (the frontman I guess)
  • Clarified.
  • describing Steve Lillywhite as previous collaborator is vague. In this state, it's logical to question myself: 'They collaborated on what?' 'What is Lillywhite's proffesion?'
  • Clarified.
  • are you using "mix" as a verb or noun? it can be "for a mix" or "to mix", not for mix.
  • I'm using it as a noun. That's what the liner notes say [13].
Then add "a" in front of mix→the first option I offered above
  • I've changed it. Please check if it is ok.
  • shorten preview event to "preview" only
  • Fixed.
  • you can paraphrase "took a long, long time to make" to took a long time to make
  • Done.
Composition and theme
  • Do both references support the opening sentence, or is the sentence a combination of both? If the second, it consist synthesis of material.
  • The first reference supports the experimental rock genre, while the second one supports the arena rock influences.
  • does synthesizers need to be in quote marks? it indicates scare quotes in a certain way
  • Removed.
  • followed by the sound of drum beats–followed by drum beats would be fine
  • Fixed.
  • Loudwire should be italicized
  • Done.
  • generally, this section overlaps with the 'Critical reception'. If you are writing about the song structure/melody/composition, it should be stated as fact, not opinion.
  • The quotes featured in the section discuss the composition and theme of the song. Unfortunately, there's no sheet music published at Musicnotes.com and I couldn't examine its structure in depth.
Release
  • distributed would be a luckier solution for 'sent'
  • 'sent' is the term which is always used in these circumstances.
  • since iTunes and Amazon are established brands, I think "online digital media" can be easily dropped
  • It is useful to specify it.
  • what is iTunes Stone?
  • iTunes Store. Fixed.
  • you meant debuted/premiered instead of "impacted", right?
  • There's nothing wrong with that term, it is normally used in these circumstances.
Critical reception
  • the same note as the intro (was acclaimed)
  • Fixed.
  • every sentence here has, regardless the length, a quote. For the purpose of comprehensiveness, I suggest quoting only essential remarks, and paraphrasing what can be done to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM reading.
  • Done.
Live performances
  • became a signature part in what way? If you're indicating that it was frequently performed, then a "set-fixture" would be more adequate
  • Fixed.
  • Since Thirty Seconds to Mars is an American band, you need to use favorable instead of favourably.
  • Fixed.
  • is the date of the 1st iHeartRadio Music Awards really needed here?
  • Not really. Removed.
  • awards ceremony–omit awards since we already know that iHeartRadio are music awards
  • Removed.
  • who were stationed (or positioned), I assume. Same for a highlight
  • Fixed.
  • again, a song can be featured or performed on a tour, not included.
  • Again, a song can be included in a tour.
Thanks for your comments, I will address them in a week since I'm not at home - I'm editing from my mobile phone.--Earthh (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on stability and comprehensiveness. I see there is ongoing discussion about the genre, and certain edit warring occurred after the article was submitted for FAC. There are a few prose aberrations which shouldn't be present in a featured article.--Retrohead (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrohead, while I'm still working to address your comments, I wonder which are these few prose aberrations that prevent the article to reach the FA status (there's nothing wrong with phrases like 'serviced to radio' or 'included in tours', look at some featured or good articles to have an idea (Ain't It Fun (Paramore song), for example). An user is doing disruptive editing (the one who opposed here below) removing sourced content and basing his edits on his point of view. If he continues, I'm forced to ask administrator attention and seek dispute resolution.--Earthh (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished addressing your comments, Retrohead. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues or if you have any other recommendations regarding the article. It also seems that the user has stopped doing edit warring.--Earthh (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Y2kcrazyjoker4 edit

Oppose - I have to dispute the song being "critically acclaimed". The reception section seems to omit any negative reviews or criticisms the song received, of which there are several:

  • Drowned in Sound says: "Third song 'City Of Angels' is the nadir; a limp, soulless slab of soft-rock that even Gutterflower era Goo Goo Dolls would consider toothless."
  • AltSounds says: "Not to be different or anything, but 'City of Angels' is by far my least favorite song - it's just trying too hard to be stadium level epic and whilst it actually kind of achieves it, I again am reminded of U2, not the early days great band, the shitty stadium band that wrote the same song over and over."
  • musicOMH says: "City Of Angles is the sort of corny ballad that makes 30 Seconds To Mars such a love-them-or-hate-them band".
  • CraveOnline says: "'City Of Angels' is one of my favorites in this salad of pretentious delights. Thirty Seconds To Mars stretch their ballad muscles here, which really means there's very little music playing when Leto begins his narrative about the quite desperation of Los Angeles. Oh good, another song about the melancholy beneath the glitz and glamour of LA. It's been forty minutes since one of these songs came out, it's about time we were served another. Who better to slice up the bitterness of being young and beautiful in LA than Leto, who is both. Attempting 'atmosphere' with clunky piano, synths and random drum strikes, Leto opens his notebook and allows more winning words to escape. For example, 'Lost in the city of angels. Down in the comfort of strangers. I found myself in the land of a billion lights'. Wow, I understand Los Angeles on a much deeper level now."

I think some of the above needs to be incorporated into the article to reflect the fact that not every critic loved the song. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I added some of these (AltSounds and musicOMH) and in the article there was already a mixed review. This, however, doesn't indicate that the song was not "critically acclaimed", considering all the positive responses. Please let me know if you have any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think further changes are needed to the section. The Stampede should be removed, as it is a school newspaper and not from an established music critic/publication - the link is also dead. Inveterate also borders on not fulfilling WP:RS (my general rule of thumb is if the source doesn't have a Wikipedia article, it's probably not notable enough to be a reliable source). I also feel like at least one more of the above reviews should be incorporated into the article in lieu of these sources. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed The Stampede (school newspaper) and also Inveterate, which does not seem to meet WP:RS. I've added Drowned in Sound and I would not consider CraveOnline since it is a male lifestyle website.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Leaning Oppose, partly because I think a copyedit pass is needed, and partly because I think there's too much detail in several sections. Some specific comments below.

  • "The song ... is styled in experimental rock": what does "styled in" mean?
  • Essentially, it means that it is an experimental rock song.
  • '"City of Angels" was acclaimed from music critics": should be "acclaimed by". This is both in the lead and the body.
  • Fixed.
  • "which features a number of personalities": "personalities" is an odd word to see here -- should this be "show business personalities"? Or perhaps "celebrities"?
  • Celebrities, street performers and homeless people appear in the video, so "show business personalities" would not be correct.
  • '"City of Angels" was written by lead vocalist Jared Leto, who also produced the song with Steve Lillywhite, having previously worked with Thirty Seconds to Mars on the production of the band's third studio This Is War (2009)': I think "having previously worked with" is supposed to refer to Lillywhite, but as it stands it refers to Leto.
  • Reworded. Please check if it is ok.
    Sorry, no: now you say there are two producers, and refer to "the producer", so the reader can't tell who is referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is followed by drum beats, including taiko drums, then transitioning into a piano melody": several problems. "It" doesn't seem to refer to anything; if it refers to the synthesizers in the previous section, it should be "They", or more likely "These". Then "transitioning" doesn't make sense; it's the song that transitions. And the form of the verb is wrong too -- even if it refers to the song, not the synthesizers, it should be something like "then it transitions".
  • Reworded. Please check if it is ok.
    Still not quite right. I'm afraid I'm going to stop reviewing your changes at this point and oppose -- see my comments at the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd make "online digital media iTunes Store" just "iTunes", or possibly "iTunes Store"; if it's linked, that's enough.
  • Done.
  • "impacted mainstream radio": what does "impacted" mean here?
  • It means "debuted". That phrase is commonly found in music articles, I'll reword it if it is wrong.
  • The paragraph giving peak chart positions in the "Release" section would be much better done as a table; it's hard to read.
  • There's already the table of chart positions. That paragraph describes the song's history on the record charts, that is commonly found in music articles.
  • Is it necessary to say "on the issue dated"? Can't we just quote the date?
  • It is necessary, considering that Billboard publishes charts for the week which follows the issue.
  • The "Critical reception" section needs to be compressed, I think. It's essentially a list of quotes. There needs to be some organization: "Most reviews were positive; [give some example positive quotes, from the higher profile sources]; a couple were negative or mixed; [examples]. Just listing 13 (if I counted correctly) quotes is overkill and doesn't give the reader the summary view they should get from an encyclopedia article.
  • This is commonly done in music articles, it is an essential section for GA and FA. I think the section follows your example.
  • It took me a while to understand what you meant by "short film"; it seems it's not a standard music video because there's some additional material on either side of the song. This needs to be clearer early in this section.
  • They filmed a short film which served as the music video for the song. It's a routine for Thirty Seconds to Mars' music videos.
  • As with the review section, there's too much detail in the music video section. Why list the editors, if they're not notable in themselves and are never mentioned again? Why list everyone who comments in the film, including people who are not linked and not mentioned again?
  • I think it was necessary mentioning it, at least.
  • "the second collaboration of Thirty Seconds to Mars with Kanye West, which first worked together" -- "which" can't refer to two things; this needs rephrasing.
  • Done. Please check if it is ok.
  • There's no ref for the hashtag trending on Twitter; and considering how many things trend on Twitter, is this really worth including?
  • I didn't find any reliable sources supporting this, so I removed it.
  • The synopsis is longer than I would have expected for a music video: I know the video is a reliable source for the details, but what makes these details worth recording in the article?
  • As explained, it is a short film, not a classic music video. It runs for eleven minutes and we don't have just the band playing the song, it's a little more complicated concept and that synopsis is not even so detailed. I think it is ok considering that we're talking about a FAC.
  • Same comments for the reception of the video as for the reception of the song: too many quotes in sequence, without any structure in their presentation.
  • Again, this is commonly done in music articles, it is essential for GA and FA.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see (and comment at) this page, where I've raised a question about this article and my review above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Mike Christie. I should make a premise: I built this article following the model of GA or FA such as Marry the Night, Ain't It Fun (Paramore song), 4 Minutes (Madonna song). Since I'm not a native English speaker, I took many terms and expressions from these articles ("impacted mainstream radio" and co). I hoped that with this nomination I could fix possible prose aberrations with the help of other users. I don't think the article is excessively detailed, considering the FA criteria. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions.--Earthh (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to the difficulty of getting the prose to high quality when you're not a native speaker. I do think you need to partner with an editor with good prose skills in English; the article is remarkably good for a non-native speaker, but it isn't there yet. I've switched to oppose above after checking two or three points and seeing that your fixes did not really address what I was commenting on.
I am also still concerned about excessive detail and the structure of the critical reception article, but that's moot at this point because I would oppose on prose grounds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- While the problems identified with the article may not be insurmountable, and Mike and others have offered good advice, I can't see consensus to promote occurring anytime soon and improvements will best be conducted outside the pressures of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2014 (diff).

The Seinfeld Chronicles edit

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the pilot episode of Seinfeld I've worked on it for some time now and feel it is ready for FAC, and here we are. My only personal concern at this time is the information regarding claire the waitress, which is not so much info about casting for the character, as it is about why she was removed from the show, so perhaps it should be (re)moved. Anyway I'd like to hear your opinion about it. Thanks in advance.--Music26/11 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld and David wrote a TV pilot as they felt their "show about nothing" concept wouldn't sustain that long. - "sustain" used oddly here - I know what you're getting at but not alternative is jumping out.....
- Better now?--Music26/11 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
prompted the network executives to decide not to pick up the show for a first season. - could probably reduce three verbs to two here.....
- Better now?--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jep Epstein - I'd use a couple of descriptors to introduce who he is at first mention
- Do you have any suggestions? He's a composer, I think it would be kinda weird for the sentence to read "The music used in the episode was composed by composer Jep Epstein..." as the 'composer' bit would be fairly obvious.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - ok nevermind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny Kramer initially demanded that he'd play the part of Kessler - don't abbreviate verbs - a bit informal
- Done, I've also removed quite a few more through a control+F search.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, David did not want this and was able to talk him out of it - be good to add why
- Source doesn't say (you can look it up on youtube for verification btw), it only says Kenny Kramer wanted to play kramer, and then moves on to the casting process of Richards. However, as it isn't explicitly stated that David talked him out of it I've re-written the sentence but I have not been able to find information as to why Kenny Kramer did not put his foot down.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok nevermind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'David wasn't sure about casting Richards - as above
- Done.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as he was trying to cast an actor that physically resembled the original Kramer - "physically" redundant
- Done, well spotted ;).--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
has stated that she was not aware of the pilot before becoming a regular on the show, but she'll never watch it out of superstition - why "but" here - also another appreviation
- Abbreviation fixed, but the "but" part, the sentence seems weird to me if I remove the word, suggestions perhaps?
I think "and" is fine as the two segments are not contrastive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the "weak" rating - use a word that means we can ditch the quote marks
- Done.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make all the reference dates have consistent format e.g. "15 January 2014"
- Done.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cautious support Otherwise looking goodish for prose and comprehensiveness I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Not sure why there's been so little interest in this FAC but with only one (albeit welcome!) review in almost a month I can't see this gaining consensus to promote any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the lack of reviews, you can re-nominate it before the usual two-week waiting period is up if you so desire. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2014 (diff).

Iftah Ya Simsim edit

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the first Sesame Street international co-productions (a recently-passed FA), created and developed, with help from the American show, in Kuwait and very influential throughout the Arab world. I've been working on improving individual co-productions; this is the first with the potential to grow up to be a FA. Enjoy, please! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Aftah_ya_smsm.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
Fixed.
Also fixed; thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry Christine, but with practically no commentary in over a month I don't think there's any point in keeping this open longer; given that, feel free to re-nom before the usual two weeks is up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I was doing an experiment to see what would happen if I didn't "canvas." My prediction came to pass. I'm not sure that this is FA-worthy, which is why its passing wasn't a priority to me. Plus, I've been busy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2014 (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 archived by Graham Colm (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2014 (diff).

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) edit

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the main tributaries of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It started out as a two-sentence stub and has been steadily improving since 2012. After becoming a GA in early 2013, it failed FAC twice in mid-2013 and early 2014, mostly due to prose concerns. By the third FAC in May, this article was getting close to the standards (mainly due to work by the GOCE), but the prose still required more work. Now, I think that the prose finally meets the prose standards for FA. I am also certain that the other standards are met, as no major issues with these have been raised in recent FACs. Hopefully, it'll pass this time. --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review
There is not a base map, I created that map specifically for this article. Sources for the individual data elements of the map are on the image page. Kmusser (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Hello, Jakob -- Your article looked interesting, so I decided to read it and see if I could help. It is well written for the most part. I just made a few minor copy-edits to correct spelling and punctuation, and add a few missing words. I rearranged the words in a few sentences to make them more concise and to improve sentence flow. There are just a few issues I'd like to mention here:

1) The last sentence in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Oxbow lake is:

"Japanese knotweed has been seen near Interstate 80 on the northern edges of the Turkey Hill Oxbow"

and the last sentence in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Biology is:

"There are populations of Japanese knotweed, an invasive plant, along the creek and its tributaries south of Pennsylvania Route 118".

I'm pointing this out just in case this might be a duplication of information. If not, that's fine.

2) In the second paragraph in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Geology is the following sentence:

"There are numerous deposits of iron ore and limestone in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley and also some deposits of marble along it".

The pronoun "it" at the end of the sentence is ambiguous. It could refer to "valley", but perhaps also to "creek". If it means "Fishing Creek valley", then I suggest the following re-wording, which will eliminate any ambiguity:

"There are numerous deposits of iron ore and limestone, as well as some deposits of marble, in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley."
@Jakec: (Did you see this?) You didn't like this wording? If you don't like "as well as", then at least remove "also" and just use "and". "Also" and "and" are too close in meaning to use both.
If there is no real reason to separate marble from iron ore and limestone, why not just make it a list of three?
"There are numerous deposits of iron ore, limestone and marble in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley".
It's more concise than the other versions. CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) The second and third sentences in Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Recreation are:

"There are other tracts of public property along the creek, one of which, called the Power Dam, is 2 miles (3.2 km) upstream of Benton. It covers 19 acres (7.7 ha) and stretches for 2900 feet (880 meters) of Fishing Creek, and features the remains of a concrete dam."

Usually, when one uses the verb "features", what usually follows is an interesting or attractive highlight. "The remains of a concrete dam" does not conjure up an image of something attractive. I suppose it could be interesting, though. If you're happy with it, that's fine. It's just an unusual use of the verb. (There is another example with the same construction a few sentences below this.)

4) In the second-to-last paragraph of the article is the following sentence:

"The hiking trail Waterfall Wonderland: Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls is described as "a place of almost mystical beauty" by Jeff Mitchell in his book Hiking the Endless Mountains: Exploring the Wilderness of Northeastern Pennsylvania".
There is something that is not clear in this sentence. I suppose "Water Wonderland" is the name of the hiking trail.

However, what follows, a colon (:) and "Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls" is described as..." does not make sense. Perhaps there are some words missing following "Waterfall Wonderland". Perhaps it should read,

"The hiking trail Waterfall Wonderland, which affords views of Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls, is described as..." CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorinneSD: Thanks for the comments.
  1. It's not duplication. PA 118 is near the source and the oxbow is near the mouth.
  2. I've changed the wording.
  3. Changed features to contains.
  4. I replaced that sentence with your suggested sentence.
--Jakob (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorinneSD: I've added in your suggested sentence about iron ore, limestone, and marble. --Jakob (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jakob I saw your edits. I have just learned from another editor with whom I have been working on another article that it is customary for the original poster to strike through comments raising issues which the poster feels have been resolved, so I've done that, above. The article looks good now. CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • Consistency needed: BC, BCE. If you go with BCE, link it at first occurrence; most readers aren't familiar with it (though they can guess what it means from context).
  • Our Fishing Creek Confederacy article talks about "a thousand" soldiers in the text, though it says "1000" in the lead. That makes sense; I'm guessing they didn't know the precise number, and "a thousand" is more appropriate when the number isn't exact, so I went with that.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending referencing improvements. A number of the references are incomplete. GBooks or other web links are not an adequate substitute for complete citations. WP:CITEHOW includes some guidance if needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Could you be more specific please? I cannot identify anything that could be objectionable in anything but the Google Books links. If you want publishers added to the GBooks links, I can probably do that tomorrow. If it's page numbers you're after, I don't think it can be done. Sometimes 20 or 30 separate pages are cited. It would be difficult to track them all down and the list would look somewhat ugly. --Jakob (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need both of those things. There are methods to deal with sources cited multiple times with different pages - {{rp}}, {{sfn}}, etc. Web sources also need publishers and/or publications as applicable. More broadly, there is a general lack of consistency in the presentation of sources. For that reason, it's difficult to be too specific, as I can't tell what the intended style is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: There is not "a general lack of consistency". Every citation uses the exact same template and all of them have the same information in the same order: an author (if one is given), a publisher (if one is given), a url (if online), a title, a date (if given), and an accessdate. --Jakob (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not the case. For example, FN1 uses a template from the {{cite}} family, but then FN3 uses a {{citation}} template - these are two different classes of citation templates and produce different outputs. Similarly, the publication linked to in FN3 does have a publisher indicated, but the citation itself does not include one. These are examples only, but in my view problems with citations are pervasive here. And of course, there is the lack of page numbers, which leads to a lack of precision in citation, contrary to WP:V. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that except in a few cases. Anyway, all the references use {{citation}} now as far as I can tell. I'll get to the page numbers later tonight or tomorrow, but it only makes sense to add them to Google Books and PDFs since conventional websites don't really have numbered pages. --Jakob (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added page numbers where applicable. --Jakob (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2014 (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 archived by Graham Colm (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2014 (diff).

Squall Leonhart edit

Nominator(s): Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fictional protaganist of the game Final Fantasy VIII created by Squaresoft, now Square Enix, in 1999 for the Sony Playstation. All references are working, the article has been Copy-edited and Peer reviewed. It was given GA status in 2006. I believe that since then sufficient improvement has been made to bring it up to FA status. Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see any glaring issues. The two archived references check out, the grammar seems okay. I am a little concerned about including the character's height: other featured character articles don't seem to have that included. It seems more like something the dedicated FF Wiki would carry. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I indeed think that there is no reason to list his height as it seems like a bit of useless trivia that is indeed better suited elsewhere. The issue that I have found is in the story section. It might have a few too many cites. Especially in the case of the double cites that do not seem all the necessary when one cite or none would be fine. So after some minor copy editing I think this article would be read. NathanWubs (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed some of the citations from the article. I also removed his height. Bailo26 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the removal of his height, I argue that since his height is noted in some video game books concerning him, including ones focusing on his character creation, and has been debated on the article talk page, we should keep it noted in the article. Judging by that debate on the talk page, someone will re-add his height if we don't leave it in, and having that sourced addition of his height in the article is better than someone coming along and adding an unsourced addition of it. Yes, we could revert that person, but then that might lead to another talk page debate about his height. We can also look to the Wikipedia articles of other Final Fantasy characters and see how common it is to include height information; for example, in WP:Good article Cloud Strife, Cloud's height is noted, but height is not noted in the WP:Good article Aerith Gainsborough (even though her height is noted in video game books). Flyer22 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the talk pages more thoroughly and reading Flyer his point my opinion on it has changed. Its better to keep it in to prevent later edit warring and to have it unsourced. Kudos on your clean up job with the citations. The article in my opinion looks a lot better now. I would now vote support but by wikipedia's guidelines, this being my first review and all I will just keep it to comments. NathanWubs (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering, NathanWubs. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologizes for that Flyer22. Also apologizes in advance as I might forget that detail in the future. NathanWubs (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Height has been re-added. Bailo26 23:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank edit

  • "On the Ragnarok late in the game,": ?
  • "while his comrades are pulled back from time compression into their places in the timeline": ?
  • "Squall takes the name Leon because "Squall" was shamed for not protecting those he loved from the Heartless when his home world (the Radiant Garden) was consumed by darkness": Are we talking about two people named "Squall"? If not, why not say "Squall takes the name Leon as an alias, because he was shamed ..."?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Issues dealt with.

  • Clarified Ragnarok as an airship
  • Removed the reference to time compression as it is a very hard concept to explain.
  • Corrected the Leon sentence as suggested.

Bailo26 12:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. What does "while his comrades are pulled back into their places in the timeline" mean? - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that bit, from what I remember of the game, Ultimecia has power to influence time, which she uses against her enemies and for other purposes; if that is not already made clear in the plot information, it should be; we shouldn't simply remove all mention of this power aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just Googled her; see this Wikia entry about her character. Flyer22 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "After defeating Ultimecia, the time and space that she absorbed to begins to return to normal, pulling Squalls comrades back into their places in the timeline, while Squall...". This way we are still keeping the power mentioned. Bailo26 13:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion; that works for me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Bailo26 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited to "After Ultimecia is defeated, the time and space that she absorbed begin to return to normal, pulling Squall's ...". Okay, that's all my points, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed my awful fix. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, something I forgot! You should archive the 1Up references. The site isn't working properly anymore. Conversation on the subject here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Thanks for pointing that out! Bailo26 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, why is the Dissidea storyline not included and the brief Kingdom Hearts storyline not even outlined? Missing Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call and Pictlogica Final Fantasy mentions from appearances. Final Fantasy Trading Card Game should be worth a mention at least.... Also, Final Fantasy Airborne Brigade and 'Final Fantasy Record Keeper and Final Fantasy Artniks while you are doing those. While a premium character, he does exist in 'Final Fantasy All the Bravest. Should be easy to get "comprehensive" requirement, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, I see your point. I have added Curtain call and All the Bravest and Pictlogica although i am struggling to find references for the latter two even though i know he's in there. I feel that Leon's storyline is outlined within the paragraph. Record Keeper, Artniks and Airborne Brigade i am not familiar with so will have to do a bit of research before i can update further. Bailo26 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source Review

In my source reviews I do both citation formatting problems and validating that all sources are RSs. Will return to add on spot-checks in a little bit. Addition: did eight or so spotchecks (plus a few game quotes) and they all came back clean.

  • ref 1 - the publisher is Square Enix, not SquareEnix.com
  • ref 3 - if an author is not stated, do not put the author as "staff", just leave it blank
  • ref 5 - can you justify why FlareGamer is an RS?
  • refs 4-9 - Square Enix has never had a dash in the name
  • ref 7, all quotes- if you want to go with Square Co. instead of just Square, you need the period after Co.- it's short for company
  • ref 22 - the publisher should just be RPGamer; it's not like we say the publisher is ign.com, after all
  • ref 29 - the title is not Kingdom Hearts (at Square-Enix.com), it's just Kingdom Hearts
  • General - you need to be consistent in what you link in references- I thought you were just not linking anything, but around here you start linking some games and publishers. Either all publishers/games should be linked, only their first occurrence, or nothing.
  • ref 31 - date is formatted differently than other refs
  • ref 32 - date is formatted off, and can you justify why 91.8 The Fan is an RS?
  • ref 33 - date
  • ref 34 - date
  • ref 35 - it's GameSpot, not Gamespot, and you shouldn't have it italicized as a work if you don't provide a publisher, which you haven't done for other online sources
  • ref 38 - GamesRadar is one word, and date
  • refs 39-41 - date
  • ref 40 - author is provided for this article (Ishaan)
  • ref 41 - don't italicize without a publisher
  • ref 43 - author name style is off, and suddenly you give the publisher for an online source when you haven't been before- pick one
  • refs 44, 45, 47 - publish date is provided for these sources
  • ref 50 - archive date and publisher inconsistencies
  • ref 51 - can you justify why PSXextreme is an RS?
  • ref 56 - date format, and can you justify why Cheat Code Central is an RS?
  • ref 57 - you don't need "staff", and Edge is a magazine (with a website) so it should be italicized
  • ref 58 - publisher inconsistency
  • ref 59 - publisher not given
  • ref 60 - publish date given in source
--PresN 19:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, regarding your questions for what are WP:Reliable video game sources, it would help if you would explain why you don't think they count, or possibly don't count, as WP:Reliable video game sources. Going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, I see that they have a guideline on this matter: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, having written 11 video game-related FAs, I do know about WP:VG/RS. It's not the job of a source reviewer to justify why they are unsure a site is an RS- if they are, it should be easy enough for the nominator to prove. It's their job to question things that seem off. To be specific though: FlareGamer appears to be a blog that gives no indication that they fact-check or that the writers themselves are notable; 91.8 The Fan appears to be a online fan radio station; PSXextreme appears to be notable now that I look at it but wasn't listed at VG/RS; Cheat Code Central is a cheat site, not a professional news/reviews site, so I don't know why their opinion about a game matters at all. --PresN 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, if you were feeling defensive, there was no need to be. I did have a peep at your contribution history and user page before asking you about why you feel the sources are unreliable. As you no doubt know, it's common in WP:Good article reviews or WP:Featured article reviews for those involved with the review process to ask each other questions so that they can better understand matters. Reviewers are queried and/or challenged on matters as well, of course. I'm glad that you struck PSXextreme off the list, considering that I'm familiar with that magazine (have not read one of them in years, though) and was wondering how it might not quality as WP:Reliable. As for the rest, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the majority of the issues contained within this review. I think i only struggled with Ref 47 as I cannot find the publish date anywhere. As for the justifying refs:

  • FlareGamer - Ref 5 - Bear with me on this one..
  • 91.8 The Fan - Ref 32 - While in itself perhaps not a reliable source, This is an audio interview with the actor in question. I'm not sure how much more reliable you could get than that.
  • Cheat code central - Ref 56 - Cheat code central does require its contributing authors to write sample articles before it allows them to become a contributing author. Furthermore i would argue that this is an opinion piece which states at the bottom of the page "*The views expressed within this article are solely the opinion of the author and do not express the views held by Cheat Code Central.*" I have updated the article to reflect this.

Bailo26 19:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero edit

I've been staying away from character articles for a while, but I can't be bitter forever if someone needs help. Here are a few initial comments to help keep this afloat:

  • The organization of the first section seems kinda haphazard. I don't object to the height being included at all, but it doesn't make sense being where it is. And the two paragraphs are very uneven - could this be reorganized from scratch roughly chronologically?
  • Is GameSpot Cheats a reliable source?
  • Formatting of website names in References is inconsistent: for example, see 43 and 58 (GamesRadar) vs. 45 (GamesRadar) - and none of them are linked.
  • "critics described him as a "jerk", but his design (including his scar) made him visually appealing" - This sentence, as it stands, is non-neutral and unrelated to its preceding clause. Or am I interpreting it wrong?

Tezero (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of references, Bailo26 recently changed the reference format style for some sources, including delinking the publications. I question this change because I've seen a significant shift in how bots and editors generally cite the dates; these days, dates for references on Wikipedia are generally cited the way they were before Bailo26. On the other hand, consistency in reference style should be employed, and it seems that Bailo26 was going for consistency with the reference changes. As for linking the publications, that's a preference of mine; I prefer the linking so that editors and readers can learn about the publications and/or quickly see that they are reliable.
What sources is GameSpot Cheats? I know that GameSpot is a WP:Reliable source.
As for the "critics described him" line, what do you find non-neutral about it? Is it that you would rather we use WP:Intext-attribution to cite the "his design (including his scar)" part? If so, it is already cited to a source in the text; it's full line is "GameDaily ranked him sixth on its list of 'Top 25 Gaming Hunks'; critics described him as a 'jerk', but his design (including his scar) made him visually appealing." Before Miniapolis's copyedits to the article for this WP:Featured article review, that line previously read as: "GameDaily ranked him sixth on their list of the 'Top 25 Gaming Hunks', stating that while critics described the character as a 'jerk', his character design, notably his scar, made him visually appealing." I prefer that previous wording. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and relink them all if you want, or only link the first instance of each publication. Either's fine, but it's not okay for a source like GamesRadar to go unlinked in the references altogether.
Number 35. GameSpot reviews and articles may be reliable, but I'm wondering if these cheats are user-submitted.
Does GameDaily state that other critics found him visually appealing? If so, state that outright. If not, mention that it's GameDaily's words. Either way, the reader is not necessarily going to think Squall is visually appealing, so even if there's a source, we can't take it as a fact. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The previous wording is clear that GameDaily is stating it: I've changed it back to that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: Have you taken over this nomination from Bailo26? He seems to have vanished. If you plan to see it through, it would be best to add a bit of clarification at the top, so that reviewers aren't confused. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned to Tezero above, Bailo26 recently changed the reference format style for some sources, so he's still around. As for why he hasn't responded lately in this review, I think we should give him some time. I have not taken over for him, and am not heavy into playing video games (my brothers are, and I used to be), though, yes, I used to be very familiar with Final Fantasy VIII and enjoyed Squall Leonhart. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed i am still here. I have just had a few issues of a personal nature i am trying to deal with. I haven't disappeared and will continue to make edits as and when i can. Furthermore i believe i have linked all the references back up! Bailo26 20:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever edit

I give just a simple Support on this article. Looks fine to me. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:02, 2 September 2014 (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 archived by Graham Colm (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2014 (diff).

The Fifth Element edit

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1997 award winning science fiction blockbuster film. I overhauled this article in 2013, initiating a successful nomination for good article status. Having significantly expanded the article again since then, I now believe it meets featured article requirements. This is my first FAC nomination, so I apologise if I have overlooked any issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eric Corbett 20:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you certain that Le Cinquième Élément is the correct French title? I was taught that capital letters in French don't take accents, and the title seems to be given as Le Cinquième élément elsewhere.
    • You're right! Changed.
  • The lead has "special forces Major", whereas the Plot section has "major in the special forces". Is it to be major or Major?
    • Changed to 'major'.
  • "... destroys an attacking Earth battleship". What is the battleship attacking? Is it a naval battleship?
    • Clarified that it is a spaceship, and that it was attacking the 'Great Evil'.
  • "The current Mondoshawan contact, priest Vito Cornelius, informs President Lindberg of the history of the Great Evil ...". Who is President Lindberg?
    • Clarified that it is the president of earth.
  • "The Diva is killed ...". Why the Diva? In the previous paragraph she was introduced as "Diva Plavalaguna", implying that Diva was her first name.
    • I've changed all references to the character to her last name, which already appeared once anyway, so now it is consistent.

Eric Corbett 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick image check - Poster image is fine, the file File:Valerian_FifthElement2.jpg is a good use within the article but I would suggest making sure the caption makes reference back to the French work it was inspired by, reflecting some of that in the image rational (perhaps including the ref for that in the ratioanle page). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. :)
      • Thank you both for your comments, and thanks for your copyedits Eric. I have now addressed each issue that was brought up. Freikorp (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado edit

I've always enjoyed watching this film, but I must confess that the plot has seemed rather to interrupt the 3D-traffic scenes! Perhaps I will pay more attention after having read this article. I have not noticed any omissions and have only a few comments:

  • I tweaked the article a bit to remove a couple of reported citation problems. While doing that I noticed that there are two citations to Valerian: The New Future Trilogy, which do not contain equivalent information: one has editors, the other has a translator and a series parameter. It is probably better to make them consistent, unless for example only parts of the book were translated.
  • Thanks, i've merged two reference to make them consistent.
  • The citations have a format delimited by full stops and ending with a full stop. The short-form references should also end with a full stop for consistency: "Hayward, p. 91." etc.
  • Done.
  • Plot: Please see WP:PLOTPRESENT: "As key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor), where applicable." This is done in the lead for Willis and Jovovich, but not in the plot for the other characters. To make the plot section self-sufficient I would do it for those two as well, particularly as Jovovich' character is not named in the lead.
  • Done.
  • I was a bit surprised that Besson's book The Story of the Fifth Element: The Adventure and Discovery of a Film is only "further reading". Is it too much a primary source to be acceptable as a reference? Does it have nothing to add to coverage of the subject?

--Mirokado (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book was listed in the bibliography when I found the article, though it was not used anywhere as an inline citation, so I moved it to 'Further reading'. I considered buying the book to use it as a reference, as i'm sure it could add to the subject, however, it is a collector's item and out of print. The cheapest I could find a second hand copy on amazon.com was $300 [14], a tad more than what i'm willing to spend on my hobby of editing wikipedia. Would it be more appropriate to move it back to the bibliography, even though it is not used as an inline citation? Should we delete it due to it looking out of place? Or do you think given the circumstances it can work where it is? Thanks for your comments Mirakado. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Har, I didn't check availability before commenting! It's better to leave it as it is so the referencing in the article is clear. --Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Just checking the references again I noticed a few other minor issues, then I can support this article. --Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 10, 18, 60, 68, 73, 97: citations add outer double quotes, so inner quotes in the title need to be single
  • Current ref 27: We normally transform titles to title case rather than retaining all-caps words
  • Current refs 62, 69, 71, 81: (magazine) seems redundant here, three times a wl disambiguator so a pipe would be necessary, once not linked, in that case "Discover Magazine" is how they refer to themselves if clarification is needed.

--Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, done and done :). Thanks again for your observations. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome. Supporting now. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Eric Corbett

  • "... the film's central plot involves the survival of planet Earth, which becomes the duty of Korben Dallas". The survival of Earth can't really be a duty. Responsibility?
    • Changed to responsibility.
  • "Learning of her significance, Dallas must join forces with her to recover four mystical stones essential to defending Earth from an impending attack." I'd drop "learning of her significance", as it just seems to dangle there. Why must Dallas join forces with her?
    • I suppose he doesn't have to save the planet, he just chooses to. Both 'learning of her significance' and 'must' have been removed.
  • If the Mondoshawans collected the five elements from Earth in 1914, promising to return them in time to defeat the Great Evil, and didn't return until 2263, then how did the stones end up in the possession of Diva Plavalaguna?
    • Clarified.
  • "... representing the four classical elements, and a sarcophagus containing a Fifth Element ... which combines the power of the other four elements into a Divine Light capable of defeating the evil. The Mondoshawans promise their contact, a priest, that they will return with the Elements in time to stop the Great Evil". The capitalisation seems inconsistent there. Why is Fifth Element capitalised but four elements isn't? And why is Elements capitalised in the final sentence? Added to which we have "the leitmotif that first appears when professor Pacoli mentions the fifth element" in the Soundtrack section. Don't the stones represent the elements anyway, rather than being the elements? So how could the Mondoshawans return the elements?
    • Well spotted. Changed to lower case for consistency, and clarified that they are returning the element stones.
  • "... a humanoid woman known as "Leeloo" (Milla Jovovich), who has been described as 'perfect'". Described by whom as perfect?
    • Good point. By several people at various times, but easier to just remove it than specify one of them I think.
  • "Cornelius instructs David to prepare the temple and stows away on the same space plane as Dallas". What temple? Why is Dallas on a space plane when we've just been told that he was going on a cruise?
    • Clarified it is the temple from the beginning of the film, and that the space flight is going to the cruise ship.
  • "The film has been cited as a classical narrative ...". A film isn't a narrative.
    • Changed to 'story'.
  • "The classical narrative, however, is under threat ...". How can a narrative be under threat?
    • Not sure how that ended up there, changed to what I think I meant to say in the first place.
  • "Despite the flaws cited in the world of The Fifth Element ...". The flaws aren't being cited. Perhaps something like "Despite the evident flaws in the world of The Fifth Element ..."?
    • Changed.
  • "The film is said to problematise the relationship between technology and man." Is problematise a real word? What does it mean?
    • Probematize at Oxford dictionaries: [15]. See also Problematization. I can choose a synonym if you like, I don't feel one way or another about the word.

Eric Corbett 12:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments again. I hope i've now addressed each issue. Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, reluctantly, as I think the content is fine. But there are just too many problems with the prose for me to support this article, and I don't have the time to address them all. Eric Corbett 20:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understand the lack of time, but if I don't know what's wrong with the prose I can't very well fix it; I addressed everything you brought up. I guess i'll wait for someone else to comment on it. Thanks anyway, and thanks for the copyedits you did. Freikorp (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; complaints have to be actionable to be taken into account. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • I did more editing on this one than usual. I'm trying not to reflect personal preferences, but to follow something like consensus. You're welcome to revert, and if you can reword in your own style, that's even better.
  • "the most financially successful French film until the release of The Intouchables in 2011."; "It went on to become the most profitable French film made to that point,[1] a record it held for 16 years until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. As of 2011 it was still considered to be France's most successful exported film.": I believe Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis was more financially successful by some measures, so some of this wording may need tweaking.
    • Is it acceptable to add financial information on this film even if this information contradicts the references I have, and even if I cannot find a reference that links these two films?
      • If one source says that Lucy's lemonade costs $1 and a separate source says that Linus's lemonade costs $2, it's not original research for you to say that Linus's costs more than Lucy's, as long as you cite both sources. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The film is also said to explore", etc.: I'm not taking a position on the important question of how specific you should be in the text in describing who's saying what, at least in broad strokes.
    • I've attribute all the opinions from the book The Films of Luc Besson to said book. Hopefully this addresses a large part of this concern.
  • "which were then read as three-dimensional from the viewpoint of the camera": ?
    • Upon reading over that, and its original source, i'm not entirely sure what it means either. Removed.
  • "$17 million", "US$263 million": MOS, and WP:$ in MOSNUM, say that you can go with or without "US" at the first occurrence (for this article, I think), but just use "$" after that.
    • Done.
  • "Exotic styles are combined with more conventional scoring techniques in the leitmotif that first appears when professor Pacoli mentions the fifth element, the militaristic snares as the warship prepares to attack the dark planet, and the Mahlerian funereal piece heard when Leeloo learns about war.": Some of that is mine. I wasn't sure of your meaning; you may want to delete the "exotic styles" part.
    • Offline source reads: "The score ... relies even more heavily on orchestral textures and exotic influences, but blends Serra's characteristic riff and song-form cues with more conventional scoring techniques. ... as the Professor mentions the Fifth Element we have a hint of the first appearance of a leitmotiv in Serra's work, another technique borrowed from conventional film-scoring. ... Other conventional gestures include the militaristic rattle of snares that develop into a march as the warship prepares to destroy the dark planet and is consumed by it, and the tension-inducing invert pedal stinger as Leeloo growls at Monroe through the glass of her regeneration tube. We hear Mahlerian, funeral timpani as Leeloo learns about war." Hopefully that will make my intended meaning clear; any suggestions for rewording?
      • Thanks, I guessed wrong yesterday. I've just fixed it.
  • "100,000 square feet": I wasn't looking closely at measurements; this one, at least, needs a convert template.
    • Done.
  • Support on prose, with those caveats, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Eric's edits (above) helped me get through the tough "Themes" section. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your copy edits Dank; I know my copy-editing skills are a weaker point in my editing. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy to help. I made a few tweaks; everything looks good. You may want to do something with Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis, as mentioned above. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for archival purposes i'd like to mention that I did address the suggestion regarding Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis; I tweaked it to say The Fifth Element was the "highest grossing French film at the box-office", as opposed to the most successful, as Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis had a better cost to profit ratio. Freikorp (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2014 (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 Graham Colm (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2014 (diff).

History of KFC edit

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article just needs someone to verify that the references are fine. Tom (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Welcome back. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page ... the reviewers asked you to check the references last time. Have you checked to make sure the references support the statements in the text, without any close paraphrasing? - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have done so. Tom (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objections, given the references check out. Historical writing tends to be on the clunky side, and this article isn't totally immune, but I'm not objecting based on that. It's a very professional article its editors can be proud of. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too new to FA promotion to do this myself (I'm still trying to figure out GA promotion), so I will defer to Dank or somebody else to proceed on that, if warranted. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promotions at FAC are handled by the two FAC coordinators, Ian and Graham. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this aspect of Wikipedia is something I didn't look at until recently. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on what I wrote above. I could quibble about a bit of clumsy writing, but again, it's not enough to get in the way of promotion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First Round of Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • Why not mention where in Utah the first restaurant opened?
  • Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, KFC experienced mixed fortunes domestically, - Given that this is an article about a huge company, fortune doesn't seem like the best word here. Maybe luck or success?
  • n the early 1970s, KFC was sold to the spirits distributor Heublein, which was taken over by the R.J. Reynolds food and tobacco conglomerate, who later sold the chain to PepsiCo. - Which, not who.
  • and although KFC's fortunes have waned in the US, - Fortunes again.
Origin
  • After he reached seven, - Turned would be better. "Reached seven" reads awkwardly.
  • After leaving the family home at age 13, Sanders passed through several professions, with mixed success.[7] - Any idea what some of these were?
  • In 1934, Sanders purchased the larger filling station on the other side of the road and expanded to six tables.[9] - What brand was the larger filling station?
Early franchisees
  • He first used the packaging as a favor to Sanders, - Used is definitely not the right word here.

ceranthor 21:11, 18 August 2014 (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 Graham Colm (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2014 (diff).

AI Mk. IV radar edit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar, if existing histories are complete (one would hope after almost a century). Although not a tremendous success, it filled an important gap in coverage during critical periods of the war, and perhaps more importantly, acted as the basis for many other very successful radar systems like the ASV and Type 7. It's also a story complete with infighting, backstabbing, rushed moves, incompetence and lucky breaks.

This article was created offline over a three month period, so it appears ex nihlo largely complete. With the exception of some GR and SP, and some ongoing work sourcing additional images and switching cites (I'm using original authors where possible, as opposed to newer sources), the article should be largely complete and stable.

I think it's a fascinating bit of history, and I hope you will to.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Several captions need editing for grammar, particularly punctuation
  • File:Handley_Page_Heyford.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Fairey_Battle_ExCC.jpg: approximate date?
  • File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is redirecting
  • File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg: source link is redirecting
  • File:AI_Mk_IV_simulated_display.jpg: not seeing licensing info at source link - where does the CC license come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which captions need editing? As to the sourcing I can only speak to the last one, it's filed with ORTS and we're just waiting for it to get stamped as such. As to the rest, as they are all clearly in PD, do we need to fix any of these issues? If so, is that my job or the up loaders? I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to be able to verify that the information given is correct if you're going to be using those images in a potential FA. Captions in particular need of editing include RDF 1.5, ASV emerges, Baedeker Blitz, and Displays and interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the captions you mentioned above, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with them. Can you be very specific, or simply fix them? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images have been replaced with sourced versions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jamesx12345

  • Refs 85, 93 and 95 don't point to anything at the moment.
  • "shot up" - this sounds like a bad pun. "Increased rapidly" might be more appropriate.
  • "The Mk. IV began being replaced at the end of 1941 by the prototype Mk. VII" - "The prototype Mk. VII began to replace the Mk. IV at the end of 1941"
  • "could only be expected to" - was this the designers' assessment, and does the inaccuracy result from this delay or something else? A reference for this statement would be nice.
I got all of these except one. The last one is interesting - if you found the wording difficult, perhaps you can come up with another way to say it. The basic idea is that each of the reporting systems -huff-duff, CH and ROC- had slightly different *in*accuracies so if you plotted the reports on a map you didn't get a single point but three separated ones. Additionally, the target aircraft were moving throughout this process. So unless you have zero reporting times, by the time you get the instructions to the fighter pilot the target is long gone. The intercept officers were trained to estimate the future location of the target based on interpolating the movement of the reports, but this was based on old and conflicting information. All of this added up. Do you think I should expand this section? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey James, I found some discussion of the accuracy issue in Bowen's book, which you can see on Google Books - at least it's visible to me, who knows what they'll let you see! I added two relevant mentions from that book, let me know if you think the statement is OK to go now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect - it reads more nicely as well. Jamesx12345 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forefathers" - "predecessors"
  • "arranged before they reached" - "arranged before the bombers reached" - bit clearer
  • "the first definition of the technical" - I think criteria might be a better word.
  • "was not available, at least not in portable form" - "was not available in portable form"
  • Daventry Experiment can be linked.
  • "...radar systems at this period of the war." - is it a war yet?
  • "further increase in power to as much as 2 kW" - is that peak or continual?
All in James! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the first two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Maury, welcome to FAC.
  • "was the ultimate model": I know you mean "final", but the other meanings (best, defining, etc.) are more common, and some readers don't get the "final" meaning at all.
  • "First considered in 1936,": I don't actually know what that means. Did someone think it would be a nice thing to have? Did they do some pencil sketches? Did they build a prototype?
  • "rushed moves and three abandoned production designs": Does the "rushed moves" mean something other than rushing three designs into production and then abandoning them?
  • "offered detection ranges against large aircraft on the order of 20,000 feet": Reading quickly, I saw one test at exactly 20,000 feet ... what was the variation in this (at sufficient altitude), roughly?
  • " It used two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for display and considerable effort was required on the part of the radar operator to translate these into instructions for the pilot.": Not a major point, go with this if it works for you: "Considerable effort was required of the radar operator to interpret the displays of its two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for the pilot." - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, I've added all of these. And yes, that definitely worked for me :-) Detection ranges were given 18 to 20k feet against German bombers, which may be simply due to differences in sizes of the different bombers - I assume a Do 17 is harder to see than a He 111. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also made a few edits to the lede to help clarify the "rushed moves" bit. See if that is better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Ian's note below ... Maury, I don't have any objections right now, I may come back to this when the reviews are farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please provide a conversion for metric wavelengths for US readers on first use, and any other metric only measurements as well.
  • Expand the abbreviation of RDF on first use.
  • A Ford what? Motor car or Trimotor?
  • Link igition coil, RAF squadrons and be sure to capitalize Squadron if giving the squadron number,
  • revive RDF 1.5 concept "the" RDF
  • Tell the reader that W is an abbreviation for watt. Furthermore, watt isn't normally capitalized. Same for other electrial units like volts, etc.
  • Fix your overlinks.
  • Just like you do for ships, you need to tell the reader what kind of aircraft they are.
  • You give the impression that the Blen conversions were done to make them more suitable for the night fighter role. This is not the case, they were done to give the RAF long-range fighters. Happily their extra endurance and size made them suitable for the NF role. So rephrase that bit to explain that properly. In every aircraft-oriented source I've got the terminal letter in RAF designations is capitalized, not lower case.
  • No. 25 what? Squadron? Done through operation use. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources I used refer to this radar as a "1.5 meter" in "class terms". That includes US sources from this era. I do not use the term to indicate an exact measure, that is 193 MHz.
OK
I don't know what Ford, the source simply says "Ford ignition coil".
Ok.
I don't understand. "RDF 1.5" is a name for a class of devices, shouldn't it be read with a "the" in front, like "the dishwasher"?
As you used it, "RDF 1.5 concept" doesn't refer to any device, but rather the idea behind the devices. So "the RDF 1.5 concept".
Ahh, it was a different instance.
Done.
Which over links? Is there a tool for finding them?
Add this script
Very useful!
Sorry, I don't understand which aircraft you mean.
All of them where you don't tell the reader what type it is on first use. Forex, you refer to the Spitfire without telling the reader that it's a fighter, etc.
Done.
Do you have a source for this? I know that the Blenheim article states this, but it is not references, and both Brown and Bowen have passages that suggest the opposite. The same is true for the lower-case "f", which is found throughout Bowen, Brown, Lovell and others. I will add a note about this.
The Air Ministry approved the addition of a four-gun belly pack to the Blenheim I, converting it into the Blenheim IF, in late 1938 and the Blenheim IVF entered service in August 1939. So both variants considerably predated service use of AI radar. And the terminal letter is capitalized in histories of the aircraft, so I can only presume that the radar historians either didn't care about such details or were ignorant of the proper format. See Chaz Bowyer, Bristol Blenheim, isbn 0-7110-1351-9, pp. 22, 27.
This is precisely my concern though - the book you note was written in 1984, so is it more likely that the people actually flying in the aircraft got it wrong, or that in the 50 years between the events and the publication of this book that historians "selected" a particular format? I should note that during that same period, we've changed the basic way we write dates twice, our entire measurement system, and dropped the hyphen from just about everything. I'll change them, but I'm worried about confusion as the text will no longer match the primary references.
While I understand your point, I don't necessarily credit it. I suspect that the boffins who were the sources for Brown, et al., neither knew nor cared about the proper format for the designation of their aircraft. Generally, they weren't the ones filling out the paperwork for the aircraft and were likely less exposed to documents on the aircraft itself in comparison to the radar and electric systems of the aircraft that they were likely responsible for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found one instance. Any others?
Haven't gotten that far.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could post your replies directly under each individual comment as it assists me if matching up replies to the appropriate comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be mostly offline until early next week, so I'll take this up again at that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, another "holiday". Uggg. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done?

All of the notes above have been completed. What do we do to drive this forward? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you haven't already, pls ping the reviewers above to check that they believe their comments are resolved and that there's nothing more that they think requires work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sorry for the delay, but I've been distracted by a cross-country move.
  • There was only one Blenheim II built, an unsuccessful reconnaissance variant, so none were available to be converted into IIFs. Also, the conversion into the F model wasn't experimental at all.
Both Brown and White call it a II. Is there the possibility that the single unit was converted to NF use?
Possible; as my really thorough book on the Blenheim is packed away, I really can't say that it didn't happen.
  • Provide a conversion for 20 mm on first use and five miles.
20mm is a name not a dimension, five miles converted.
In this case, it's not a name at all, but it is a measurement and so needs to be converted. If you'd used 20 mm Hispano cannon, I'd have accepted that as the link is equivalent to the conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure that Dowding's rejection of non-AI methods to defeat the Blitz led to his dismissal, but it's been years since I read up on that part of the BoB.
Directly stated in Zimmerman, White and several other sources. Occurred immediately after he dismissed the second of the two night fighting reports.
Fair enough; I can't say for sure one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase this The Germans were beginning their attacks in the east to state that they were preparing for the invasions of Yugoslavia, Greece, and Russia as well as committing aircraft to the Western Desert.
Details of the Luftwaffe's order of battle are well covered elsewhere. As all of these are east of UK, I'm not sure more detail is warranted.
Maybe so, but I think that you're making an unwarranted assumption. You needn't list all of the operations causing the withdrawals, but you need to do something in case a bloke starts wondering, "'Ere, what's 'e going on about?"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to 604 Squadron and fix capitalization
Fixed.
  • Apostrophe missing Luftwaffes
Awaiting details on technical issue. FIXED.
Now I'm curious what the technical issue was? The triple apostrophe marks when using a possessive with an italicized word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
double-singles at the start, triple singles at the end. used to work, must have stopped working some time 06/07.
  • This is a little confusing: they would approach at low altitude and then dive again after releasing their bombs, making interceptions with the Mk. IV possible only during the period when the bomber climbed for its bomb run. Move the bit about climbing to the beginning of the sentence to keep the sequencing straight for the reader.
Fixed.
  • This is awkward: During a flight in February 1941 at 20,000 feet (6.1 km) he suddenly awoke in an ambulance on the ground;[121] his oxygen supply had failed. I see no need for the semi-colon, just combine the two sentences as they naturally flow together.
Fixed.
  • superior of the Mk. IV Shouldn't this be "to" rather than "of"?
Fixed.
  • Missing a word: but they had such a low priority the conversions were not complete
Fixed.

Through up to description.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left are the refs, which I'll do shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eggcelent. Excellent work BTW. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Make sure that all article and book titles are in title case.
Fixed.
Not exactly, see #108.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does #29 spell out the info for Brown when it's listed in the Bibliography.
Good question. Removed bib entry.
Should have done it the other way given your rationale below as it's heavily cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Brown :-) This is a Louis.
Right now your links (harv cites?) don't work at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly suggest moving all spelled-out book and article info from the citations to the bibliography. This will allow readers to better access them when you add the necessary OCLC or ISBN number.
I'm not strongly attached to any particular style here, but I have generally followed the rule that if the entry is used more than once it is separated out, otherwise inline.
Understood, but the problem is that it causes problems for the reader if the work isn't linked or provided with a OCLC or ISBN number. For example, how am I supposed to find a copy of the pamphlet cited in #1? Not online and cataloging can be highly idiosyncratic possibly making it hard to find on an independent search of WorldCat or similar database. I'll not insist on moving everything to the bibliography, although I think that that's the best practice for articles, but I will insist on everything that isn't linked online to be provided with OCLC or ISBN number. You've been pretty good about linking things to Google books so it shouldn't be too much work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What makes #102 and 107 highly reliable?
107 - http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/about-the-author.htm. Given the claim is double-backed it could be removed, but I don't see a point in this case. 102 has been replaced by the original source.
#102: obviously a guy transcribing the official history or operational log. But without some sort of file number or better sourcing, it's nothing more a guy with a computer and fails WP:RS and V. #108: All I see is a college graduate with a website, not a published author. Fails RS outright as I see it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got one, working the other.
  1. Put the books in alphabetical order. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done (someone already did it seems).

All refs noted above have been updated to new ones. No idea how to fix the harv, I'm not sure it's even something I did? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PING: With the exception of an ISBN for something that doesn't appear to have one (AP), everything mentioned above is complete. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (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 Graham Colm (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2014 (diff).

Thirteen (Megadeth album) edit

Nominator(s): L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Thirteen, the 13th studio album by heavy metal band Megadeth. I believe that this article presently exceeds the criteria for GA status, and believe that it should be reviewed for FA status. L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by The Banner edit

I was requested to take a look at this article by Retrohead
Just a short look because I don't like that style of music...
  1. What is the relevance of the release date 1 November, except that two albums were released on that date?
  2. Why is it mentioned twice that Andy Sneap was not available as producer?
Fixed.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it with that, as I have no emotional connection or knowledge of that style of music. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence It was released worldwide on November 1, 2011, making it the second Megadeth album (after Youthanasia in 1994) to be released on that date; (...) and the later sentence Furthermore, despite the superstitions surrounding the number 13, Mustaine said he was actually more concerned with the album's release date of November 1 being a bad omen; referring to the release of Youthanasia (which was released on the same date in 1994), suggest that there was something special with that date. The Banner talk 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the mention of the other album, Youthanasia, in the lead? I ended up taking that mention out as there seemed to be too much fluff in the lead anyway. It's been reworked significantly.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! The Banner talk 14:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by J Milburn and LuciferMorgan edit

Images are fine. Concert image is freely licensed, and, though the uploader gave us nothing else, it is not suspicious. Cover image is non-free but has an appropriate rationale and meets the NFCC. If any other files are added to the article, a new review will be needed. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite listy I feel, saying "In an interview with X magazine" quite a lot. Surely if readers wish to know which interview certain sentiments are from, they can just check the citations? LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at that then. Is it okay to leave some here and there though?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update removed them--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead edit

Note: Due to my involvement in editing Megadeth–related articles, I'll submit comments without supporting or opposing the nomination. I'll focus on the references used in the article. Additional feedback is welcomed.

Source check
  • The better part of the article is sourced with Blabbermouth.net. Since its use was accepted in other FAs, I'll consider it reliable. There was minor inconsistency with the date formatting (month, day vs day, month) which has been corrected. Other references with multiple use include Ultimate-Guitar.com, Rolling Stone, Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles, MusicRadar, Loudwire, and Billboard, which seem good as well.
  • There are two references in the first sentence in 'Writing, recording and album artwork'. Is the statement supported by both or is one extra?
If you're talking about the first sentence in the second paragraph (cites 7 and 8) both support that--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citations 4 & 5 actually.--Retrohead (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Cleaned that up. I checked the history and it seems that was added only about a month ago. Looks like Curly Turkey added it (in good faith) from the main Megadeth page. Probably related to FA cleanup there. In any case it's redundant.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 11: Pages of band members on social websites such as Twitter and Facebook fall under WP:PRIMARY and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia.
Gone--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 46 & 56: YouTube can be replaced with a more dependable reference.
Gone. Both had backup refs already anyway--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 53: Music retailers such as iTunes are generally not considered to be reliable sources, but since it was used to confirm the release date, I think it can stay in this case.
Changed the date, because that page says Sept 24, not 28. In any case, I'd like to find another source... BWBK, Loudwire, ulgimate guitar... whatever--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 63: Radio stations like KEGL are useful, but the link jumps to another website
Dead link gone--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 38: The source is acceptable (Megadeth.com), but the link leads to wrong entry. Since ref 39 supports the same information, I think it can safely be dropped.
What probably happened is that it was a good link, but when the band revamped their website for Super Collider, it got screwed up. I've seen that with a number of citations from the band's site. Anyway, its gone now, along with a small portion of text that wasnt in the other cite.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref names are optional. I suggest eliminating these if a reference is used once; otherwise, it loads the page with unnecessary bytes.
Done, except for cite 52, which I left to differentiate from a similar source next to it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 31: leads to wrong entry.
Dead link, can't find interview elsewhere on site. Removed since there are other citations there.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 41: I'm not familiar with this source. I assume it's safe to omit it since the same information is covered by Brave Words.
Rockline is a nationally syndicated radio show in the US. I believe its reputable and feel comfortable leaving it. Besides, its a nice change from all the blabbermouth citations--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 42: This is a dead link. I assume this is the correct destination, but since Wikipedia's software doesn't accept archived links, we'll have to either omit it or find another reference.
It appears that the original was deleted, cause I couldn't find it after searching for the title. I couldn't find another source there saying the same thing, so for verifiability, I tweaked the text to match another blabbermouth article from the same period and put in that cite. So, in short, fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations 1, 2, 3, are redundant per WP:INFOBOXREF, since the release date and recording place are sourced in the article's body.
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Niwi3 edit

Had some time and read through it today. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to addressing these in the next couple days--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should mention what critics liked and/or disliked about the album. I would also remove the Matacritic rating as it is redundant.
Metacritic rating removed, but as for what critics liked or didn't like, there isn't really a whole lot of consistency either way.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Writing, recording and album artwork' section needs to be rewritten because it looks like a history. Almost every paragraph starts with a date and follows the same pattern: "In [insert date here], the band [insert announcement here]". This makes the article uninteresting and repetitive. The prose should flow, like one person speaking to another.
  In progress--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Update Did some work there, but I've left some dates there for the purpose of clarity. I also trimmed some unnecessary commentary from the band regarding the album's production--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use contractions: "Mustaine commented on the quality of the songs on Thirteen by declaring he hadn't heard an album that" -> had not; "She said that the album wasn't "perfect", but noted that..." -> was not.
Both done immediately since they're quick fixes--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two songs from Thirteen were specifically written with video game soundtracks in mind The first of these is 'Sudden Death' while the second is 'Never Dead'" - Needs a dot between "mind" and "the first of these".
Done immediately since it was a quick fix--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Songs section needs a reference.
Info repeated, expanded upon and cited further down in that section already--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2014 (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 archived by Graham Colm (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2014 (diff).

Stephen I of Hungary edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first King of Hungary who is also a popular saint in Central Europe. His feast is observed on 20 August which is also a public holiday in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You give his dates as born 969/975 and a few lines later as in or after 975.
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was born as Vajk in Esztergom." I do not think Vajk should be in bold and it is not clear that Vajk was a name - I would suggest clarifying by adding that he was baptised as Stephen.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who was descended from the prominent family of the gyulas." This is used below as a personal name, which suggests that it should be capitalised.
It is both personal name and a title: the gyulas bore the name Gyula. I do not know what is the proper solution in this case. I think in this context their status/title is the important. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Church in Hungary developed independently of the archbishops of the Holy Roman Empire." Church should not be capitalised.
Thanks. According to the ODE, when referring to a particular group of Christians, the world should be capitalised. I think in this case we refer to the Christians in Hungary. However, I am not sure. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ensured the spread of Christianity among his subjects with severe punishments for ignoring Christian customs." This does not sound right to me. "ensured the spread of Christianity" is euphemistic and the conduct required of Christians is not just following customs. I am not sure of the best wording but perhaps "He suppressed paganism by imposing severe punishments."
Thanks. He not only suppressed paganism, but also punished those who did not follow Christian customs. He forced his subjects to visit churches, to observe feast days, etc. Actually, one of the missionaries (Bruno of Querfurt) clearly states that many Hungarians were blinded. I would not change the wording. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He survived all of his children, which caused bitter conflicts among his relatives" This is a non-sequitur - a man surviving his children does not generally cause conflicts.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the reliability of this report is dubious." This sounds POV - "historians consider this report dubious"?
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stephen's official biography" What does official mean here? Commissioned by Stephen?
Thank you. Text added. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His two other legends" Presumably the legends are titles of biographies, but was the official biog also a legend?
Thanks. Yes, there are three "Lifes of Saint Stephens". I added more info. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these heavy-armed warriors" I would say heavily-armed.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, thank you for your througout review. I highly appreciate it. Please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Grand Prince Géza died in 997.[12][26] Stephen soon convoked an assembly" Soon seems the wrong word. Perhaps "Grand Prince Géza died in 997,[12][26] and shortly afterwards Stephen convoked an assembly"
Thank you. I deleted "soon". Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also decided to marry Géza's widow, Sarolt" More details would be helpful. Did he marry her? If not, proposed would be a better word. If he did, was it by force?
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the interpolated deed of the foundation of the Pannonhalma Archabbey,[45] he also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithe to this monastery.[33] The same document declares that "there were no other bishoprics and monasteries in Hungary" at that time." This seems to me confusing. If it was a dubious interpolation into an unquestioned copy of early documents, this should be clarified. Tithe should be plural. Does the "same document" means the deed, and did it say that there were no other bishoprics and monasteries?
Thanks. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When sending one part of Koppány's quartered corpse to Gyulafehérvár, the seat of his maternal uncle, Gyula the Younger, Stephen demonstrated his claim to reign all lands dominated by Hungarian lords." I do not understand this. Sending part of a corpse demonstrated his claim?
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which excludes that he ever accepted papal or imperial suzerainty" This is awkward. I suggest "and never accepted papal or imperial suzerainty"
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proves that his crown" I would prefer shows that his crown.
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Duke Boleslav the Brave's] territory included a certain burg," It is not clear at first that this is a quote, maybe because it is next to an image. As with the Laws quote above, I think it is better to have something like "According to Thietmar of Merseburg's Chronicum:" before the quote so that readers know at the start what they are reading.
Thanks. I preferred to move the picture. (The quotation template already refers to Thietmar. There is no need to duplicate the information.) Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About a hundred years later ... " It is probably my ignorance of the geography of the area, but I found this paragraph difficult to follow.
Thanks. Further info added. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reports by Anonymous, Simon of Kéza and other Hungarian chroniclers of the Bár-Kalán, Csák and other 13th-century noble families descending from Hungarian chieftains prove that other native families were also involved in the process." Prove seems a strong word for an apparent speculation.
Thanks. Text modified (although I think these reports actually prove that the ancestors of these families joined Stephen, because otherwise they would have lost their lands). Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stephen abolished tribal divisions" This seems unlikely - presumably he abolished administration based on tribal divisions rather than persuading them all to be friends.
Thanks. Reference to tribes is deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on a wikibreak for two days. I can only continue editing on Saturday. Sorry. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more

  • "However, 500 Hungarian horsemen who accompanied Boleslav the Brave to Kiev already in 1018 indicate that Hungary had been included in the Peace of Bautzen between Poland and the Holy Roman Empire." This seems the wrong way round, assuming that the reader already knows about the Peace of Bautzen. I would suggest something like "In January 1018 Poland and the Holy Roman Empire concluded the Peace of Bautzen, and later in the same year 500 Hungarian horsemen accompanied Boreslav on a Polish expedition to Kiev, suggesting that Hungary had been included in the Peace."
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For some night suddenly awakaned by some revelation, [Stephen] ordered a courier to hasten in one day and night to Alba..." The purpose of this quote is unclear. If it is illustrating a myth that he had magical powers, then this should be spelled out. Also "For some night suddenly awakaned by some revelation" is an odd translation into English.
Thanks. The sections were moved. I hope it is no clear. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leodvin's report suggests that Stephen intervened in the war ending with the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria in 1018.[112] However, the exact date of his expedition is uncertain.[111] Györffy argues that it was only in the last year of the war that Stephen led his troops against the Bulgarians, because in the previous years he had fought against the Poles." This is unclear. 'intervened' does not make clear which side he was on - perhaps something like joined the Byzantines in an attack on Bulgaria. Also what had the Poles to do with it? This needs explaining.
  • "Stephen transferred his seat" and "his old seat". Does this mean his capital? A bishop normally has a seat, not a king.
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gerard, a member of the Sagredo or Morosini family" I think that the fact that he was an Italian Benedictine monk and future bishop is more relevant than his family.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At this same time, dissensions arose..." I do not see the point of this quote. It appears to give a completely different account of the invasion without any discussion of which is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sections were moved. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "A report, preserved in Stephen's legends, of an unsuccessful attempt upon the elderly king's life by members of his court indicate that Vazul was mutilated for his participation in the plot, according to modern historians." You say that the legends do not mention Vazul, so how can they indicate that he was mutilated for participation?
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Andrew I of Hungary (r. 1046–1060), although he acquired the throne due to a pagan uprising, prohibited pagan rites and declared that all of his subjects should "live in all things according to the law which King St. Stephen had taught them"[165] following his coronation." The last phrase "following his coronation" is confusing as it appears to refer to Stephen. It could be deleted.
Thank you. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emphasized Stephen's severity, with Györffy's words, "in an unlegendary way"." This is ungrammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of 'Artistic representation' is not referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need some more day to search for sources, because I have not found any. Borsoka (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is in many ways a good article and based on extensive research, although I do not have access to the sources to check how they are used. However, the point of view is not neutral. The statement that Stephen's hand was discovered miraculously is WP:POV and unencyclopedic, and original sources attributing magical powers and holiness to him are quoted uncritically. The extensive citation of early lives of Stephen is WP:OR. The claim that Stephen was the first member of his family to be a devout Christian is presumably disputed among historians as Kornel Bakay in the chapter on Hungary in the New Cambridge Medieval History III says that his policy of imposing Christianity on the Hungarians by force was a continuation of his father's policy. Bakay also says that Stephen continued his father's policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and using his army against local rivals and rebels, a point not discussed in this article. Bakay further attributes considerable influence to Henry II. Of course, this is only one historian's view, but the article appears to ignore the views of historians who do not take a strongly pro-Stephen line. I have done some copy editing, but the article needs a good deal more. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and copyedit. (1) I am convinced that the article is a neutral summary of Stephen's life. However, he is also a saint who is venerated because of miracles attributed to him. "Sainthood" in itself a POV - that is why it is summarized under a separate section. All quotes from primary sources are based on scholarly works, excluding OR. (2) No historians debate that he was the first Hungarian monarch to be a devout Christian. Yes, his parents (as it is mentioned in the article) were baptised, but they remained in fact semi-pagans who continued to sacrifice to "ancient gods" even after their baptism. (3) The article writes of Stephen's all known military actions (of both his wars against Poland, Bulgaria and the Holy Roman Empire, and his wars against local chieftains and tribes). (4) Sorry, I have no access to the New Cambridge Medieval History III, so I do not know what exactly Bakay writes of Henry II's influence - "considerable influence" is quite vague. (5) Who are the historians of the "less pro-Stephen line" whose POV was ignored? Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I qualified the statement that Stephen's hand was found miraculously by adding "believed to be" and you reverted with the comment "it was miraculously found". This is POV. You also have quotes attributing miraculous powers and holiness to him cited to original sources, which is POV and OR. In a few other cases you cite original sources, for example for "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle". Bakay says "The conversion of the Hungarians involved violence as well, since Geza did not merely invite priests (Brun and Adalbert) to spread the faith but ruled as a tyrant over his people. According to Thietmar of Merseburg he killed large numbers of people, though he met considerable difficulties in oppressing rebels and rooting out pagan rites." Even if Stephen was the first king to be a devout Christian, this suggests that his policies were to a considerable degree a continuation of his father's, whereas the article presents them as a fundamental break with the past. Bakay says that "It was Henry II who promoted the organisation of the chancery of Hungary" and "It can also hardly be doubted that Henry II played a significant part in the conversion of the Hungarians to Christianity". This is a good article, but in my view it is not quite of FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I maintain that citing primary sources based on works of scholars who also refer to the same source is not OR. That Hungary was converted by force is clearly mentioned in the article: "He ensured the spread of Christianity with severe punishments for ignoring Christian customs" (in the lead), he "converted his uncle's "country to the Christian faith by force" after its conquest", and "Bruno of Querfurt's report of the Black Hungarians' conversion by force suggests that Stephen conquered their lands at the latest in 1009" (under the title consolidation). All the same, I understand your concerns. Thank you for citing Bakay's assumptions of Henry II's role as well. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The passage from Bakay I quoted above was about Geza not Stephen. The issue is not whether Stephen converted Hungary by force, but whether his policy of converting by force was a fundamental change from a nominal adherence to Christianity by his parents, as the article implies, or a continuation of his father's policy, as Bakay implies although he does not specifically say so. Bakay does specifically say that Stephen carried on his father's policy of using his army to increase his authority internally and avoiding foreign wars as far as he could. I know very little about Hungarian history, and other historians may take a different view, but these are crucial issues which an FA article should discuss, as for example x says a and and y says b. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no debate among historians that Géza's and Sarolt's Christianity was only nominal. Neither do debate historians that the Hungarians' conversion began under Géza who used force to convert his subjects. I do not understand Bakay's remark of Stephen's foreign wars, because Stephen waged wars against Poland, Kievan Rus, Bulgaria and the Holy Roman Empire. Maybe he should have launched expeditions against England and China as well? :) Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bakay wrote "In order to keep these strict laws Stephen needed a strong army which he used - much as his father had done - against potential rivals and magnates indifferent to his authority (for example Ajtony-Achtum) rather than abroad. He did not even intervene in the Polish-German war of 1003-18 until Boleslav-Chobry had occupied certain territories of the Hungarian kingdom in 1018. Instead he concentrated on converting the people, waging war in 1003 against Black Hungary". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WP reader

I do not think that Kornél Bakay would be a reliable source by now. Formerly he was a great archaeologist, but today, he is only known for his non-mainstream views (e. g. according to Bakay, Jesus Christ was not Jewish). He is a regular guest at the far-right Jobbik party events. See more, [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Best wishes, János Á. --77.234.75.119 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. However Borsoka says that it is the general view of historians that the forcible conversion of the Hungarians pre-dated Stephen's rule. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that Cambridge Medieval History is a reliable source independently of Bakay's political views. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:King_saint_stephen_signature.svg: "based on" link is dead, image needs US PD tag
  • File:Chronicon_Pictum_P037_Szent_István_születése.JPG: needs a US PD tag, and is it possible to translate the summary?
  • File:Aftnn_King_Stephen,_who_we_reckon_was_responsible_for_Christianity_in_eastern_Europe.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Stephen's_forces_capture_Gyula.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Istvánkirály.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chronicon_Pictum_P042_Óbudai_templom_alapítása.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • File:Sainte-Dextre_Basilique_Saint-Etienne.jpg would not seem to be covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for your comments. For I do not clearly understand the above issues, I approached a fellow editor to assist me in fixing the problems. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on primary sources

  • Could I suggest a compromise on the primary sources issue raised above? I can see the particular problem of citing to primary sources in an article on this period - they require heavy interpretation. As you say, though, these particular sources are also used in reliable secondary works. Would there be any harm in giving both a reference to the primary source, and to a reliable secondary source that supports the use of the primary source in this way? (e.g. "Medieval chronicler I, p.34; see also Reliable modern historian, p.154") That way it would be clear that no OR is being undertaken, but you'd still have your link to the primary source? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fine so far as the sourcing is concerned. The problem is that quotes claiming that Stephen was successful due to holiness and magical powers are inserted without context, not with the "heavy interpretation" which they require, as you say. If they are intended to show the views of later chroniclers, they should be in the legacy section, not apparently explaining the events themselves. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All quotes from a primary source are based on an academic work. Would you please specify which are the quotes that you propose to move?
I would suggest keeping quotes from the laws and admonitions, but stating the source at the start as it is irritating to have to look at the end to see what you are reading. All these should have a citation in a secondary source as well as the primary one, as Hchc suggested. Glaber's comment on pilgrimage is contemporary and could be introduced with something like. "According to Rodulfus Glaber writing in about 1040 (?):" I would remove all the eulogistic quotes and use them or other quotes to illustrate your discussion of the chroniclers' view of Stephen. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the quote templates themselves make it clear that they are quotes. Why should we change them or duplicate the info? Maybe question mark could assist? Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely my personal preference not a requirement or a policy so far as I know, and does not affect the FAC. I find it more readable when the source of a quote is given at the beginning as something like "According to Rodulfus Glaber writing in about 1040:" instead of the name at the end. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2014 (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 Graham Colm (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2014 (diff).

Hasil Adkins edit

Nominator(s): — MusikAnimal talk 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hasil Adkins, a musician who helped spawn the psychobilly genre. Growing up rural West Virginia in the midst of the depression, Adkins found his passion as a musician and learned to play multiple instruments simultaneously, what became a trademark of his. For the next 50 years he constantly wrote and performed, his songs often pertaining to chicken, hot dogs, aliens, sex and decapitation. He was rediscovered in the late 80s and managed to grow a cult following before being fatally ran over by an ATV in 2005.

Coming from start class, over the past 10 months I have completely rewritten it, and it attained GA status this past May. Not much has changed since then, but as far as I can tell it meets all FA criteria. An effort to get a peer review unfortunately yielded no feedback. Since the rewrite, I am pretty much the only substantial contributor to this article. I am aware of how untraditional this must seem, but hopefully this does not go against what is expected from a featured article. Thanks for any and all feedback! — MusikAnimal talk 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Retrohead edit

  • The lead, at least in FAs, should summarize the article, thus exclusive information shouldn't be featured there. The birth date should also be mentioned in the opening sentence of the 'Personal life', which means moving the cite there as well.
  • The lead could use some expansion. How about mentioning he lived in poverty and that he briefly attended school, for example?
    Per WP:LEADLENGTH I don't want to expand beyond two paragraphs. The existing two could of course be expanded, but I'm not sure how to approach it. I added that he grew up in poverty; touching on his school attendance may not be best as that is actually disputed amongst different sources. I tried to adhere to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and summarize in a neutral way, skipping things like his mental illnesses and run ins with the law. Should I get into specifics like that? — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you have a point. Giving weight the article's length, two paragraphs might be the optimal solution. As for the article's body, I'll avoid stand-alone sentence to be in separate paragraphs (last sentences from 'Personal life' and 'Musical style') even though they discuss topics that are not closely related.--Retrohead (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to see the musician's life in one section, and his musical legacy in a separate one. The sentence about his death should be moved in 'Personal life', and the section should be consequently re-named only as "Legacy".
  • It is useful to incorporate alt text in the images for screen readers.
  • There are number of words that should be de-linked, since they appear to be common words: poverty, given name, meat, liquor, cigarettes, decapitation, comedic horror, sex, heartbreak, aliens, hot dogs.
  • The last three of the 'External links' should be titled.
    Those weren't that useful anyway, so I removed them. — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legend has it that he... I see this is borrowed from his website, a primary source. This kind of sources can not be used for telling legends about the artist himself; not to mention this likely falls under trivia.
  • An incident occurred in 1957 when he and three friends drove a car off a mountain. This incident needs to be more detailed. Surviving a literal fall from a mountain seems supernatural to the casual reader in the state it is written.
    I've expanded on this a bit, but unfortunately there's not much more to say than what's there now. Adkins' life is full of farfetched and mythically proportioned stories like this. This particular one was reported in the local press so I added it, others just hearsay. With Adkins it's hard to know what's true and just a myth, so I tried to only say what we know for sure. — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Retrohead: I've addressed the above concerns as best as I could, leaving comments for the ones I'm not too sure about. Any additional input is greatly appreciated! — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more notes MusikAnimal:

  • "His genres include"–think "he performed/played" would be a better option. To label the genres as his might mean he invented them.
  • midst of the depression (lead)–we should have a link here to the Great Depression. Otherwise, the reader might assume he had psychological depression.
  • where he lived his entire life–I suggest spent instead of lived
  • "toured with "dancing go-go chickens"→are you allegorically saying that he was eating chicken on the tour?
  • improvised studio might be better over a primitive studio
  • is Elmo Williams worth a red link?
  • Ok, since not everyone knows "Blue Suede Shoes" is an Elvis Presley song, I think it would be better to write that Adkins covered artist such as Presley and the author of the second song listed in 'Musical style' besides singing his own material.
  • I did some copyediting on the audio file description and titling, as well as some on the prose. Just to ask, is the date of 10 May 1991 really needed in the image caption, or could we write just the year?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The Love Club EP edit

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) and Adabow (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about New Zealand singer Lorde's debut major release, The Love Club EP. The EP revealed Lorde's fear and nervousness of becoming a new artist. For the development of the article, I have found as many sources as I could, so I think that this article is fully comprehensive now. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions to help improve the article. Thanks, Simon (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998 edit

  • Looks great. Some points- Okay now I think this article needs some work. No worries, everything can easily be bettered.
  • "Lorde admitted that she was inspired by hip hop music-influenced music, such as Lana Del Rey" - consider changing "hip hop music-influenced music" to "hip hop music-influenced artists" to avoid repetition of "music." Using "artist" will also fit better with Lana Del Rey. In fact, even the "music" in "hip hop music-influenced" is not needed. I'd change it to "hip hop-influenced"
  • "It features Lorde's "smoky" vocal delivery" - awkward wording. Consider changing to "Lorde's vocal delivery on the album was described as "smoky" by Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail. Another critic, Chris Schulz of The New Zealand Herald, commented that her voice "seems to come from someone twice her age.""
"According to Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail, Lorde's vocals on the EP are "smoky"" - These kinds of sentences look okay on good articles. For a featured article, you're gonna have to come up with a better, more refined sentence.
  • "Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener" - Try adding some variation. Perhaps "New Zealand Listener critic Jim Pinckney"
  • " are structure[d is missing] in a short story manner" - Consider changing to "are structured in the manner of a short story" or "opined that the structure of the songs is similar to that of a short story." Also don't use "Lorde's songs"
  • More soon --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, thanks! I have addressed all of your concerns. Simon (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "short story" issue has not been addressed. Also see above for a new comment on the "smoky" voice thing. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes looking good --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it discusses Lorde feigning confidence" - the "discusses" just doesn't fit well, in my opinion.
  • "the two tracks" - you can remove "the"
  • "the former draws from" - draws what?
  • " Kanye West'" →" Kanye West's"
  • "high life" seems to have been directly borrowed from the Guardian. You can easily replace it with something life "criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich"
  • "The EP's title track" → The title track of the EP (try to avoid using apostrophes with nouns that are not proper nouns)
  • "Lyrically, the EP discusses "nervousness [Lorde] might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself"" - This sentence is contrived and changes the meaning of what the original writer meant. Reading the article by NZ Listener and specifically the sentence "Resolutely self-aware and confident, thankfully without the precociousness of talent-show youth, O'Connor displays remarkably little of the nervousness you might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself," it is obvious that the writer just meant that Lorde is confident and does not display nervousness. It does not seem to explain the lyrical theme of the EP.
  • Ah, right. How does it look now? Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commercially release the EP for sales" - Isn't "for sales" redundant? Using the word "commercially" covers that
  • In the interview, Lorde's manager says "So initially we gave away 60,000 tracks." Do "tracks" equate to an entire EP? ("After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP for sales"). Has the EP been downloaded 60,000 times?
I don't know whether individual tracks were available for download. I've replaced the citation used, which verifies that it was in fact 60,000 downloads of the EP. Adabow (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WonderBoy1998: All your issues have been addressed. Many thanks, Simon (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continuing to praise" and " continued to praise" are very similar, hence they sound repetitive. Modify one of them]\
  • I find it odd how the lead mentions that it had sold 60,000 in the US, but not that it had gone platinum in NZ and Australia
  • I have added a sentence in the lead. Simon (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support now, although I would still suggest improving the prose a bit and make it great. Right now it's just good. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor edit

  • In the infobox, I would drop the "At", remove the small text from "Morningside, Auckland, New Zealand", and place it in parentheses.
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace instances of "the US" with "the United States"; I forget where I heard it from, but it suggested that "United States" be used as a noun and "U.S." be used as an adjective when describing something (i.e. the U.S. Billboard 200).
"US" can be used as a noun. See [21]. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you include an as-of date to verify its sales in the United States?
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the word "admitted" in the "Background and production" section, how about something like "acknowledged", "commented", etc.?
Agreed; changed, thanks. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Composition" section, you mention that "Royals" was replaced by "Swingin Party" in the United States. If I remember correctly, this was done after "Royals" was released on Pure Heroine, is there any source you could add in that would verify this if this was the case?
I've see what I can dig up... Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've explained that the different tracklisting only came into affect in September 2013. Adabow (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Release and promotion" section, "Self-release (music)" should be relinked to "Self-publishing".
Why? Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the beginning of the "Reception" section, I would add a brief sentences about how the record received generally favorable reviews, just so it is available at a quick glance.
With only three critics mentioned, I feel that could be a bit dishonest to readers. There is a table with star ratings there, which offers a quick summary. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the track listing, can you reformat the title of the "New Zealand iTunes Store bonus track" so it matches the other two track listings?
I've slightly reworked the entire thing. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks in good shape, after these comments are addressed I'll check back in! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: How does the article look now? Simon (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, happy to give my support! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead edit

  • Background and production
Can we find a luckier solution for "spotted"? Perhaps "discovered", or if you have a better idea of your own.
I think "spotted" is the best solution here. Simon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"started to write songs by herself"→"started writing songs herself"; better flow, I think.
Agree. Done. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the A&R paired Lorde with Joel Little–the A&R is MacLachlan, right?
Of course. As stated in the first sentence of the section "A&R representative" Scott MacLachlan. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe you should replace "the A&R" with "MacLachlan". Surely there are other A&R officials from the label.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MacLachlan is quite repetitive in this case. And in the article there is only one A&R listed. Simon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps he would be a better solution? That ambiguous "A&R" can be any representative of Universal Music.
Done. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yet criticised its "bullshit" references–references to what?
Already stated in the section. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I wanted you to paraphrase the "expensive alcohol, beautiful clothes and beautiful cars" quote. It sounds like cliché.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to have this quote paraphrased. It's already got its meaning. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Lorde wrote the songs' lyrics"–only "the lyrics" would be fine
Fixed. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release and promotion
This section reads much like a chronological table with all those dates and events altogether. Can you lessen this style of writing or overhaul the prose?
Nah, I just follow other recent FAs. I think it's the standard quality of album articles. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception
This title doesn't seem to fit the content of the section. We are presented with the certification, chart positions, and accolades, contradictory to what is stated in the heading.
I think they are related to each other. Appearing on charts, receiving accolades and certifications are also a type of "reception". Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least use sub-headings to differentiate the critical reception from the accolades and commercial success?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If so the sub-sections will be extremely short. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the Allmusic critic should be stated.
In the source given there is no name of the critic. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you should say just Allmusic?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "indeed" in Schulz's quote seems unnecessary.
Removed "indeed". Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you paraphrase "fully formed"?
Since "fully formed" is quite misleading, I have removed the term. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid mentioning the ratings in the prose, since they are already given in the table.
Per WP:MOSALBUM. Simon (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mentioning that the ratings should be presented both in the prose and table. My suggestion is of practical reasons, to avoid stating one information twice.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed AllMusic rating in the box. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't to remove the Allmusic grade. The writing style should be consistent here. Either present all of the ratings in table, or avoid using table and write them in the prose. A mixture of those two is not acceptable; neither is repeating information at both places.
Is your point to remove the star ratings in the paragraph? Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simon (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales and certifications
The US certification is missing.
Nielsen SoundScan only list sales here. According to the RIAA database, the EP does not receive any certifications. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we somehow notify that, lets say by putting slash or N.A. maybe?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying, but seems to be impossible. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Done. Simon (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional notes on prose
For example, you can say just "production" instead of "overall production" or "style" instead of "musical style" in the lead, hence this is musical item, right?
Additionally, the during is extra in "Lorde performed during various concerts"; it is commonly accepted to use "6× Platinum" over "septuple platinum".
  • Septuple is also accepted, but I have replaced it. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"all of which were written by Lorde"–I assume "all of" can be easily dropped without changing the meaning of the sentence
"Bravado" is a chamber pop[8] and electropop song[10]–I think this is a case of WP:SYNTH. One critic says "this is chamber pop", another one says "this is electropop song", and you combined those two opinions into one sentence.
  • After considering this, I have removed "electropop" because Village Voice is not as suitable as NZ Herald. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify me if you have any questions related to the notes. I'll come back later to check the progress. Good luck.--Retrohead (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. They are highly appreciated! Regards, Simon (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the majority of my concern were not addressed or explained. Though the article is well-researched and referenced, it has some issues with prose comprehensiveness that can not be overlooked.--Retrohead (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them have been addressed. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrohead, I have replied to your concerns. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, my opinion remains the same. The prose is quite garrulous at few places, as pointed in the posts above.--Retrohead (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrohead, how about this time? Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the rating, you can go either as in Confusion, where the ratings are presented in the prose, or as I suggested, using table for the grades and avoid mentioning them in the text. Using a mixture of both, as in the present state, is not consistent.--Retrohead (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Retrohead: Okay, I got it! How about it now? Simon (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see progress in the work, but I've got a few concerns left. The "writer at AllMusic" was returned although you've said above that you had fulfilled that note. I still think that "favourable review" is more suitable than the three star rating already written in the box. There's some paraphrasing left to be done, and here are some additional notes:
  • The AllMusic issue was done. Simon (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little created the melodies–perhaps "composed" is a better solution?
  • After being freely downloaded–freely is extra
  • If so, some people will mislead. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • released digitally–digitally released
  • Lorde replaced Frank Ocean, at the–the comma is extra
  • At the 56th Annual Grammy Awards (2014)–you can say 2014 Grammy Awards, which is far simpler
  • I did that in order to avoid redirect. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I previously specified, please try using "day, month, year" structures less frequently. Not that this is "wrong", but it certainly drags away the reader's attention.
I'll stop the review here. My overall impression, as WonderBoy1998 already stated, is that the prose maybe is of GA caliber, but has certain flaws that keep the article away from FA status. This article, according to me, shouldn't exemplify how featured albums should read, and shouldn't be placed in the same category as articles such as Marquee Moon or Are You Experienced, for example.--Retrohead (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Simon, Retrohead, who's turn is it? Are we waiting on nominator actions or reviewer feedback? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: As Retrohead stated above, he said that he would not leave any more comments. Simon (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why did Simon say the issues with naming the Allmusic writer and paraphrasing some of the pointed quotes were done, when they are obviously reverted to the previous state. Since the notes with the dating, sentence wording (predominantly at the reception section) and reference synthesis are still unresolved, my vote remains the same.--Retrohead (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AllMusic issue has been done lately, and for the paraphrasing issue, I have responded to your comment. Best, Simon (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FreshBlueLotus edit

Lead

  • The Love Club EP is the debut extended play (EP) by New Zealand recording artist Lorde. ("the debut" or "a debut").
  • "the" debut is grammartically correct here. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the age of 12, Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan and began writing songs by herself ("and" inhibits clarity about age. In the Background and production – "Lorde was spotted … at the age of 12, ... At the age of 13, Lorde started writing songs herself. "). Recommend: "In her early teens, Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan when she began writing songs by herself."
  • Why? I think mentioning the exact age is more suitable. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 2011, MacLachlan paired Lorde with producer Joel Little and within three weeks, Lorde and Little co-wrote and produced all of the songs for the EP. Recommend: "In December 2011, MacLachlan paired Lorde with producer Joel Little and within three weeks, they co-wrote and produced all the songs for the EP."
  • I have changed to "the pair" Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November 2012, the EP was released for free via SoundCloud. Recommend: "In November 2012, the free version of the EP was released via SoundCloud." (I agree it doesn’t match with "In November 2012, Lorde self-released The Love Club EP through her SoundCloud account for free download". The fact that "Lorde self-released" it should be mentioned.)
  • An indie rock-influenced electronica album, The Love Club EP received general acclaim from music critics, who praised its overall production and compared its musical style to works by Sky Ferreira, Florence & the Machine and Lana Del Rey. Recommend: "received a general acclaim from the music critics".
  • "Acclaim" cannot be used as a noun in this way; I have reworded this part of the sentence. "The" is incorrect before "critics", as that would imply that all critics (of the world, or some other undefined set) acclaimed the album. "Critics" alone means "some critics". Adabow (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To promote The Love Club EP, Lorde performed during various concerts and "Royals" was released as a single. Recommend: "To promote The Love Club EP, Lorde performed in various concerts and also released "Royals" as a single."
  • During is more correct than "in". Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and production

  • Lorde … at the age of 12. At the age of 13, Lorde … . in December 2011, when Lorde had just turned 15. Recommend: Try replacing the overemphasis on age with one term to indicate she was a prodigy; e.g. "A prodigy in her early teens, Lorde at the age of 12 …".

Composition

  • Critics compared the EP's musical style to works by Sky Ferreira, Florence and the Machine and Lana Del Rey. ("The" critics … ?)
  • Editor Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener opined that Lorde's songs are structured in a manner of a short story. ("The" editor … ?)
  • "Royals" and "Million Dollar Bills" are two tracks that criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich ("the" two tracks … ?)
  • The title track of the EP, "The Love Club", discusses the befriendment of "a bad crowd". (Is "befriendment" a standard word? Sounds a tough one for me; couldn’t find in my thesaurus.)

Release and promotion

  • After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP. ("After a free download of 60,000, UMG …")
  • I am not sure that "a free download..." is acceptable. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 8 March 2013, The Love Club EP was released digitally in Australia,[20] New Zealand,[21] and the United States.[22] (club inline citations 20, 21, 22 at the end after the full stop.)
  • That would be quite misleading. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The compact disc (CD) edition of the record was released in New Zealand on 10 May,[23] in Australia a week later,[24] and in the United States on 9 July.[25] (again club inline citations 23, 24, 25 at the end after the full stop. "The compact disc (CD) edition" or simply "The CD version …"; CD is compact disc is fairly commonly known.)
  • Not done the first issue. The second issue, I have changed compact disc to CD. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royals" was released as the only single from the EP; on 3 June 2013, Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio. (Are the two statements joined with a semicolon related?) Recommend: ""Royals" was released as the only single from the EP in the US. On 3 June 2013, Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio." In lead "the US" – "In the US, the record charted at number 23", here "US"; maintain consistency.

Reception

  • A writer from AllMusic gave The Love Club EP three stars out of five, calling it "evocative", continuing to praise the albums "sultry, sinewy" sound and drawing comparison to the work of Sky Ferreira, Florence + the Machine, Lana Del Rey, and Grimes. Recommend: "The EP received three stars out of five from a writer at AllMusic who called it "evocative" and praised its "sultry, sinewy" sound while comparing it to the work of Sky Ferreira, Florence & the Machine, Lana Del Rey, and Grimes." (Sky Ferreira, Florence "&" the Machine – currently there is a "+" sign.)

A delight to read! --FreshBlueLotus (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I stumbled here from this article talk page, and thought I'd comment! Didn't have an account so created one! --FreshBlueLotus (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very appreciated! Thank you, Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

  • The first instance of New Zealand should be linked, not the second
  • "Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan and began writing songs by herself"..... I don't think the "by herself" part is needed here.
  • "Lorde acknowledged that she was inspired by hip hop-influenced music artists"..... keep it simple- she took inspiration from hip-hop influenced artists.
  • "when she was on holiday after finishing a school term" → "during a school break"
  • If so, we can't know that she had just finished a school term. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's trivial content, i.e.: irrelevant to the article. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this clearly. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Background section mentions The New Zealand Herald, then another mention of it in, say, Critical Reception should not be linked. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ella Yelich-O'Connor" should link to Lorde

Not much to do here, really. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Done all. Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I officially support! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pedro edit

  • Like Snuggums said, there's not much to be done here. However, I did note the absence of AllMusic from the ratings table, and I agree with some points that Snuggums noted (the ones that I commented on, above). I Support this nomination but I want to see those points fixed. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Comments from Nikkimaria edit

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though I note a MOS error in the sample caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? Simon (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"21 second" -> "21-second" and it will be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It has been done. Simon (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Nominators, is this your first FAC? If so, we need a few spotchecks of the sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. We also need a review of the sources for formatting and reliability. Graham Colm (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh edit

Oppose I'm occasionally mystified by Supports based on prose when I readily find a plethora of problems that are largely prose-related. This is another instance. Examples:

  • "At the age of 12, [...] In November 2012, Lorde self-released the EP for free download via SoundCloud." The first bit gives her age but no date, whereas the second bit gives the date but no age, so the reader cannot know how much time passed.
  • "producer Joel Little, and within three weeks, the pair co-wrote and produced all of the songs". JL was a producer, but who produced this EP? (The use of "produce" is unclear – 'created' or 'acted as record producer'?)
  • "On 8 March 2013 the record was commercially released by Universal Music Group and Virgin Records." This is directly contradicted by the main text.
  • "was well-received by music critics". The hyphen should not be there.
  • "Lorde performed during various concerts". So the concerts weren't hers; she was just a second act or similar?
  • "Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail described Lorde's voice on the EP as "smoky", and Chris Schulz from The New Zealand Herald said her voice "seems to come from someone twice her age"." What's the relevance of this in the Composition section?
  • "For the US iTunes Store September 2013 edition of The Love Club EP, "Royals" was replaced by "Swingin Party"". This is repeated in the next section.
  • "Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio". What does "sent" mean?
  • "Lorde replaced Frank Ocean at the Splendour in the Grass festival in Byron Bay, Australia". Why? What happened? And was this to promote the EP/single (this is not stated until much later in the para)?
  • "she held a concert at Le Poisson Rouge [...] and held a concert at Webster Hall in New York City. On 3 October 2013, Lorde held a concert at the Warsaw Venue in Brooklyn, New York". That's three uses of "held a concert" ("held" is an odd choice of verb when referring to the performer anyway) in one para.

As with earlier reviewers, I suggest that the article is closing in on GA quality. Not putting it through a GAR was a mistake, I believe, as it could (should) have been improved substantially at that point prior to further polishing for FAC. I recommend a GAR, as there's just too much that needs to be improved and this is not the place to do it all. EddieHugh (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2014 (diff).

Impossible Princess edit

Nominator(s): GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 07:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australian recording artist and songwriter Kylie Minogue's sixth studio album Impossible Princess, released in November 1997. I have nominated this article because it has been extensively research in many materials (books, articles, newspapers, press releases, etc.) and many of the subject matter submitted in the article has been closely analysed, with many adjustments in making it as readable and well-presented. The article has currently been through the Wikipedia:Good article standards for a very long time so I decided to nominate it.

Overtime, the article has lacked material that has been left out from press releases, magazine articles, books released by Minogue and others associating it and it was time to add the material that has been obtained by others. This material has included lengthily research on the songs featured on the album, the background, production and creation of the album, release dates and promotion and the legacy that the album has left. With analysed research and constant grammar/punctuation corrections being held in placed over the time of the albums extensive research, I believe that this article should be reviewed for an Featured Article nomination. I am happy in looking forward in the feedback received for this nomination. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 07:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by shaidar cuebiyar edit

I will review the article according to the FA criteria below, I reserve the right to come back to earlier sections as I work my way through. I expect to take about a week to complete my process: once I've finished my review I will post my decision.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

A quick check at the FA toolbox finds problems:

  1. No alt text for most images: note should be different from captions.
  2. Nominator is not a major contributor to the article: have recent major contributors been consulted on whether they believe the article is up to FA standard? Can they help with meeting the criteria? Didn't see nominator had same account as a major contributor.03:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Eight dead links! Two suspicious ones.
  4. Three redirect links need anchoring.

These problems need to be fixed immediately.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA Criteria comments
Criterion 1a edit

It is— well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

  1. Knee-jerk reaction: has this been copy edited? There are considerable instances of grammar, clarity and tone fixes which are required.
Lead
  1. The album became the longest project ever penned by Minogue since her success on the 1987's TV series Neighbours. This is confusing: it implies that Minogue wrote material for Neighbours in 1987.
  2. in Techno , drum and bass, > in techno, drum and bass,
  3. in which Minogue had assumed full creative control, contradicted earlier when five (or more) producers were listed (but no Minogue), see ¶1. If this is referring to the fact that she wrote all the lyrics then this is not the same as "full creative control".
  4. constantly writing lyrics down in her Chelsea, London home 'constantly' is hyperbole: chose a better word; 'down' is superfluous.
  5. were some of the examples of her feelings that were developed through her songwriter Confusing/awkward. Perhaps you mean provide examples of her feelings, which are displayed in her song writing
  6. the image projected towards the album > the image projected by the album
  7. Trim/break up the sentence starting with The album has ... for shipments of 70,000 copies.
  8. in Minogue's native Australia > in Australia We've already established that she is an Australian artist.
  9. In the UK, however > In the United Kingdom, however Use full name first time in Lead, first time in main text.
  10. the UK following the death of 'following'? It was released in Japan two months after Diana's death, and some four or so months later in Europe (including UK). The way its written implies Diana died after this album was first issued and then its name was changed in the UK but not for the rest of Europe. Needs to be clarified.
  11. Does the commercial disappointment of singles relate to Australia, UK or elsewhere?
  12. but lacked chart progression what does this mean?
  13. Critic's alike Clarify. Is the apostrophe needed?
  14. recognized Use Australian English.
  15. achieved worldwide domination tone down the hyperbole.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Reduce overuse of frequent terms. e.g. "album" appears 22 times, "recognized" three times in two adjacent sentences, "single" three times in one sentence. Similar work reducing overused terms is required throughout the article.
  17. as one of Kylie's greatest triumphs > as one of the artist's greatest triumphs or similar.21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  18. Chronology of ¶4 is vague: try to straighten out when the tour was, when did critics re-evaluate its status from earlier "fraud-like" to "greatest triumphs".
  19. Trim/re-word: The album's promotion was supported by the
  20. For ease of readability, there should be a greater consistency in the size of paragraphs: especially ¶1 cf. ¶3. Trim the latter, expand the former. Some long sentences need to be broken up. This same sentiment applies to other text sections.22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Background
  1. When Minogue was at the brink of signing When? Try something like In late 1992, Minogue was at the brink of signing
  2. progressed no musical direction or development over the years Unclear.
  3. Although signed for three albums, Signed with Deconstruction or with PWL?
  4. The album became her lowest charting studio album Which album? Try That final release for PWL became her lowest charting studio album or similar.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. in both Australia and the UK > in both Australia and the United Kingdom First mention of acronym in main text: subsequently use UK.
  6. create the eponymous album > create her eponymous album in September 1994
  7. Her first album not being yielded by production team > As her first album not by the production team of
  8. , all who helped out with the album This appears to be redundant.
  9. Trim Both Anderson and Brothers in Rhythm worked with Minogue previously, both working on her 1992 single "Finer Feelings". e.g. Both Anderson and Brothers in Rhythm had worked with Minogue previously – on her 1992 single, "Finer Feelings".
  10. Clarify The album was originally to be penned earlier, but Deconstruction believed they were not heading the right direction so recorded seventeen new songs
  11. It yelled three main singles; > It yielded three singles:
  12. , and the album was successful in Australia and the UK > . The album achieved top 5 charting in Australia and the UK Greater precision.
  13. Clarify Beside the album's core success, there was not headlining tour nor extensive promotion What is meant by 'core success'? Should 'not' be 'no'?
  14. , a duet with > , as a duet with
  15. The song's lyrics narrated > The lyrics narrate
  16. since hearing "Better the Devil You Know", saying > since hearing "Better the Devil You Know" (April 1990), saying wL & context.
  17. most successful single to date > most successful to date Redundant.
  18. Trim Sweden, Finland and managed to get inside the top twenty > Sweden, and Finland; and inside the top twenty
  19. and the United Kingdom > and the UK Acronym established earlier.
  20. Trim The song also managed to achieve critical acclaim > It achieved critical acclaim
  21. suggestion. She later Delete extra space.
  22. began a relationship > began a personal relationship Specify.
  23. on a mission of self-discovery Cliché.
  24. Trim her to the work of musicians including
  25. Being interview with NME, Clarify: NME is a publication she can hardly be interviewed with it. If you can't find the author(s) then try something like In an interview published in NME,
  26. Delete by commenting at the end of that sentence.
  27. for me." > for me". Use Australian English (commas and full stops appear after quote marks).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and production
  1. Shouldn't recording and production occur after writing and composition? Seems non-chronological. Also, this is a huge first ¶: it needs to be broken up.
  2. Consider file caption: was one of the main producers to the album (re: Bradfield) cf. content in first sentence: were chosen as the main producers (re: Brothers in Rhythm' duo). Both statements can't be true. From content in the rest of the article I'd delete this whole phrase re:Bradfield from the caption, leaving the information about his producing two tracks.
  3. If a term has already been linked in the main text then delink it subsequently to reduce overlinking. This is a common problem in this article but I may not mention all instances; you will have to be vigilant in tracking them all down. e.g. change opening sentence to become: Brothers in Rhythm, a house music duo consisting of Steve Anderson and Dave Seaman,
  4. Clarify She expressed that with the creative ability and good formula– shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. and real instruments were added replace "real": samples and keyboards are just as real as guitars and drums.
  6. since her time on the Australian soap opera Neighbours specify, e.g. since her time acting in the Australian TV soap opera Neighbours (from 1986 to 1988)
  7. Trim Anderson later explained that the album took a long time to record > Anderson later explained that its lengthy time was
  8. ¶2 is too small by comparison.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Trim Minogue asked the producers to create the album in a sense of Minogue's own personal mind and how she felt at the point of making the album > Minogue asked the producers to create a sense of her personal mind and how she felt while making the material
  10. Who's Richard Wilkins? wL him, and give his association i.e. presenter/reporter on which TV show?
  11. say about it [Impossible Princess] is it > say about [Impossible Princess] is it
  12. pleased with." > pleased with". If there are more of these, fix them too: I may not point out everyone of them.00:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  13. Recording sessions started in early 1996. cf. In 1995, Minogue and Brothers in Rhythm began recording rough demos... from ¶1. Inconsistency in chronology or description.
  14. Trim The first song recorded for the album was with Anderson and Seaman at Real World which was entitled "You're The One", which was a song that did not make it on the album. Too long-winded and self-contradictory. Also fix track title "You're the One".
  15. all which were delete "all"
  16. "Limbo" again? Now recorded at Sarm West, previous sentence recorded at Box sessions. Clarify.
  17. Avoid repetitive phrase (and incorrectly spelled this time) The next set of songs where
  18. Avoid repetition of information from ¶1.
  19. ¶3 is a little too long.
  20. Fix expression: plan a strategy in change her image
  21. Trim redundancy: allowed her to naturally change as she wanted to,
  22. Replace "perception" with a more appropriate word Minogue's perception of Impossible Princess
  23. Fix number: taking charges of the album
  24. Replace "take on": new image would take on a positive approach
  25. Fix: comparing herself to a "pigeonhole." > by not confining herself to a "pigeonhole".
  26. Each morning, Minogue would present lyrics to Seaman from the night before. Seamen commented that; > Seaman described writing with Minogue:
  27. melodically".
  28. Soon after, Minogue had been collaborating with > Soon after, Minogue collaborated with
  29. wL first mention: [[James Dean Bradfield]].
  30. Fix adjective to adverb with her previous but
  31. Fix bac
  32. wL first mention: [[Manic Street Preachers]]
  33. Be consistent with styling of deConstruction Records throughout the article.
  34. new album".
  35. Trim was approved by him. > was approved.
  36. Clarify and he wrote, composed and produced the entire song How was the entire song "produced" without any vocals by Minogue? Was it recorded by Bradfield as a demo with his own vocals? Did he provide all its instrumentation?
  37. Fix expression till which she had re-wrote
  38. Also, does Bradfield get co-credit for lyrics? or does he just get credit for music composition and co-production?02:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Writing and composition
  1. See first point under 'Recording and production'.
  2. ¶1: too big.
  3. Minogue began writing lyrics for Impossible Princess in 1996 Contradicted by earlier content e.g. "In 1995, Minogue and Brothers in Rhythm began recording rough demos ... consisted of Minogue's lyrical ideas over various backing tracks"; also infobox has recording commencing in October 1995.
  4. was constantly writing down words "constantly" is hyperbole.
  5. but called them > but described them as
  6. In an interview with Mag UK Similar problem to above, Mag UK is a publication, who was she interviewed by?
  7. Is the transcript of the video prepared by you (or other wikipedia editor)? If so, it contains errors including "strangly" and "diary's" (for plural). If it is in an original printed form, which is not linked, then place a {{sic}} plate after each such error. It also has misquoted Minogue in a number of places.
  8. At end of her quote: bad'".
  9. For an interview with Hey Hey It's Saturday Similar problem to above. Interviewer is Richard Stubbs: name, describe & wL him. Check ref seems to have been disrupted.
  10. Fix , She expressed
  11. saying that she hated referring herself as the songwriter on her songs I think you may have missed the humour of her interchange with Stubbs. From my perspective Stubbs' phrase "Damn I hate that" and Kylie's "I can't blame anyone but ... myself for that ... I hate that too" were both said with irony. Kylie is self-deprecatory, and she is smiling/smirking almost giggling.
  12. out".
  13. right".
  14. Consider the caption for the sound file: is this a quote? 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  15. Check overlinkage in ¶2: don't link terms previously linked in main text.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Relationship with Bradfield and his group has already been established in a previous section. Not required here (unless you reorder the two sections – in which case it should be removed from whichever is the latter appearance).
  17. ¶3 is too big.
  18. Reword: became the first release to contain songs solely written by Minogue Did she write all the music too: or does this writing only refer to their lyrics? Or does it refer only to the small number of tracks for which she solely wrote both lyrics and music?
  19. End sentence with she co-wrote with Bradfield. If not, fix to suit.
  20. Clarify: with various producers Are all the co-writers also her producers?
  21. Delink: autobiographical. It's a common term.
  22. According to Chris True Give his association.
  23. Apostrophe? the albums musical composition
  24. Clarify: had been attributed due to the rapid 90's music change, also "90's" to "1990s"
  25. Who is Michael R. Smith?
  26. agreed the album had been influenced by techno music, > agreed with it showing techno influences.
  27. as Classic Pop Magazine found First get rid of "as", then fix per previous discussion about publications and identifying authors.
  28. 90's > 1990s
  29. Who is Nick Levine?
  30. Fix: shop."
  31. Fix poor expressions: for taken on more extensive and viewed that Minogue knows
  32. Reduce repeated use of "note" in same sentence.
  33. Spelling: confort However avoid using a cliché.
  34. Delink A&R. If linkage needed place at first appearance in main text.
  35. due to the poor health of its head, Pete Hadfield > due to Hadfield's poor health Concision, also we've already heard about Hadfield being chair of Deconstruction.
  36. Qualify: with creative control over the project Were their other controllers of the project's creativity? e.g. record producers, songwriters? Note: this is short of claim in Lead of "full creative control".
  37. her mind, stating, > her mind,
  38. Expression: to which she does not appreciate
  39. telling Mixmag per previous comments about publications & authors.
  40. rock."13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Songs
  1. ¶1: what can I say? This is huge! Divide it up (into 3 or 4), reduce long sentences, try to remove redundant/unnecessary detail. The latter point is especially relevant for tracks with their own articles.
  2. Reduce usage of "songs", "album", "Minogue", "release" and other overused terms. (This should also be applied to other sections, including previous ones).
  3. Reword: the first full-length written song by Minogue Why "full-length"?
  4. Redundant: The song was composed by Minogue herself Given previous sentence, how is this new information?
  5. Redundant: was noted as being Minogue's first ever song penned for an album and solely written by her Again? See previous sentences, it gets tiring reading the same information with slightly different wording. Choose one of them and go for it: the rest can be cut.
  6. state." This'll be the last of these which I'll point out, but you still have to find and fix all the rest.
  7. that other song > that another track,
  8. should have been released as the lead single, > should have been its lead single,
  9. should be the lead due
  10. Clarify: to its composed representation towards the album
  11. Delink: Deconstruction Records
  12. Deconstruction Records did not think Remove personification.
  13. Note: this discussion contradicts claim in Lead that Minogue "had assumed full creative control". She is being told which lead single to issue and what is to be the B-side: clearly she does not have full control.
  14. Trim: it would be a suitable single release and felt it was too risky, e.g. it would be suitable: it was too risky.
  15. Reword: so instead issued it as a b-side > Instead, it was issued it as a b-side
  16. Avoid redirects & wL only once for drum and bass.
  17. Reword, avoid redundancies in sentence starting with: The song was issued as a promotional single
  18. Redundant: to her then-boyfriend Stéphane Sednaoui. We already know his status. Also delink use last name only, both here, and any later appearance.
  19. contast
  20. Consider: to contrast Minogue's relationship with With what is the relationship being contrasted?
  21. photoshoot Australian English.
  22. collaborator William Baker, he wrote; > collaborator, William Baker, wrote:
  23. Minogue constantly tried to "constantly"?
  24. tried to higher her vocal notes change "higher"
  25. channels yet another different musical genre > delivers a new musical genre
  26. Nick Levine > Levine He's been named in full earlier.
  27. Trim: examined the musical composition for the song and wrote that "Oh, and in 'Cowboy Style', it has a track that manages to > examined its musical composition, which "manages to
  28. Delink: "Some Kind of Bliss"
  29. Clarify/qualify: The lyrical content was actually written totally different.
  30. as did producer Jeams Dean Bradfield > as did Bradfield Also loses misspelled first name.
  31. Clarify After creating the composition of the song, they both mixed their own lyrics and create a whole new set. Perhaps: After composing its music, they mixed their suggested lyrics to create a whole new set. or similar.
  32. Recording/production details should be elsewhere. If you use the content, delink London, and leave off England (this is default for London – any other city of that name would need further defining).
  33. Critical reception should be elsewhere.
  34. was a similar approach to > used a similar approach to
  35. Trim: which features instrumentation of electric guitars, > which features electric guitars,
  36. Reduce use of "features" in three adjacent sentences.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Caption, fix: [[Bjork]] > [[Björk]]
  38. Fix: in the mid-90s and
  39. Who introduced Björk & Manson to Minogue? when introduced by Nick Cave. cf. Sednaoui also introduced her to the work of both need clarification/reconciling.
  40. ¶2: too big.
  41. Fix: out off the 12 tracks
  42. synthesiser Australian English.
  43. to Chicago, USA drop USA (its default).
  44. revered DJ/producer > DJ-producer Drop puffery, fix incorrect use of slash.
  45. formats.) > formats).
  46. Remove redundancies: In 2011, Minogue sang an acoustic version while on her 2011 tour Aphrodite World Tour
  47. In 2012, the > In the next year, the
  48. song didn't make the tracklist > song did not make the track list Avoid contractions (except in direct quotes or song/album titles); use Australian English
  49. Who is Tom Parker?
  50. Delink electronic music, as being covered by electronica earlier.
  51. Change: subtety unless source spells it thus, in which case use sic plate.02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  52. the second song self-penned > the second entirely self-written and composed
  53. Consider sentence starting with: Parker said that Where does the quote start?
  54. Delink dance-pop.
  55. Fix was compared to songs and was critically compared by critics in same sentence.
  56. Clarify: and said although not as spiritual Who said? The critics? Cinquemani?
  57. Also check quote marks for rest of sentence: what's in and what's not?
  58. Trim: Another song which was recorded entitled "Free" > Another track, "Free",
  59. "Drunk", and incorporated similar
  60. Delink rock/rock music: common term.
  61. the albums most Use possessive.
  62. The song was the only song on the album Really?
  63. Clarify: was assisted by Bradfield and Nick Jones. Was the assistance with lyrics, music or both? For Jones: wL & provide association.
  64. Sentence fragment continuing with and was commended as: where does the quote start?
  65. Is an heart in the quoted section? Otherwise fix.
  66. More discussion re: lead single. This is getting very repetitive.
  67. Clarify: This decision was later manipulated by Steve Anderson Who had "full creative control"?
  68. Meaning: Due to improbable decisions,
  69. Delink: frustration.
  70. Check, word missing: was written Minogue, Vauk and Ball cf. previous claim of another song being the only one on the album which was not written by Minogue on her own.
  71. Steve Anderson > Anderson
  72. Check: this track of "Too Far"
  73. to be released as the lead single from the album instead of "Some Kind of Bliss." His reasoning behind this was because he believed those two > to be the lead single as he believed those two Trimmed: this issue has already been raised.
  74. Clarify represented the overall production on how the album was
  75. but Deconstruction Records did not back this decision replace Deconstruction Records with a person e.g. Hadfield or someone else.
  76. ¶3: too big.
  77. Delink previously linked terms.
  78. Written by Minogue, Ball and Vauk
  79. [[Bjork]]'s > Björk's
  80. the albums title Possessive.
  81. Clarify: in which was displayed while
  82. Fix: late 90's era
  83. with Nick Levine from Digital Spy commenting > by Levine, who commented First name and association should be at first appearance, not needed here.
  84. While there fix the quote marks: both on 'impossible princess' and at end of the quoted section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased material
  1. ¶1: too small. Expand or combine with nearby content.
  2. Note that the sub-Heading is "Unreleased material". If any tracks appear on live, compilation, re-release or bonus versions then they are not "unreleased". Considering the content of this section a different sub-Heading is needed.
  3. Trim: The first song ever recorded for the album was a track entitled "You're the One". > The first track ever recorded for the Impossible Princess project was "You're the One".
  4. It was written by
  5. Rewrite: Despite this, the song was never released commercially or featured in the final tracking list and a very rough demo has surfaced the internet since. > It was not officially released although a very rough demo later surfaced on the internet.
  6. Clarify: that became visible were
  7. Trim: but neither song made it on the final cut off the album, > but none made the final cut,
  8. Is Other Sides a CD single or an EP? If the former, it should not be italicised. Likewise for Live and Other Sides.
  9. Meaning: The first commercially worldwide unreleased track was "Free".
  10. Fix: which they were in the sessions
  11. Plural: Both the track featured
  12. Change "never": but was never commercially recorded
  13. Clarify: has never been surfaced While there, fix end of this sentence and start of next one.
  14. that were recorded during the process of Impossible Princess > which were recorded during Impossible Princess sessionsshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Style: "Take Me with You"
  16. Trim: this compilation and her Confide in Me: The Irresistible Kylie compilation. > this compilation and Confide in Me: The Irresistible Kylie.
  17. Reword: A new track entitled "This Girl" was released on the album and written by Minogue and Anderson. > A new track, "This Girl", written by Minogue and Anderson, appeared on this version.
  18. Reword: were finally used in the cutting for the repackaging of the album. > were used on the repackaged form.
  19. Fix expression: never been released fully and have either been leaked or snipped.
  20. Adjust laundry list of possible tracks: only use those which have a reliable source.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Title and artwork
  1. Consider quote box: start with The shoot was so very
  2. Kylie Minogue on about the 3D cover > Kylie Minogue on the 3D cover
  3. Trim: The name of the album is a reference to a book of poetry written by Billy Childish titled Poems to Break the Hearts of Impossible Princesses > The title references Poems to Break the Harts of Impossible Princesses (1994) by Billy Childish. Note: book title has "Harts" not "Hearts".
  4. Trim: The book was given to Minogue as a gift by Nick Cave, and she has said that the poems summarized where she was at that time in her life. > It was given to Minogue as a gift by Cave; she said its poems summarized where she was at that time in her life.
  5. She recalled "The first time
  6. She discussed the name by saying "It is practically > She elaborated "It is practically
  7. In the United Kingdom and Europe, the album's title was changed to Kylie Minogue following the [[death of Diana, Princess of Wales]] in August 1997. > Due to the [[death of Diana, Princess of Wales]] in August 1997, the title was changed to Kylie Minogue for the UK and the rest of Europe.
  8. Reword: the album was delayed in both Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom as the period of timing and titling was deemed "inappropriate." > its appearance was delayed in Australia, New Zealand and the UK as the timing was "inappropriate".
  9. Don't place a cquote so close to the quote box. They distract from each other: some displays have considerable interference. Decide which is more important as the representative quote for this section: artwork or title. The other should be re-incorporated into the text.22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  10. to represent Minogue's three-dimensional personality depicted on the album. > to graphically represent her greater depth of personality. –shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Trim: required multiple static cameras and for Minogue to pose for long periods of time, which she quickly grew tired of > required multiple static cameras and she grew tired of posing for long periods of time.
  12. Reword: To achieve the background of swirling lights, Sednaoui dressed from head to toe in black, ran and jumped around Minogue with a kitchen light covered with plastic gels. > Its background of swirling lights was achieved by Sednaoui, who was dressed in black-out suit, he ran around the singer with a light covered by plastic gels.
  13. Véronique
  14. Explain: was all handled actuality Is this a specialist term or simply an error in expression?
  15. wL: [[Junya Watanabe]] and [[Comme des Garçons]]. Note correction of latter.
  16. Poor expression: only to perceive a more boyish look
  17. Check source, does it actually write: all the other shoots were have done were always fun
  18. While at the quote, close with: easy".
  19. Last sentence in ¶ has too many "release". Also remove "another": its unnecessary.
  20. mutual appreciation > shared appreciation
  21. Trim: the photographs taken for Minogue's sixth album Impossible Princess > the cover photographs
  22. "[[GBI: German Bold Italic]]"
  23. Delete: Several photographs were taken during the production of the album.
  24. Trim: Some of them were featured in Minogue's self-released books, including Kylie: La La La which contain photographs with her posing with neon lighting and with infrared effects but most remain unreleased. > Her self-released book, Kylie: La La La, includes photographs from this shoot with her posing with neon lighting and infrared effects but most remain unpublished.
  25. Trim: These pictures featured Minogue posing in front of castles and city backdrops, representing the many kingdoms of an impossible princess. > Some show Minogue in front of castles and city backdrops, representing the many kingdoms of an impossible princess.
  26. albums photo shoot Possessive.
  27. Reword: , who felt they were more darker and mysterious > : they felt the artwork was darker and more mysterious
  28. Consider the quote at end of final ¶: Is it necessary to repeat almost the same content as the first half?
  29. Justification for made her fall into [[Depression (mood)|depression]] during is not found in the cited text: in fact Minogue claims "and do not believe I got into a terrible depression, never thought that was it".shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and promotion
  1. Reduce usage: "album", "release", "issue" & other repetitious terms. Delink previously linked terms.
  2. Adjust ¶ sizes.
  3. Expand opening: Impossible Princess had been delayed several times before its initial release on 1 November 1997, in Japan, by BMG with a bonus track, "Tears".
  4. According to the infobox, the album was still being recorded until May 1997, reconcile this with the current second sentence.
  5. Successive dates should be summarised more efficiently; e.g. The original proposed appearance was in early January 1997, this was pushed back to May, then September but it remained unreleased.03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Explain: to accommodate the album
  7. Trim: Despite the Japan release, the album was eventually delayed in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom particularly due to the [[death of Diana, Princess of Wales]].–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Trim: The album was then released in Australia by Mushroom Records in early 1998 while the album was released in the United Kingdom and Europe in mid-1998 by Deconstruction Records. > Early in 1998 it appeared in Australia on Mushroom Records; then in mid-Year in the UK and the rest of Europe by Deconstruction Records.
  9. Trim: majority off all Impossible Princess tracks Also "off" > "of"
  10. included in many of her compilation albums > included on her compilation albums
  11. Unnecessary: To accommodate the album,
  12. Possessive: the albums purchase
  13. End Billboard quote at: territory".
  14. disappointment, plans > disappointment, those plans. When?
  15. Consider file caption: specify when the photo was taken, no italics for a tour name, wL to tour's article.
  16. Insert missing word: embarked a promotional tour
  17. Trim & delink common terms: Minogue performed in Singapore and traveled to different cities in her native Australia including Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. > Minogue performed in Singapore and then followed with Australian state capitals Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide.
  18. Trim: She then traveled to Auckland, New Zealand for a concert and finished off in Hong Kong to finished the promotional tour. > Next was Auckland and she finished off in Hong Kong.
  19. Delete sentence on first and last visits: not needed.
  20. Possessive: the albums European release
  21. After the above trims, ¶2 will be too small.
  22. ¶3 is too big. It starts with To support the album, Minogue embarked an Australian and European tour Intimate and Live. Wasn't ¶2 tour in support of this album?
  23. Reduce use of: "production" and "tour".
  24. Give time span for Intimate and Live tour.
  25. Give month for Mardi Gras.
  26. it more off a
  27. Baker was previously introduced: no wL, no association needed.
  28. Trim: a band mainly consisting of members of Australia's John Farnham band, with added backing vocalists. > a backing group – mainly John Farnham's band members – with added backing vocalists.
  29. Puffery: extremely rave reviews
  30. performend
  31. Put unreleased track last in tour performance set.
  32. For laundry list of other appearances: only give ones not previously noted in above sections. Only wL to actual articles, remove wL from any previously linked.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
  1. Adjust ¶ sizes.
  2. Reduce overuse of terms, including "review".
  3. Hyperbole: overwhelmingly positive Only 10/10 or 9/10 (or equivalent) ratings?
  4. Reverse hyperbole: decidedly negative Does this include Digital Spy rating of 4/5?
  5. Delink Billboard.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. True notes that critics are not "overwhelmingly positive". Contradicts hyperbole.
  7. Trim: he lambasted Minogue's collaborations with James Dean Bradfield, > he lambasted her collaborations with Bradfield,
  8. Delink but italics on: Digital Spy
  9. De-italicis but keep wL on: [[Amazon.com]]
  10. Adjust: Music Week was less than impressed give author, or similar.
  11. Adjust: Who compared give author, or similar.
  12. Re-word: compared Minogue's vocal style to > compared Minogue's singing to Avoid repetition of "vocal style"
  13. Trim, re-word: crediting her for her range in vocal styles displayed on the album. > praising her range in vocal styles.
  14. Trim, re-word: The magazine also commented that the album was a major step towards Minogue gaining credibility in the music industry. > The author also commented that it was a major step towards her gaining credibility in the music industry.
  15. Adjust start of next sentence: Michael R. Smith, in The Daily Vault, cited it as the singer's best album; his positive review continued:
  16. catalog Australian English.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A reviewer from the publication wrote > The reviewer noted
  18. Fix: reviewer late said
  19. Missing word? They concluded writing
  20. Last ¶ is too small.
  21. Delink & de-italicise: FasterLouder (its a redirect anyway).
  22. Fix: of the '90s
  23. Fix secondary quote marks: left "the real Kylie" fully –shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
  1. Exaggeration: proved to be an all-round success in Australia
  2. AMR is not used for charting in 1998: only use ARIA Albums Chart.
  3. Clarify: It became the highest debuting album and the only debut album on the chart for the week end 25 January 1998. Note: The Sundays' album, Static & Silence, is also a new entry into the top 50 for the week ending on 25 January 1998. However the ARIA albums chart is a top 100; neither Impossible Princess nor Static & Silence are debut albums; their entry position(s) into the top 100 are not available at the source cited: they may have entered earlier at a lower position in range, 50–100.
  4. achieve a platinum recognition Use a better word than "recognition". Check fact: Let's Get to It was also certified as platinum.
  5. In the United Kingdom use UK (twice in this ¶)
  6. Where's a wL to [[UK Albums Chart]]?
  7. success was very limited Specify type of success. Also, what is meant by "very limited"?
  8. Once again, too much use of "album", e.g. the album entered the albums chart and others.
  9. Poor expression: in compare to the, which stayed in for sixteen, was deemed Minogue's worst selling studio album to date due to a variety of reasons, the lack of devoted promotion with a tour, a benefit of low sales
  10. criticized Australian English
  11. Specify: [[Virgin Radio]], if UK Virgin Radio is meant then pipe link to [[Absolute Radio#1993.E2.80.931997: Virgin Radio launch and early years|UK Virgin Radio]], if not adjust as needed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1b edit

comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

Criterion 1c edit

well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

Criterion 1d edit

neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

Criterion 1e edit

stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Criterion 2a edit

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

Criterion 2b edit

appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and

Criterion 2c edit

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

Criterion 3 edit

Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Criterion 4 edit

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Review status edit
  1. In progress: just started.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Checked toolbox outputs: problems need to be fixed.01:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Lead, Background, Recording and production, Writing and composition, Songs, Unreleased material, Title and artwork, Release and promotion: per criterion 1a: more to follow.03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)05:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)02:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)13:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)06:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D edit

Oppose While it's good that this significant album has been given detailed coverage, the article's prose quality is well below FA standard at present. As some examples from the lead:

  • The second last and last sentences of the 1st para both start with 'The album'
  • "Musically, the album is predominately a pop and dance album" - first word is surplus
  • "The album represented another, and most radical change in Minogue's musical style" - no previous changes have been noted, so the comparison here isn't useful
  • "making it a departure from her previous work" - surplus given what starts this sentence (the sentence as a whole is somewhat convoluted)
  • "There are many themes associated with the album, as a result of her exploration of her celebrity status, self-identification as an artist, her relationship with Stéphane Sednaoui and her feelings towards her life at that point" - unclear and written in the passive voice
  • " Songs like "Jump" and "Limbo" were some of the examples of her feelings that were developed through her songwriter" - also unclear (the songs can't be feelings - they were presumably about her emotions, but I'd suggest that this is too much detail for the lead)
  • "Many critics complimented its maturity and personal subject matter, while others called it unbelievable and felt the image projected towards the album was fraud-like" - unclear. I suspect that the critics who were sceptical found the album to be unconvincing, and not believable. "fraud-like" is incredibly strong.
  • " Evidently, the tour achieved rave reviews from critics" - why 'evidently'?
  • " Critic's alike had considered the album to be an example of Minogue's constant "reinventions".[8] Dubbing her as "Indie Kylie", it had been recognized as one of Kylie's greatest triumphs and had been recognized as a big step forward in terms of her musical composition" - repeats material already noted in the lead
  • " In 2003, Q magazine hailed the album as a "hidden gem", praising it as a lost pop masterpiece." - ditto (and why single out Q magazine's comments published only 5 years after the album was released)
  • "The album was recognized for its critical comparison of Madonna's Ray of Light, which was released at a similar time but achieved worldwide domination and critical success" is also rather difficult to follow, and written in the passive voice.

The same kind of imprecise and over-long wording and excessive detail appears throughout the article, and I'm afraid that it needs a lot of work to be of FA standard. Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this article has been nominated prematurely for FAC. Aside from the many prose and style issues raised above, a good many statements are uncited, which is not acceptable at FA-level (nor at GA-level for that matter). I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. After addressing the shortcomings noted, I'd suggest a Peer Review before re-nominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2014&oldid=633512808"