Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2007

< 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 not promoted 20:02, 30 April 2007.

Falsifiability

edit

This seems to be a well referenced article with appropriate pictures and length. Ozone 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inline citations. The text of featured articles is generally expected to be supported throughout with footnotes.--ragesoss 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not really even close. There's an OR tag to go along with the lack of citations. Quadzilla99 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well researched and well written. Use of pictures is appropriate to the topic.Darren Magennis 08:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, {{original research}} in the Examples section, and it could probably be placed elsewhere as well. As per Quadzilla, it lacks inline citations. --Phoenix (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What's the point of "well referenced" if it's still got "original research"? Why doesn't the nominator improve that first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orngjce223 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose No inline citations, original research, and the writing is too technical. --Alabamaboy 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Scientific propositions have nothing to do with those sorts of individual idiosyncrasies." - impressively over-arching statement in overly short lead. Not sure what Darren Magennis's support means - article has two images of swans, arguably a good illustration of one section, but it's a long article, mostly unillustrated. From F=MA we suddenly go to number of hairs on a sled dog? Different dashes in the Quotes section. Use in Courts of Law has bad capitalization. The criterion of demarcation section has a bullet point for no good reason. In work beginning in the 1930s, Karl Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis - so what was the earlier emphasis, and why did it need to be renewed? Probably other problems, but that should be enough for now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Song Dynasty

edit

After compiling a lot of work into this article on my own behalf, with significant edits by User:AQu01rius, I believe this article is ready for FA status. It has a wealth of (researched and cited) information ranging on just about every major topic associated with the Song Dynasty of medieval China. It has an infobox with map and general info, the Chinese history box, a detailed history of the dynasty, detailed sections on its society, culture, economy, and technology, and to cap it all off, a small dissertation on Song era Chinese architecture. There are also 50 different citations throughout the article, from the sources listed at the end. There is also a great deal of precious artwork that brings this part of Chinese history alive through mere sight and tangibility.

Feel free to comment, give advice, suggest changes, and even to object.

--PericlesofAthens 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support, though the "Citations" section wasn't totally proper. I moved it into the "Notes" and got rid of the redundancy of listing all of a source's info over and over again. That belongs only in "References". But it looks good, nice work. Cliff smith 03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Insufficient amount of citations, years alone should not be wikilinked, "See Also" section comes before ntoes sections per Wikipedia:Guide to layout, about ten external jumps around the "Song Architecture" section that need to be converted to references with <ref></ref>. M3tal H3ad 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Those things have been taken care of. Cliff smith 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't judge the article just yet, Cliff smith just made a ref change that now makes a large part of the article invisible unless you go to the 'history' tab or 'edit this page' tab. With the missing information, a large part of the article does not flow together, is abrupt, does not fit together, and does not make sense.PericlesofAthens 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article fixed! Everything's fine. Feel free to judge away! Lol. Btw, good advice M3tal H3ad, and I like the name, I'm a metal head as well. Hah.PericlesofAthens 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The external jumps are all taken care of. Cliff smith 17:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cliff! PericlesofAthens 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is pretty well done. Needs another 20 more citations at least, and optionally the organization of the references section. Other than that, I don't see any other significant problems. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI just added to the technology sub-section, about Shen Kuo's writings on the Chinese use of a drydock to repair boats suspended in the air, in the 11th century.PericlesofAthens 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Blue-link references. All websources need a publisher and retrieval date, as well as author and publication date when available. Once you've provided publishers, it will be easier to judge the reliability of your sources. Example of how to cite can be found at WP:CITE/ES, or the cite templates can be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please consider not using the bulky citation templates. They add huge amounts of wikicode that make articles much more difficult to edit to those unfamiliar with wikicode, or for that matter experienced editors who don't want to dig through mounds of excess text just to try to do simply copyediting. Figuring out a standard format for one article isn't complicated enough to actually require a template. Peter Isotalo 10:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The websources are now all listed with authors, publishers, creation dates, and retrieval dates! Thanks for the CITE/ES reference, SandyGeorgia.
    •  Done Ok, this time, I got it! Lol. I'm glad I finally understood what you were getting at, and that it's over with.

OK, now that websources are identified, I have questions:

  • Beck, Sanderson (2004-2005). China 7 BC To 1279 Sanderson Beck. Retrieved on 2006-08-23 The publisher here should be listed as san.beck.org, which is http://www.san.beck.org/ He lists his credentials, but it still appears to be a self-published personal website, and maybe self-published books (I'm not clear on that). Is it a reliable source for the text sourced?
  • Theobald, Ulrich (2000). Chinese History - Song Dynasty 宋 (960-1279) event history Ulrich Theobald. Retrieved on 2006-08-23 The publisher here should be listed as chinaknowledge.de Here are his credentials; is it a reliable source for the text sourced?
  • Leong, Kit Meng (April 2006)Chinese Siege Warfare Leong Kit Meng. Retrieved on 2007-03-29 The publisher here should be listed as history-forum.com, which looks like a message forum and doesn't seem to be a reliable source. http://www.history-forum.com/

And so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected several endashes on date ranges (starting at the bottom of the article) and added non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement (see WP:DASH and WP:MOSNUM), but there is more to be done. Also, per WP:MOSNUM, solo years should not be wikilinked; there is a lot of work to be done in removing the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to strong oppose based on the non-reliable sources used (1c), lack of citations on most of the article (1c), MOS issues still (2), and extreme size and failure to employ summary style for tight focus on the subject (4)—the article has 74KB of readable prose, against the WP:LENGTH guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all agreeable. For now I skimmed down the article by taking out the section "Shen Kuo's Dissertation on the Timberwork Manual" by actually putting that info into Shen Kuo's own wiki article, with a parenthesis directing the reader to his article if they wished to learn more about the Timberwork Manual of Yu Hao. Also, with those websources that you have in question, I will get book sources for them instead, since they seem to be more trouble than they are worth. To be honest, I was not the one who referenced the first two, but the Chinese Siege Warfare one I did. The information posted in that online source is from Leong Kit Meng's book (the title of his book is the title of the site), and I know the author as an acquaintence through www.chinahistoryforum.com. I don't feel like going out and buying his book, so I will just look for stuff on the flamethrower in one of Needham's books instead. PericlesofAthens 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just got rid of all the wiki-links to solo years, as you requested. I also slimmed down the article a bit more, by taking out that large block quote about the Lighthouse of Alexandria, and putting it into the article of Lighthouse of Alexandria instead. Hope that cut (along with the earlier cut) slims down the article to a significant amount that it better fits the length standard.PericlesofAthens 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please name date and artist (+lifespan) of all images as far as possible. Just to make clear what is contemporary and what is centuries later artwork and to be fair to the artists. Wandalstouring 09:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^ Ok, from what I see, the only artwork that is not dated or ascribed to a specific artist is:

A) Portrait of Wang Anshi

B) The drawing of Sima Guang

C) The Portrait of Kublai Khan

D) And the portrait of Zhu Xi

129.174.54.151 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the portraits of Wang, Sima, and Zhu, but I know for a fact that the Kublai portrait was one commissioned by Kublai himself in his reign era, along with the official portrait of Genghis Khan, which is painted in similar style. I'll get back to you on that, but really, it's not a top priority at the moment. This article needs improving on many other things before someone minds getting to that.PericlesofAthens 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're looking for answers about those portrait paintings, here's what their image pages say:

A) Wang Anshi - the only description it provides is that it was scanned from ISBN 7-5347-1397-8

B) Sima Guang - Sima Guang（司馬光）was a historian of China. This image was carried on the book which is called "Wan hsiao tang-Chu chuang -Hua chuan（晩笑堂竹荘畫傳） " which was published in 1921（民国十年）.

C) Nothing is said of the Kublai picture on its own image page of Image:Kublai Khan.jpg, and further, nothing is said on its wikicommons equivalent.

D) Zhu Xi - his image page says the picture was scanned from 《社会历史博物馆》 ISBN 7-5347-1397-8

Unfortunately, all that I can provide are the ISBN numbers for the books that someone scanned them from. What is particularly annoying about this is the only person who bothered writing a description of any one of the portrait paintings was the guy/gal who was nice enough to write where he/she got Sima Guang's drawing from. But beyond that, that's it. In my opinion, it's all pretty trivial, since most of the artwork in the Song article is dated and attributed to an artist (or specified as from an anonymous artist). Don't let these four pics bother you. If they do, you can look up those ISBN numbers and try to find the pictures on your behalf, if you're still curious about who painted them and when.PericlesofAthens 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making very nice progress on the article, but many solo years are still wikified and should be unlinked per WP:MOSNUM. Also, strangely, the prose size of the article is now larger as measured by Dr pda's script, moving from 74KB of readable prose to 76KB (well beyond recommended guidelines at WP:LENGTH). The article seems to lend itself to natural divisions for Summary style; can you move content to separate articles on Song Dynasty architecture, Song Dynasty technology, Song Dynasty philosophy, or Song Dynasty culture, and summarize each of those back to this article with a few paragraphs? The goal is to make an encyclopedic-sized entry, easier for readers to load and digest. (PS, another benefit of doing that is that you can probably submit those articles as future FACs, getting some additional featured articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ^ Cool, I'll consider doing that next (just to be safe, I got rid of the brief history of Chinese written work on architecture prior to the Song Dynasty, which has hopefully slimmed the article down significantly). I got rid of the questionable websources mentioned, and replaced them instead with extra book citations. I also attempted to trim the article down a bit more and summarize more clearly to the point, but you're right, this article is rather long. However, might I remind you of my wiki login name: PericlesofAthens. Pericles has a featured article on wiki, and in all his article is 89 kilobytes. That's merely one figure of Greek history (although a very important one), while the Song Dynasty covers 3 centuries of history. Doesn't 3 entire centuries of history deserve at least somewhat of a larger portion of written space than a person's single life? Also, by removing all that information, I think the article would be too shortsighted (not gaining the big picture as it should) and would also lessen the amount of citations required for a substantial featured article. You are a more experienced wikipedian than I, and you probably know the ropes (of bureaucracy) much more than I. Consider what I've said, though. PericlesofAthens 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just skimmed down the prose amount of the article more by deleting the long paragraph on the wedding process description, which was under the family and gender sub-section of Society. That should bring the article into more acceptable length standard.PericlesofAthens 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back to look again, as requested. Solo dates are still wikilinked. Pericles, you don't need to *remove* content; you can move it to sub-articles per summary style. The current readable prose is still significantly above guidelines, at 73KB. The overall size of Pericles at 89KB isn't a problem; it has only 42KB of readable prose, which is within guidelines. Have you read WP:LENGTH to understand the difference between overall size and readable prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very nice; the size is now at 35KB, which is quite nice, and gives you a bit of room to grow if needed. All of the structural/MOS things look sound now. I'll print a hard copy for a thorough read (don't like to do final read at the computer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) PS - pls don't use those goofy green tick marks; for some reason they're talking hold this week, and they're really irritating :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, I can't wait to hear your responses. As to the green marks, I am new to wiki, and I thought it was the appropriate thing to do after watching others. Lol. Guess I was wrong! --PericlesofAthens 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The writing is nowhere near good enough. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it. Please network among WPians who've successfully worked on similar articles. Here are a few random examples of problems in the writing. (Please don’t just fix these examples.)
    • "was marked both by cultural explosion, as well as military and natural disasters."—Talking of "marked", this is marked grammatically twice, in "as well as" (= strong "and") and "both" (= unexpected duality); is either required? In the subsequent sentence, is "also" necessary?
    • "In the transition between 10th to 11th century, the population of China increased dramatically, as the Northern Song Dynasty held a population of some 100 million people". "the transition between 10th to 11th century"—Nope. The logic of "as" escapes me. "held a population" is unidiomatic.
    • "This came about through expanded rice cultivation in central and southern China, along with Chinese farmers producing abundant yields of food beyond self-sufficiency, hence their ability to sell greater amount of food for the market."—"farmers producing" is ungrammatical; why not use "through" by ellipsis and nominalise ("production")? And who else but Chinese farmers would be at issue? "This came about through expanded rice cultivation in central and southern China, and farmers' production of abundant yields of food beyond self-sufficiency, hence their ability to sell greater amount of food for the market." Do you sell for a market?
    • Maybe just a little too much detail in your northern/southern distinction in the lead. We'll get to that later, won't we?
    • "created new use of revolutionary military technology enhanced by the use of gunpowder." Create old use? Create use? Was the newness based on the use of gunpowder (it's unclear)? Use x 2.Tony 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Tony, I fixed the introductory paragraphs a bit, since there were a few sentences that needed rewording. I will also read through the rest of the article again in order to edit and improve any grammatical errors or poor wording that might be found. However, put down Michael Halliday's elite book of functional grammar for a moment and level with all of us plebian laymen folk. Lol. Just kidding, thanks for commenting. --PericlesofAthens 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A bit"? I've had a quick go at the lead after you looked at it, and was surprised to find so much to edit. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the rest to have a run through it? The rest is much better than it was, but there's a limit to what a primary author can readily identify (me too). Tony 08:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, and I like your improvements, they sound much better. Michael Halliday is useful after all! Who would have thunk it? Lol. I'm not sure who to summon for editing and commenting on this article, if they are to be unfamiliar with it. You mean that I should just go around making random requests? I had the thought of leaving messages about this thread to everyone at Wikiproject:History of China, but are you saying it's better to get feedback from someone not versed in Chinese history?--PericlesofAthens 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's talking about submitting this to the League of Copyeditors. Cliff smith 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I left the League of Copyeditors a message on their proofreading page to view this article (and I also attached their tag to the discussion page). Personally I would have gone with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but I suppose help from the copyeditors instead will have to do for now. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update? Any changes in the copedit status, Pericles? I printed your article to read last week, but decided to hold off until it's closer to ready. I'm also bugged that there's a problem with the Printable version on Wiki; they don't show the See also templates, so I thought you hadn't used Summary style correctly. Need to figure out how to get this fixed with the Wiki tech people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new, just waiting for some word or anything from the league of copyeditors.--PericlesofAthens 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my object because Pericles has done a fine job of addressing concerns. I can't offer my support only because my house flooded, and I don't have time to re-read the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object due to image problems. Image:Northern Song Jun Ware Planter, stoneware with Jun glaze, early 12th century.jpg is labeled both PD and non-free, and does not contain fair use rationale. Image:Liaodyanstyguanyin.jpg is tagged as Cc-by-2.5, but the Flickr page does not support this. I only checked the first three images and two had problems; please verify the correct copyright status of all images in the article. Pagrashtak 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the photographs of vases are copyvios and can, IMO, not be a fair use; other images need at least additional information at most serious licensing sorting-out issues. Regarding the vases, the photographs are not slavish reproductions but require considerable creative skill and thus create a copyright which the photographer or his or her employer owns. Thus photographs of items whic h have fallen into the public domain are not necessarily in the public domain themselves. --Iamunknown 04:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) This -- commons:Category:Greek antiquities in the Louvre -- is why I do not think that the non-free photographs of vases can be a fair use; while I am unaware of a free collection of vases from the Song Dynasty, it could be possible and thus these images fail point one of Wikipedia's policy regarding non-free content. --Iamunknown 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, gentlemen, settle down now (lol). I fixed the copyright status on both the Jun Ware Planter and the Liao Dynasty Guanyin statue pic. You can check them both out now, they are sound (and the links to their fair use copyrights are provided). All other pictures in the article are also taken care of. Still object?--PericlesofAthens 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise that I have not yet elaborated; I do still have concerns. Image:Liaodyanstyguanyin.jpg is, according to the Flickr description page, licensed under a Creative Commons license that is unacceptable for Wikipedia. I have attempted contact with the Flickr user and will hopefully be able to get him or her to agree to freely license it. In the meantime it should be deleted.
      • Furthermore the gallery of non-free content under the section titled "Society, culture, economy, and technology" should either be orphaned and deleted or replaced with free images. I pointed to commons:Category:Greek antiquities in the Louvre because I wanted to point out that we do have galleries of an entire museum's collection and that it is possible; I wanted to point out that the images are replaceable and should not be used.
      • Can you send the permission for Image:Liuhe Pagoda.jpg to permissions-en AT THE DOMAIN wikimedia DOT com?
      • We really do need more detail on the image description pages of those images scanned from books.
      • So I maintain my objection, the article fails point #3 of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, several images have inappropriate copyright statuses and some fail the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. --Iamunknown 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia

edit

This is a self-nomination. The article has had a peer review and has been passed as a good article and seems to meet the criteria.--Bookworm857158367 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComment Main photo lacks source information, and should have a more specific tag. "Tyutcheva fired", yes, but possibly only because the children were growing up and had less need of a nanny? I still think you need to cite this statement, I see my hidden comment requesting one is still there! DrKiernan 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added the requested citation; also retagged the photo. The portrait is from 1914 and is definitely in the public domain. It was published on postcards during World War One. In the U.S. I think any photo that was published before 1924 is generally in the public domain.--Bookworm857158367 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was under the impression that users were only supposed to nominate one article at a time for FAC so that they can concentrate on improving that one and so that the reviewers don't get overwhelmed. See directions at the top of the page. Thanks for your consideration. Awadewit 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already here and has been commented upon. I don't think it's necessary to remove one of the submissions. They're related anyway. Any comments or suggestions on either of them?--Bookworm857158367 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no rule. If a nominator thinks that he can support at the same time efficiently more than one nominations, nobody can prevent him from doing so.--Yannismarou 11:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this sentence in the second paragraph at the top of the page was a polite way of saying not to do that: "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." I will review this article later. Awadewit 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are my comments.
  • Throughout her lifetime she was noted for her friendliness and interest in the lives of the soldiers. - parallelism
Fixed.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just call the first section "Childhood"?
Done.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contemporaries described her as a pretty, flirtatious girl, broadly built - begin each section with her name so that it is not confusing for the reader
Done.--Bookworm857158367 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • her looks were compared to one of Botticelli's angels - her looks or her?
Her looks, specifically, not her character.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe her "features" then?
Changed phrase to "physical appearance." --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we care she was left-handed?
I don't see why not. It is an interesting factoid, mentioned in one of the aforementioned biographies by a person who knew her and thought it was worth commenting upon. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria's moodiness coincided with her menstrual period, which the Tsarina and her daughters referred to as a visit from "Madame Becker". - it seems like you are reinforcing a false stereotype here
Nonetheless, Tsarina Alexandra mentioned in a letter to Tsar Nicholas that Maria bellowed and was irritable because she had her period. I have cited the letter. In Maria's case the stereotype appeared to be true. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • suffered frequent attacks of haemophilia and nearly died several times - I'm not sure, does not suffer an attack of haemophilia? The wording seemed odd to me. I thought one either had it or one did not - it was not a condition that came and went (it's genetic, as you say).
I have changed the phrase to "complications of haemophilia."--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You spell hemophilia differently throughout the article.
I have regularized the spelling of haemophilia throughout. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably a little too much about Anastasia at the end of the article. I believe you submitted an article about Anastasia? Why not include a fork to that article and summarize a bit more here?
The subject of a survivor appears relevant to both Maria and Anastasia because there is speculation that Maria survived rather than Anastasia.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so focus on Maria's possible survival rather than Anastasia's.
Done. --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six years at the russian court" link does not work in the footnotes
Link worked when I tried it. --Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't work here. Could others try it? Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the site but not the file (just a red cross), is it something to do with security settings or download times? (Don't ask me about computers). DrKiernan 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be. When I click on the link I get the Gilliard text.--Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please format all of your references the same way in the bibliography.
I have attempted to reformat the references the same way. Please tell me what else you need done. --Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are still missing publication companies on some of them. And what is with all of the commas? It is really hard to follow. Try MLA-style or Chicago-style or something. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the references the same way it was done in the Anastasia biography. It's been more than a decade since I used MLA-style, so I may have made mistakes. Let me know if there's still more to do on it. --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which of these biographies have been reviewed by scholars? I noticed that they are all popular biographies. Which ones have been endorsed by scholars in the field, meaning that they aren't just written by some fly-by-night biographer who doesn't know any history? Awadewit 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix these things tonight or tomorrow when I have a little more time. Regarding your comment about "popular biographies," I have to take issue with the implication that they are "fly-by-night." The sources used here are for the most part primary sources, by people who actually knew the grand duchess and wrote memoirs and people who conducted interviews with those who knew her. Nicholas and Alexandra is the gold standard in this field. I doubt that the grand duchesses receive more than a passing reference in the sort of scholarly reference you're undoubtedly discussing, one which deals primarily with the government of Nicholas II or with the Russian Revolution. The texts I am using are ones that deal primarily with the personal lives of Tsarina Alexandra or of the grand duchesses, in which they are the central figures and not the political situation in the country. The Fate of the Romanovs, by King and Wilson, also makes use of previously unpublished (in English) material found in the Russian Federation. The biography at the end of most of these books is extensive. These are also the same references that were used for the two previous biographies about her sisters that were listed as Featured Articles, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia and Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. In short, just because something is "popular" does not mean it is poorly researched or "fly by night." As a journalist, I believe in using primary sources wherever possible, which is what I have done.--Bookworm857158367 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my responses to your respones to my responses.
  • Many popular biographies are "fly-by-night." They are written by biographers who study their subject for a year or so and then write a book. The author then moves on to the next subject. These biographies tend to be shoddy. See Talk:Cicero for one example that I uncovered. Popular biographies written by scholars can be better because the author knows the field. They are still often sensantionalized and distored, though, in order to sell books. That is why it is better to use scholarly biographies.
These particular books are the best that are available in this particular field and are well-researched.--Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting that you say you are using mostly primary sources. That would mean that this article is original research. Assembling primary materials and presenting them as an article is original research. You must rely only on what established experts in the field have said. I quote WP:ATT: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce." You may do one thing as a journalist but you have to do another thing on wikipedia.
By primary sources, I mean biographies that are written by people who knew the family and by biographers who have relied on scholarly research or interviews with people who knew the family, not by research I have personally done. We apparently mean different things by the term. These are books using secondary sources and interviews as references.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is right on the line of primary and secondary, in my opinion. If they did research, etc., it's more likely secondary, even if they knew the person. Although if the book has a highly slanted view, it's probably considered primary. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to trust first-person point of view whenever possible. A biography or memoir by someone who actually knew the subject is second only to a published autobiography in the estimation I'd give it. I rate them as even more trustworthy when the same facts are cited independently by two or three or more different biographers. However, the references I've cited are a mix. Lili Dehn and Sophie Buxhoeveden were former ladies in waiting who knew the empress and conducted some independent research prior to writing their books; Anna Vyrubova was the best friend of the empress and also a lady in waiting; Pierre Gilliard was the tutor to the imperial children and had known them intimately from early childhood up until their imprisonment; Margaretta Eagar was the nanny to the four daughters of the Tsar up until 1904 and wrote her memoirs based on her experiences. However, Massie wrote Nicholas and Alexandra in the 1960s based on research of those prior sources and also from the analysis done by historians. Kurth's Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson is an account of Anna Anderson but also deals with other Russian emigrees and their perspective on the Anna Anderson case. Kurth did hundreds of interviews and referenced numerous books, court trials, etc. King and Wilson's The Fate of the Romanovs is primarily an account of the circumstances surrounding the imprisonment of the Romanovs and their execution utilizing documents and memoirs written in Russian and unpublished up until recently. There's a mix of references here. I've used the references that are the best for this particular subject. --Bookworm857158367 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say Nicholas and Alexandra is the gold standard in the field. I assume you mean scholars themselves use it. I will trust you on that.
Yes, Nicholas and Alexandra is a primary source used by most contemporary biographers.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not referring to scholarly discussions of the government or the revolution. Scholars write biographies as well.
And, as I explained above, the texts I have used are well-researched, well-cited and are factual.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that just because something is popular does not mean it is poorly-researched, it just means that one must treat it with extra skepticism, which is what I am doing. One must investigate whether or not it is reliable. Awadewit 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, are you familiar enough with these texts or their authors enough to call them fly-by-night? The references I am using are the best available for this particular subject. There ARE no "scholarly" biographies dealing specifically with Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia. There are several dealing with her parents and a number that deal primarily with the Russian Revolution in which she is mentioned in passing.--Bookworm857158367 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refer to these biographies as "fly-by-night." I said many popular biographies are fly-by-night which is why I was asking about them (by the way, I think you, as the editor, should be able to defend your sources, which you are doing). But now we are getting to a much better answer - "the best available sources," other biographies don't mention her, etc. These are much better answers. Thank you. I withdraw the objection. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for similar reasons to those I've outlined for the subsequent nomination. Here are examples of why a copy-editor needs to be brought in to review the whole text.
    • "During her lifetime, Maria, too young to become a Red Cross nurse like her elder sisters during World War I, was patroness of a hospital and visited wounded soldiers instead." The last word is poorly positioned.
    • "She hoped to marry and have a large family." This purports to know what was going on inside her mind. It is odd to make such a bald statement in the lead, unreferenced.
    • "latter years of the twentieth century" - no, "latter" is the second of two items.
    • "rumor(ed)" occurs too often. Audit other repetitions, too, such as "described" ... "described".
    • "her physical appearance was compared to one of Botticelli's angels" - false contrast: insert "that of" or reword.
    • "Maria tended to be dominated by Anastasia because of the energy and enthusiasm of her younger sister. The pair were also dressed similarly for special occasions, wearing variations of the same dress." The first sentence is clumsy; why "also"? Tony 07:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you or someone else would like to go through the article and copy-edit it, that's certainly welcome. As to the comment about the lead articles, I've seen conflicting opinions about whether they should include citations or not. The lead paragraphs are considered a summary of the rest of the article. The comment about her hoping to marry and have a large family is taken from letters she wrote and biographies about the family and is supported with a citation elsewhere in the article. These seem like relatively minor objections, however. I don't think it's horribly written. What do you think about the overall content? --Bookworm857158367 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder. Thanks, but I won't take up your offer to copy-edit the whole text; you'll need to find someone else, possibly at the League of Copyeditors, or from your own research into who's been doing good copy-editing in this field. I've chosen at random a window of text in the middle of the article; it indicates that thorough copy-editing throughout is required.
    • "The family was arrested and imprisoned first in their home at Tsarskoye Selo and later at residences in Tobolsk and Yekaterinburg in Siberia." It would be so much kinder to our readers to include more commas consistently, as has been done in some sentences; here, one after "imprisoned" isn't quite mandatory, but almost is. Such commas are an issue in attempting to produce the required professional standard of writing.
    • "were stricken with the measles"—Remove "the".
    • "The Tsarina was hesitant to move the children"—"reluctant" would be better.
    • "and the Tsarina felt she could rely upon her third daughter to help her as she could not rely upon the deeply depressed Olga or Anastasia,"—Ungainly repetition of "rely upon".
    • "She and her parents were searched and warned they would be subject to further searches." "Searched" seems a little vague here; who did the searching?
    • "and talked with them about their families and her own hopes for a new life in England when she was released." The last three words cause ambiguity. Tony 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went over it again myself and tightened up some of the sentences per your suggestions and the things I spotted on my own. I've done some rewriting and rephrasing of sentences to improve the flow, make it more clear, etc. There isn't a whole lot more I feel I can do to improve upon it.--Bookworm857158367 16:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright on image?: Image:Grand Duchess Maria.jpg, if it really is PD, should be stored at Commons not here. It is tagged as a "life + 70" PD (which means it is public domain in most jurisdictions), with a rationale "This photo of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia is from about 1914. It was published on post cards during World War One and is in the public domain due to its age and publication prior to 1924." The rationale clearly conflicts with the tag. It is not at all certain that the photographer (currently unidentified) died before 1937. It is quite possible that the photographer did not die until the 1950s or later - a photograph from 1914 is not particularly old and the photographer may not have been an old man when he took it (I know of many photos from much earlier that are still under copyright and for which the copyright is enforced). The "publication prior to 1924" argument is not suitable for claiming a photograph is generally in the public domain - it refers to a specific rule operating only in the United States (and it's 1923 not 1924), and which means that a work may not be PD in other jurisdictions (even ones applying the "life plus 70 years" rule); if this is the rule that is being used, then you need to use Template:PD-US. However, this only applies if the work was published in the United States before 1923. So you need to state where the postcards were published - if only in Russia, then the pre-1923 rule doesn't apply. 172.189.56.179 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were official photographs that were used on postcards in various countries in World War I. I'm not sure whether one of them was the United States, but I think it likely was. It was a photograph that someone else had uploaded to Wikipedia before I started working on the articles. If someone else cares to change the tag on the photo, go ahead. --Bookworm857158367 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now: Its generally very good, but there are some prose issues yet. Examples from the lead:
  • "During her lifetime, Maria, too young to become a Red Cross nurse like her elder sisters during World War I, was patroness of a hospital and instead visited wounded soldiers. Throughout her lifetime she was noted for interest in the lives of the soldiers." - Mixed tense, wrong order, repetition (her lifetime), confused: during World War I vs. throughout her lifetime - I know what you are getting at, but the prose are jumbled.
  • "She was an elder sister of the famous Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, whose escape from the assassination of the imperial family has been rumored for nearly 90 years" - Anastasia was a Grand Duchess, "famous" is implied. "has been rumored" - has been the subject of rumour. "from the assassination of the imperial family" - lacks context for a lead statement.
Overall, this is a strong article, and all the hard work is done; but a prose audit is needed. Ceoil 23:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Pennsylvania Route 145

edit

I would like to nominate this article for FA status, since there are no major problems, as presented in WP:WIAFA. It is already a GA, but has recently been improved more to A-class. There are lots of reliable sources and free images, with a link to Commons instead of having a photo gallery. Personally, this article is ready.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1a. Poorly written; the lead contains plenty of examples of why this can't pass.
    • "Pennsylvania Route 145 (abbreviated PA 145) is a state highway located in the US state of Pennsylvania, covering a distance of 20 miles (32 km).[1] The route, traveling north-south from Interstate 78 at exit 60 and Pennsylvania Route 309 in Lanark, Pennsylvania north to Pennsylvania Route 248 in Weiders Crossing, Pennsylvania." The opening has several redundancies, such as "abbreviated" and "located". The second sentence is ungrammatical. "North–south" with an en dash, please (= "to"), here and subsequently. Do routes travel? Perhaps "cover" would be better.
    • "seven mile portion"—hyphen required. Same for "third largest".
    • "MacArthur Road is almost entirely divided and between US 22 and Eberhart Road it is up to six lanes wide with slip ramps." Ungrammatical.
    • "paralleling the Lehigh River"—such an ugly word; try "parallel to".
    • Redundant "also" in last sentence. Tony 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa, that was very close to a personal attack! The reason for that is that it is mostly one editor who was building up this article, and you were sort of criticizing that editor's writing style. In fact, where does it say in the manual of style that en dashes for "north–south" must be used? Where does it say that ugly words must be stripped of? Please assume good faith next time.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've put up your article for a gold star knowing that it will be closely criticised. I'm sorry if you find it personally difficult to be told that the text is substandard, but please don't take it as a personal attack—I don't look at how many contributors there are, or who they are; I'm only concerned with matters of language. How do you propose that reviewers point out that Criterion 1a has not been satisfied? Now, rather than reacting in that way, why not research the edit-history pages of similar FAs and other articles to locate people who are interested in this area and who can copy-edit. It's very hard to fix up text that you're close to; others have an advantage. Such collaboration is central to the Wikipedian process. Tony 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and corrected the (numerous) grammatical errors in this article. It should now be ready for FA. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but not even all of the exampls I provided have been fixed. The lead is still choppily paragraphed. There are awkward wordings such as "... the Sailors and Soldiers Monument stands at Center Square. The monument was placed to honor General Phillip Sheridan’s Civil War unit ..." (Placed?). "Six lanes" but "4 miles". Lots to do. Tony 08:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know my horrible writing style messed up the article. Please understand, I worked on this by my self with some help from USRD editors. I do not expect this article to be perfect or brilliant becuase in the FA?, it does not say anything stating that articles should be prefect because I'm not perfect. Please, I tried my best with this article and understand that I'm a horrible writer. -- J-A10 T · C 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, please treat this process positively. I've never heard such self-flagellation in this room (or anger on the part of VD). I'm sure you can find collaborators to bring this to a standard we'll all be proud of—either during this round or when you resubmit it. Tony 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I undestand what you've said but can some else vote or oppose this article and get this over with. -- J-A10 T · C 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of the writing style. per Tony needs an independant set of eyes. A couple of examples below but there are quite a few more.
    Lead of "Pennsylvania Route 145 (PA 145) is a state highway in the US state of Pennsylvania, covering a distance of 20 miles (32 km)." seems much more clunky than
    "Pennsylvania Route 145 (PA 145) is a 20 mile (32 km) long state highway, in the US state of Pennsylvania.".
    • The second sentence is not clear as to how the road travels
    "The route travels north–south from Interstate 78 at exit 60 and Pennsylvania Route 309 in Lanark, Pennsylvania north to Pennsylvania Route 248 in Weiders Crossing, Pennsylvania."... does this mean ?
    "The highway travels from exit 60 of Interstate 78, near Pennsylvania Route 309 in the town of Lanark, north to Pennsylvania Route 248 in Weiders Crossing"
    • As a note on comprehensiveness as well, I can't see text on the composition (tar all the way, concrete?), cost, government acts, funding source. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you need to know the composition, cost, government acts, or funding?  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The composition, cost, government acts, and funding is not going to happen. The reason is becuase the organization that maintains this highway known as PennDOT does not have a magical website where you can get any information. They tend not to keep these types of records, I know this article is going to fail but when I renominate it, please do not mention this. -- JA10 T · C 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere, someone paid a lot of money for this, and there will probably be news articles on that. My view is that without something on the physical structure of the road, and how it came to be, the article is not comprehensive. PennDOT may not have a website but usually the local/state library and news articles have copious material on something as significant as a highway - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still has style issues for me with, for example only, far too many uses of the road's designation making the article very hard to read and overly repetative. As the article is about PA 145 it is hardly necessary to restate this eight times in the lead. Once per paragraph rather than the current five should suffice. Eg:
Where the highway stops being called MacArthur Road, it narrows to two lanes. It then passes through the predominantly rural land parallel to the Lehigh River, crossing the river on a concrete bridge at the Lehigh - Northampton county line.[3] The highway attracts more than the average traffic for roads in the Lehigh Valley. An average of 21,827 vehicles a day use it in Allentown and, where it is known as MacArthur road, 36,345 in Whitehall township.[4]
To me flows and is much more readable (although far from perfect ) than
At the point where PA 145 is no longer known as MacArthur Road, it narrows to two lanes and passes through predominantly rural land paralleling the Lehigh River. PA 145 also crosses a long concrete bridge over the Lehigh River at the Lehigh - Northampton county line.[3] PA 145 is one of the most traveled roads in the Lehigh Valley. In Allentown, PA 145 averages 21,827 vehicles a day. In Whitehall Township, MacArthur Road averages 36,345 vehicles per day.[4]
Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix that. They should call this the Peer Review. Anything else wrong with it? -- JA10 T · C 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you said is true, someone did pay a lot of money for this highway but there is no record to prove it. PennDOT does have a website but it is mainly pertaining to information about licenses and like I said before, they don't keep data about funding for PA highways. I spoke to a PennDOT employee and he said newspapers won't do me any good either so please don't say this article is not comprehensive because this highway did cost a lot of money but there's nor source to prove it. -- JA10 T · C 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The data is certainly available, although perhaps not of overiding importance for the article. It is a gazetted road and this generated copious quantities of official government paperwork, gazetting notifications, local government publications etc... some of which can be hard to find. The best research place is always the library and not just searching catalogues. Librarians are mines of useful information. I can find information that part of the route was used as the Lehigh Trail which seems to have been used for Native american, including the Algonquin, migrations that were reactions to the impact of european settlement, Seems to be mentioned in the book American Highways by the American Association of State Highway Officials (1973), and I'm sure the book Lehigh Township by the Lehigh Township Historical Society would mention the route. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Plymouth Colony

edit

I have spent the better part of 2 weeks overhauling this article. It probably represents something like 30-40 hours of work on my part, and I think it has been brought up to featured status (if I must toot my own horn). Based on the WP:WIAFA criteria:

  • Criteria 1:
    • (a)I think it has compelling, brilliant prose. But I wrote most of it.
    • (b)The article covers nearly all aspects of Plymouth Colony, including history, people, government, geography, and lasting legacy
    • (c)Factually accurate. The article is correctly referenced using inline citations to reliable sources. I used Nathanial Philbrick's 2006 work Mayflower for most of it, but there are many sections referenced to reliable web sources as well, especially The Plymouth Colony Archive Project at the University of Virginia.
    • (d)It is NPOV
    • (e)It is stable (Myself and one other editor have made the only changes to the article in the past two weeks)
  • Criteria 2:
    • (a)The lead fully summarizes the article
    • (b)The headings are logical and well organized
    • (c)The TOC is reasonable
  • Criteria 3:
    • All images are free-use images and are appropriately tagged.
  • Criteria 4:
    • The length is appropriate to contain all relevent information, without delving into trivia.

I would appreciate your comments on improving this article further to Featured status, or if you think it is already feature-worthy, I would appreciate your support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see you've been thorough and it is nearly there and should get through but it needs a bit of a copyedit. I have just corrected a few typos on quick look-through and there are some clunky phrases that could do with some rewording. I will highlight them when I can - if you want I can have a go at them myself of just highlight them here. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for any fixes you care to make. I have no problem with you making any fixes as you see fit, or asking me to do it myself. Either way is cool. After all, I don't WP:OWN the article, and it would be WP:BOLD of you to make any fixes you see are needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, made a few but this From the beginning, Miles Standish was intended to be the military leader... - sounds clumsy and I am not sure of your original intention. Should it be "had intended" or "was expected" or...? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He had been hired by the Merchant Adventurers for his military training and they intended for him to be in charge of all military matters for the colony. You can word that however you choose. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—This is well worth fixing up, and there's still time to do so. See if you can locate a WPian who's interested in the area (there should be many) and who's willing and able to offer fresh eyes for a good copy-edit; specifically, redundant wording and fuzzy expression need to be targeted. Search the history lists of current FAs and previous FACs, perhaps? Strategic distance is required. Tony 08:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will make some requests on relevent wikiprojects as you suggest, however if you could point to specific examples that need reworking, I or someone else can see about making any fixes you require. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when it's ready to review again. Tony 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) PS Wikiprojects are typically defunct; I suggest that you contact individuals. Need help locating them? Tony 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate any help you can give. I have contacted about 8-10 editors individually, besides leaving notes at the talk pages of WikiProject United States and WikiProject Massachusetts. I belong to several very active WikiProject, though I would agree that frequently projects do go defunct. If you have any further suggestions, please let me know, or feel free to contact them on my behalf... Thanks for all of your help.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just so that everyone knows, the article has not been abandoned. Per the above requests that I seek outside help in copyediting this article, a request was put in at the League of Copyeditors for help with this one about a week ago. It has not yet been acted on. If anyone else has any suggestions on who to contact for copyediting help, OR if anyone would be so bold as to help out themselves, I would be much obliged. Some significant changes have been made by other editors since the above requests have been mad e, for anyone that voted oppose, please re-read it and see what you think. Thanks again! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do some copyediting. Awadewit 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question Why do most of the citations for this article come from one book? There is so much great scholarship on the Plymouth Colony available! Also, Philbrick's book has its problems. No book is perfect, that is why one should rely on a multiplicity of sources; also, a broad range of sources allows one to understand how scholars in the field interpret an event (they don't all tell the history the same way). Wikipedia tries to present a neutral point of view, as you know {WP:NPOV), and just presenting one author's version of the history of the Plymouth Colony is not neutral, it is POV. (I quote from the New York Times review of Philbrick's book: "It makes sense, then, to choose relations with the Indians as the axis for a history of the Pilgrims. And yet, in making this choice, Philbrick glides over some other important elements. The Pilgrims were fervent religious dissidents, after all: their faith was the compass that guided them to these shores and the clock that tolled their hours. Philbrick doesn't pay much attention to it. And he makes a few puzzling errors: "In 1624, Holland purchased Manhattan from the Indians." The well-known date for that purchase was 1626.") Awadewit 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, If you are implying that the information I have added from Philbrick's book represents a non-neutral treatment of the topic, could you point to some specific areas where an additional perspective is needed? This article also contains many citations from areas outside of Philbrick's book; I used The Plymouth Colony Archive at UVA for a lot of this as well, especially to "fill in the gaps" where Philbrick is silent (expecially on issues of Government and Geography). There are also citations from other sources, such as Pilgim Hall's and Plimoth Plantation's websites, a large part of the article is cited from the 1890 Massachusetts Gazeteer, some to other various US history websites. Is the complaint that there is only one print source? I don't rely solely on one author, though, as the above implies, there are many sources. The way in which a Print source is referenced, so as to find specific page numbers, may give the illusion that it is being used more than it is. Again, if you can point out specific POV problems, I can find more references to fix these specific problems. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the history cites Philbrick's book and an 1890 newspaper is far from being a reliable source. Also, many of your web sources are unreliable and will need to be eliminated.
  • www.mayflowerfamilies.com - This is a commercial site with advertisements; how do we know it is reliable (WP:RS) Why are you using it? Surely there is a list of Mayflower passengers in a scholarly source.
  • Footnote 25 link is broken.
  • www.pilgrimhall.org - What are you using this website for? Only the primary sources? If you are using primary sources to construct that entire paragraph (to which footnote 26 seems to refer, that is original research WP:OR).
  • Footnote 32 link is broken.
  • Footnote 34 links to a personal webpage (aol member page) that also contains a personal family tree. This is an unreliable source because it is self-published. WP:RS
  • Footnote 36 also links to a self-published webpage by a genealogist.
  • Footnote 46 links to ushistory.com, a commercial site dominated by ads. Who wrote this information? There is no way to tell, so how can we tell it is reliable?
  • Footnote 50 links us to an essay by Martucci published on his own webpage.
I'll stop there for now. As for the POV problem, you don't seem to understand that reading a single book and writing an article based on that book is POV. Historians have differing interpretations of the Plymouth Colony and that need to be represented here. About half of your citations come from Philbrick and that is the majority of the history; therefore, you are telling Philbrick's version of the history of the colony. You do need to read more print sources on the Plymouth Colony; FAs are supposed to represent the best wikipedia has to offer - that means research standards as well. If you wrote a research paper in college, you wouldn't read just one book! You need to read books published by academic presses; these have been peer-reviewed by other scholars and fact-checked more rigorously than popular history books. These will flesh out your understanding of the Colony and what has been said about it. The article needs to present a range of views on the colony or at least the scholarly consensus, but how can you know the scholarly consensus if you have only read one book? Does the Philbrick have a bibliography? That should get you started. Awadewit 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This page has not been well-researched. It relies too much on a single source when there is a vast amount of scholarly work on the topic and uses unreliable web sources. Awadewit 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the editors want an example of POV in this article, all they need to do is look at the New York Times review of Philbrick's book that I quoted and their own article. Like Philbrick's book, the article is dominated by the story of the relationship between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans while leaving out much of the story of their religious beliefs. There is a little at the beginning of the article, but what happens to the Pilgrims' religion once they come to America? The article makes it seem like they fled religious persecution and then gave up the religion they were so committed to. This idea is conveyed through the focus on the Native American story and the lack of information on other parts of the story. Awadewit 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out these problems. This article needs more work, obviously, and is probably not yet feature ready. Thanks also for your help in copyediting. I am working on getting more reliable sources for the footnotes you have above; also I have several other histories of Plymouth Colony I intend to use to help round out the points of veiw on this, and "neutralize it". Thanks again for all of your help, and though I intend to get this up to featured status in the future, it is clearly not ready yet. Withdraw the nomination. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per Awadewits comments, I am seeking further print sources to neutralize this article, and expand certain parts, especially in the realm of religion and social history. I have several books in transit via interlibrary loan. When they arrive, I will return to the article to clean it up further. The article has not been abandoned.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Freemasonry

edit

former fac2, former fac1

Nominating as contributor to article. Much work has been done on this article since it was last FA (the first time; I don't know why the second nom was even done), and I feel that it has gone about as far as it can go informationally. MSJapan 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Just something on first glance without actually reading the article: you've got entire swaths of texts with no inline citations, and then other sections that seem to be slightly over-referenced (like the lead). I think it is a bit rash for me to say "over-referenced," but a lead should be repeating information that can be found in the rest of the article and is not a place to elaborate on claims made. This issue would probably make the article a nonstarter, so you should fix it up. JHMM13 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not nearly enough citations. There are quite a few, but this subject begs many more. If information is not published in neutral, independent sources about the facts in the article (for example, about the lodges) it needs to be removed and the article will not be comprehensive. --Mus Musculus 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy oppose, not all ready, suggest an extended stint at WP:PR to prepare for FAC. There are WP:MSH issues, and citations are completely unformatted, blue-link URLs (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems to be on a par with any other FA I have seen. Could always be better, but seems NPOV and well referenced. Will certainly fulfil the definition of an encyclopaedic reference. BrianWalker 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sandy is right. These stray web references need to be formatted with relevant publisher info and access dates.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms

edit
Nomination was misplaced. Fixing. — Brian (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very well written and informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winn3317 (talk • contribs).

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

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Michelangelo

edit

Michelangelo was one of the greatest artists of his time. Nyla1 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't appear to have edited the article at all. Are you sure it's ready for FA status; have you asked the article's major authors? CloudNine 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are only haf a dozen inline citations, half of which come from one book. -Phoenix 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Turkish people

edit

verys beatiful article--Uannis 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some sections are completely uncited or undercited;
  • In "Music" I see some one-sentence paragraphs, making the section look a bit listy.
  • All the online references are not properly formatted. Template:cite web or Template:cite news could be helpful here.
If the article starts getting improved, I will come back with a more detailed review.--Yannismarou 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is potential for a good article here, but the formatting needs need work:
  • It is listy in places, and over linked (eg 18th century, 1960s, European, France).
  • The foot notes are incomplete; where available they should contain author and publisher names, as well as retrieval dates.
  • Some refs are placed within brackets eg. France (400,000[34]); should be France (400,000),[34]
  • Ref 5 is listed as : "a b c d e f g h Citation needed."
  • Prose need work: eg "It is to be noted that".
  • Incorrect use of summary style - switch from "Main article" to "See also", as the former implies that the sub-section is a summary of the linked article.
  • The sub-section "Poetry" has no content. Ceoil 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Citation needed tags ("Citation needed" as a footnote LOL!), significant if not majority unsourced sections, subsections with no content, improperly formatted citations and references, improper section heading capitalization, bad English (e.g. "During the 1930s Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu ve Vedat Nedim Tor begin to publish KADRO. KADRO was revolutionary in its look at the life."). Not even close to even a good article in my opinion, please improve it further and try at WP:GA and WP:PR first. By the way, I hope I'm not seeing a mass nomination of Turkish-related articles at WP:FAC. I'd be happy to see more featured-quality articles dedicated to Turkey, but it's more important to actually bring them to that quality than to nominate them :) For that reason, Turkish friends, please don't blindly support a nomination just because the topic is Turkish: it is the quality that matters, not the little gold star. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a "mass nomination" of Turkish-related articles. There seem to be only two Turkish-related nominations on WP:FAC by the time I'm writing this comment, both nominated by the same user (who's a newcomer). Both nominations have been deemed premature, here and there, by experienced Turkish wikipedians. Please don't bite the newcomers. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Premature nomination by a relatively inexperienced user, I suggest we snowball it and withdraw the nom. The article needs to go through GA and peer reviews before FAC. Baristarim 19:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support use of WP:SNOW. There are 87 candidates in FAC at present, and the work needed here to bring it to standard is too extensive to reasonably expect a promotion. Ceoil 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto that. Todor→Bozhinov 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Premature good-faith nomination by inexperienced user. The article needs to undergo considerable work to reach FA quality, and it currently lacks the focused attention of its regular / potential contributors. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Anglican doctrine

edit

The article has been completely rewritten, and I believe is thorough, with an appropriate balance of breadth and depth, is well-referenced, neutral, and complete. So far, it is perhaps the best representative of the articles on Anglican theology, and is particularly relevant given the ongoing, newsworthy disputes over Anglican doctrine as it pertains to the place of gays and lesbians in the church. Fishhead64 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Florida State University

edit

An article about one of the major research universities in Florida that has an especially colorful history.Sirberus 13:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you going to make a new section for *Notable alumni and Notable faculty? Max ╦╩ 22:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This site is the oldest continually used location of higher learning in Florida.[14][15][16][17] This is to many ref's and they link to Photos not a web site with Facts. I am not saying that FSU is not the oldest but you could throw in some more <refs>. it would be great if you could do some thing different with the Departments part, right now it is a massive list of external links.

Also as cool as Taxol - Anti-Cancer Drug is I do not think it needs to have a sub section, could it be moved into the Biological Sciences or Chemistry and Biochemistry parts of the page? Seminoles - an unconquered people?? the school or the athletic department?? is this a motto for the schools sports teams? and has FSU always been known as the Seminoles in athletics? And is there any information about FSU and Gatorade FSU Developed it right? if so what is the History (I think this may help),[1] And If I have left a commint about some thing that I have over looked I am sorry, let me know!Max ╦╩ 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose references need work, also the alumni need to be put onto their own page. As it is the link to the alumni section goes to a FSU sports page with sports alumni. See Duke University and see how they have their alumni. Also, look at Duke and see how that article is setup. KnightLago 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Parkinson's disease

edit

64 In-line Citations. --Khunter 10:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. there are problems with the prose mainly, though fixable.
  • Para 3 of lead is clunky and needs some massaging. PS: Should say that it is a chronic progressive degenerative disorder in first sentence (which it is)
  • History section is very brief, as are some others but this could do with some expanding.
  • Symptoms section intro needs expanding and organizing so it isn't just a list and some parentheses
  • The para on dopamine pathways in the 'pathology section doesn't read well and needs rewriting. not sure how I'd do this though.
  • In the gene therapy section there must be another way of writing "harmless virus" as that doesn't gel with the formal language of the rest of the article
  • ..and finally is a bit light on references

On the plus side, it is comprehensive and well laid out, so overall I think it is remediable provided these things get fixed and I'll happily change my vote when they are dealt with. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Vishnu sahasranama

edit

previous FAC

I would like to nominate the above as a featured article candidate.

Raj2004 15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Cancer

edit

GA article. --Goingempty 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Large sections are not formally referenced. This shouldn't be hard, because most of this knowledge is easily found in cell biology and medicine textbooks. JFW | T@lk 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per:
  • Molecular biology has only 3 citations, which does not adequately cover the material.
  • Several one/two sentence paragraphs, such as in Childhood cancer.
  • Hormonal suppression is far too short to be its own subsection.
  • Section titles include "cancer"; see WP:MOS#Wording
On the positive side, the article is very broad and has great diagrams. Also, the sources appear reliable and varied. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now...ummm, a few issues:
  • ...a class of diseases (I need to look this up but it doesn't sound right somehow. I think there's a better way of phrasing this)
  • Severity of symptoms depends on the site and character of the malignancy and whether there is metastasis. (two problems here, "severity" implies some form of proportional relationship - "Nature" of symptoms, or presence/absence is better. Also, the word metastasis is not used in the singular like this. One would use the plural.)
  • the LEAD is unbalanced and concentrates too much on process. I'd like to see the 4th para expanded. Need to mention common ones at least - lung, breast etc. leading cause of death should go in lead I'd have thought.
  • para 1 of history launches into discussion on the etymology of carcinoma, which reinforces the misconception that all cancers are carcinoma (most are but the two main divisions are carcinomas and sarcomas)
  • the classification is a random list of types of tumours. It needs the proper divisions (eg: carcinoma vs. sarcoma; a lymphoma is more correctly a lymphosarcoma but no-one ever calls it that etc.
  • also in the classification, if you're going to list the ones you've listed, you need to mention adenocarcinomas (tumours of gland cells)
  • Origins of cancer has only one ref, and kids section above it could do with a few more.
  • Molecular biology is long. viral stuff could probably be a subsubsection.
  • .actually several sections have only a few refs.

Finally, on the plus side, I think the prose is ok and all the above is doable. There is a huge amount of information summarised in th article and I congratulate you on getting it in a succinct form (so most of the hardest work is done). This article should (I guess) have somewhere over 100 references given the size and breadth of the information. I have noted the shortness of some sections but given the size, scope and nature of the article (a medical one) I don't think these detract overly from the flow of the article overall.

Sorry. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

edit
1a) The prose is average if not poor in some places and does not attempt to be gender-neutral. Why is Kennedy referred to as "Jackie," "Mrs. Kennedy," "the president's wife" and "Jacqueline" throughout the article? She should be referred to as Kennedy or as Jackie/Jacqueline Kennedy if there is a need to distinguish her from another Kennedy. I agree with CloudNine that much of the article is listy as well.
1c) Next to nothing of this article is supported using reliable, scholarly sources. I am also concerned that the "Further Reading" only directs readers to popular history. There is much written on the Kennedy's by historians - the editors of the page should be using it. Submitting an article for FAC with "citation needed" tags peppered all over it is unacceptable.
1d) Some of the article verges on the hagiographic.
2a) The lead does not summarize the article.
3) The fair use rationales have not been laid out for all of the photos.
This article could be brought up to FA standards, it just needs several months of work - a lot of research and rewriting. Awadewit 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

edit

Self nomination: Since the game's relase, a lot of detail has been added to the article and there have been no major changes to the information within it for a considerable period. I think the article itself iis of an ideal length for a game of its public knowledge (at the very least in the games community) and is completely sourced wherever and whenever possible. I perosnally think that this is most definitely a piece of Wiki's finest work and I believe that it should become a FA. BigHairRef | Talk 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose based on a few items...
    • The Gameplay section is excessively detailed, almost to the extent of being a game guide. Basic quest items and Collectibles should probably be reduced.
    • Speaking of Gameplay, both that portion and the Plot need references. They have very few, especially the Plot portion. Take a look at other FA-class video game articles to get a feel for plot citations.
    • In Plot, the game is cited as taking place approximately 100 years after Ocarina of Time, while Development states "The game falls chronologically anywhere from 100 years to multiple centuries after Ocarina of Time". Which is it? If a specific figure can't be confirmed, it might be best not to mention this at all within the Plot portion.
    • Reception needs some criticism. Offhand, items which were pointed out in more than one review include changing Heart Pieces from 4 to 5 required for the full thing and the lack of voice acting was criticized by some people as well. Speaking of Reception, you should really reduce the size of that chart and focus more on prose. While it's fine to mention that Twilight Princess won numerous awards, the article doesn't really need to list every single one in a chart like that.
    • Image:Zelda_final_wii.jpg is listed in the article as the final screen from the Gamecube version, though the name obviously contradicts this. In addition, the source of the image is not mentioned.
    • I don't recall offhand (and you can consider this objection unactionable if I can't dig anything up), but I distinctly remember reading that one of the developers mentioned that this Zelda game would be the last, and that the next was going to be very different from what fans are used to. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article as well?
    • This might be a matter of personal taste, but there's really no need to link so many sites in External Links. You might wish to reduce it to the two Official sites plus the Legend of Zelda Wiki.
  • If these items are addressed and the article gets a good copyedit, I'm willing to Support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've not actually read through it yet, but I'm pretty sure you'll have to cut down the Gameplay section. And cut down the reviews box too. - hahnchen 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. I agree with Hanchen that the Gameplay section and Reviews box need to be reduced. The gameplay section in particular is three times the usual Game FA length. Considering that a major overhaul of the gameplay section is needed, I'll just pull examples from the lead and story sections:
    • "Fine-tune" should be changed to "refine" or something similar.
    • "Link, the protagonist of the game, initially a rancher in a small village, travels to Hyrule, the game's setting." — choppy sentence.
    • "Twilight Princess introduces three new races: Oocca, Twili and Yeti" "New" is redundant, since the sentence already mentions that the game introduces them.
    • Last para of the lead is stubby; try to integrate it into the lead. This may require additional lead structuring. Another option is to add a couple sentences on the game's reception to that third para.
    • "When Link pursues a group of monsters who kidnapped two other villagers," of course they are "other" villagers; redundant word. Same issue might apply to the preceeding sentence and "living and working".
    • An audit is needed for spacing problems. In the first sentence of the story section, footnote 7 has a space in front of it; please check and make sure this isn't a recurring issue.
    • See also section needs pruning; generally, it should only include links not used in the article or footer template.
  • These examples, aside from the formatting glitches and suggestions, indicate that the prose needs a copy-edit for redundancies. I recommend contacting the League of Copyeditors and enlisting 2-3 users for help. The article is starting to look very good, so please finish the job. — Deckiller 05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've made a few changes but I'm not sure thay they'll be up to what you asked for so far. There's only so much time I have unfortunately. The only thing I was struggling to find was the bit where Dekiller mentioned the links not being needed. Might just be being a bit blind but I couldn't see the bits you were referring to. Hopefully the reductions I made will have helped a little. BigHairRef | Talk 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't support yet with so many outstanding issues, nor will I oppose based on your time constraints and work being done, but I found two more things. First, release dates should be superscript not flags, and the lead of the article doesn't summarize the article. In fact, most of the sections of the article are missing from the lead. If you haven't seen this link a thousand times, here's WP:LEAD. Clyde (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Peterborough

edit

I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. It has been given good article status today. Chrisieboy 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Local Geography section is far too listy for an FA, and the Politics sections is rather short for so many subsections. You may want to compare it with Sheffield#Government and politics, which shows a good way of laying out this section. Laïka 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the following immediately jump to mind, but there may be more on closer inspection:
    • Economy: there's a table of statistics with no context -- whether they're above or below national average, what neighbouring cities are like, etc, and what those numbers actual mean for life in the city. At the moment it's meaningless without an education in economics.
    • Sport: the football paragraph reads like a promo, and perhaps doesn't need to be that long, considering the club has its own article
    • Affiliations: could add context like what the relationship involves -- economic cooperation? educational exhanges?
    • History section needs to use Wikipedia:Summary style and needs paragraphs
    • There are also unresolved formating issues which may bring up several more objections.
  • Joe D (t) 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several changes have been made, adding the following objections:
    • Demographics is divided into "Population" and "Religion", yet population contains details of ethnicity -- it is essentially a "misc" category. I'd question whether that section needs subdividing at all.
    • Economy has a "Regeneration" header, which again seems to be a "misc" header, containing info about industry classification, which doesn't fit the description of "regeration". I again, I'm not sure that section needs subdividing at all.
    • The areas section contains a line that just reads "civil parishes" with no context: why is it there, what does it refer to, and why does it need to be on a line by itself? This is perhaps the worst instance where the article fails to use prose, sentences and paragraphs, but it's not the only instance.
  • Joe D (t) 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the economic stats, the original data is here(starting at the beginning of the section), there are top level headings for UK, England and East of England, which could be incorporated into the table, but I'm struggling to think of a "nice" way to present it, given the various ways the data is split type and year are already incorporated, so the question is whether the additonal data should be rows or columns (or something else altogether). David Underdown 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative may be to have an Economy of Peterborough article which can go in depth and include a comparisons table, and on the Peterborough article itself get rid of the table altogether and simply state something like "Peterborough has a bigger/smaller primary and/or secondary and/or tertiary industry sector than the national average and most cities in the UK." Joe D (t) 16:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Article does not yet meet the required "engaging, professional standard" of writing. Examples from the lead:
    • First paragraph is too stubby; please reorganize the lead so that the paras are neither stubby nor lengthy.
    • Based on the lead, I can tell an audit for comma usage is necessary. For Wikipedia, it's good to be comma happy, because it helps the reader absorb the information. Examples from the first stubby para: "For ceremonial purposes it is in the county of Cambridgeshire. In 2006 the city had an estimated population of 161,000." Commas needed after "purposes" and "2006".
    • "Peterborough Town Hall is located 73.7 miles (118.6 km) north from the centre of London at Charing Cross." "Located" is redundant.
    • "The Romans also left their mark there." — this is a real nitpick, but could you find a way to integrate this thought into the surrounding prose so that the lead doesn't jump sharply with a short sentence?
    • "...Peterborough became something of an industrial centre," ? Please reword this so that words like "something" don't have to be used.
    • "This continues today with the council's masterplan running to 2012 being particularly focused on a £1 billion regeneration of the city centre and immediately surrounding areas." "Masterplan" isn't a word, and might be too POV. "Today" is redundnat, as the tense suggests this. Sentence could use commas, even if restructured.
    • Scanning the remainder of the article, I see a couple stubby paragraphs (two lines or less).
  • The organization looks great, the article appears comprehensive, and the references look fine. Nice work; please ask the League of Copyeditors to send two or three people to copy-edit the article. — Deckiller 05:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made soem slight changes to the lead, have they improved things? I've left "today" in, I can see your point, but to me the sentence wouldn't read so well without it. The OED defines "master plan" as "a) a large-scale or comprehensive plan of action", so it seems like a reasonable enough description to me. David Underdown 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I was an GA reviewer on an earlier version of this article. I failed it then, and it is nice to see the improvements made; they have been legion and this is a much better article than the one I originally reviewed. It is definately GA quality, but the in addition to the above recommendations, I noticed a few things that need additional work to bring this to FA level:
  • In the references, the ability to multireference using the <ref name=XXXX> tag makes the use of references like "Ibid." and "Montalbano, op. cit." unneccessary; it is much more readible, where multiple refs use the same exact webpage or book page to use the name=XXXX type of ref tag. The Manual of Style (specifically WP:FN ) deprecates the use of Ibid and the like, and highly recommends using multi-referencing as described here.
  • The "Regeneration" section is rather jargony and without context. I have no training in economics, and I have no idea what these numbers mean and why they are reported here. I assume they mean that Peterborough is getting better, as the numbers seem to go up; but without some explanation it makes no sense.
  • "Media" section lacks inline references to support its facts, figures, and claims about individual broadcast entities and facilities.
  • "Sports" section mentions the existance of pro/major teams in many sports, but only mentions the names of three: soccer, cricket, and ice hockey? Also, the soccer part is very POV and un-encyclopedic. Consider paring down the soccer part and expanding to at least mention the names of the other sports teams.
  • "Arts" section mentions a lot of facts about the Odeon Cinema. This is unreferenced. Also, the last paragraph is also entirely unreferenced.
  • "population" section contains this unreferenced sentance: The number of languages in use is growing and diversity is spreading where previously few languages other than English were spoken. Peterborough now offers classes in Italian, Urdu and Punjabi in its primary schools.
  • "Transport" section contains several unreferenced paragraphs.
  • "Politics" needs expansion and copyediting gravely. The first sentance is a run-on. For the sake of comprehensiveness, this section leaves the reader for want.
As a whole, this is definately a GA. However, it needs some work before an FA is appropriate. All of these fixes are relatively minor in comparison to the length of the article, but taken as a whole they keep the article from the Brilliant and Compelling standard FA;s should be.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

James Bond

edit

I have nominated this article because of it's relevance to many different WikiProjects, it's presence on the most viewed pages list, and (in my opinion) it's well written form. James Bond has become a vital part of society, and this article definitely shows that. It is my belief that it belongs amongst Wikipedia's best. Ganfon 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unfortunately the references section is a disaster. It also -- at a glance -- doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. It's more product than evolution of the character.-BillDeanCarter 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the comprehensive comment, but the reference disaster has been fixed. Ganfon 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also note the publishers, the access date, the author if any, the date the article was written, etc... BTW, those references include AOL, IMDB, etc... Doesn't really cut it.-BillDeanCarter 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also the literature available on this character will have to be heavily used, because this is James Bond, one of the most famous of all fictional characters. There must be a lot of scholarly journals discussing him.-BillDeanCarter 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the most important. There's probably a lot of criticism, influence on culture, and other goodies written about James Bond in the literature. I mean in General References you have Amis, Kingsley (1965). The James Bond Dossier, but nowhere is it used. Ditch the other stuff, and use that and some of them other apparently uncited references.-BillDeanCarter 07:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those general references have now been tied to general information and properlly listed in the reference section. Ganfon 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale has been added to images lacking it.Ganfon 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still problems. You don't need to add fair use rationale to public domain images, by the way. Only images claiming fair use.
  • Oppose—references need proper formatting (try Template:Cite web). Prose is also a minor concern. Examples:
    • There are several stubby, one-liner paragraphs throughout. Please integrate these into larger paras.
    • The "moreover" in the first para can be dropped; I was drilled to overuse transitions and additive links in high school, but it actually breaks the flow of text on Wikipedia.
    • "In addition there are two independent productions and one Fleming-licenced American television adaptation of the first novel." Comma needed after "In addition".
    • "The EON Productions films are generally described as the "official" films originating with the purchase of the James Bond film rights by eventual producer Harry Saltzman in the late 1950's when Bond was a popular novel series, this term is used throughout this article." Significant deficiencies with punctuation in this sentence (comma where there should be a semicolon, lack of comma after "films", and excessive apostrophe in the date are a few).
  • These are minor, random examples from the lead; however, they suggest that a final proofread is necessary. While someone does that, please fix the references. — Deckiller 09:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering James Bond has been around for decades I think this article cannot pass FAC until it looks very thoroughly at the literature surrounding the character. Themes, theories, etc... must be well documented by now by scholars.-BillDeanCarter 09:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As a Bond fan, I was excited to see this page come up, but I am disappointed with its quality. This article should rely on the scholarly sources that analyze Bond in the films and in the books. It does not make an attempt to do so, which makes its treatment of the topic cursory rather than comprehensive. The editors need to take some time to do a substantial amount of research and radically revise the page. As BillDeanCarter said, what are the themes of the books and movies? What literary styles are used? etc. This is more of a fan page, in my opinion, than a serious consideration of the Bond character. I also find the structure of the page odd - what is this page about, exactly? Is it about all things Bond or just the James Bond character? That is not clear (the video games and gadgets sections confused me, for example - the page's focus needs to be made much clearer). Also, some of the prose could be improved. Here are some examples of helpful sources I uncovered in a quick five-minute search:
  • Commentale, Ed, ed. Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP; 2005.
  • James Bond's 'Pussy' and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality By: Jenkins, Tricia; Journal of American Culture, 2005 Sept; 28 (3): 309-17.
  • The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen By: Black, Jeremy; Lincoln, NE: U of Nebraska P; 2005
  • Lindner, Christopher, ed. The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader. Manchester, England: Manchester UP; 2003.
  • The Bond Phenomenon: Theorising a Popular Hero By: Bennett, Tony; Southern Review: Literary and Interdisciplinary Essays, 1983 July; 16 (2): 195-225. Awadewit 06:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not enough credible sources especially for a topic as popular, large and as in-depth researched as this (numerous great books have been written on the subject and yet only a few are used here). Not enough information on some of the most basic topics; not as comprehensive as it should be. The section on the books is almost non-existent save for the huge list that is duplicated elsewhere numerous times. Says little or nothing on the success of the books which gave rise to the films. Hell the section on the music is bigger - that right there is a huge irreverence to the entire subject. No section on the theme of the books or I suppose even the films for that matter. Information just seems all over the place; poorly organized. Wikipedia is capable of so much more. It almost goes without saying that I've read numerous books on the subject, but this article just doesn't do James Bond much justice. Not in my opinion. K1Bond007 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Im sorry to say that I must oppose the FAC. The references section is a mess, and the article is very unorganised. Also, is this article about the character istelf? Or is it about the whole James Bond franchise? I first assumed the former, but there's so much different information in the article that it points towards the latter - • The Giant Puffin • 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:17, 23 April 2007.

Virginia Tech massacre

edit

Matches the criteria. Very well referenced.Dalejenkins 13:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. No offense, but this is a little inappropriate, as the incident is still progressing (which doesn't satisfy the stable criterion) but it is also not a fully complete article and there is a lot of work and copyediting needed before it becomes featured material. It's definitely on its way, but right now, I say we hold off, and you possibly withdraw this nomination. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clearly does not meet the stable criterion. Further, because it is only 3 days after is is safe to assume that it is not comprehensive. From comments made in this section of the talk page and a leisurely glance at the article, I feel it also wouldn't meet 1a. In short, like Jared said, it's way too early to be even considering FA, let alone making a serious attempt at it. I'm sure that in the future, this will become one of our best articles (the number of references certainly suggests that). However, now is too soon. Harryboyles 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, utterly fails stable criteria and has no chance of winning. I'm not saying it's a bad article, in fact it may even be feature quality, but it is absolutely not ready to be featured yet. --Golbez 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose not stable due to the recent nature of the event. Also has a maintenance tag on it ("This article is becoming very long"). --W.marsh 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This article is changing extremely rapidly (1000's of edits per day).ike9898 15:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Clearly does not satisfy stability criterion. CloudNine 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close obviously unstable. (Not to mention the rest...) Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Maybe in a LONG time, when we actually know enough information to make this a great article WiiAlbanyGirl 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Nicely referenced, but it's obviously unstable. alphachimp 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd say speedy close, but I haven't previously voted in FA nominations and know very little about them. The article is very definitely unstable, the number of and its relationship with the accompanying subarticles is yet to be determined, and several sections are still in development. --Kizor 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone perhaps just delete this whole nomination? This article is very well sourced, and may someday reach a stability point that would make it a suitable FA. Or perhaps not deleting this, but not placing the {{facfailed}} on the talk page instead... There are enough boxes there to begin with, and this nom is clearly not going anywhere. Any thoughts? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Backgammon

edit

Nomination reset Raul654 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So, any remaining issues or comments? I believe all of the items discussed prior to the reset have been addressed. —ptk✰fgs 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1a. Some examples:
  • "The winner is the first to remove all of her own pieces from the board." Males don't play? Sexist language should always be removed, although this is usually an issue with "he" (first time I've seen sexist language with "her" or "she"). In doing so, try avoiding the singular "they".
    • There are a lot of sentences in the article that simply can't be written efficiently without using personal pronouns. "They" here would be vague and informal. Try "he" and the article will get changed around to "they" and "he/she" and so forth. Try "she" and the same thing happens. Even try with a mix of "he" and "she" and they'll be flipped back and forth and changed to "they" over and over and over again. There does not appear to be any solution which satisfies enough people enough that it can be left alone. I am no longer interested in finding a solution to this problem and until there's a remarkable change in the discussion of and edits to this article I see no value in continuing to discuss the matter. Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some reudndancy, such as "in order" to and excessive "also"s.
  • Other issues have been mentioned by editors; please take a time to give the article another copy-edit. It's getting there.

— Deckiller 07:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Yannis Makriyannis

edit

previous FAC

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Evanescence

edit

It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, all the images are free. I think there aren't criterions at issue. Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review:
  • References: biblio info (author, publisher) looks good. Is ShowandTellOnline.com a reliable source? Astro.com.my? On the latter, note that google-cached urls are not permanent, and the current cached version is almost certainly not the version being referenced. Archive.org doesn't work for that one? Leading Edge (Destramusic.com) seems like a commercial site. Quite a few refs to go Evanescence.com (or EvanescenceTheOpenDoor.com) - that's ok for things like tour dates but it's best to cite statistics to independent sites if possible. EvanescenceReference.info is a wiki. Normally wikis are not used as references, but I think here if you make it clear that it's the radio interview being cited and the wiki is only a convenience link, it's ok.
  • Images: Image:Evanescence.svg (fair use, ok), Image:Evanescence Oct 24, 2006.jpg (GFDL), Image:Evanescence early line.up.jpg (at commons with CC-BY, posted at flickr with non-derivative license), Image:Evanescence lezenith.jpg (commons CC-BY-SA), Image:Evanescence concert.jpg (commons CC-BY-SA and reviewed). The non-derivative-licensed image is a problem.
    • The commons image has been deleted. Also, the Wikipedia:Logos guideline now says that logos should not be in svg images. This specific advice is relatively recent but is worth knowing about. 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Music samples: I'm going to assume the samples are just that, and not the entire song. Still, six samples seems a bit much, and the songs are only mentioned. If the words or music of the sample are not analyzed, is this really fair use? (Please don't compare the Pink Floyd article, which had no samples when it was promoted, and has far too many now.)
  • Lead: This is a short article but lead should probably be a bit longer.
  • Prose: Looks quite good.
  • Completeness: Most band FAs have a section on recurring themes or musical style. This is discussed in other sections here, but it makes the article seem a little less complete. Should Mystary EP be mentioned in the Fallen section?
Gimmetrow 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the Mistary EP, I think it's ok because the Mystary EP was used for the promotion of Fallen before its release. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About two weeks ago, some articles that get GA are nominated for FA the same day and you didn't bring up any criteria it fails so your objection will be ignored. M3tal H3ad 07:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentOnly a few things. Firstly ref number 21 should be after a punctuation mark, but I wouldn't know where to put it. Another thing is one of the quotes in the labeling controversy section; it says "What the f--k are we even doing there?" I don't think it should be censored. If there is a reason it's censored to then it's fine. Finally it's a bit short but it's better to be comprehensive and short than redundant and long. James086Talk | Email 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that footnotes do not have to be after punctuation, only that it must be placed after a punctuation mark if it properly occurs in that area (except, I believe, for semicolons). Also, in this case that word is censored only because it is a direct quotation from the source. Quotes should never be changed for spelling, grammer, or anything else. (Since adding a comment regarding this in the code, I don't believe we've had anyone attempt to uncensor it.) -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the caveat that I am a significant contributor (really, copyeditor) for this article. We'll work on taking care of the issues that Gimmetrow has raised, and welcome criticism and suggestions from any other editors. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until these things are fixed. Lead should be 2-3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD, after mentioning Amy Lee the first time, you only refer to her as Lee other times (same with other members). The article only has the history of the band and labeling controversy, what about style? influence? M3tal H3ad 04:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion 1. b. The article gives no examples of critical reception to the band's albums. In this I don't mean chart positions before the nominator says as that is in no way critical reception - critical reception is what the magazines / newspapers etc. said in their reviews.

LuciferMorgan 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh???????????? Isn't that topic for the specific album article?? Armando.Otalk • Ev 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Karma in Hinduism

edit

Peer review

I would like to nominate the article Karma in Hinduism, as a featured article.

Thanks,

Raj2004 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I found this article very facinating, it's well written and it contains the points of views in a strangely neutral way. Although I have to tell you nominating this directly to Feature Article is a gutsy move. -凶 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - four external jumps in the text (which need to be converted to references). geocities.com is an unreliable source as it is a personal website, web references need formatting to include title, date, author (if applicable), last accessed date. See Also section comes before references and one sentence paragraphs make the article fail 1a which asks for brilliant prose. M3tal H3ad 05:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now), some subheader sections are far too short --82.36.182.217 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Question Has this made it to Good Article level yet? I hope opposing this article douse not get me some bad Karma.! Max 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Article is quite vague with several presumptions about the reader. Also, there is another article Kurma and Korma. I don't see any distinction. Plus, it does not help derive an understanding of idolatry. Also, there is plenty of POV and OR in the opening paragraphs. I have tagged some. Anwar 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anwar, karma is very different from Kurma and Korma and is pronounced differently.Raj2004 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raj, WP:DFTT. Anwar is back to his dirty tricks again, as noted by Nobleeagle (talk · contribs).Bakaman 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is certainly one of the better/more-neutrally-voiced of the Hindu articles, but I think it needs some work before it can be considered for Features Article Status. My main concerns fall into the following category,
    1. References: I think many more statements in the article need inline references and a broader range of references should be considered. Note that 7 of the listed references (nos. 3-10) are used for a single paragraph in "The Role of God" section. Also the two sentences, "Some interpretations of certain verses in the Bhagavad Gita[18] suggests an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple." are repeated twice in the article and account for 8 references all by themselves (nos. 7-10 and 18-21).
    2. Copyediting: Some heavy copy-editing is needed to (1) have the article comply with FA standards and (2) make it understandable to audiences who are not already familiar with the topic (this would mean that all non-English terms such as Sadguru, need to be defined or explained), (3) make sure that all statements are in the voice of the encyclopedia and not that of a believer/critic (this article is better than most Hinduism articles in this aspect !)
    3. Comprehensiveness: Perhaps some related issues should be considered, (1) what role does the belief in karma play in the life of a Hindu and Hindu society ?, (2) has the principle affected Indian history or jurisprudence ? I realize that some of these issues are perhaps more relevant to the Karma article and others may not have been discussed in reliable, published sources - so I am throwing this point out more for idea-generation sake, rather than as an objection.

I think it may be better to withdraw the FA nomination (if that is possible) at this point, and instead put up the article for peer-review and invite inputs from editors who are knowledgeable in the subject and editors who are unfamiliar with it. Either ways, I'll try to do my bit to further improve the article in the coming days/weeks. Regards. Abecedare 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree with the suggestion by another editor that the article be put up for a new peer review prior to resubmission as a potential Featured Article. The prior peer review review/Karma in Hinduism/archive1 was in 2005 and did not seem to get much activity. The topic is certainly central to Hinduism and deserves our best work. The current situation with the article is that many statements are unsourced. I looked over the current list of references and see a mixture of levels of reliability, ranging from academic overviews of Hindu philosophy to works of specific teachers which may reflect individual perspectives. Because the doctrines related to karma show up in so many places in Hindu writings it may be possible to prove any point by choosing the right sources. Buddhipriya 21:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buddipriya's suggestion. More editors need to contribute with references. Raj2004 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar

edit

Self-nomination I started this article at the beginning of April, not expecting to be able to say much about the book. However, I found more info about it than I had expected from numerous sources, leading to a hopefully comprehensive article. Happy with my efforts, I put it up for peer review and obtained some personal comments from User:Yomangani, which led to fruitful edits. Further exposure to wider audiences with a DYK entry and by adding links to the article on various other pages did not result in any major changes (I believe I have addressed one editor's concern over a statement about evolution) so it appears quite stable. I like to think I'm not a bad writer :). So what do other people think? GDallimore (Talk) 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like a lot of it is original research (e.g., the accuracy section, which ought to be simply cut). Even most of the material that is not original research is taken directly from the primary source (a dubious source at best, for some of the information presented, like the "almost unparalleled" success of the book). There is a fairly significant amount of historical literature on Victorian popular science; if this book is really very significant, it is probably discussed at least briefly in some secondary sources. Even if it's not in the historical literature, there is certainly a lot that could be done to place this book into historical context as part of a very significant genre about which much has been written. Based on a very cursory electronic search, I'm not sure an FA-level article could be written on this topic, unless there are some substantive secondary sources that I'm missing.--ragesoss 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The accuracy section is fine I think. Although I haven't referenced external sources myself, wikipedia itself has plenty of articles, which I have linked to, explaining the history behind the old theories posited by the book and explaining why they are now obsolete. The fact that these theories have been obseleted (particular the caloric theoy of heat flow, which was still being taught when I read physics as a useful step towards understanding thermodynamics) is quite important to the development of physics as these other articles make clear. For this reason, I believe that the article does place the book in a useful historical context in terms of common understanding of physics at the time it was written. It's important that it wasn't written by or for men of science, but by and for people with limited scientific understanding, so the answers it presents are illustrative of the understanding of the common-people at the time.
As for the sources - yes, it is the book itself that serves for the "unparalleled" bit. While I agree this is unfortunate, I think it is a straightforward and sufficiently non-boastful enough statement that the primary source can be trusted. However, you'll see that it is an editorial from the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable that explains why the Guide to Science was so important to the development of the Dictionary and that all of the other comments about the history of the book also come from external sources. GDallimore (Talk) 08:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just realised that, by discounting the "accuracy" section of the article, it's no wonder the commentator couldn't see its worthiness. Changes in scientific understanding and, as a consequence, the dubious accuracy of some of these 19th century answers to questions of science was my entire motivation behind writing the article since I'm fascinated by such things. GDallimore (Talk) 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that 19th century science texts are very inaccurate by the standards of modern science; the issue (and why I consider the "accuracy" section original research) is why and in what ways this particular one is wrong. That is (especially with respect to the accuracy issues the article deals with) 19th century science was extremely complex and varied. For example, there were many different (and competing) cutting edge aether theories, and they changed dramatically just over the publishing history of the book, much less in the time since. Other Wikipedia article are definitely not acceptable sources (even implicitly) for this kind of information; few articles on obsolete science reflect modern historical scholarship on these topics. The "religion" section is likewise problematic; a lot has been written about the Victorian popular science and religion (see, for example, Science and Salvation: Evangelical Popular Science Publishing in Victorian Britain by Aileen Fyfe, though it is focused on evangelical religion whereas I presume Brewer was Anglican... an important distinction for any discussion of Victorian science and religion). The bulk of the article is a list of selected Q & A entries from the book, prefaced by statements that border on original research. Oppose.--ragesoss 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to turn this into something constructive, if I'm reading you correctly then your only objection is that I'm using wikipedia to source the definitions of things like "caloric theory" or "divine providence". For more debtable things, I'd agree that would be inappropriate, but these are such basic definitions I thought it would be OK. If it will address your objections, I can get the definitions from the same sources used by the articles in question, or from my physics texts, or even from dictionaries in some cases. If it won't address your objection, then what is your objection?
One other point is that you previously mentioned that if the book was significant, its errors would be discussed elsewhere. That appears to be mixing in questions of notability, which isn't an FA requirement. The book is notable for its part in the publication of the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, not in its content. But it is its content which makes it interesting. I do not believe that it is necessary that everything that is interesting enough in a topic to include in an article should also be notable, otherwise half the articles on wikipedia would shrink to a quarter their size. GDallimore (Talk) 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The bulk of this article appears to be original research. WP:OR The content of the book should ideally be described using quotations from the actual text itself as well as generalizations by scholars (wikipedia is supposed to present the scholarly consensus on topics). While I understand why you wanted to include an "accuracy" section, it would be better to have described the book in its historical context, explaining why such "mistakes" were made (again, using scholarly sources). It is hard to fault a book for presenting the science of its time (which is what you seem to be doing here)! You also separate science and religion in a way that many nineteenth-century thinkers and most nineteenth-century readers probably would not have, again leading to historical anachronism. This is where scholarly sources would, again, have helped you out. Awadewit 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with ragesoss you seem to be opposing this nomination because the article is not saying the things about the book that you want it to say, not because there is anything wrong with what it DOES say. I can't give a scholarly discussion of why the book got things wrong because if I had done that, it would have definitely been original research into the detailed history of the development of certain scientific ideas. The article is not providing a detailed look at the book from a 19th century perspective, because I know very little about how it would have been viewed from such a perspective - I am not and never intended to study the book as it would have been viewed and received at the time except to point out that it was popular and caught people's interest. Instead, I am primarily looking at the book from the present. Is there something wrong with that? To do this, I have taken extracts from the book and have highlighted that these extracts conflict with very well established modern thinking - the prime example being caloric heat flow. If an external source for a definition of what is meant by "caloric" (and so on) would address the concerns, I'll do that. This page, for example, gives a nice tight summary of what is meant by caloric and how the theory has been abandoned.
I am opposing because it is original research and incomplete. Your source is primarily the book itself, by the way - that makes the page original research. I'm sorry that you don't know about the 19th century context of the book, but that is why you need to do research and quote scholars' views on the book. Looking at the book from the present alone is not acceptable; it must be done in conjunction with a historical view. Looking at the book from the viewpoint of the present is a method call "presentism." One of the criticisms of presentism is that it addresses all books as if they were twenty-first century productions with all of the expectations of that. This is what you have done in the "accuracy" section. Thus the page itself endorses a particular method of looking at the book and also violates WP:NPOV. What would a historical reading say? What would a psychoanalytic reading say? What would a Marxist reading say? These are legitimate methods within in literary studies and by prioritizing one over the other because you personally like it, you are deceiving the reader into thinking that there is only one way to read this book. You must find the scholarly consensus on this work of literature. Science pages present the scholarly consensus of the scientific community and humanities pages aim to do the same (though it is often much more difficult). The point is, you have no even tried to locate the scholarly consensus. You might look at A Vindication of the Rights of Woman to see what a page about a book can look like. Awadewit 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem is that my purpose in the article was not actually to discuss the book, but to discuss the contents of the book. I can't accept that doing such a thing is, in itself, original research so long as the contents of the book can be directly and unambiguously associated with well-established and verifiable knowledge that is exterior to the book. The word "caloric" is a prime example of this. This word has no other meaning in the history of science than the fluid which carries heat, so discussing that part of the book in combination with modern thinking on caloric is not an OR synthesis of information, in my view, since I am not adding anything of my own to it, merely combining two bits of information that are, without doubt, discussing the same topic and which should, therefore, be read in combination. I did probably go over the boundaries with the discussion of surface tension since it required me to interpret what the author meant by "attract" but I think there is a line that can be drawn and that not all of the examples in the article cross that line.
Ultimately, if you were expecting a literary discussion of the book, it's no wonder everyone's opposing its nomination. I don't do literary discussions! :) I'm a scientist, not a linguist, so it is the content, not the context that intrigues me. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any other literary discussion of the book that could be used as the basis for the sort of article you seem to want. Having said that, I don't see why an article about a book needs to be a scholarly literary discussion of it. Why is discussing the content insufficient? GDallimore (Talk) 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see why an article about a book needs to be a scholarly literary discussion of it." Interesting, since that is the discipline dedicated to studying literature. Apparently, there is also no reason to dedicate the page on gravity to the scientific discussions of gravity, even though that is the discipline that studies gravity. You need to rethink your scholarly orientation to this page, I think. This book is a product of its time and is studied by scholars as such. You should use what the scholars trained in those fields have discovered to write your article just as I would use what scientists have discovered about gravity in a gravity article. It would not be acceptable for me to include theories of gravity that suggest money will flow into my pockets simply because I will it to (this is actually published material, by the way) on a gravity page; such theories have not been verified or even hypothesized by the scientific community. Awadewit 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is becoming clear to me that what you really what to write about is the history of science - the development of caloric theory and such. You do not want to write about this book - this book is one example that would feature in your history of the caloric theory or heat or whatever (it is a popularization of those theories as they were understood in the nineteenth century). Furthermore, if you were to write a history of caloric theory or heat, you would then have to include many more texts since, obviously, two data points are insufficient to establish a history. Awadewit 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Aquinas College, Perth

edit
previous FAC

This article has been listed as a GA for a while now, it has since undergone an amazing transformation. There has been hundreds of edits and changes, improvements, references and images added. I believe there is no part of the FA criteria which has not been followed.

The article is;

  • Well written
  • Comprehensive
  • Definitely factually accurate
  • Neutral
  • Stable
  • Is an appropriate length
  • Has plenty of high quality images

talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Support; My reasoning is above - It is a overall well written quality article

talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong OpposeSNOWBALL I won't even talk about the obvious spelling mistakes in the above nomination I've just corrected. Article clearly lacks stability. The article has been edited at least 70 times in the preceding 10 days, and has undergone significant change since it was last peer reviewed and recognised as a GAC (Much to the disgust of a number of long standing WP:WA participants). I also question the copyright rationale used for Image:House_Shields.JPG, as well as Image:Aquinas Logo.png lacking an appropriate fair use rationale. Further to this, there is significant cluttering of infoboxes at the bottom of the article which looks messy at best. I would take the article back to a peer review before proceeding with another flawed FA nom -- thewinchester 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are still outstanding issues from previous reviews. The main one is referencing - I'll leave all others as I believe it would fail on this alone - *many* refs (14, 15, 18, 25, 27-31, 49, 71, 78) relate to either student diaries or publications which are not able to be verified through Western Australia's state library system. The FISH magazine is, but [2] only 1950-1977, 1988 and 1999-summer 2004. While significant advances have been made in bringing in outside references since the last review, it's still far too dependent on the school's website and self-publications at this stage. Orderinchaos 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Regarding references, I share OIC's concerns; plus I have further serious concerns, which I initially raised here, but haven't yet followed up on. Hesperian 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As much as i would like this article to be FA - it is a long way off FA some key areas are first-party references, spelling, grammar, flow - just to mention a few. Please dont put this up again - it was only a few weeks ago that i put it up. Finally, it hasnt been GA for a long time (i believe its less than 2 months) Twenty Years 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw to the FA reviewers' attention that, with full acknowledgement of WP:OWN, as the most significant contributor to the article amongst a small group of editors, Twenty Years would probably be one of the two or three main people working to get it to that standard if at all, so some weight should be given to his request for this FA nomination to close. Orderinchaos 10:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please close this. It is clearly not FA and this is just wasting everyones time. I would almost go as far as suggesting that to put it up again (next 6 mths) would be distruptive to the community and the person should be blocked. Please close this, someone Twenty Years 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Mount Henry Peninsula

edit

I think, the Mount Henry Peninsula page is of extremely high quality. It is well balanced (id is difficult to be one sided on this subject). The page has a good amount of images and, is extremely stable in the way it is written. I see no reason why the page should not be promoted. talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Support; My reasoning is above - It is a overall well written quality article talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOWBALL. Hesperian 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will give the authors credit - this article has come miles since I last looked at it, and it benefits from having few of the critical issues plaguing its sister article. The lead is solid and well-written. Two recommendations I would make - I'm seeing large blocks of text with no or sometimes 1 reference, with a total of 8. I would have expected to see one in the History section, last para of Geology, the last para of Native species, Bandicoots, as well as the pointlist on Peninsula Projects for assertions made there. (Note this is not a checklist - the entire article should be well referenced) Secondly, before proceeding any further, do a spell-check and proof read. While the standard of prose at WP:WIAFA of "compelling, even brilliant" is more a recommendation than a rule, there's a fair few spelling and grammar issues in this article, and one mangled section (Banksia). I wish the editors luck in getting the standard up. Orderinchaos 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOWBALL Agree with Hesperian on this. Again there's mis-spelled words in the nom from this user (i've corrected). The article lacks significant referencing which i'd expect for an FA article, the Aquinas infobox stands out like a bandage on a sore thumb, and there's links through the article that need correction (some of which I've just done). There's been little to no consultation or input from the WP:WA editors who would have happily helped this article be improved to FAC level if asked, thus why so many issues with it are being pointed out. -- thewinchester 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for many reasons. Needs lots of work still. Full of statements that need referecing, many of which are now tagged as such. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers) there should be non-breaking spaces between numbers and the related unit (eg: 165& nbsp;acres). Where appropriate don't abbreviate units and write numbers less than 10 as letters - so 2 fish -> two fish. I'm sure that Yellow Soilder Research and Solutionis in the references section is mispelled. Much improved since I last looked at it in January but a fair way to go yet - Peripitus (Talk) 09:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until cleanup. I'm suffocating under the sheer number of "Citation Needed" tags Booksworm Talk to me! 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

The Apprentice (UK)

edit

Seems to match Featured article criteria Bravedog 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support-Shall we take a look?

Well written"-Yes, I suppose

"Comprehensive"-Agree strongly

"Factually accurate"-Lots of reliable sources

"Neutral"-Strongly agree

"Stable"-Definately

"a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections"-yes

"a system of hierarchical headings"-definately

"a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents"-Strongly agree

"images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly"-Agree

"appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"-agree Dalejenkins 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quite simply it's too short. Buc 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Doesn't match the criteria actually. Fails 1c - please review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Contains absolutely no information on the creation of the show- how it was decided to create (or, at least, adapt) the series, who is in charge of production (directors, writers- and there are writers- etc.), and how contestants are chosen. No information about the popularity of the show- zero ratings information, zero critical reviews, and mention of a single award. Poor sentence structure in spots, especially in the lead. References are few and far between- there are none in "Format" or "The Board", and in particular, the latter section definitely needs some sourcing- and they are not properly cited, offering only the title of a work and not the author, publication/site, date of publication, and/or date of retrieval. In a couple of instances, the footnotes come before punctuation. Pure and simple, I would not even promote this as a GA, much less an FA. -- Kicking222 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Off to a good start, but contains no sections about reception or production. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Adequate as far as it goes I guess, but pretty unremarkable both in terms of writing style and content (I contributed some parts). Matt 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Monte Ne

edit
previous FAC

Since it's last nomination this article has been throughly copy edited, and better referenced. It should now meet all the required criteria for a featured article. --The_stuart 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Insufficient inline citations. There are whole sections without a reference. Notes and references improperly formatted. Good work so far, but it still needs some work. JHMM13 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. For an FA-quality article of that size, I'd include around 70-80 inline citations. Also, please properly use cite templates to format citations in a consistent manner. "Beautiful Monte Ne" is a very short and useless section, consider merging it somewhere in the history. Todor→Bozhinov 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Beautiful Monte Ne moved --The_stuart 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much about matching a quota for the number of inline citations as it is the complete verifiability of the material presented in the article. Typically speaking, if you are making some sort of claim that isn't overwhelmingly obvious, it needs to have a source. Whatever the amount of inline citations you end up having depends on how many you need in an article. It's best to look at recently-made FAs to get an idea for this. JHMM13 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Butthole Surfers

edit

Self nominated. Following a major revision, I feel that this article meets all of Wikipedia's Featured Article requirements, and compares very favorably to other FA music biography articles. It has been through Peer Review, with all concerns being addressed, and was recently re-rated as a Good Article on WikiProject Biography and Alternative music WikiProject, as well as an A rating on WikiProject Texas. This is its first FA submission. The Haiku Master 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose...until references are formatted properly. If the sources are from websites, please provide the url as well as the date retrieved; if they are from books, provide full bibliographic info (publisher, ISBN etc); if they are from interviews, provide the show and/or the year. A lot of work needs to be done. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for help. Good job by the way. Hope you aren't discouraged. Orane (talk • cont.) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I think I just noticed something. Is the 'Further Reading' section an expansion of the 'Reference' section? If that's the case, then it would be misleading to class that section as 'Further reading' insofar (God, I love that word; it always comes in handy!) as it's not supplementary/complementary, but required for the completion of the article.
  • Here's a suggestion: Try working the references in 'Further reading' into the 'Reference' section. For sources that that are used multiple times, you can try using "<refname=[insert name here]..." Am I confusing you? Orane (talk • cont.) 07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only slightly (confused), but I have found the "reference" process to be a bit frustrating! (No fault of your own.) It was suggested during peer review that I split the original references sections in two, with "references" becoming "notes," and a new "references" section being created, expanding on what was in "notes." Then, during its GA nomination process, the editor who cleared it for GA status changed "notes" back to "references" and "references" to "further reading"... which I took on good faith as being preferable to what had been suggested during peer review.
So to answer your question, yes, "Further Reading" expands on "Reference." And if I'm reading you correctly they should both just be as one section, which is what I had originally? Another question: I'd read up on the "<refname=[insert name here]..." method, but wasn't sure how to make that work when using different pages from one reference, re: the multiple references to Azerrad's book. Can you recommend a good example of how to work that? In the meantime, I'll poke around myself, and should be able to reformat the references by Saturday at the latest. Thanks for the advice! The Haiku Master 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:LAYOUT and move any entries from References that aren't used to source the article to Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose article is well researched and comprehensive, but not there yet.
  • There are various formatting issues:
  • Remove low value wiki-links: - Accountant, fanzine, California, art gallery, San Francisco, studio, New York City, acoustic guitar, etc.
  • Try and merge short stubby paragraphs (eg "In 1995, the band contributed a cover of the" could be merged with "In December, the Surfers initiated") and sections (eg "Live performances" does not need three subsections).
  • I hold my hand up to the grammatical error noted below, but bear in mind that Tony was at pains to stress that he was giving examples only, and "the whole text" needs a copy edit. To take the next section:
  • "Haynes left his accounting firm and moved to Southern California" - His accounting firm? He was not a partner; and the more usual wording is "accountancy firm". Also, no need to link "California".
  • "fanzine featuring photos of disgusting medical ailments" - some humanity, please.
  • "Playing their debut show at a San Antonio art gallery in 1981, lead vocalist/saxophonist Haynes and guitarist Leary's new band performed under a number of aliases before settling on the Butthole Surfers (see “Name’’ section)." Apart from the sentence's poor construction and punctuation, (see “Name’’ section) is self referential.
  • "During a brief concert at the Tool and Die club in San Francisco, Dead Kennedys frontman and Alternative Tentacles overseer Jello Biafra witnessed their performance and became a fervent fan". Please punctuate.
  • "Biafra then invited the group to open for the Kennedys and..." - then is redundant. Also, the full sentence is a snake: "Biafra then invited the group to open for the Kennedys and T.S.O.L. at the Whisky a Go Go in Los Angeles, and soon made an offer that would launch their recording career: if they could get someone to loan them studio time, Alternative Tentacles would reimburse the studio when the album was complete." - Cut in three.
  • "headed back to California that summer" - Returned.
  • "The band then returned to San Antonio to record at BOSS Studios (a.k.a. Bob O'Neill's Sound Studios, a.k.a. the Boss)." then is redundant.
  • "However, the Matthews brothers did not enter the studio with Haynes and Leary; the two had quit following a physical altercation between Scott Matthews and Haynes" - as the two. Replace the semicolon with "because" or "due to".
  • "The bass position was taken over by Bill Jolly, who would also play on the Surfers' next two releases, and a number of drummers participated." - taken over? - filled. Replace "also" with later. "and a number of drummers participated" is misplaced and unclear.
  • "is still with the band to this day." - awkwardly phrased.

I stand by my first impression that some basic formatting and a good copy edit would bring this to be a fine article. The hard work, ie sourcing and writing, you have already done, it just needs a little polish yet. I would be willing to help, as a fan of the band, if you forgive last night's sloppy edit. Ceoil 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceoil, I gladly accept your offer -- fresh eyes & a fresh perspective never hurt in a situation like this, and I've largely been going it alone (outside of some source info) since the revamp began. Sorry too for reverting your complete edit from last night, but after the glaring error in the lead was brought to my attention by another reviewer, and not having time to go through the entire edit at that point, I felt it was best to revert it all and go back and re-add later on. Thanks for your criticism & help! The Haiku Master 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. On the basis that there will be work here, have switched from oppose to comment. Ceoil 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just on the basis of the lead. There are so many obvious errors that a thorough copy-edit of the whole text (not just the correction of these examples below) is essential if a gold star is to be awarded.
    • Overuse of additive items: At the top, we have: "They have further incorporated elements of heavy metal, noise rock, electronica, and other genres into their music, which makes extensive use of sound manipulation and, on their studio recordings, tape editing.[1] The Surfers are also known for their once-chaotic live shows ...". "Further" and "also" could be removed. So could the ugly "additionally" in the next paragraph. Audit the whole text for this tendency.
    • Woulditis, a Wikipedian disease: "which would in turn often influence"—why not just plain past tense? "which in turn often influenced"?
  • "The band has" and the start of the second para, but elsewhere they're pluralised. Be consistent.
    • En dashes are recommended for ranges by several of the major US and UK style guides; they're so much nicer for our readers, particularly when the text display is small. Using only the last two digits for the end of the range, where possible, reduces a raft of numbers that looks like computer code:
"... 1983-1985 and 1986-1989. Butthole Surfers have employed a variety of bass players, most notably Bill Jolly (1982-1984) ..."
"... 1983–85 and 1986–89. Butthole Surfers have employed a variety of bass players, most notably Bill Jolly (1982–84) ..."
  • "The Butthole Surfers had the respected by their peers, influenced future grunge stars, and attracted a devoted fan base, however, they did not enjoy any significant commercial success until 1996’s Electriclarryland, their only gold record to date." First clause is ungrammatial. "Future" is unclear; the BSs still exist, so whom and what time are you referring to? Comma after "base" is ungrammatical; try a semicolon. Remove "any" as redundant. What a bombsite. Tony 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the most glaring grammatical error you mentioned was added by one of the many Opposers, Ceoil, though I'm sure it wasn't intentional on his/her part (the "had the respected by their peers," etc in the lead). I'll revert that and other detrimental changes over the weekend. Thanks! The Haiku Master 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The music sample is peaking (too loud), doesn't seem to be relevant to any particular part of the article, and should only be 30 seconds long.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just remove that altogether, as I wasn't the one who added it to the article to begin with (it's one of the few remaining aspects of the original article as I found it back in February or so) -- thanks for pointing that out. The Haiku Master 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Certainly a well-done article, but the two major issues (prose and converting references to an acceptable format) might take an amount of effort and time to correct that an FAC might be too soon. I'll do my part to try and improve on the deficiences (although I will be rather busy during the next week), and if we are able to fix the problems in a few days I'll be glad to change my vote. WesleyDodds 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Submitter: Hi folks, just a head's up that, due to some work-related emergencies, I'm not going to have time to get to revamps until this coming weekend (4/21-22), instead of last weekend (4/14-15) as originally hoped. Just wanted to assure anyone monitoring this nomination that I haven't abandoned it.
Also, two other users (one of them being Ceoil, one of the current opposers) have volunteered to give it a thorough copy edit around the middle of this week -- Ceoil, Wesley, the fresh sympathetic eyes are very appreciated. By the time their dust has settled I should be able to tackle the dash/hyphen issue & references. Thanks for your patience! The Haiku Master 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Jesus

edit
previous FAC

This is a great article that i just recently found. It has a huge amount of inline citations. It has been nominated before, but over a year ago. It is supprisingly NPOV and acurate for a controversal topic. And is well written. Overall it is a very good article.-Threewaysround 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is heavily undercited. Here is a small sample of uncited statements that should definitely be cited.

  • Some scholars believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus have little or no historical basis.
  • As a result of the likely several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe, the accuracy of all early texts claiming the existence of Jesus or details of Jesus' life have been disputed by various parties.
  • Most modern Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion.
  • Historians have debated what this title might have meant at the time Jesus lived; some historians have suggested that other titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament (e.g. Lord, Son of Man, and Son of God) had meanings in the first century quite different from those meanings ascribed today Awadewit 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aiden seems to of taken care of the first thing, and I took care of the last when it was mentioned below.

Homestarmy 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I made clear in my post, these are only a "small sample" of the statements that need to be cited. Simply citing these four is not going to fix the problem. You need to take a serious look at your sources: how well do they fulfill WP:RS and does each statement that requires a source have a peer-reviewed, scholarly source supporting it? This article will more than likely take a few weeks to fix up. I agree with some of the other reviewers here; some areas of this article are well-done but some are not. The entire article needs to reach FA quality, including its research. Awadewit 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't trying to imply that just fixing these four things would do it, but I thought it might be helpful to actually say when something's been fixed, (or when I think something's been fixed) i've seen people do it in other FA noms....though I did admittedly see one or two questionable references as I was fixing up the notes section, the first two sentences you've quoted are two of the most controversial and edit-warred over and talk-page paged sentences of the entire article, especially because there's still no agreement on whether many hard-line Jesus myther types actually even constitute scholarly sources, or even halfway notable sources at all. Homestarmy 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is extremely well balanced and very well sourced. It has come lightyears since the last nominations for FA status nearly a year-and-a-half ago. It has over 100 inline citations, not including the vast number of scriptural references not included as footnotes. The four examples of unsourced statements above are taken from sections with extensive background articles, all of which are well-sourced. All that needs to be done is for the appropriate citations to be copied over onto the main page. Four non-examples in a 98k article is hardly indicative of "heavy" lack of references. —Aiden 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the other articles are sourced - this article has to be sourced, too. Why would a reader assume that all of the articles are sourced from the same books/articles? I wouldn't assume that. I would also be leery of copying other people's sources - you need to check them for yourself. Also, these are not non-examples - they are serious; notice that they are claiming "scholars" and "historians" have made these points. Well, who? My point was not that there are four unsourced statements; I quote from myself: "here is a small sample of uncited statements." It does not matter how many citations the article has; it matters whether they have been done well. In this article, they are not yet up to snuff. Awadewit 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that in order to keep the article size within reasonable limits, most of the detailed information is contained in background articles, of which each section in the main article is a summary. The sources for these background articles are most of the time duplicated in the main article. In the few instances where such summaries are not sourced, this can be easily remedied by referring to the sub-articles. And again, the scope of the issue is quite small, as the article has a very high number of references. —Aiden 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is just not wikipedia's policy, and for good reason. Not all readers are going to click to those articles. I quote from WP:CITE: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." Awadewit 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BC/AD, BCE/CE - pick one (just one), it matters not which. I've not seen both used together anywhere else. 75.105.178.150 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is possible, we've had polls many times over the date notation, and every time there has clearly been no consensus for either date format. Plus, I don't think there's anything mandating choosing one date style over another. Homestarmy 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that there is no wikipedia-wide consensus, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers), "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article." Awadewit 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the system we have now is consistant throughout the article, or at least, its supposed to be. Homestarmy 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the reviewer is pointing out is that the system you have adopted is awkward and unfamiliar. You need to pick one dating system. It is odd to see "8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE" for Jesus' lifespan, for example. It is hard to read. Awadewit 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the anon - pick one dating style and use it consistently. Using both is just awkward. Raul654 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to see this fail for something so mundane. Maybe one day there will be a server fix where each user can choose what dating system they prefer, but we simply have been unable to support one era notation over the other. The era notations are significant to this article, because, in a round about way, it is almost like forcing the editors to decide whether we say Jesus IS Lord, or not. It's a tough situation, and there are heated advocates on both sides. However, the working compromise is to use both systems. And we use both systems consistently (which is what the MoS says). It is a little awkward, but it keeps the peace. There are much, much more significant matters than a few letters after a date. Our system was reached by consensus, and meets the MoS. Can't we move past that and focus on the article content.-Andrew c 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states:

A small number of scholars believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus have little or no historical basis.[43] At least in part, this is because they see many similarities between stories about Jesus and older myths of pagan god-men such as Mithras, Attis and Osiris-Dionysus, leading to conjectures that the pagan myths were adopted by some authors of early accounts of Jesus to form a syncretism with Christianity.

Is that true? I thought the syncretism theory was a fairly common belief among scholars and people in general. How small is a "small number of scholars", and how reliable is the source provided. Publishers Weekly described your source Robert E. Van Voorst thus: "Van Voorst devotes a surprising amount of energy to refuting the idea that Jesus never existed... Seminary professors will want to consider assigning this book".[3] I think this business needs looking at to avoid POV problems. The article seems to be over-stressing the assertion that the number of scholars having this belief is small. Which has made me more curious for information, rather than suitably satisfied with the explanation.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose: per the following:
    • Chart of dates of Jesus's birth and death:
      • We have a range of 8BC-6AD? According to whom are these ranges set? The reference to the dates in the lead lists 8BC-2AD, with a reference. Why the difference? Also, the text of the article lists 7BC as the earliest conjectured date for birth... These difference need to be explained and reconciled.
    • In the Geneology section:
      • the statement "various theories have been used to explain discrepancies" seems to beg atleast a reference to some sources that do just that. Even if THIS article does not need to be expanded, it should be referenced. Also, "see also" shouldn't be used in text, boilerplate it at the beginning of the section if needed.
    • In Ministry section:
      • "although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year" whose interpretation? Reference needed.
        • Apparently some guy named Africanus or something, i've given two refs, the first is for three years, and the second is for both three years and one year in a footnote on the page I gave. Homestarmy 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks much better. If Africanus makes these claims, though, it would be better if the text says "Africanus claims... yada yada" than "Some claim... yada yada". If a study bible has credited Africanus as authoritative, it is probably worth citing him by name.
    • In Arrest, etc. section:
      • "Following his triumphal entry, according to the synoptic gospels,[20] Jesus created a disturbance at Herod's Temple by overturning the tables of the moneychangers operating there, claiming that they had made the Temple a "den of robbers."" Ugh. How many clauses can we cram in one sentance. Much of this section needs a bit of a copyedit for language.
        • I've given the whole section a copyedit, how does it look now?Homestarmy 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are some instances here, again, of being overly impersonal, this time with a vital character than a source. Another apostle cut of the centurion's ear??? It was Simon Peter. Go ahead and mention him by name. He won't be offended. Again in the next section, the women arrived to annoint the body? Mary Magdelene (and, depending on the gospel, also Mary and Salome) did this. Go ahead and use the actual names of the people involved.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think i've got it right, how does it look now? I've never actually taken control of fixing an article during an FA nom before, so I might not get everything right the first time... Homestarmy 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Names and titles section:
      • Unresolved fact tag. Needs referencing, apparently...
    • Sources on Jesus life:
      • "Paul wrote that he only saw Jesus in visions" is referenced to Galations, but shouldn't it also be referenced to Acts, where Luke describes Paul's conversion event? The Road to Damascus story seems an equally relevent source as Galatians...
      • Much of this section needs both expansion and referencing. For example, who says why the apocrypha were excluded? There is a lot of writing out there on the Apocrypha and its history, some of it very good, and very neutral, and yet none of it is referenced here.
      • Josephus isn't mentioned here? Really??? Why not... his absence is glaring... I understand he had little to say on Jesus specifically, but his works on 1st century Palestine are definitive and seminal.
        • I think I can answer the first and last comment here. In Acts, it doesn't actually say that Paul wrote or said that he "only saw Jesus in visions", or if it does, I don't see it. Jospehus might be a bit harder to explain. Across all of the Jesus-related articles, many editors have basically made it so that Josephus can almost never be quoted without some sort of qualification on most details of Josephus's writings, due to what, as far as I can tell, is an attitude that we "can't really know" how much of his writings have been supposedly corrupted or something, especially whenever Jesus is mentioned in his writings. I presume Josephus has been left out intentionally to avoid some convoluted series of qualifications about whatever he says. As for the Apocrypha, I don't know how much those books really adds in terms of sources on Jesus' life, but I will look into it and see what I can find. Homestarmy 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Acts isn't written by Paul, but its account of Pauls conversion is vital to establish Paul's own writings as canonical, from a theological point of view. Paul met Jesus, though it was the resurected Jesus, he still met him, and that very fact goes a long way to establishing his authority to comment on Jesus's life. The event described in Acts is important in conjunction with his writings in Galations, not in opposition to it. It is not an either/or issue. Also, the article discusses the apocrypha, (doesn't use the word apocrypha for some reason), and offers interpretations of the apocryphal gospels, but does NOT give any reference to what it talks about. That is what I was talking about. Oh, and WRT the Josephus issue: To describe what you have here is good enough. It may not be neccessary to quote Josephus as authoritative, and go on to his descriptions, that would be beyond the scope of this article. However, Josephus' writings are an important part, disputed as they are, to understanding the history of our modern understanding of Jesus' life. Even if disputed, those writings were held as authoritative for so long, and in some cases still are. To ignore them completely is to be non-comprehensive. I would be happy just to see a few sentances describe who he was, what he "supposedly" wrote, and the source of some of the controversy. We don't need an entire essay here, just a sentance or three with references.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you think it would be a better idea for the sentence to read something more like "Paul wrote that he saw Jesus in a vision", so that a sentence or two could indeed be included about the Acts summary of what happened? It's just, written the way it is, I assumed it was only trying to get at the idea that Paul didn't see Jesus personally like other people did. Homestarmy 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Be careful there. "In a vision" qualifies the event as something less than a personal meeting. He met post-resurection Jesus. It was, for the purpose of establishing Paul as an authority worthy to be included in the bible, as real and personal meeting as did John or Peter or Mark or anyone else whose writings are in the New Testament. That John and Peter and Mark new him pre-resurection and Paul met him post-resurection is does not make the former "legitimate" and the latter a "vision". The Road to Damascus event is as real as any other. The article could also benefit, now that I am thinking of it, of a section on post-resurection appearences of Jesus. They are important events in his life. The article is for want of them... Also, though Galatians mentions visions, it is not necessarily so that his personal meeting on the Damascus Road is the same as these visions. Again, Acts is important to establish Paul as an authority on Jesus, as it establishes that he met him. That is the canonincal explanation. Of course, for non-Christians who dispute the resurection, such a distinction becomes very important, but from the point of view of the church, the difference between meeting the pre-resurection Jesus and the post-resurection Jesus is moot. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Alternative Views section:
      • Unitarians and Arians are teased in first sentance, and not given any treatment in the body the way Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are. Why not?
        • Compared to the Watchtower and the LDS, Unitarians and Arians just aren't as notable, and I doubt that Unitarianism or Arianism ever had as many adherants, and it appears that they're being mentioned just because they were former non-Trinitarian groups that have pretty much compleatly dissolved, though they were once important a long time ago. One of the main dilemnas over this article has been undue weight because such a large number of groups are involved with the article's subject, and the length given to certain perspectives has been rather carefully doled out, though of course, I might be wrong in this instance, do you think some elaboration on Unitarian views and Arianism would be necessary? Homestarmy 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Arianism is a fairly notable historical heresy. There is a lot of information in history books et al. If it is worth mentioning in passing, it is worth developing. If it isn't worth developing in detail, it isn;'t worth mentioning. Also, Unitarianism is hardly a fringe movement or obscure. While not as big as LDS, it still is a sizable group of belief systems, including the Unitarian Universalist Association; it is not hard to find large UU churches in any medium sized US or Canadian city. The group has 157,000 registered members, and while the largest in North America, it is not the only Unitarian denomination in the world. Their beliefs in Jesus are certainly distinct enough from Trinitarian Christianity, and they are a large enough denomination, that it bears some development.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Islamic Views section:
      • Another see also statement. Boilerplate it at the beginning of the section instead, or find another way to wikilink it in the text so it does not interrupt the flow.
        • I removed the self-references, the last of which linked to a substandard section of another article which doesn't appear to be compleate, converted several external pipes to the Qu'ran cite template, and replaced one self-reference with the corresponding Sura. Homestarmy 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is VERY good in many places, and is definately close to being featured, however, I think the above fixed need being made in order that this article meet the highest standards of Wikipedia. Also, with a topic like this, referencing needs to be scrupulous in light of potential POV problems. Not that this article has any, I think it is mostly fair and comprehensive and neutral, but it has the potential to be a target of POV from all sides. Referncing well is a way to help avoid that.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Every statement needs to be sourced with reliable sources. This is Jesus. "Most scholars agree" and links to GeoCities pages aren't going to cut the mustard. --- RockMFR 06:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the notes really need to be cleaned up. There are broken links, messed up template calls, inconsistent and/or missing dates, and other such issues. --- RockMFR 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myself and Andrew c have gone through it, and besides around two seemingly broken references which i've asked about on the talk page, I think everything else has been dealt with, I also replaced the geocities page ref with something else. Homestarmy 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell from a quick glance that isn't done yet. Some notes have the author's last name first and some notes have the author's first name first. Some web sources say "accessed" and some say "retrieved." Not all web retrieval dates are linked. All of this needs to be standardized. Awadewit 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the accessed and retrieved thing I think is because two refs use the cite web format, and I wasn't really sure if using cite web was mandatory or not, so I left it alone in case I learned that I or someone else would have to convert the whole notes to cite web. I'll work on the other stuff however. Homestarmy 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides notes 96 and 84, I think we've got everything. (84 sort of kind of loads on my screen so maybe IE7 won't display it or something, and I dunno where 96 came from, but it shouldn't be hard to replace, whatever it is.) Homestarmy 14:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes have been made, but this still seems to need more work. Some more stuff I caught this readthrough:
    • In "names and titles"; not enough is made of the meaning of Messiah. The Jews and Christians assign different meanings to the concept. The Jews were looking for a military leader to overthrow the Roman Empire and establish a new Jewish State; that is what Christ meant for them. The Christian view of the term is that he is to free us from the bounds of sin, not any state-opressor, but the opression of our own sin, and establish a new kingdom where God is sovereign (whether in heaven or on earth, depending on whose interpretation). To ignore this distinct difference is to ignore a VITAL part of who Jesus was, and why he was so controversial; indeed probably why he was crucified in the first place. This section needs much expansion; it feels very lacking.
      • From what i've read, the Jewish Messiah is considered to be rather different from Jesus, and I think this section was written only to focus on Jesus in terms of the Messiah of Christians, since obviously Jews don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah at all. I'm not saying that its a bad idea to talk about the subject, but I think the Judaism's view section would be a better place for that, do you really think the issue has to be discussed in the names and titles section? :/ Homestarmy 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, very true, however, it is clear that the Jews of Jesus's time considered him the "Jewish Messiah", even his own disciples up to the point of the crucifixion. To ignore this meaning of Messiah is also to be leaving something out. His contemporaries, even his disciples, considered him to be the future military and secular king of an independant Jewish state, and it is clear that this threat to both the Romans and the Sanhedrin is why he was probably executed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Military and secular king? I don't think I ever remember seeing any references come our way stating that, or implying that many of His disciples thought he'd help them build an independant Jewish state. As for why he was executed, after a terrible debate over the issue, (and time passing apparently), we ended up with what's there now, namely that the Jews condemned Him for blasphemy, but the Roman's were going with a charge of sedition. Homestarmy 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The following links contain reviews that explain just that. Messiah meant many things to many groups of people, as Jesus was the Messiah, we need to explain fully what that meant, since it is key not only to understanding who he is to us but also who he was to his contemporaries. I found them all in this google search:
              • a google cache of a PDF that discusses the different concepts of Messiah as related to 1st century Judaism and Christianity
              • this one discusses the matter, with citations from theological sources
                • Let's be careful about our sources here. This website, www.christian-thinktank.com, is a self-published website. The author describes himself this way "Glenn M. Miller, committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the second 25 years of my life (now 30+), research/writer/speaker, IT business executive, father of three gifted, delightful, over-stimulated, people--all seeking, questioning, open-minded, authentic people [one lives in Shanghai (just moved back to SanFran, now to Philly), one lives in heaven, and one lives in San Jose]. Philosopher, theologian, divorced (still a little ashamed, but forgiven), mild MaiTai-er, extreme empathetic, serious but passionate about the deep issues of life/existence.." This is not a reliable source because it has not been peer-reviewed by scholars in the field nor is it a scholarly source. See WP:RS. Awadewit 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The rest of the google search is loaded with links that discuss the matter. I hope this is of some help. I don't have the specific issues at my finger tips, but bible study journals like Biblical Illustrator and others have dealt with this issue extensively as well.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Many of the sources in this google search would be inappropriate for wikipedia. It is best to search google scholar or to find specific websites that are reliable rather than to suggest a list of google results, many of which are unreliable. Awadewit 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I agree that these searches would be inappropriate as sources. The first that I gave (the pdf cache) is a VERY good literature review on the subject., but the rest would be inappropriate. Look, to make the statement that Jesus is the Messiah, and then to ignore what that meant to Jews and Christians in the first century is to be incomplete. There is a LOT of literature out there, much of it very reliable, that provides information on what the Messiah means to different people. To only provide the Christian view of Messiah is disctinctly POV. Above Homestarmy states "think this section was written only to focus on Jesus in terms of the Messiah of Christians, since obviously Jews don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah at all" Why should we ignore what a Messiah means to the Jews? Who after all originated the concept, even if only to then show how Jesus isn't the Messiah in terms of Judaism. Also, to say that Jews "don't" consider Jesus the Messiah is not the same as saying that some Jews "did", and thus their treatment of the issue MUST be considered for completeness. During Jesus's life, it is clear from the Bible that his message was intended for the Jews, and though we get some foreshadowing of his future intents, he really doesn't commission his Disciples to preach to non-Jews until post-resurection. The idea that Jesus would be "Messiah" to deliver all people from their sins was NOT the concept of Messiah during his lifetime. Compare Matthew 10 to Matthew 28... Even in the Gospels there is an evolution of what it meant to be the Messiah.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please note that I was not debating the "Messiah" issue; more than likely I would agree with you, but I would have to read around a bit to see. And that is just the point. It matters what we read and use as sources for these discussions. Thus I was trying to point out that the merits of this discussion are not going to be enhanced by referring to self-published websites. If you want to have a serious debate on this issue, you need to use reliable sources - whether you are writing articles or discussing it on a talk page. Awadewit 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Agreed. My point was only to point out that the Messiah issue is a large enough issue in understanding Jesus to be dealt with more comprehensively than it is in this article. I am not espousing any particular single view of the Messiah, merely noting that this article presents a narrow, POV view of the concept, that being only the Christian view. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Possible earlier texts" (the section dealing with the apocrypha and other non-canonical accounts) is WOEFULLY under referenced.
  • All in all, the article may not be close enough to feature ready. It is quite good in places, but the unevenness may take weeks to clean up...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this article has been through a lot over the past year and a half. Almost all of the concerns were about style and format issues, not content issues. We have cleared up almost all of the concerns listed above. This article is robust and covers a very large number of spinout articles. It covers multiple Points of view, in a neutral manner. It is very well sourced, and has been stable. As for the dating issue, see my comment above.-Andrew c 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Donut (Red vs. Blue)

edit

Seems to cover everything required. The only issue could be it's length. Buc 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore my support when the comments below have been adressed. Cliff smith 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild object -- first, I wish more could be said about the notability of this character but I suppose this may be as far as that goes, but it's hard for me to get excited about this topic. Specific criticisms: (1) the "role in the plot" section has two issues. One, the end is somewhat abrupt, and the coverage of season 4 and beyond is very short - was the character not involved as much? If so, could that be said? And, are the minor points about episodes 77, 81, and 88 critical points in the plot? Because to me, they look minor. Two, I was confused at how Tex apparently was killed in one episode and reappeared later; could this be clarified? (2) The prose could be improved: it holds together but I felt that in many places it was written by fans who didn't feel the need to explain things an outsider might need to know (like the Tex thing, for instance). (3) I'm not wild about how much the sourcing depends on the official material: I'd like to see more from reliable, independent sources. The prose and the sourcing are both minimally okay for featured status in my book if my 1st criticism is addressed, but I wouldn't be a very enthusiastic support without better prose & sourcing. Mangojuicetalk 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the editor who reworked of the prose into its current form, I've realized for a while that there are some things that could use a better explanation. The problem is that I haven't had time to revisit this in a while; it was kind of a surprise to me that this was nominated for FA. Off the top of my head, no, there really aren't many other sources available; this may or may not change once the series supposedly ends in a couple of months (six more episodes remain). Season 5 is mostly incomplete because the character wasn't really involved in the first part, and there have been enough plot twists since then that haven't yet been resolved. I won't have time to look at this seriously for a couple of days (I'm a procrastinator who still has yet to finish up tax returns), but, after that, I might be able to take a look at the prose. — TKD::Talk 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, at the moment, per comprehensiveness and prose concerns that I stated in my reply to Mangojuice; as stated above, I might be able to work on these soon. As someone heavily involved with the article, I honestly wonder whether it might have been be better to wait until the series ends after six more episodes (episode 94 was just released, and the creators have announced that episode 100 would be the end). Not that current series have been barred from FA on stability grounds in the past, but I thought that I'd bring this point up in the interests of full disclosure. — TKD::Talk 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article begins;

    Private Franklin Delano Donut is a main fictional character in Rooster Teeth Productions' machinima comic science fiction video series Red vs. Blue. Voiced by Dan Godwin, Donut first appears in episode 3 of season 1 as a new recruit, whose garrulous personality tends to annoy other members of the Blood Gulch Red Team, a group of soldiers engaged in a futuristic civil war against the Blue Team.

    Now I do not have a clue what a "Rooster Teeth Productions' machinima comic science fiction video series" is. I know that these terms are wikilinked (actually "video series" isn't), but we could really do with some kind of clearer explanation and elaboration as to what this article is about, as I am none the wiser despite spending my time trying to navigate the linked articles. We could also do with some punctuation in that sentence at least. If this was to go on the main page, or if the article was arrived at by random, I'm sure that I would not be alone in wondering what on earth this was about. Is this a character on TV? Is it a game? Is it a comic? Where in the world was this character created and who for, Mexicans? Mongolians? Please consider clarifying the jargon and subject matter.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Herne Bay, Kent

edit

This has recently become a Good Article and I can't see there being much more needed for it to become a Featured Article. It seems to pass all the criteria. Epbr123 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's all I can find. Fix this, and you will have my support!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References have now been added. Epbr123 11:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

edit

I think this should be a featured article because it fits the featured article criteria, it's unique and interesting. Destitute 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object I feel the article is too unsourced. It lacks in references (there are only two). Evilclown93 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia

edit

Well written article about a notable national fraternity with a rich history and legacy. Gives a good overview of the Fraternity's history, Object, scope, and activities, and meets Feature Article criteria in my opinion. I have contributed significantly in cleaning up this article and moving extraneous (but still important) information to appropriate sub pages. Rackabello 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I hereby withdraw this article's candicicy for Feature Article. There are obvious POV and citing problems that I should have seen in front of me, but didn't in my rush to list my first newly cleaned up article. Thanks for your comments and critisism though, they will be invaluable in trying to get this article up to better standards. Rackabello 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the following fixes:
    • Article is WOEFULLY underreferenced. I count 2 external links, and that is it. Consider using full inline references, or alternately paranthetical harvard style references, per WP:CITE. Honestly, this level of referencing is miles below what is normally featurable. I am not sure this would even pass GA.
    • The lead inadequately summarizes the article. It should introduce each section of the article with maybe a short sentance. This is not really a full summary. See WP:LEAD for more information.
    • The article seems well below the comprehensive level required for a FA. Listing every famous sinfonian, for example, is unneccessary, but listing NONE also violates the comprehensiveness principle. Likewise, the chapters section does not explain anything about how a chapter is chartered, what a "colony" is, etc. etc.
    • Non encyclopedic language abounds. "sprout across the country". Many places suffer from flowery language that strays into an overly glowing, POV, advertisement for the society. The Alumni section is rife with this.
  • Overall, this article needs a LOT of work before featurable. I would recommend taking it to Peer Review, and possibly also GA, to get some help with this.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the following:
    • Again, WOEFULLY underreferenced. Consider using inline references and address all fact citations in the article.
    • Expand history of fraternity to improve comprehensiveness. Consider siting specific notable instances or members.
    • Improve prose.
    • Consider inclusion of comparisons to other fraternal organizations to improve comprehensiveness and reduce POV.

Nice start, but I also recommend a peer review and GA review from several WikiProjects to assist in the improvement. ChicagoPimp 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

PlayStation 3

edit
former fac

The Playstation 3 page is a perfect candidate for being a featured article considering all of the good effort to make it so long and detailed. It gives all of the information you need to know about the Playstation 3 and is a great central location for scattered links. Playstationdude 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Golden ratio

edit

The article meets all the required FA criteria. It is well cited and have good content. Sushant gupta 08:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object If it's well cited why are there 5 [citation needed] tags? To add to that there's one sentence paragraphs, external jumps, too much in the "See Also" and try trimming the external links. M3tal H3ad 09:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per M3tal H3ad, the [citation needed]'s must go, and frankly the article is messy. Images all over the place and too many sections and subsections make it very difficult to read. The Rambling Man 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref #20 is broken.--Rmky87 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per:
    • Numerous {{fact}} tags
    • Internal inconsistencies: Is the Parthenon designed according to the Golden Mean or not? I cannot tell from the article...
    • More references needed:
      • Davinci and Mona Lisa... "Some suggest that his Mona Lisa, for example, employs the golden ratio in its geometric equivalents." Who suggests? Reference!
      • Section Other interesting properties makes superlative claims. These should be referenced.
    • External links in text (accompanying video).
    • Organization: Calculation section at top. Mathematics section at bottom. Why the big split? Plus, the calculation section is repeated in the mathematics section. AND, pentagrams is separate from pyramids section, with mathematics in the middle. If they both deal with Geometry, why is it all over the place? Overall, the organization is a mess, and needs some real fixes here before it is featurable.
Well, that's a start on what kind of fixes this needs. Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per:
    • Calculations has no citations.
    • The opening Aesthetics paragraph has no citations, and mentions woodworking once without ever expanding upon it.
    • Music doesn't make any sense.
    • Nature does not have a properly formatted See Also, is entirely too short, and ends with a quote.
    • Other interesting properties is POV.
I do, however, like the diagrams.. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per:
    • 1A - more inline references needed throughout, even if same source is sited in multiple places throughout the article.
    • 1B - address all fact tags
    • 1C - minimize external links, maximize inline references.
    • 2 - the current pics are helpful, but need to be better placed to improve visual flow. prose additions as suggested above may provide more spacing between each pic.

But a strong start! ChicagoPimp 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:56, 12 April 2007.

Ronald Reagan

edit
previous FAC

'One more for The Gipper'.
No treatment of his stance on the War for the Independence of Vietnam. No family picture showing any of his children. No picture showing his HUAC appearance, 'Time for Choosing' speech, war film propaganda activities, military service, first wife, or more-acclaimed film performances (Bedtime for Bonzo, King's Row). Otherwise brilliant. Only question for me is whether there is full compliance to WP style and referencing standards - which I've not looked into. There's a couple of 'citation needed' tags.

In Socialism,
ĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to hear from Happyme22, who is working very hard on the article at present for a future FA review, as to whether this article is ready yet. I suspect he/she is not aware of this FAC and there seems to be some sockpuppet issue concerning the current nominator. I recommend this review be suspended, not least because the nominator admits that the article lacks citations in key places.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recommend closing this FAC without prejudice - a new user who passed this article for GA as their 9th-11th edits and nominated it for FA on their 23rd, may not actually have consulted with any of the hard-working editors on that page, whose time this may waste as much as ours. There is some privately expressed concern that the user is a sock of someone presently under a one-month block for, among other things, disruption at WP:GAC. Orderinchaos 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Raul, the FAC Manager, and I think he will agree with us. Personally, I would like to nominate it for FAC, because I've done A LOT to Reagan's page, but I will admit that it's not quite ready yet. Happyme22 03:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent six hours yesterday cleaning up the biggest referencing mess I've ever worked on; it's very far from ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Unstable and (still) POV, although the editors are dilligently working on this, I know. Awadewit 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen no indications of instability, rather neglect. A concerted and sustained effort would be needed to bring this article from its current state to featured status, and that's not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might take a look at the history. Notice that the lead has been changing quite a bit in recent days and on April 3 there was a minor tussle over it (I was a part of that). I'm not sure that the lead issues have been worked out yet, either (see talk page). If an article's lead isn't even stable, I don't think the article itself can qualify as stable. I might mention I tried to do what you are suggesting ("concerted and sustained effort") with regards to the lead but gave up rather quickly (again, see talk page). Awadewit 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Sorry but there is a large ammout of POV present in this article. Like this line "Reagan survived a few scandals during his presidency, the most notable being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986." survived? that sounds like a weasel word there it would be better "faced" or confronted". -凶 05:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent six hours in the article yesterday, and while I made no content edits, I found a lot of Reagan-bashing and Reagan-bashing sources. It seems to me that some reviewers are confusing poor prose and poor copyediting with POV, and the POV pushing is occurring equally on the Reagan bashing and Reagan praising sides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have consistently found one of the biggest problems of the article to be its sources, but I cannot convince the editors to read the excellent academic sources in their own bibliography. (This is relevant to the point I made a few weeks ago the FAC talk page; I think you (SandyGeorgia) and I agree on the need for the highest quality of sources, which has not yet been achieved in this article, unfortunately.) Awadewit 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wasn't this FAC to be closed up? Reagan isn't ready yet! Happyme22 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Mackinac Island

edit

Self-nomination. I recently finished a major overhaul of this article, expanding and sourcing it. It is currently a GA. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I would like to see more pictures, especially of the Grand Hotel, some of the other activities on the island, and maybe of the Catamarans that take people too and from the island. Also the pictures that are in the article at the moment, seemed clumped together at the bottom, is there a way they could be better dispursed through out the article? EnsRedShirt 02:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've rearranged some and added a Grand Hotel picture. Will look for some others. I'll ask on Wikiproject Michigan if anybody has any. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a ferry picture to use as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose — there are a few prose glitches (criterion 1a) and relatively subjective layout issues (criterion 2):
    • "Mackinac Island, in the tradition of some of its earliest known inhabitants, the Anishinaabe-Ojibwe tribes, is a sacred place, home to the spirit Gitche Manitou." Too many commas; perhaps split into two sentences?
    • The "Scouting" section has numerous brief sentences, such as "Girl Scouts were first invited to serve in 1974." and "They must complete a service project." Integrating these short sentences into slightly larger, yet more succinct sentences is a good idea.
    • "The island's strategic position amidst the commerce of the fur trade of the Great Lakes led to the establishment of Fort Mackinac on the island by the British during the American Revolutionary War." This should probably be simplified or restructured.
    • "The island is the location of three Michigan state parks, Fort Mackinac, the historic downtown, and Mackinac Island State Park, which covers about 80% of the island." Are the Fort and the historic downtown two of the three state parks? If so, there should be a colon instead of a comma between "parks" and "Fort". Same issue with "Mackinac Island has been the setting of two feature films, This Time for Keeps in 1946 and Somewhere in Time, filmed at the Grand Hotel in 1979."
    • Perhaps "Scouting" can be merged into the "Culture" section? Also, there might not be a need for an Archeology subsection, since it only consists of one paragraph. Usually, sections are only good for 2+ paras (otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of the paragraph), lists, or emphasis.
    • The second paragraph of the lead section should be expanded slightly. A sentence summarizing the culture section might help there.
  • It's a good article, so please polish the prose by enlisting two or three fresh copy-editors. — Deckiller 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support evrik (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Here are random examples of why the whole text needs fresh copy-editors.
    • Lead: Startitis disease: "In the late 19th century, the island became a popular tourist attraction and summer colony." Just "was a popular".
    • "its wide variety of architectural style examples"—Ouch, "its wide variety of architectural styles".
    • Why are "17th century" and "19th century" blued out? Are they useful pages you're bothering the reader with? Why does "US state" need to be linked? We do speak English, so why are dictionary words such as "ferry", "hotel" and "airport" linked? Bound to irritate the readers, unless they're piped to focused articles, such as <hotels on Mackinac Island|hotels>, which they're mostly not.
    • Audit for redundant wording, for example: "A 13 kilometer (8 mi) long road"—which word can go?
    • "America"—Do you mean "the US"?
    • Inconsistent spelling-out of two-digit numbers (19th vs nineteenth); best to spell out only sentence-initial and single-digit numbers. Tony 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just gave it a quick read-through and it looks generally alright. Just had two issues as I went:
    • What is the "resort season"? I assume Memorial Day to Labor Day, but the article mentions the term and doesn't explain when it is exactly... seems important to clear up when specifically the island's peak season is. Source doesn't explain this either, I looked.
    • The article gets a bit unclear here: "the entire Straits area was acquired by the U.S. through a treaty following the war". Doesn't mention which treaty specifically, and I think we should look at what the Upper Peninsula article says: "Although the Upper Peninsula nominally became United States territory with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the British did not give up control until 1797 under terms of the Jay Treaty." Admittedly I apparently didn't source that claim correctly (I am pretty sure I added it though), but my point is I think that description applies to Mackinac Island too. I would like to get this cleared up.
  • Anyway, glad to see this article is in good shape at any rate. --W.marsh 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed "resort season" to "summer" as I couldn't find a definition for it, making it too vague to use. I also added some info about the treaties, using an American History textbook to cite it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Tenacious D

edit
Previous FAC 1, Previous FAC 2

The old nom had many objections which had been struck out or otherwise revised (except Sandy's, which I would like to see addressed). I'm restarting this nom so that people give it a fresh look. Raul654 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 and 61 are incomplete - # ^ Tenacious D : D Fun Pak -> does not have a publisher (artist direct) and use today for a retrieval date like the other refs. M3tal H3ad 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a, 1b and 3.
    • The musical/lyrical features of the fair-use audio excerpts are not specifically referred to in the surrounding text. Thus, they appear to be more decorative than scholarly/educational, as required by WP and the common law. See WP:FU.
    • That brings us to the second issue: there's not much intellectual content or musical depth in the treatment of their style, which raises the issue of comprehensiveness (1b). For better examples, see articles such as The Orb and Doolittle, both current nominations here.

The writing needs an audit throughout; here are random examples.

    • You could remove "In addition," from the lead.
    • En dashes in year ranges are typically not spaced. Ensure that the range is not italicised after an album name in a title.
    • "due to Black being cast in Peter Jackson's big budget remake"—Awkward and, indeed, ungrammatical. "Because"?
    • Unsure that "reprising" is correctly used.
    • Sloppy wording: "Dave Grohl was once again called to be the drummer, and further lent vocals to "Beelzeboss (The Final Showdown)" as well as acting in the film, reprising the role that he played in the Tribute video as the Demon." "Called ON"? Can "further" be removed? Perhaps split the sentence into two, which will allow you to get rid of the "as well as".

Oh, and yes, plastering those green ticks all over the place might make nominators feel good, but it doesn't impress reviewers one bit. We just pough on regardless, looking for cogent responses and evidence of wider efforts to improve the article on the basis of our comments. Tony

  • Oppose
    • The prose is a little too adoring in places to be considered neutral. The article should be edited for tone by someone who is not a fan of the band. Some examples are uses of the phrases "Gass' (sic) skill in playing the acoustic guitar", "absurd and humorous sketches", etc.
    • Reading the article, it seems like many anecdotes and quotes are called out to illustrate that the band is "funny" but they are not necessarily encyclopedic. Examples are "Black says this is because foreign concerts are "a little funky" because "the subtleties (sic) do get lost in translation." and "There's also something funny about the macho-ness of rock. Like the bands that are the fucking hardest rocking are like, 'We'll fucking kick your ass, dude. . . with our rock.'"
    • There are actually a lot of typos and grammatic oddities in the article - there are two just in the quotes I used above. The article needs to be copyedited. --Mus Musculus 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Alizée

edit

The article is currently a GA, and has been further polished and refined since it has become a Good Article. As it stands, its in a pretty stable state, and IMO, it is ready to be an FA. It is fairle extensively referenced and contains all-round information regarding the subject - including prose about her career, critical and mass reception as well as lists to summarize information where necessary. --soum (0_o) 04:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In general
Overall I think that the lead section does a good job in establishing context and it introduces the headlines, as WP:LEAD prescribes. I don't see the real need of expanding the lead section too much, since WP:LEAD also suggests to "avoid lengthy paragraphs". Myself, I have written the Alizée Jacotey section of the Alizée Search article. In that paragraph I also tried to match the criteria of WP:LEAD for an Alizée article. Maybe it would a good idea to take a look at it and blend the current lead section with that Alizée Jacotey section. For example:
  • One of the things that could be more emphasised is the criterion of WP:LEAD "explaining why the subject is interesting or notable" by adding that Alizée was "highest-selling female French singer in 2001" (with the citation).
  • to be more factual and precise by adding that Laurent Boutonnat composed and Mylène Farmer wrote her music instead of using the word "collaborating" and adding her supposed return in "2007" instead of "soon", because that was the actual "unofficial news".
  • Your idea on rewording the 2nd para on the lines of Alizee Search seems like a good idea. Since the actual chronology of releases is described later, it makes better sense to not follow the same sequence here. Starting with the albums first and delving into notable singles does a better job of capturing the essence in a summary (which is what the lead section is for). And yes, mentioning sales stats is a good idea. --soum (0_o) 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific comments on the current lead section
1st paragraph
2nd sentence:
  • Is it that important that she is a "daughter of a computer scientist and a businesswoman" to mention that in the 2nd sentence? That would be something one would expect in the early years or personal life section.
  • It says that her dad is a "computer scientist". One would expect a scientist to work at a university, but the university of corse (http://www.univ-corse.fr) does not have a (former-) employee named "Jacotey" to my knowledge. I know that one of the sources is Alizée Fan Page (http://www.alizee-fanpage.com/page.php?language=en&content=bio) and www.moi-alizee.com seems to be their source. Their french section (http://www.alizee-fanpage.com/page.php?language=fr&content=bio) however says "informaticien", which means "informatician". Could someone clarify this point.
  • Her mom seems to have quited her job temporily to support Alizée. Would that be interesting to add? And does anyone have a citation for that?
5th sentence:
  • Wouldn't it be better to specify "outside" France.
6th sentence:
  • something seems to be missing here.
  • Is it factual enough for the lead section to mention that Alizée is supposed to have "struck out on her own".
2nd paragraph
1st sentence:
  • Wouldn't it be better to specify "elsewhere"?
  • How can it be done without an information overload by a long list of countries. I think it should be retained as is. If details are needed, a quick look at the tables will give interested readers the details they seek. --soum (0_o) 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5th sentence:
  • Wouldn't it be better to specify "quite successful"?
6th sentence:
  • To my knowledge the "Alizée en Concert" tour also toured through Belgium and Switzerland. Is that right?
7th sentence:
  • Her marriage is subject to controversy. Is her marriage in Las Vegas for example legally valid in France? Wouldn't it be better to just say that she got a daughter together with Jérémy.
  • Legally, marriage is just a registration. And registration is no big deal - who knows they moght have sneaked into some registration office and got registered. However, the social connotation attached with it is quite different - once married, people stay married (until they head for splitsville) - regadless of where they are. As such, I think we do not need to go into the legalese and go with the social connotation of the term. Since, there is no source justifying the controversy, I think we should not tread into it. --soum (0_o) 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8th sentence:
  • Wouldn't it be better to change marriage into parenthood here too?
  • language: Wouldn't it be better to formulate it as "Since her parenthood, she has been taking...". The word "Since" implies already "presently", isn't it?
  • Is the word "slated" used here correctly?
  • I would prefer "Since the completion of her tour..." Also, "slated" means "designated to" (which meand "pointed out") which I think is quite okay with the context. --soum (0_o) 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made the changes discussed here. --soum (0_o) 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it, particularly unidiomatic wordings. Please network among WPians who've successfully worked on similar articles. Here are a few random examples of problems in the writing. (Please don’t just fix these examples.)
    • "were hits in France and outside"—no, "and elsewhere".
    • "It was a success both in France and abroad — after it had its international launch in 2001 — earning her the distinction of being the highest selling female French singer in 2001."—I find the em dashes a little sharp here: commas instead?
    • "fall of 2003"—No good for southern hemisphere; see MoS.
    • "Since her marriage, she is presently taking a break"—Tense is wrong.
    • "Also known by her nickname Lili, Alizée started dancing early in her life.[6] By the age of four, she became quite proficient in it. "—Uncomfortable merging of different ideas in the first sentence. "in it" is stubby.
    • "she won a coloring competition ... Her design won first prize"—Same thing?
    • " a former French airline now partly acquired by Swissair"—Is this relevant?
    • "the "Meilleure Graine" award for most promising young singing star of tomorrow"—"the" is missing. "of tomorrow" is odd (if it's in the title, please express it as a title). Tony 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little better, but I'm not thrilled. In particular, there are lots of stubby paragraphs, giving a choppy feel to the article. This is not helped by the small size of some of the subsections. Tony 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Pinkham Notch

edit

previous FAC

  • Self-nomination This article is well written, completely cited, and provides great coverage of an area of wikipedia that is usually not very well covered. It narrowly missed FA status last time (see archived above), but has been edited, improved, and peer reviewed, and I believe is ready to be promoted. Thanks. -- Sturgeonman 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose—1a. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it. Please network among WPians who've successfully worked on similar articles. Here are a few random examples of loose, unclear wording.
    • First sentence: "is a mountain pass located in the White Mountains of north-central New Hampshire, United States"—Remove "located", here and elsewhere. The absence of "the" before US is a problem. Try "the US state of New Hampshire". Worth fixing in this exposed position.
    • "Due to the volatility of the area's climate and its rugged character"—The rugged character of the climate?
    • "4,000 feet"—Metric equivalent, please. "Ft" and "feet" are sprinkled inconsistently.
    • "the slopes drop very steeply, but not precipitously"—Remove "very".
    • The first occurrence of "col" needs to be linked.
    • "The climate, and as a result, the flora and fauna, of Pinkham Notch varies greatly with elevation. As elevations increase on the walls of the notch, climate and ecosystems change to those of increasingly northern occurrence. Biomes range from a low-elevation northern hardwood forest at the base of Mount Washington to alpine-arctic vegetation near the summit usually found at the latitude of Labrador.[10]"—Probably "vary" is better. Do you need "greatly"? So many amplifications tend to bleach the statements. "Those" could refer to a number of nominals. "Northern occurrence" is a problem; isn't there a more technical word, such as "aspect"? What is usually found at the latitude of L? The vegetation, the summit? Tony 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Compass and straightedge constructions

edit

I think it is a very good article Tomer T 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Virtually no inline citations.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not adequately referenced. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, fails 1c. PhoenixTwo 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, refs. Sumoeagle179 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, again, no references. — Wenli 00:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nice article and certainly something that can be built around. However, as mentionned above, citations are needed although a lot of this is pretty much common knowledge in the mathematics community and should be easy to reference from various well-respected textbooks. I do have a few other remarks which will require a bit more work and I'm afraid that this is the kind of subject where nothing short of the perfect article will do.
    • There should be more pictures and explanations about actual doable constructions (or they should at the very least be mentionned). There is an article on Constructible polygon but it's only linked to quite late. In any case, an article about elementary 2D geometry should have a few more pictures. They're actually easy to create and will help the reader tremendously.
    • There's not enough discussion on the history of the problem and simply saying that Wantzel solved the problem is shortchanging a lot of people.
    • Super-short sections should be expanded or merged elsewhere.
    • The doubling the cube summary should mention Archytas's construction and similar things.
    • The bit about origami is barely coherent and it's not clear that it has any relevance anyways.
    • I don't understand the word "neusis".
    • Prose could be tightened here and there. Many short paragraphs kill the flow of the article. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose article is week historically and lacks in details of imposibility proof. Ian Stewart' Galois Theory has a chapter on these imposibility proof using techniques on Galois Theory and he quote Klein's Famous Problems and other Monographs 1962 as a source for many of the extensions. --Salix alba (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - nice article and well written, but somewhat lacking examples. Give us more animated images! 91.65.1.78 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Amateur radio

edit

This article has gone through some extensive content editing and cleanup. It has a lot to offer: there are dozens of specialized, in-depth sub-articles that branch off from the main article. I think it's a great addition to WP and helps illuminate a little-known hobby enjoyed by thousands of people worldwide. -- LuckyLouie 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comments so far. I think many of the uncited statements in the article are the result of Wikipedian contributors who hold amateur licenses who may have felt that the statements are self-evident. Also many statements link to WP sub-articles that do cite sources. However, in order to meet WP:ATT the process of slogging through published FCC amateur regulations, ARRL publications, etc. to gather cites must be attended to. LuckyLouie 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just FCC and ARRL if you please. Wikipedia is an international site and amateur radio a thoroughly international hobby. --kingboyk 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (ex g0-something)[reply]
Good point. - LuckyLouie 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per above. Also ... Have a look at WP:MSH regarding section headings, which repeat the title. Expand all footnotes to include full biblio info; publisher, author and date where available, and last access date on all websources (see WP:CITE/ES). There's an External link in See also; see WP:GTL. Non-breaking hardspaces between numbers and units of measurement, per WP:MOSNUM; I did one as a sample. In the Newcomers section, you have a See also stuck in the middle of the prose. Keep at it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—The first para my eyes fell on is crying out for attribution:

"In some countries, however, amateur radio licensing is very bureaucratic (for example in India) or challenging because some applicants must undergo difficult security approval (as in Iran). Currently only the nations of Yemen and North Korea do not permit their citizens to operate amateur radio stations at all, although in both cases a few visiting foreign amateurs have been granted temporary operating authority."

Is it all like that? Tony 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This type of thing is likely submitted by well-meaning but WP-unfamiliar contributors who have read articles in technical magazines such as CQ Radio Amateur and QST where the international status of the hobby is often discussed. It can be sourced (and opinion removed) and so I have relocated it to the Talk page. Will work on it in my spare time. Again, thanks for all the suggestions! LuckyLouie 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Andre Agassi

edit

I nominated this because It's a very well written article and It should be on the front page. Derrty2033 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Insufficient inline citations - some are also not formatted correctly and are external jumps. Don't wikilink solo years like 1948, one sentence paragraphs are not "well-written", POV - "classic matches in this period, most notably against his old rival Pete Sampras and popular Australian Patrick Rafter", trivia section, and a Featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work - more then one picture is needed. M3tal H3ad 11:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even though I'd love to see an article about a male tennis player featured, I have to oppose per above. Nat91 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may want to withdraw this nomination, and put the article through a peer review and then nominate as a Good Article. Neither is required for featured articles, but those processes do help to get an article up to FA quality. As it is now, there are problems with the prose, citation-formating, and the number of citations/references (as noted above). -- Pastordavid 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1c. Aaron Bowen 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Dynasty Warriors 4

edit

I've been making a number of edits to this article over the past few weeks and I feel that it is close or at FA class now. If not I'm more than willing to make the necessary changes needed. Crimsonfox 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK..
  1. Consider adding at least other rating such as PEGI to the infobox.
  2. Reference 1 publisher should link to Gamespot, not the actual gamespot web page.
  3. This is a problem throughout many references, including neoseeker references. So avoid external links as the publisher. It should be KOEI.com not KOEI.com and GameZone Online not Gamezone.
  4. Unbold some of the external links, this is inappropriate according to WP:EL, I think.
  5. Also many external links just go to different parts of koei.com, consider having only one link to this. Try looking at other featured game articles for ideas.
  6. There's also an extra line above Music header, I don't know if this is intentional or not or an attempt to make the image placement better, but please remove it.
May do more thorough review when above is fixed.--The Negotiator 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick feedback. 1, 4 and 6 are done but I'm a little confused about 2/3. From all the FA's I've looked at the work field in the ref's is always an external link relevant to the source of the reference. If you could clear that up it would be great. Crimsonfox 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the publisher, it should never be an external link as the source provided is an external link, internal links are sometimes acceptable.--The Negotiator 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give an example that would be good. All the books/manuals do not have any links in them. Crimsonfox 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web sources is what I am talking about. The publisher name shouldn't be an external link even if they are called somegamesite.com. See above comments.--The Negotiator 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the web sources have publisher's on them. Only author(if applicable), source link, work line and retrieval date. Crimsonfox 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: I've only skimmed through the article, but I see some problems.
    • There is no Development section.
    • Writing needs a copy edit. I see use of the second person (you), which is a basic video game article mistake. Book titles and video game titles should be italicized. There are other issues beyond these — you need to find some editors who have not worked on the article to help copy edit.
Pagrashtak 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lots of problems after a brief glance:
  • Names of games should be in italics.
  • "PlayStation", not "Playstation".
  • Prose is very weak right now. Needs a major copyedit. For example, the article often refers to "you". Instead, it should say "the player".
  • More internal linking. Large sections of black text where internal links could reasonably be made.
  • "Story" should not be in caps in the headers ("Wei story", etc).
  • Anything known about development?
  • Publication dates needed in some of the refs. --- RockMFR 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a development section, admitently a small one but it's there to expand now. Sorted out a number of the problems mentioned as well. The major thing is the copyedit but I have sorted out the second person stuff. Again, thank you for the feedback, proving to be very useful. Crimsonfox 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Note: this FAC has been moved; you may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/archive4, which was originally at this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman

edit

Old nom

I have renominated this article for featured article status. A great deal of revision, research, and citation has been done since its last nomination in August of '06. BYT 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object A proper lead would not need 14 footnotes, it should be a summary of the body. Footnotes go after punctuation, not before, and with no space btwn the punctuation and the fn. The footnotes, especially the web ones, themselves are not properly formatted. See Gerald Ford. For a sample of ways to do it.Rlevse 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, web references are an absolute mess. Also, are that many external links needed? -Phoenix 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I partially take back the bit about the external references, Gerald Ford might have even more. In any event, It's not the determining factor for promotion here. -Phoenix 15:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed refs 105 and 106, which were inexplicably butchered, but you're right about the others.--Rmky87 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All it needs and that regard is {{Cite web}} or the equivalent formatting, as mentioned below. -Phoenix 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Okay -- thanks everyone, I'm withdrawing this again to work on implementing the good notes above. Much appreciated. BYT 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I think,personally, that it is perfect Featured Article material --j@5h+u15y@n 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Boudica

edit
former fac

Looks like it should be featured. Plenty of references, images, style seems clean. Just H 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Krypton

edit

Found this article and added references and brought it to GA. I would like to know if it is FA-class yet. Tarret 20:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG Oppose Lead is way to short, article isn't visually appealing, and the prose is anything but fabulous. For example, the section beginning with "There are 31 known isotopes of krypton.[9]" has 10 sentences and uses the "to be" verb 14 times. Finally, what does this article have to do with Superman ;-) Balloonman 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The size of the lead reflects the coverage of the whole article, which is very minimal. Check out Hydrogen to get an idea of what we're looking for. I don't intend to be mean, but the best way to determine if this article is "FA-class" yet is to bring it over to peer review. This keeps the backlog here down to a minimum (incidentally it boosts the backlog over there...but I think this one is more important ;-D). JHMM13 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opose Definitely not comprehensive, some sections are still stubs. ShadowHalo 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, the prose needs a workover (i.e. copyedit) - the english is clunky and doesn't flow well in places. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not near the standards as-of-yet, although Balloonman ALLCAPS response was a little on the uncivil side. No need to be blunt and offensive, editors often put a lot of work into an article and aren't aware of the shortcomings. Just list them and try to be civil. Aaron Bowen 13:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Moscone-Milk assassinations

edit

I am nominating this article because this event has a role in history and not a lot of people know about the assassinations that well and I think it shoul be featured. I also think it is written well and this article has had a peer review and has improved since the review. --Gndawydiak 07:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - you're right, it is an interesting topic and from a very brief skim the prose looked ok, but it needs a 2 para lead which summarises the article and more than 3 inline refs. I might get a chance to look at the prose later. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • .......actually, from looking at the prose it looks a little informal in places too. It would be great to get someone to give it a copyedit. I actually think it will require quite a bit of work to make it through this FA. Sorry....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Oppose. Not nearly ready. Basically uncited (in spite of a wealth of sources available), not comprehensive, and needs prose work. I suggest citing the article and then approaching WP:GAC. Then another peer review before approaching FAC again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure about recommending GAC Sandy? Some people have been waiting more than a month for their articles to be reviewed. Anyhow, this articles does need work, so I oppose. LuciferMorgan 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Appalachian School of Law

edit

I would like to nominate this article for featured status. I have expanded the article to cover its history, academic program, and facilities. As the school is young (now open for ten years), there are no notable alumni at this time. Feedback is appreciated. Chrisfortier 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD for a start. CloudNine 16:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sections are short and stubby. Many sections consist of 2-3 sentences, which need to be combined to make article flow better. I personally would combine the curriculum sections into one (you don't need a separate section for each year), make Campus have at most two subsections, and combine all of the student life sections. Article is fairly nicely written and cited properly, but seems a bit too short still, in my opinion, but they may just be because it is so young. Also, the lead contains information that cannot be found in the article such as the general profile of the school. A lead is supposed to summarize (i.e. not add new information). Anything in the lead should be able to be found later on in the article. I would definitely add a "Profile" section talking about the numbers ("numerous states"? how many is that? should replace with exact number) and also its perceived reputation from external metrics. -Bluedog423Talk 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Alfred Russel Wallace

edit

Great article Tomer T 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Over half of the citations come from one source, could you comment on why? --Ouro (blah blah) 12:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the person who nominated this article, but I have done much of the recent editing and I am the person responsible for all the citations to Slotten's biography of Wallace to which you refer. I have read a number of things on Wallace over the years (including the Quammen book), but the Slotten book was the one I had in my hands when I did the editing and it was a very high quality and comprehensive source so I cited it extensively both for new material I added and for material already in the article that lacked explicit citations. Most of this material could have come from a variety of sources, including the several of the references already listed for the article before I added the Slotten book to the list. I notice other editors have recently been using other sources so I expect this will become less of an issue shortly. Though I suspect Slotten's biography will always be prominent in the source list, because I used it to provide citations for so much of the information in the article that lacked explicit citation. I don't see that as much of a problem for a high quality source. I hope this information helps. Rusty Cashman 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for this, I suspected as much, but a clarification is always better than suspicions which may or may not be true. Tomer T has also in the past nominated articles with which he had nothing to do and later abandoned the noms (I don't know where this is written, but I believe the nominee is responsible for the nom and is to act on the reviewers' suggestions). If you say that Slotten is a high-quality source, then that's okay with me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the single source and Tomer T's past noms concerned me as well. Please complete the blue links in footnotes and references; websources should identify pulisher, have a last access date, and include author and date when available. You can follow examples WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will convert to using the cite templates when I have a chance. In general I don't know how responsive I will be to comments on this page at this time. It was my plan to obtain other sources (Amazon is shipping me one right now) and make another round of edits before deciding whether to nominate it for FA. Another editor seems to be in the process of making some improvements as well and I question if the article is stable enough to start the FA process. In my opinion the article as it currently stands is rated appropriately. I think it is a GA (which is why I took it through the GA nomination process) but FA would be a reach. If some other editor is willing to take it through the FA process I will be happy to help, but otherwise I am going to wait until both the article and myself are more ready, which probably means at least until after I finish my Taxes which are due April 15th here in the USA :) I will continue to check this page to see if there are more valuable suggestions I can use to improve the article at some point. Rusty Cashman 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, I don't think Raul will object to keeping this nomination longer than usual on the list. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clearly a good article, but not quite our best possible work. I mostly have nitpicks, but I have quite a number of them. Some tend to fall into a pattern, for example, clumsy sentences, that I suspect have other examples that I haven't listed completely.
    • Spacing issues - don't put a space between the punctuation and subsequent citation .<ref/> not . <ref/>
    • Do, however, put a space after the ref, such as in "vaccination.[49]In 1889"
    • Similarly be consistent with birth date parens "Herbert (1867-" but "William(1871-". I recommend the former.
    • "Wallace, inspired by the chronicles..., decided" - overcomplex. How about "Inspired by the chronicles..., Wallace decided"?
    • "In 1849...Herbert, who unfortunately died...". Clumsy, and we don't need to specify that it was unfortunate. How about "Wallace's brother Herbert joined them in 1849, but died ..."
    • "After twenty eight days at sea a cargo" - comma after sea
    • "the gliding tree frog Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, Wallace's flying frogs" - not quite coherent. Rn was also known as Wff? Singular frog or plural frogs?
    • The Malay Archipelago - if this was so important, why doesn't it have its own Wikipedia article?
    • In fact, I notice he wrote plenty of books which seem to have been important, and none have their own articles here. Why not?
    • non scientists such as the novelist Joseph Conrad who called it - comma after Conrad
    • by Richard Spruce a botanist and explorer - comma after Spruce
    • Wallace had previously (1864) been engaged ... dismay - a bit clumsy use of parens. Also needs a source ref. Just from autobio? Then at least give chapter and/or page.
    • "transmutation of species. He had come to this belief in part because he was always inclined to favor radical ideas in politics, religion and science." - Whoah! That's a bit of a stretch. "He voted for political party X, so he was naturally led into unrelated scientific belief Y"? Surely this wasn't a political issue that early? Isn't there a better way to say that?
    • Mount Santubong, Sarawak, - Wikilink. I see a link to Sarawak a few sentences later, link the first mention in each section.
    • was convinced by his biogeographical research of the reality of evolution. - clumsy, reorder. I recommend "was convinced of the reality of evolution by his biogeographical research."
    • Quotations shouldn't be in italic. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations or Template:Quotation (from WP:CITE).
    • it was while he was sick in bed with a fever on the island of Ternate, that he thought - can get rid of words "it was" and "that", without losing any meaning
    • 19th. - is the superscript and period really necessary? It stands out a bit
    • Warning coloration ... animal colouration - pick one spelling, with or without "u", and stick with it, please
    • before Darwin had publicly addressed the subject—though others had— - clumsy
    • raison d'être - wikilink, or rephrase into English
    • spirit.(Wallace, 1889); proposed in 2005 [1]. - pick one citation style only, please, you mostly use inline refs, fine, then stick to those
    • séances - wikilink
    • He would remain convinced that at least some such phenomena were genuine for the rest of his life - clumsy, rephrase, recommend "convinced for the rest of his life that at least..."
    • hypnosis then known as mesmerism - comma after hypnosis
    • Wallace had once briefly met Darwin - wikilink Darwin, first mention in a good while
    • Oceanic islands, such as the Galapagos and Hawaiian Islands ... Madagascar - wikilink
    • Lemurs - wikilink, and why capital L?
    • Looking Backward - italicize book title
    • in London, starting in 1836, he was exposed, mainly through - Rephrase much, much simpler. How, about, moving, some, of, those, commas, elsewhere?
    • land reform - wikilink
    • November 7, 1913; Nov 1, 1915; In November 1, 1915, - WP:DATE
    • a country house he called Old Orchard a decade earlier - Why did he stop calling it that? :-) Rephrase.
    • The New York Times - definitely italicize, probably wikilink
    • craters on Mars and the Moon - don't we have articles on them? If so, wikilink
    • it is amusing that - who says it's amusing? How about just stating the fact behind the irony, and let other people get or not get the joke, we don't need a laughtrack
    • Here is a more comprehensive list - Useful reference, but give it in a more formal style. "List of Wallace's writings", compiled by Sam Smith and Joe Jones, at Foobar.com, retrieved on April 1, 2006. See [[Template:Cite web}}
    • In fact the whole Key Publications section is questionable. What are these external links? To the text itself, to reviews, to cover photos? Say. If these are to the texts, are these public domain? If so, consider just copying them wholesale to Wikisource, that's what it's for, and guarantees they'll be there, and won't vanish when some third party web site goes down.
    • See also Australia-New Guinea - what? A reference to a whole continent? That should be pretty rare in a personal biography! (Possibly Christopher Columbus...) That is also a redirect to Australia (continent), and that article hardly mentions Wallace, except through Wallacea, which is a separate See also.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Yeah, the nitpicks are critical. I have to agree with the previous reviewer. The first sentence I looked at at random was "After returning eventually to England, Wallace spent the next eighteen months living in London."—Remove "eventually" and "living". Tony 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pressed for time now, so I'll come back tomorrow. I'll just add my own nit-pick – Wallace's school was not known as Richard Hale in his day, but as "Hertford Grammar School". For good measure, here's a link from the Natural History museum about his days there. — BillC talk 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed that one. Gandalf61 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)

edit

I was REALLY blown away by the quality of this article. I believe it easily qualifies for featured article status. I know there are some out there who be negative-nellies about virtually anything, but I defy even the most resolute doubter to find fault with this piece. IT IS REALLY REALLY GOOD. - Sue Rangell 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Weak Support'Strong SupportNeutral I'm an Eagle Scout and thus want to support this article. But there are few MINOR things I'd like to see improved. 1) The intro needs to be expanded. 2) More citations in the Emblem section. 3) I didn't like the section with the law/motto/etc. They are absolutely necessary, but I didn't like how they were presented. They weren't aesthetically pleasing/introduced.Balloonman 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
addressed 1 and 2, will work on 3 later.Rlevse 12:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done with 3, good input.Rlevse 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the changes that you made based upon the comments on my talk page, I am changing my vote to strong support.Balloonman 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to neutral per concerns about sources only coming from BSA... I don't believe that it is necassary to include the controversy of gay/athiest, but the sources should be...Balloonman 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to clarify again my issue with the sources which might help out here. The page uses scouting sources, both BSA and USSSP. This is the problem. You are relying on scouting organizations to represent scouting fairly and impartially. But their publications are going to have an interest in representing scouting in a positive light. That is why the page needs sources not published by organizations with a vested interest in scouting itself. Scholars who study scouting are more distanced from it and tend towards dispassionate investigations of scouting. Scouting literature, obviously, wants to present scouting in the best light. It is not that the page cannot use scouting literature at all. It must just be used very carefully and for specific sorts of information (such as what one must do to gain a badge) but other kinds of claims, such as whether or not scouting actually promotes the ideals it claims to in its literature requires sources indepedendent of the scouting world. Awadewit 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Needs more citations from printed sources--History Fan 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, don't like anyone to disagree, so just say their opinion is not valid. Good articles should draw on many source including printed. I guess not everyone can contribute to wiki then.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfan07 (talk • contribs)
    • Stop being so sensitive. You made an objection based on something not required; sources are required but being in hardcopy is not required. The article has several different sources, AT LEAST THREE (footnotes 4, 13, and 14), ARE HARDCOPY REFS, so your objection is even less valid. Several other footnotes, at least 3, 11, 12, and 16; are available in both web and hardcopy versions and the refs in total come from at least 10 different entities.Sumoeagle179 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The changes made by Rlevse per Balloonman's suggestions, esp the boxes on the side, are really nice. Very nice article.Sumoeagle179 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. though note I was a minor contributor. Gadget850's recent additions were excellent.Rlevse 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Thanks Randy- I really like the boxes for the Oath and Law- obviously we need to replicate that in the other articles. Life has been busy, but I found some time to get back to this. One big issue is the article name: Per the Language of Scouting, it probably should be Boy Scouting, not Boy Scouts. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. It just occurred to me that I never officially said that I support the page. (Even though it's obvious because I nominated it) So it's missing my contribution of bold letters. The recent upgrades are great, taking an already great page and making it REALLY super. I am proud to promote, nominate, and strongly support this page. I don't even want to guess at how many hours of work went into it, I hope all the contributers get barnstars. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In printed sources 13 and 14 I see no page numbers.--Yannismarou 09:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not going to bother to lodge an oppose on an article that obviously isn't ready yet, because the regular editors should know this article is nowhere near FA-worthy. As but one small example, can someone explain why Scout Motto isn't wiki linked ? If regular scouting editors allow this article to be promoted in this shape, I'm surprised.  :-) Sue Rangell also nominated Sonoma County, California for FAC, about here. If regular scouting editors want respect for their articles, I suggest they clean up this article, or oppose the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article needs more reliable sources and is far from comprehensive. The fact that it does not address the controversy of gay and atheist members at all but leaves that to an internal wikilink is astonishingly POV. Awadewit 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that is an issue for the Boy Scouts of America article, which does discuss it and links to the FA on Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, which was already in this article's See also section. This article is on the program not the association, please don't confuse the two.Rlevse 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply The lead begins Boy Scouting is one of the traditional membership divisions of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), part of the worldwide Scout movement. Available to boys ages ten through seventeen, it provides a program for community organizations that, along with Cub Scouting and Venturing, offers effective character, citizenship, and mental and personal fitness training for youth. - Because "boy scouting" is directly linked to the BSA this information must be included. Moreover, the page claims that "boy scouting . . . [is] [a]vailable to boys ages ten through seventeen." But, of course, if those boys are atheists or gay, then "boy scouting" is not available to them. This must be made clear. A link in the "See also" section is not enough. Awadewit 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just shoehorn it into this and the other membership articles. We will worry about keeping it synchronized later since it is going to creep all over the place. Given the edit history in the main BSA article, no one is reading the comment embedded in the section, so we will have to patrol it aggressively. We obviously need to reword the lead-in since "available" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that almost every source for this page is published by the BSA or Boy Scouts themselves. One would like to see some independent sources here to verify what the Boy Scouts are claiming about themselves. There are also scholarly works on the Boy Scouts. Why those are not cited here, I am not quite sure since wikipedia encourages the use of such sources whenever possible WP:ATT, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Awadewit 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only about half the references are from BSA sites or manuals. The U.S. Scouting Service Project is used for several references (and I can see where they have more)– it is not formally associated with the BSA. If you have any further references that pertain specifically to the Boy Scouting division, please let me know. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. Using references from associations themselves to prove information about those very associations has to be done extremely carefully. The Boy Scouts have an interest in representing themselves in a particular way in their literature as does the USSSP. Here are some books that I found in a quick search. There are obviously more books and articles available. Some of these books would allow the editors to historicize and contextualize boy scouting more. It has not always been the same and it arose out of a particular historical context.
  • Jay Mechling, On My Honor: Boy Scouts and the Making of American Youth, University of Chicago Press (2001)
  • M. Rosenthal, The Character Factory: Baden-Powell and the Origins of the Boy Scout Movement, Pantheon Books (1986)
This one is used in Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell- it is specifically a biography of B-P and history of The Scout Association.
  • R. H. MacDonald, Sons of the Empire: The Frontier and the Boy Scout Movement, 1890-1918, University of Toronto Press (1993)
Again, more oriented towards UK Scouting history.
At first glance, reviews of On My honor' made this one look like it belongs more in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, but it might just be worth a look. The last three are really about the history of UK Scouting. These last really are not relevant to the BSA Boy Scouting troop program, except as a historical reference of another national program. Some like material is in History of the Boy Scouts of America, another part of the BSA series. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On My Honor, from its table of contents, is clearly about more than just the controversy. Also, my point here is that there are reliable published works about scouting by scholars. If these books are not helpful, their bibliographies might lead you to more relevant material. Moreover, I found these sources in just five minutes of searching on google scholar. Imagine what a sustained search amongst various research tools by the editors of this article would elicit. Awadewit 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1a. The top of the article has a density of linguistic and logical problems that indicates the urgent need for thorough copy-editing throughout. Here are random examples. Please don't just fix these.
    • "The aims and methods of Boy Scouting are: ideals, patrols, outdoor programs, advancement, adult association, personal growth, leadership development and the uniform." This is a bizarre statement. Can "ideals" be aims? Advancement as an aim seems impossibly general. Is "the uniform" an aim or a method. "Adult association", for a cynical reader, might bring to mind the reputation for wrongdoing by the bad apples among scouting leaders. The colon seems unnecessary.
    • "The program had an estimated registration of 61,495 in 1911.[1] As of the end of 2005, the Boy Scout program was serving 879,789 Boy Scouts with 543,971 troop level leaders in 42,811 troops." "Troop level" should be hyphenated as a double epithet. "Registration" is compared with "serving"—is this intended to underline the growth of numbers historically? "Leaders" in "troops": huh?
    • "All members of the program are Scouts, youth are referred to as Boy Scouts and adults as Scouters." The comma is grammatically wrong; use a colon, semicolon or em dash.
    • The lead disintegrates into two stubby paragraphs at the end.
    • "Boy Scouts express their ideals through verbal statements of principles, which Scouts must memorize and understand. They also represent these ideals symbolically in official emblems." When are statements of principles not verbal?
    • "world-wide"—no hyphen. Tony 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the objection-bot, Tony, expects people to read his mind, towit: "copy-editing throughout...please don't fix just these." Sumoeagle179 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right—I'm not your free, private copy-editor; it's your responsibility, not mine. I function here to provide examples of why nominators need to get real about the standards of so-called "professional" writing if they want a gold star on their articles. Tony 21:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I didn't resort to name calling. You called me a "rude little nark" on your talk page and a "low-down little tic" on mine. Oh, and I'll edit any talk page I want.Sumoeagle179 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you were offensive on my talk page. Rather than droning on about me, why don't you spend time networking to locate good collaborators who might copy-edit with you? Tony 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason you keep droning on about me.Sumoeagle179 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rlevse, but this is not enough on "the rest". I've pointed out the density of issues at the top. I myself would need to persuade another copy-editor to go through it—someone with strategic distance from the text will have a great advantage over those who've worked on it already. Sorry to frustrate you, but "professional" standards of writing don't come easily, not to me, anyway. Tony 02:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I myself (please note redundancy for emphasis) spend endless hours working with students to improve their writing and thus am often dismayed at the level of writing on wikipedia, I would like to point out that Tony1 is advocating a specific style of prose. I have closely read (I prefer split infinitives - we are not writing in Latin) his extensive page on copyediting and style and if one were to follow all of his recommendations, one's prose would never be "brilliant" or "compelling." One's prose would be functional, mechanical and sparse. This is only one opinion of how prose is supposed to operate and I find Tony1's insistence that wikipedia editors follow his stylistic preferences (such as worldwide/world-wide) detrimental to the project at large. While he often has good points to make, his attitude that there is one single effective prose style is misguided (again, note that I am using redundancy for rhetorical effect here). Awadewit 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You start by seeking to make a cheap point about my continual comments about dysfunctional redundancy in FACs. "I myself" contains no redundancy, since the second word serves to mark the item, as you seem to point out. Please look up "world-wide"—I don't think you'll find it in a standard dictionary. To use this example to bolster your argument that I'm somehow "pushing" a specific style is self-serving nonsense. What I promote is efficient, crisp, plain, easy-to-read wording—nothing more, nothing less. Mostly, this coincides with my own stylistic preferences, but in significant ways, I draw a line between my own style and a more general, public style that has wide acceptance, or at least that is supported by logic. Thus, I strongly disagree with your assertions, which have have already been tried on this page to discredit reviewers. Tony 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a cheap point; it is a significant point. Style is tricky because much of it relies on personal preferences, as you yourself acknowledge. There is no "general, public style that has wide acceptance"; many grammar "rules" are not even hard and fast rules (as any grammar and style manual will tell you). Moreover, style is often not about logic at all, as you claim. Please do not conflate argumentation (which does rely on logic) with stylistic expression. (Also, the Oxford English Dictionary cites both "worldwide" and "world-wide" as acceptable spellings. Certainly, they would like to hear from you that "world-wide" is unacceptable and that they are not a standard dictionary.) Awadewit 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Style allegations aside, I have to disagree, Awadewit; I've never seen Tony object to a well-written article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have more personal experience with Tony1 than I have, but based on the evidence of his stylistic recommendations and copyediting suggestions, both here on FAC in the past week or so and in his own MOS, it is clear to me that Tony1 is pushing a personal style at the same time that he is trying to improve the quality of the writing on wikipedia. While I find his overall goal laudable, his attitude and tactics are undercutting that aim. I am sure that my FAs would not have passed his scrutiny although I know they are well-written (unlike the many editors who, in their defense, say "I am not an English major," I was an English major as an undergraduate and am working on a dissertation in English literature; as part of my training, I spend every day teaching undergraduates how to write). I, like Tony, have spent years improving my writing, but I have come to different conclusions regarding certain preferences (such as when to use commas or "additive terms"), but when critiquing the writing in an article, I try not to force those preferences on others. My writing, though it uses a different kind of "voice" than Tony1's, is not poor. Unfortunately, Tony1's rigidity and inflexibility, displayed in particular in the tone of his MOS and his comments to other reviewers, does not inspire other editors to improve their writing (as is evidenced here). I have found that suggestions demonstrating how a sentence or phrase could be improved are received far more gracefully that Tony1's comments. I agree with him that he does not have to copyedit every article that he reviews but editors are genuinely confused regarding their writing and it behooves Tony1 to suggest improvements for the problems he points out and to emphasize larger syntactical issues and diction problems than hyphens because editors perceive (rightly or wrongly) punctuation as an irrelevant part of their article. Both tact and tactics are relevant to improving the writing on wikipedia. Awadewit 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you know way more about prose than I do :-) My personal experience is that I can see when an article is poorly written, but I can't define why. Tony can; so can you. It's a hard thing to do, and I'm glad Tony does it. I don't believe he pushes his style, because he doesn't object when an article is well written. Tony's point is more often to give examples, and then suggest that nominators should seek out competent copyeditors before nominating a FAC (in defense of the Scouting Project, they didn't nom this article.) Do you think this article is well written? (Maybe it is now—it was quite discouraging when first nominated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just had another look; beginning with the title (which is still confusing), the article has problems. Here's another example: The Scout Sign is used when giving the Scout Law or the Scout Oath and as a signal for silence. The Scout Salute is used when saluting the flag of the United States. I wondered why Scout Sign wasn't wikilinked; turns out both redirect to Three-finger salute (Scouts). So, what's the difference, and why are they mentioned separately? The article isn't ready for FAC, and the Project editors have enough experience that they should know that; it wasn't nominated by them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sign and salute are similar, but not the same. I'll look into this part of the article.Rlevse 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, we didn't nom this, but I'm letting it run hoping to get constructive feedback, which has occurred. I did almost once remove it. I also am not that good at copyedit and of course it's even harder to ce stuff you've worked on yourself.Rlevse 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I haven't objected; I don't think you all deserve that, since you didn't nom it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse and I discussed removing it from FAC, but there were already a lot of comments, so we decided to let it run. There is a lot of good stuff here, and it will help get the other membership articles up. Regardless of FA status, it is a win situation if it makes the article better. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put it to everyone this way; I sometimes get more nitpicky with "in order" tos than Tony does! He is very fair with his critique, and he only objects if he disagrees with more than one or two things. He's not the type of editor to oppose if you have one case of the nasty word "utilize" or a couple instances of "whilst". — Deckiller 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Coronation Street

edit
previous FAC
FARC

This article has been given a massive reworking since it was demoted from Featured Article status in August 2006. Coronation Street has been fully remodelled, presenting the five main decades of the programme in sections of similar length and structure. The lead has also been heavily rewritten and lengthened as well as early sections being based around the background to the programme and its characters and characterisation. Most importantly, the article is now extremely well referenced from a very wide range of sources (print sources, video, DVD and Internet). Ben 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose images need revamping. I list the problems for each one:
  1. Main Image:Coronationstreet2004.jpg has evidence of a low quality JPEG filetype.
  2. No source for Image:Coronationstreet2004.jpg user created screen cap or taken from a website?
  3. No source for Image:Gail Potter 1975.jpg " "
  4. No fair use rationale for Image:Enaelsiefight.jpg
  5. Both Image:Enaelsiefight.jpg, Image:Valerie Barlow 1971 death.jpg and Image:Gail Potter 1975.jpg should be smaller to comply with fair use regulations
  6. Image:Deirdrekenfight.jpg needs to be smaller, source and fair use rationale
  7. Image:Bettabuy 1991.jpg needs to be reduced in size " "
  8. Image:Deirdresentdown.jpg rationale + smaller size
  9. Image:Karen Tracy 2004.jpg source? " "
  10. Image:Rosamund St Viaduct.jpg fu rationale needed
An external links section may also be useful for including additional links, not just the ones in the infobox.--The Negotiator 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I have addressed the problems raised with images, adding some newly created ones or creating similar ones which are fully sourced with adequate rationale. The external links section was removed because most were either superfluous or not advisable per WP:EL. Ben 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok:
  1. Image:Ena and Elsie 1965.jpg, Image:Deirdresentdown.jpg and Image:Valerie Barlow 1971 death.jpg still need to be resized down. Apart from that it looks like you've fixed most of the above.--The Negotiator 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reference 73 doesn't include access date & publisher.--The Negotiator 12:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Relies very heavily on http://www.corrie.net/about/who.html — a fan website. Also, references should be fully expanded so that all show publisher (many footnotes don't identify corrie.net as the publisher, and don't include full info last access date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have addressed most of the points raised about the references in the article. I must disagree when you state that the article "relies very heavily" on Corrie.net - there were seven references to the website in question out of just over 90 in total...somewhat outweighed? Three references remain to Corrie.net, one is from an interview with Coronation Street archivist and historian, Daran Little, which is atrributed to William Hadcroft, the other two are to information that I have a print source for but do not have to hand at the moment. BenC533
  • Oppose - 1a. Here are random examples from the top that indicate the need for a copy-edit throughout.
    • Redundant commas, such as before "in" in the first sentence, and "Between December 1960, and March 1961". Audit the whole text for this.
    • "Since its launch the programme has aired in many countries worldwide" - "in many countries" plus "worldwide" is awkward. Remove the first three words, unless it might have aired before its launch.
    • "The programme is also recognised as a drama serial" - if it's to be worded thus, we start to want a reference.
    • "Of the original cast, only one character remains today" - spot the redundant word.
    • "re-shape" - is it hyphenated? Tony 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Wild Arms

edit

Self-nom. After much editing and a complete re-write at the beginning of March, the Wild Arms article is looking quite good. It was originally my intention to get the article to featured status by late April, which would signify the series' 10th anniversary in English. A popular set of games in its own right, Wild Arms has a small yet loyal fan base who have supported the series vigorously throughout the past decade. This article details the first title that launched a successive media franchise across the world, and has become one of Sony Computer Entertainment's flagship role-playing game series. Currently at GA, the page has also undergone a peer review with all suggestions noted and corrected, as well as receiving several additions added since. The article has nowhere to go but up; any suggestions for improvement are welcome! Nall 06:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a few things I'm noticing while skimming through...
  • Second reference (the Everything2 one) - is Everything2 a reliable source? If it isn't, I don't think it would be too hard to source that fact.
I had seen Everything2 listed in other articles, and added it thinking it was appropriate. Upon review I found, nope, it's not! Thanks for the head-up. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more internal links in the Story section, if there is anything that makes sense to link. Up to your discretion.
Added some blue paint to that wall of text. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article still has some {{fact}} tags...
This particular fact was added and deleted quite a bit during editing. I was originally going to move it to the album page, but I clarified and sourced it here to avoid further conflicts. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Electronic Gaming Monthly give it that score? You've got a ton of text describe the numerical score, but nothing about the review text. The CVG project might be able to help find this.
  • Source with the IGN review, not the main IGN game page. Also add date and author.
Coulda sworn I did this earlier. Good catch. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the years link to the "year in gaming" articles. I know there is some kind of standard for this type of linking. Someone else should know.
The CVG Project "Release date" section says thus:

When adding wikilinks to the year the game was released, consider linking to the video game article of that year. For example, use 2007 instead of simply 2007. By following Manual of Style guidelines, try to avoid the surprise, e.g. use "Scramble was released in 1981" rather than "Scramble was released in 1981". Where a full date is known, link to the year itself rather than the year in video gaming, so that user date preference formatting can function correctly. For example, use September 13 2006 rather than September 13 2006.

I'll see what I can do about the reception section, thanks for the heads up about the print material. I've searched all over for a Famitsu score, but haven't been able to turn up anything, but in the meantime I'll see about giving that section the once-over. Nall 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adhering to this info, I made the appropriate changes, keeping single dates while changing the full ones.

Fixed up. Cleaned up about 1200kb of page size, too. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you made some changes to the article earlier, thanks for that. I'll look over the changes you suggested and report back soon. Hopefully I can dig up some info on the EGM score - If not, I'll make some accomodating changes to the section. I also meant to change that IGN link earlier, guess I just lost my edit when browsing other articles. The rest shouldn't be too hard, thanks. Nall 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The reception section is severely lacking. For a Japano-RPG, I'd expect at least one Japanese review to be cited (generally Famitsu). And the Gamepro review you cite is absolutely worthless, you'll see it was uploaded in 2000, years after the original game was released. I assume this was a quick fire overview review for its budget re-release, it really tells us nothing about the game. If you want some printed review sources, you could take a look at what's on offer in the WP:CVG/M project, User:Mitaphane has a review from issue 32 of Next Generation Magazine which he can scan you, and User:X201 has a review from issue 47 of Edge (magazine) if you ask. (It got 8/10 btw)
  • And that's not all, there needs to be some sort of commentary on how well it sold, where did it enter in the charts? How many units? Across which regions? I assume it did quite well given the sequels and spin offs that it has spawned, but there really needs to be some figures. - hahnchen 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. This is way below the required "professional" standards of writing. Here are examples from the top that show how urgently the entire text needs careful copy-editing. Please don't just fix these examples: network to find other collaborators.
    • The opening sentence is a doozler: "Wild Arms (Japanese:ワイルドアームズ,, "Wairudo Āmuzu") is a role-playing game developed by software company Media.Vision and originally released in Japan in 1996 for the Sony Playstation video game console and was later translated and released in North America in 1997 and Europe in 1998 by Sony Computer Entertainment." (1) It's a long snake that needs chopping up for the sake of our readers' digestive sytems. (2) It's seriously ungrammatical. (3) It's very blue; why are dictionary terms such as "software", and "Europe" and "North Americal" blued out (and below, "guns"—we do speak English)? The link-pages are hardly useful. (Good use of piped year links, though.)
    • Second sentence: "It is noteworthy for not only being one of the first role-playing video games on the PlayStation,[2] but one of the ...". Best not to tell our readers what to note, and in any case, all of the text in a lead should be noteworthy. The sentence is unfortunately complex in grammatical structure, and a little repetitive. Not a good way to engage us at the start.
    • Third sentence: "the adventures of a band of miscreants and adventures called Dream Chasers who scour the world"—What? (BTW, a comma is required after "Chasers", since it's not a subset.
    • Just below the lead: "as they progress through a number of environments, battle enemies, and solve puzzles"—Poor listing; this list is "1a and 1b, and 2", isn't it? In any case, how do they progress through battle enemies? Sounds as though they self-transform into enemas or digestive salts. Tony 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Mathematics

edit

Its already a GA (good article status) and rated A class from the Mathematics Wikiproject. Why is this still not a Featured Article? --Khunter 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of inline citations recently, bringing the total up to 20. Does it need still more, do you think? Rick Norwood 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JHMM13 nicely pointed out what I was hinting at below. PhoenixTwo 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's not about how many inline citations you have, it's about the proper amount of inline citations in a specific article. Right now, I see no evidence to verify many of the claims made in most of the history section, all of the inspiration... section, much of the mathematics as science section, etc. etc. Here's an example of text that sorely needs a citation and probably needs rewriting: "The case of Kurt Heegner's work shows that the mathematical establishment is neither infallible, nor unwilling to admit error in assessing 'amateur' work. And like astronomy, mathematics owes much to amateur contributors such as Fermat and Mersenne." You should refer this to peer review first. JHMM13 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Common misconceptions" section is probably too weak: little coherence and too much attention is given to pseudomathematics. The subsection on the connection with physical reality touches an interesting point (philosophy of mathematics) but its topic is similar with "mathematics as science", so they should probably be merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. Rick Norwood 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm puzzled by the use of the Rubik's cube image for abstract algebra. If anything, this should be used to illustrate group theory. Also, there seems to be a missing image for Geometry and for the subsection on applied mathematics. That one, by the way, should probably be split: there should be a subsection for probability theory and statistics with appropriate images. But overall the article is quite nice and I can see it becoming FA in the near future. Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And two other minor issues: the thumbnails of the images for trigonometry and differential geometry are very very pale (the curves are not thick enough and they are pale in colour). Also Philosophy of mathematics should be referenced as a main subarticle. Pascal.Tesson 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment: the "see also" list is a sign of the article's lack of comprehensiveness. There should be something in the article (at least a short paragraph) on the central role of mathematics in education (and competitions could be thrown in there). Moreover recreational mathematics and mathematical games should also appear in the body of the article. (for instance in the section on philosophy and aesthetics of mathematics). Pascal.Tesson 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object — Sorry to say this (because I enjoy mathematics as a field) but I find the writing on this page to be insufficiently compelling. As I read through the first few sections I keep tripping up in sections with awkward writing, which completely distracts me from enjoying the text. It needs a good editor to go through and polish up the sentences and paragraphs.
    • What does this mean? "Further steps need writing or some other system for recording numbers such as tallies or the knotted strings called quipu used by the Inca empire to store numerical data."
— RJH (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Clinical depression

edit

Nomination & Support --Shines8 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm afraid to say, nowhere near FA calibre. The presence of article-improvement templates and the recentish GA delisting should be signs that an FA nomination is unlikely to succeed. Areas of improvement for the article :

  • Many of the sections are single-paragraphs stubs where considerably more can be said
  • Significantly more inline citation is required
  • A number of sub-sections are basically POV and uncited: for instance, the more controversial of the suggested treatments will require balanced accounts.
  • Two sections are long lists. I think the 'symptoms' section justifies a list (even a long one): this seems to be the standard presentation of clinical symptoms (other users may disagree). However, the causes section needs to be written in prose.

I suggest this nomination is struck, these issues addressed, and it's submitted for GA and then peer review before renominating it here. Regards, The Land 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on many inline citations (now 50+); made some paragraphs into subsections, inorder to avoid it looking listy. --Shines8 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is too much work to be done on this article for listing it as FA. Many sentences need citations; entire sections have no inline citations whatsoever. It definitely needs expert review to bring it up to GA- or FA-level. Aleta 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The prose is not good - it is listy in places, too short of sub-sections in others. The number of citations are getting better, but I wonder if too many of them are from online sources rather than more reliable print references. I would suggest de-listing it here and getting a peer review, then working toward GA status. Those steps would help you get more input on getting this article toward FA-status. -- Pastordavid 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The overwhelming TOC is the first clue that the article needs further work. I suggest reviewing WP:MEDMOS as a means of organizing the sections better. The article doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT; books should be either in References or Further reading, and See also is overwhelming and should be minimized by incorporating articles into the text where appropriate. Sources are not formatted correctly, and aren't the highest quality sources which should be used for a medical article (refer to Tourette syndrome for an example of how to cite PubMed articles, and a clean TOC following MEDMOS and see the infobox on my userpage for a PMID template converter which will provide a citation for any PMID number). This article really could benefit from an extended stay at WP:PR, followed by an application for GA, followed by another extended peer review, before approaching FAC. Good luck; there are very few people on Wiki to help on psych-related articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

India national cricket team

edit

Has just had a PR. Made a few minor tweaks. With the world cup going on this seemed like as go a time as any. Buc 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - there is quite a lot of POV there and the history section, among others is not up to scratch. There is an extreme inbalance towards post 2000, and the 1960-1970s are hardly covered. All the politics etc, is also not covered properly. Indian cricket is quite hard to do properly, because there is so much political stuff going on, apart from just the cruicket. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment India and the World Cup aren't the best of friends at the moment. I think Indian cricket team being featured during the World Cup might rekindle the anger of numerous Indian supporters. :P 58.178.193.108 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Featuring a team which was kicked out at the first level doesn't make sense. Perhaps some other team, which played better? Also, the article isn't well balanced, and I agree with Blnguyen, post 2000 is overflowing (ironic,considering they havent done that well) while the politics aspect hasn't been looked at. Strong oppose, the article doesn't merit FA. xC | ☎ 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Idiomatic nuances are often wrong. Needs an audit throughout for redundant wording and commas. Please find a WPian who's unfamiliar with the text to go through the entire article; here are random examples of problems.
    • Title needs to be "IndiaN". See text within the article ...
    • "has continued to be highly ranked since then"—make it "has been highly ..."
    • "and was runners-up in 2003"—singular or plural?
    • "The current team contains many of the world's leading players"—Plainer is better: "has many.
    • "The team was ousted from the 2007 Cricket World Cup tournament in the group stages following an abysmal performance by the team."—Can the repetition at start and finish be avoided?
    • "After slow beginnings, the Parsis were eventually invited by the Europeans to play a match in 1877."—Plural beginnings is unidiomatic here. Remove "eventually"? Does "the Europeans" refer to the previously mentioned British, or do you need to fill us in on other Europeans who were present?
    • "Some of these, such as Ranjitsinhji and KS Duleepsinhji were greatly appreciated by"—second comma needed for nested phrase. Check commas throughout, please.
    • "in 1952[12] and later in the year"—the idiom is "later that year"; comma after [12].
    • "They continued their improvement throughout the early"—"to improve" would be idiomatic.
    • "India was not considerably strong"—unidiomatic; remove "considerably"?
    • "India suffered from lack of form and fitness from its older players"—not "from", but "in". Tony 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Peter Griffin

edit

Peter Griffin is a famous cartoon character. I think the article deserves to be featured. Best of all, it has no tags like POV, Cleanup, etc. TheBlazikenMaster 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are citations, but not inline citations Slof 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've noticed the article was hurting, namely, no concept and creation section as required for fictional characters, as you can see from FAs and GAs like Padme Amidala or, more comparable in the subject matter, Homer Simpson. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Blank the article. Start over. The "Peter did this, Peter did that, Peter did this, Peter is Catholic, Peter is Jewish, Peter is a homosexual, Peter has AIDS, Peter is a genius, Peter is an idiot, Peter has been in every situation imaginable" style of this article might be good for a fan wiki, but not here. Sorry. --- RockMFR 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The "blanking the article" comment was a little insensitive and extreme RockMFR, try to be a little considerate. It does need a lot of work the information is there, good job collecting it. It just needs to be sourced thoroughly and copyedited. After this FAC, you can try the League of Copyeditors after you source it. If you're in a hurry (they usually take months to get through an article) maybe you can just read other character articles that are highly ranked and compare the article against it and go from there. Quadzilla99 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know it was idiotic of me for nominating this so early. I know getting it into good article will take almost half a year, or more. I apologise everyone for my idicy of putting it up without going through the article first. TheBlazikenMaster 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This is nowhere near featured quality yet. The article goes way, way off-track with too much recapping of humorous events in episodes in order to establish trivial points, like "Peter can be sentimental at times, and also worried". In fact, the entire article consists of original analysis of Peter's character traits directly from the show, rather than based on published secondary sources: in other words, WP:OR is a problem. There may be a couple of references listed but I highly doubt they support much of the text, and without in-line citations it's not even clear what is claimed to be cited. Besides, two sources is not sufficient. The article's use of pictures stretches fair use too far - the pictures offer decoration but don't otherwise enhance the article. Image:PeterGriffin.jpg is listed as a TV screenshot but obviously is not, and none of the images have a fair use rationale, except the "too sexy for his fat" one, which has a bad, generic rationale that seems to imply it would be okay to use the image anywhere on Wikipedia relating to Family Guy. Also, the article is badly incomplete: remember, this is supposed to be an article about Peter Griffin, the character on a famous show, not a biography of the character. Who draws Peter Griffin? How has the character's portrayal changed over the course of the show? How was the character originally conceived, and by who? What has been the importance of Peter Griffin outside of the show? I wish luck to anyone willing to try to clean up this article: I'm very sympatehtic to the overwhelming force with which fans must be insterting more and more irrelevant cruft into the article. Mangojuicetalk 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Form IV: Ataru (Lightsaber combat)

edit

Its direct, referenced were it needs to be and well written. :-) --HadzTalk 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

edit
Peer review SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive2 which was originally at this page.

Self-nomination The Jerusalem article is comprehensive and very well-referenced, fulfilling all of the featured article criteria. Although there has been some controversy in the past about the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, the article has remained relatively quiet and stable, with objections being very rare. The article presents the city of Jerusalem in a neutral light with "brilliant" prose. The article does not use any fair-use images and it does not appear to violate any standards set forth by WikiProjects and Wikipedia in general. Before anyone gawks at the length shown when hitting the edit this page link, I would like to note that there are only about thirty-four kilobytes of readable prose; that is well within the "rule of thumb" established by Wikipedia:Article size. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, per the FAC instructions, you forgot to identify this as a self-nomination; you're the top contributor to the article according to page history stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into great detail about the unnecessary nature of the red text... I thought that instruction had been removed (and it really ought to be; it's not like it's my article and it shouldn't make a difference whether the nominator has worked on an FAC). -- tariqabjotu 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As flattering as that might be, it's only by number of edits, not by content. Almost all of those edits were reverts of vandalism. I've added very little content to the article. okedem 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting article on a great city. Some suggestions: "Sports" subsection should be pruned. Which clubs won in which year is not necessary in this article (years are important in individual club articles). You can simply delete the subsection, and include the names of popular sports and prominent clubs in a paragraph at the end of "Culture" (before the subsection "Religious subsection"). The short paragraph on "Israel Festival" may be merged with the upper paragraph, and a separate short paragraph on sports may be created.
It would be nice if some crime statistics are added in the "Demographics" section. The one-sentence paragraph on the use of "Jerusalem stone", why is that added in "climate"? Any impact of climate on the use of the stone?
I have a feeling that the article is over-wikilinked. Have had some talks with User:Tariqabjotu in this regard. Comments from other users would help in this matter. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the amount of links is fine (not over-linked). I don't think a reader should have to go back looking for a link, when he just wants some information about a specific subject (and so doesn't read the whole thing in one sitting). okedem 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the championship years from the Sports section, although I was a bit apprehensive about removing the sub-section altogether; it seems to go against the article structure established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I'll find some information on crime in Jerusalem a bit later (unless someone else gets to it first) and add crime as a sub-section under demographics. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to get around to this in about sixteen hours. I'm having trouble finding crime stats in English. I was able to find this page which seems to relate to crime statistics, but I don't know Hebrew. I'm can't seem to find the English translation and the search box on the English version of the Police website is not working. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are crime statistics, and they do have statistics for the different districts (like the Jerusalem district), but only in absolute numbers (like "number of murder cases"), not anything comparative (like "number of robberies per 1,000 residents"). Not very useful. okedem 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think starting the article with "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is the most npov way to handle the dispute over Jerusalems' status. As a suggestion, I point you to Encarta's intro for Jerusalem which I think handles it very well:
Jerusalem (Hebrew Yerushalayim; Arabic Al Quds), city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank, located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Jerusalem is composed of two distinct sections: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, which is inhabited almost entirely by Jews, has been part of Israel since Israel was established in 1948. East Jerusalem, which has a large Palestinian Arab population and recently constructed Jewish areas, was held by Jordan between 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967. During the war, East Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which has administered it since. Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city, and it contains sites sacred to all three religions. --A.Garnet 13:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to turn this into another "Capital of Israel" discussion, but concisely - Israel doesn't "claim" Jerusalem is its capital. Jerusalem is, de facto and de jure, its capital. It is the seat of government, parliament, supreme court, president's and PM's quarters. Israel has designated it as capital, and it serves as capital - thus it is capital. International recognition is not a prerequisite for a capital. okedem 14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a more than signficant part of the international community does not accept Israel administering East Jeursalem as part of its capital, therefore this is a significant political dispute, enough to warrant us handling the intro with a bit more sophistication (certainly for an FA). I believe there is nothing wrong with a similar intro to the Encarta suggestion I made above. --A.Garnet 14:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an age-old issue on this article. See Talk:Jerusalem/capital, Talk:Jerusalem#Capital of Israel, Talk:Jerusalem#Capital, "largest city" out of intro, Talk:Jerusalem#RfC, among other places. Take that as you wish. However, let me point you to the definition of capital. On Wikipedia capital and seat of government are two different articles, but they are essentially the same thing (the former article defines capital as the principal city or town associated with a country's government). According to Merriam-Webster, the capital is a city serving as a seat of government. Well, those definitions certainly apply here. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches for Israel are all located within the city of Jerusalem. There is a footnote attached to the statement in the first line. On this topic, I might advocate saying seat of government instead of capital or closing the gap between capital and the mention of the controversy. However, the very act of suggesting this could result in me being shunned from society. As usual. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of seat of government is a good alternative. What do you mean you will be "shunned from society" for suggesting this? --A.Garnet 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, one would see what boils down to we've discussed this before; now get over it. The problem is that this dispute has been muddied up by accusations that people advocating mentioning capital without qualification are pro-Israel, Jewish Zionists, etc., etc., whereas people against it are trying to make Jerusalem the capital of Palestine or are anti-Semitic, pro-Muslim, etc., etc. There have been times when this mud-slinging has been avoided (especially recently), but it's still a problem. I believe seat of government is the best way to keep the important fact in the intro without having to over-emphasize the controversy. In my opinion, it's neutral, but others see it as dancing around the topic. Note that prior to September 2006, "capital" was not mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Additionally, an RfC from January was inconclusive. -- tariqabjotu 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want this FAC to be reduced to a dispute over the intro, but imo, if there is a better more encylopedic alternative, then it should be used regardless of what people "want". Seat of government is an excellent alternative and I would support it. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other alternatives raised included saying "national capital" and linking to Positions on Jerusalem. That could be a reasonable idea as well since most people know what a "capital" is and so the link to Positions on Jerusalem might be more useful. If I remember correctly, okedem (talk · contribs) agreed with an intro that included that (see this section), although I'm unsure if (s)he was aware of that link. So for clarification the ideas proposed over the past six or seven months have included....
  1. Current phrasing.
  2. "capital", with link to Positions on Jerusalem
  3. seat of government, instead of capital
  4. Moving "capital" out of the first sentence
  5. Closing the gap between saying "capital" and mentioning the related controversy
To be honest, all I care about is getting this article featured. I can live with the current phrasing if most people are okay with it, but I get the feeling that that is not entirely the case. On a side note, however, I'd like to point out that, as far as I know, the "international community" has rejected Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as a form of punishment. In the same manner many Arab nations refuse to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation as a form of punishment (for what...?), much of the international community refuses to accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- even though it is -- due to the annexation of East Jerusalem (against some UN resolution somewhere, I believe). I think we may have trouble with the first sentence of this article being used in a Today's Featured Article Main Page blurb, as some important information is missing, but the footnote should suffice here. The expectation that someone would at least read the entire introduction (which does mention the controversy) is not unreasonable. Additionally, the statement by itself that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is not incorrect. So again, I'm okay with the current wording, but okay if a great number of people see it as problematic. -- tariqabjotu 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting a compromise here, I added seat of government, without removing "capital", to emphasize the correctness of the term capital. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on this is: We shouldn't use any phrasing which does not include the word "capital", since that's simply evasive. We use the word capital for every other capital city in the world, and Jerusalem shouldn't be any different. We should state the fact that it is capital, and it should be in the first sentence, as it is a major function. Despite all objections, going by the definition for "capital", Jerusalem is one.
Linking to "Positions..." seems like a good idea.
Is there a difference between "capital" and "national capital"? okedem 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a difference between "capital" and "national capital". -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how to close the gap between "capital", and the controversy, since that's a whole paragraph, and I don't want to flatten the issue to just a few words (like "its status is disputed"), when we can be far more informative. Honestly, I think the current phrasing is the best possible. I know the "capital" issue bothers many people, but it's just stating the facts, not saying that it's okay or anything. okedem 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current wording is probably the best possible. I definitely believe that any Main Page blurb that mentions capital should link to Positions on Jerusalem since the footnote, for obvious reasons, cannot be put on the Main Page. But, on placing the link in the article itself, I'm indifferent; we may have done enough already. -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about stating "...capital, as claimed by Israeli law..." (with footnote, of course).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. I say this again - by any common definition of the word "capital", Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It's not claimed, it just is, regardless of how right or internationally recognized it might be. okedem 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont find your position constructive okedem, you do not seem willing to accept anything that does not introduce Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, regardless of its internationally disputed status. Put simply, we cannot introduce Jeursalem on the front page of Wikipedia in front of 2m+ people as the capital of Israel, not when that capital entails the administration of an occupied part of the city whoses status remains unclear and the centre of much political debate. This is very simple, the solution is very simple as has been shown by myself and Tariq's suggestion. Now imo if this solution cannot be implemented because it will risk edit warring, and we must rely on a pov wording open to controversy, then this article is not stable enough to warrant FA status (which is a shame because the rest of the article is very good). --A.Garnet 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to address my point. A capital is a simple term, and it has a definition, which you can find in any dictionary and encyclopedia. Following that definition, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Writing it any other way would distort the truth, and mislead the readers. It's current status and function as capital is reality, and not open to debate. Whether it should be under Israel's control, whether it's just and legal - that's another thing.
The controversy is handled well in the last paragraph of the lead. For the front page we can use something like this:
"Jerusalem ... is Israel's capital, and largest city (though its legal status is disputed, see Positions on Jerusalem)...". okedem 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<- (de-intent) Exactly. The Main Page blurb does not have to be the first paragraph of the article. Additionally, a suitable Main Page blurb is not a pre-requisite for featured article status. The threat of preventing featured status from being granted is not constructive at all. -- tariqabjotu 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I have made no threat in preventing this from reaching FA. I have said on the contrary that I would support your earlier suggestion and that the article is very good. For me however, no reputable encylopedia would begin an article on Jerusalem stating it as Israel's capital unless explained within the greater conflict. I'll leave this for other editors to comment lest you think I have some kind of interest in preventing this from reaching FA. --A.Garnet 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where I should put this comment, but here willdo: Just want to say that the point in the sentence about Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital not being recognised by the UN is irrelevant - recognition of capitals (any capitals) is a bilateral matter between governments. If you want to make the point I think you're trying to make, you need to say something about the number of countries that have located their embassies in Jerusalem (not many). PiCo 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Demographics" would be comprehensive with coverage of population density, literacy, sex ratio etc. Crime scenario is not that important. Languages spoken should be mentioned.
  • "Culture" Can we have something on the cuisine, dress (clothing)? Any indigenous sports? Any products unique to Jerusalem which are probably sold in some alleyways in the Old City (just guessing :)).
  • "Economy" What is the primary source of income? Tourism or service sector? Or may be both are equally contributive.

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps some of the information under Demographics would be nice, but I want to warn you that those statistics may be difficult to find. As those pieces are tailored to the Indian city Wikiproject, I have a feeling they are easy to find in India's census. The same might not be true for Israel and Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Ok, if data is not available, then of course that cannot be added. Please have a try. And what about the cultural bits like clothing and cuisine etc?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try this, this, and related documents. How did they generate the data here? Here is a book. Someone may find it in some library. However, IMO, data is really hard to get. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to say data is really hard to get? If you meant really easy... um... I have been doing some searching and found very little prior to posting the comment above. Regardless, the first couple of sources look good. The book does not look like something that could be found in a standard library. Regarding the link in the middle, I stumbled upon that earlier but was dismayed that the stats included the West Bank and Gaza. If I remember correctly (from online sources I mean), the last census was in 1995. I'll try to find that and also look for later estimates, since 1995 information is a bit outdated. -- tariqabjotu 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the things I added today to "demographics" and "economy"? The CBS has some good data. okedem 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; I'll take a look at those. I'll be out of town until Sunday night (~ 00:00 UTC Monday). I may have Internet access while I'm away, but I cannot guarantee that. During that time, feel free (as always) to improve the article. -- tariqabjotu 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I really did mean that data is really hard to get. I did some search, and presumed you might have done much more extensive search than what I did. I must clarify that I did not make any sarcastic comment. I am only trying so that the article becomes even more comprehensive. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Its very very well done. Its very well cited, and I'm highly impressed with this article Max 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object switched to "support", see below. The fact that a large part of the city lies in the occupied territories should be explicitly mentioned in the introduction, as that is a central topic of debate, not only relating to Jerusalem itself but also to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a whole. The statement from the introduction Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem has been particularly controversial, as Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state is not explicit enough. Given that even "occupied territories" is a hotly debated term it may be difficult to find a suitably NPOV way of phrasing it, but nevertheless it's a very important fact and must not be weaseled around. Kosebamse 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your objection. The issue is mentioned right there in the lead, and is not "weaseled around". Do you want it to be phrased differently? Make a suggestion, then. The issue is also handled in "History-->The state of Israel", and the whole section of "Government". okedem 11:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it "mentioned right there in the lead"? The only reference that I can find is the sentence that I cited and that is IMO not sufficient. There is no link there to the capture of East Jerusalem in 1967, to the law that formalised the annexation, or to the occupied territories in general. I am thinking of an explicit phrase along the lines of "situated partially in the occupied territories of West Bank (see also Jerusalem Law and Positions on Jerusalem)". I certainly would not insist on a particular way of phrasing it, but the matter should not be mentioned en passant and without a relevant link or two. Kosebamse 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC), amended 12:53, 12 April 2007[reply]
    I have made a suggestion on Talk:Jerusalem. Kosebamse 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter has been discussed on Talk:Jerusalem, new phrasing is better IMO, retracting my objection. Kosebamse 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Overall, a well written, neutral and comprehensive article. (Note: I have made another suggestion for improvement on the talk page. )Kosebamse 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good, in depth article that presents Jerusalem with as much of an NPOV as I have seen on Israel pages. --יהושועEric 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An inordinate amount of time and effort has been invested in this article, more than in many other FAs. nadav 10:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. Just to start, what hits you in the face is the point of departure: it frames J entirely in Isreali terms, rather than taking a broad, historical sweep, and then providing the detail. Propriety is too hot an issue to take that line at the top. It's not good enough to put the disclaimers further down in the lead. The ambiguous (some would say "rich and complex") status of the city in political terms should be respected at the point of departure. I see now that similar issues have been raised above. The point of departure bias appears to be repeated on a smaller scale in lists in the lead. I think it needs to make more effort to acknowledge the Moslem view. I have absolutely no religious affiliations, and I have no interest in prioritising race and culture; quite the opposite. Tony 02:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"frames J entirely in Isreali terms"? I think that is an exaggeration. We can all agree that NPOV is a priority for this article, but obviously we must mention in the first sentence the country where (most) of the city is located. In future, the east side will hopefully be the capital of Palestine, but there is no reason to omit that it is Israel's capital/seat of government already (and will continue to be, according to the Oslo accords). It would be unprecedented and unencyclopedic to bury the current status after a long history section. For that topic, we have History of Jerusalem. nadav 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Look at other articles about cities with long histories - they necessarily focus on modern times, and leave most of the history to another article. There's no way to avoid "framing Jerusalem in Israeli terms" - It's under Israel's control, has been for 59 years (west) and 40 years (east). It's populated by Israeli citizens, and is the nation's capital, housing all branches of government. It's an Israeli city, for better or worse. Of course, if you (Tony) have specific suggestions - please express them on the talk page. okedem 09:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other cities with long histories? Like ... London or Paris, or Beijing? They are not the subject of bitter disputes over sovereignty. I'm not suggesting that the Israeli hold over the city be ignored in the article, or even in the lead. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that this claim not be framed as the starting point, and that rather a sense of the long, rich, multicultural history of the city be the theme in the opening paragraph, followed by a careful account, from a NPOV stance, of the current geopolitical status. Otherwise, WP might be seen to repeat in its text one of the adversarial perspectives that may be fuelling the real-life conflict. To achieve NPOV in this article, as I stated above, is a difficult task, although achievable, I think, with greater sensitivity to the major groups that lay claim to such sovereignty than is conveyed by the current opening. A special treatment is required; pointing to the structure, tone and content of articles on Moscow or Delhi, IMV, misses the point; Jerusalem is like no other city.

I must reiterate that I mean no ill-will to any religion or cultural group in my recommendation that a more balanced opening be developed. My only concern is to ensure that WP's worldwide reputation for balance is not put at the slightest risk by a gold-star endorsement of the opening wording. Tony 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse the legality of Israel's claim over the city with the reality of it. Jerusalem, regardless of international perspective, is under Israel's full control, and has been for a long time now. It is an Israeli city, and that's the fact today. There's serious controversy over its future, sure, but that is handled in the article right now. The only sovereign entity there is Israel, even if other group want sovereignty too.
I can't really say anything more - if you'd like to make specific suggestions, I'd be glad to discuss them with you, and I'm sure the other editors would too. okedem 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that the article currently does confuse those two concepts. Tony 11:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's wrong to skirt the issue by placing the current status after a long history section. I do, however, see a compromise. We keep the current first sentence, but move up to the second sentence the statement "Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state" which now appears towards the bottom. Reactions? (We should probably move this discussion to Talk:Jerusalem by now). nadav 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is as NPOV as possible satisfying both sides. A great article and thoroughly fascinating Flymeoutofhere 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The lead is simply unacceptable, as it does not adequately summarize the article. It has no word on history, only on religion and geography. The reader will never learn that Jerusalem is first and foremost the holiest city in Judaism. Now the article jumbles together Jerusalem's role in Judaism, which is immense, and the fact that the city was Muhammad's first direction of prayer, a minor and insignificant fact, which was only the case for a very brief time period. Beit Or 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Did you miss this sentence: "Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE."?
I don't pertain to know much about Islam, but Jerusalem is considered holy to Muslims, and that's a fact. The lead doesn't talk about the reason, and says nothing about direction of prayer (besides, isn't Jerusalem where Muhammad is believed to have ascended to the heavens from?). What would you like to add about history? We can add a paragraph summarizing the history section. okedem 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is such a sentence, but its buried after the completely misleading claim "Jerusalem is considered important to the three major Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." The lead does mention Muhammad's direction of prayer despite the extremley low importance of this fact; please read carefully. Beit Or 18:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem is holy to Christians and Muslims only because it is the holy city of Judaism, to which the other religions are styled as successor traditions. I am not aware that Jerusalem, unlike Mecca, Medina, Najaf or Karbala, has ever played any practical role in Islam, either related to the discharge of religious duties or as a center of administration, excepting seventeen months during which it was the direction of prayer for a few hundred people who had never visited the city.Proabivouac 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. The Night of Ascension is exclusive to Islam and the crucifixion of Jesus is insignificant in Judaism. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Tariqabjotu. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that "Jerusalem is holy to Christians and Muslims only because it is the holy city of Judaism". --Agha Nader 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, simply because the article - like the city, it sadly seems - will never be entirely stable, and will never be free of NPOV arguments and partisanship. Featuring it will invite more strife and discord, and that's precisely something we don't need on this topic. This may very well be the best-written article in WP; but the underlying topic is simply too controversial to showcase it. My apologies on all those who have worked hard on it - my view should not discount your efforts and accomplishments. --Leifern 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This objection is not actionable and can be disregarded. (Rule of thumb: most any objection containing the phrase "this article can never be a featured article beccause..." is inactionable) Raul654 03:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how I could address this. Many changes are being made according to statements on this FAC and the talk page or in attempts to fight vandalism, but that does not make the article unstable. Objecting to granting featured status on the basis that doing so might lead to "strife and discord" does not seem to be reasonable. If there is a problem with the article as it currently is, please raise the matter. However, if your objection is based solely on conjecture (i.e. "what could happen"), there's no decent objection here. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, look at the discussion that's resulting from the nomination itself. For some people, anything that gives Jerusalem any amount of legitimacy as Israel's capital or even a holy city for Jews is unacceptable; for others, efforts to deprive Israel of its sovereign right to choose its own capital is reprehensible. You can't bridge those two views in an article. --Leifern 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I beg to differ on that last point. A compromise seems possible here as people from both sides of the aisle (if there is an aisle) seem to have converged upon Talk:Jerusalem#Compromise. Ultimately at the end of the day, some of the objections may just be out of line. Everyone is free to voice his or her opinion, but no one is bound to accept it as correct when that's just not the case. -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I must concur with Beit Or regarding the lead. It is certainly appropriate to mention Jerusalem's secondary role in Christianity and even more minor role in Islam, but to treat these as mirror images of or somehow analogous to Judaism's singular focus on Jerusalem, which appears to have been quite consciously done at several turns, constitutes undue weight. A greater emphasis on history in the lead will also help address this problem.Proabivouac 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please assume good faith - we're all working for a better article here.
Look at it another way - Judaism is a minor religion, with a few million believers. Islam and Christianity have, combined, billions of believers. Thus, even a relatively minor role is one of them can be viewed as very important.
Look. We can all argue about what weight to give each thing, and we'll never be completely pleased. We can't make the lead long enough to include everything, and we don't want to leave things out. Instead of calling out what you think is wrong, why not suggest a better way to phrase things? Please try. The talk page is right there, waiting for you. okedem 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to concur with Okedem on this; I don't see the problem. Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE seems to cover the matter. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I still do not agree with the current wording of the introduction. It's status as capital should be explained within the context of the conflict, not stated as fact in the first sentence. I have already said however that i'd agree with "seat of government" and the capital dispute explained further below. --A.Garnet 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have explained why "capital" should remain, given that Jerusalem fulfills the definition of capital, which can be found in any dictionary or encyclopedia, and does not include any demand for international recognition. Saying anything other than "capital" would distort reality, and mislead the readers. okedem 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine for almost every other city; but not for this one. On one side, yes, J does fulfil that definition, but it's a disputed definition. That is why POV cannot be satisfied by privileging that statement. The order in which the participating cultures/religions are treated, on the largest and the smallest levels, should also be varied during the article, to give a sense of even-handedness. Tony 22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try not to over-politicize the lead; it simply states the facts as they are. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gobsmacked that you can't see that the current wording is highly politicised. That's why people are raising POV here. BTW, Object (Cautious withdrawal of object) until the issues are fixed. Tony 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing "politicizing" it is your attempt to claim that simple facts are "political". Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, everyone agrees that as of now all of Jerusalem is controlled by Israel. That is not the point. The argument is that the question of what Jerusalem's status should be is so very controversial that mention of it should already be mentioned in the very beginning. Encyclopedists have struggled with this issue before. Encarta devotes its entire first paragraph to this controversy. What do you think of the compromise on the talk page? nadav 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a fact that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel; it is also de facto and de jure Israel's capital. The U.N. has no input into which cities countries elect as their capital, nor do other countries. To insist that basic facts cannot be stated because of Palestinian wish lists and demands is fairly absurd. Shall we also say that Tel Aviv is not an Israeli city, because Hamas insists that it too is "occupied Palestinian land"? Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, I would never say that. Instead we should give more weight to the question of future status by adding text on Palestinian claims, while keeping fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. nadav 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a disputed definition"? Disputed by who? Can you find any definition of "capital" which has a requirement for international recognition? All definitions I found are basically this: "a city is the capital if it's designated as such, and/or if it's the seat of government." Jerusalem fulfills both these terms, so, obviously, it's the capital of Israel. Capital describes a reality, and shouldn't be bent to political claims. okedem 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am very saddened by the turn this discussion is taking. Editors have worked so hard on this article and it has been years in development. FA status would have been a remarkable statement that even on tough issues with entrenched POV's, compromise is still possible and an excellent article can exist on Wikipedia. Perhaps I was too optimistic. It seems people are too unwilling to work together and accept compromises that achieve a higher goal. (I don't want to ponder the political implications.) It will be sad indeed if Leifern's objection is proved correct. nadav 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding lead I have made a few changes to the intro. Please review and comment either here or on the talk page -- wherever you feel is more appropriate. -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the change is not an improvement. What does "remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future palestinian state" mean? It certainly does not do justice to the intensity of the struggle over the status of Jerusalem. The second Intifada is known as the Al-Aska Intifada. Jerusalem's status is one of the key (some say intractable) issues at the core of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Many Palestinians considered Oslo a sell out becuase it prosponed the decision on the status of the Jerusalem to the final stage. Then there is the question of the attempts by the Israeli authorities to create facts on the ground by attempting to reduce the Palestinian population (by denying planning applications, beurocratic obstacles to granting residency rights of babies born to Palestinian families, removing residency rights from Palestinians who have spent more than two years abroud, constructing the wall on a route which isolates Palestinian areas, encircling Palestinian areas with new jewish neigbourhoods. Of course this does not need to be detailed in the intro. But the intro should make the bitterness of the conflict over Jeruslem clear (a conflict which has claimed hundreds of victims in Jerusalem over the last two decades). And the conflict should be given more space in the body of the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Jerusalem article, not the Arab-Israeli conflict article. -- tariqabjotu 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is. But the two are so intimately linked that is hard to talk about one without the other. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tariq. This isn't the place. Do you want the lead to read: "And Palestinians have murdered more than a 1,000 Israelis in what they call the Al-Aska Intifada over control of Jerusalem"? Let's not turn this into another fight. Not everything needs to be about the conflict. It's mentioned, and that's enough. Please, we're trying to reach some acceptable phrasing here, and we can't put the entire article in the lead! okedem 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider "And Palestinians have murdered more than a 1,000 Israelis in what they call the Al-Aska Intifada over control of Jerusalem" to be a NPOV formulation. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would I, and I would never actually add such a sentence to the lead. What I'm trying to say it that we don't have to focus on the conflict in every single paragraph and article here - it's just not the place. If we stray from the cold hard facts (and start guessing just how important Jerusalem is for the Palestinians) we'll fight forever, and get nowhere. Better to stick with the current formulation. The lead already has more than enough about the current status, considering it's only the last 60 years, in a city with a history of at least 3,000 years. okedem 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

edit
  • Support. Tariqabjotu is to be commended for tackling this, and he's done a remarkable job of steering a middle course and trying to describe each position fairly. It's carefully written, well-sourced, interesting, comprehensive, easy to read, and it's a good length. I hope that editors who are opposing only on the basis of strong POV will reconsider. We don't have to agree with articles to be able to see the quality in them. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—SV, this "middle course" is a matter for debate. What some reviewers see as a one-sided framing of the point of the departure, and in the ordering of other information in the article, is unchanged. Here's an example from lower down in the lead of subtle framing towards the Israeli claim:
"The civic and cultural center of modern Israel extends from western Jerusalem toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while areas populated mostly by Arabs may be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts." "Modern Israel" (as a state, with all of the advantages and prestige that a nation carries) is pitted agains individual "Arabs". The nation frame is reinforced in the same sentence with "the country's". The western part of the city is framed in terms of national ownership, and one that extends outward geographically into the "nation". By contrast, the other major group, the Arabs, are billed as only "mostly" populating "areas"; these are worded in terms of areas that "may be found" (vs. "extending"), and are further described as mere "districts". The bias in this article would provide fodder for a whole linguistics PhD dissertation.

As well as Criterion 1d, I wish to broaden my objection to 1a. Here are examples of why:

    • What is "storied history". "Storied doesn't seem to be a word.
    • Unnecessary amplifications and repetitions at the top: "... is Israel's capital and seat of government. It is Israel's largest city[iv] both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126". "is Israel's" x 2; "population" x 2; "area" x 2. Is "both" necessary? It's not used for "captial and seat of government". Is "totaling" necessary, instead of the unmarked "of"? Perhaps as a personal preference, I'd use "about" rather than "approximately", as shorter, plainer and less spiky.
    • "Barely one square kilometer,[7] the Old City is home to several of Jerusalem's most important and contested religious sites, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount for Jews, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Christians."—"in area" is required after "kilometer". There are two subset items ("several of" and "including"); can we do without one or both of these to strengthen the flow?
    • "Surrounding the Old City are more modern areas of Jerusalem." Is "of Jerusalem" necessary in this firm context? "More" is ambiguous—it could mean "further" or it could be comparative (more modern than the old city). Is the word necesssary at all? In any case, if it's retained, it needs a deictic ("the"). Tony 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, storied is a word. And so is nitpicking. I took care of most of the items in the second half of your statement. Regarding the first half... I pretty much left that alone. The lead is being discussed on the talk page quite a bit. In my opinion, I think you're over-analyzing things. There is little choice but to "pit" (uh... sure...) the country of Israel with individual Arabs. There's no other country to discuss, so what else are we to say? Israel is one of the most developed country in the region, so... you know... que sera sera. Neutrality does not mean distorting facts to ensure a disadvantaged group is portrayed as equal to a more advantaged group. Like I said, you're reading into things too hard. If you're willing to debunk an article based solely on petty semantics over whether "may be found" is used versus "extending" while also complaining that "population" is used twice in the first paragraph, you have come to the wrong place. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tariq. This looks like nitpicking, and moreover it comes down to stylistic preference. I think it reads very well as is. Even if you don't agree, will you dismiss the entire article because of it? nadav 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whether we like it or not, around Jerusalem there's one sovereign country, Israel, and areas/districts populated with Arabs/Palestinians. Only one sovereign body here, one country. If you'd really like, we can add something like: "...mostly by Arabs may be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts (including areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority)" (these are Bethlehem and Ramallah).
Of course there is some "framing" of Jerusalem as a part of Israel - It is a part of Israel! Israel controls all of it, it's Israel's capital, it's an Israeli city with Israelis living in it! So we talk about its history, we talk about the conflict, we talk about Palestinian claims to it, but still, today, it's an Israeli city. How would you like to phrase it?
Please, try not to read hidden meaning in every little word here. These words were chosen in good faith, not to try and hide/distort the truth. Don't confuse style with content. okedem 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the link you provided, "storied" = often spoken of or written about; famous:

Theirs was the most storied romance in Hollywood.

I suggest that you use a more familiar word, and one that you can be sure is appropriate. Romance novels or the tabloids may "story" a love affair, but I'm unsure whether the history of a city is an appropriate use for this epithet.

These were examples of why the whole article needs the attention of a copy-editor, preferably one who's unfamiliar with the text.

It's easy to accuse me of "overanalysing" that passage, but you offer no qualitative rejoinder or rebuttal to the points I made in that analysis: that the bias is subtle and infused throughout the wording. Accusing me of "petty semantics" and "reading into things too hard" isn't going to contribute to serious debate here, either. And if you don't care about ungainly repetition, right at the top, you've come to the wrong place; this article isn't going to satisfy the criteria. Nor is your insincere and apparently gloating "que sera sera" a serious rebuttal. There's a circularity about the world-view espoused here. Tony 07:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of turning the entire future of the Jerusalem article into a silly argument over a word, let me offer the following def.s from Random House unabridged [4] and from Merriam-Websters [5] resp.: "1. recorded or celebrated in history or story: the storied cities of ancient Greece.", "2 : having an interesting history : celebrated in story or history <a storied institution>" nadav 12:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that you were sending mixed messages when you advocated both word variety (by complaining about the repetition of "population") and lack of word variety (by complaining about the "areas" vs. "extending" bit) in the same comment. Additionally, I'm unsure where you get gloating from. I was saying that Israel is the most developed country in the Middle East; that's the way it is whether you like it or not. So, it would be very difficult to portray Israel as being on equal footing as the West Bank or whatever political entity is located there. I did provide a rebuttal: you're reading into things too hard and inventing bias where none is actually present, in the same manner you misinterpreted my words (most likely inadvertently). I'm not sure how else to convey this. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Tony often comes up with nitpicking details regarding his own personal preferences that have nothing to do with proper or even preferred usage, and then opposes FA status ostensibly for those reasons. It's best to ignore them, rather than get worked up. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Tony, I feel you're being too harsh. The copy editing points you made are largely minor and boil down to preference. For example, I wouldn't write "Surrounding the Old City are the more modern areas of Jerusalem," but there's nothing wrong with it. It might be faster for you to tweak the writing than to leave detailed examples here.
  • As for the POV issue, I can't see a POV in "The civic and cultural center of Israel extends from western Jerusalem toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while areas populated mostly by Arabs may be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts."
  • You wrote of that sentence

    "Modern Israel" (as a state, with all of the advantages and prestige that a nation carries) is pitted agains individual "Arabs". The nation frame is reinforced in the same sentence with "the country's". The western part of the city is framed in terms of national ownership, and one that extends outward geographically into the "nation". By contrast, the other major group, the Arabs, are billed as only "mostly" populating "areas"; these are worded in terms of areas that "may be found" (vs. "extending"), and are further described as mere "districts". The bias in this article would provide fodder for a whole linguistics PhD dissertation.

  • It is a fact that there is a state of Israel and that there is no other state on that piece of land. I feel that in trying to deconstruct that sentence in terms of bias, you may simply be reflecting your own, because I think most people would not see in it what you extracted from it. This is understandable because biases are hard to shake off, but I feel that tariqabjotu has managed it. How would you rewrite that sentence, as a matter of interest?
  • I spoke to a friend about this yesterday. He was born in Israel and lived in Jerusalem for a few years as an adult. He is non-Zionist and doesn't like that the State of Israel exists in its current form, and he is himself a good writer, so I asked him to read this article. He said it was excellent. He said he doubted there is a more neutral way to present the contentious issues, and he called the article "a work of art." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Since when are the opinions of non-Zionists acceptable on Wikipedia? :-) ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he's Israeli and cares deeply about the country; because he loves Jerusalem and knows a lot about it; and because he's non-Zionist and so, while loving Israel, he understands the hostility toward it. He's also a good writer. For all those reasons, I was interested to see what he made of the article. He called it a "work of art." I thought that was worth mentioning. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have a Zionist friend, who is a professional writer and thinks that this article is a badly-written exercise in skewing the image of Jerusalem. Sounds impressive? Beit Or 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to make a point-by-point analysis of the history section to demostrate it weaknesses, which are multiple. Since I have no time for that right, it may be enough to point out the on-going disputes on talk regarding history and lead to show that the article in its current state is light years away from featured status. Beit Or 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion only started as a way to satisfy some of the complaints voiced here by you and others. As for Itzse, he meant well, but just added unsourced statements which were reverted. nadav 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concurring with Nadav. The statement that this article is "light years away from featured status", especially based solely on those two discussions, is light-years away from being correct. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beit Or, can you give an example of a sentence or paragraph that you feel is unacceptable: not just one that you don't like, but one that you feel is clearly too POV for FA status? Or if the issue is omission, can you give an example of a point you feel is missing and which you regard as important for neutrality? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're pressing, a few quick points:
  • The whole history section is mostly about changes in control. There is virtually nothing at all on the city proper: how it developed, for instance.
  • The entire history of Jerusalem between the 6th century BCE and the time of Herod is missing. These are five centuries, full of lots of interesting events.
  • "From that point, the rights of the non-Muslims under Islamic territory were governed by the Pact of Umar..." This is wrong and unhistorical, the Pact of Umar was developed by Muslim scholars of the 8th century onwards, who projected their rulings back to Umar in order to lend them greater authority.
  • The section on religious significance contains three paragraphs: the shortest one on Judaism, the two longer ones on Christianity and Islam. This is absolutely unacceptable given the totally different weight given to Jerusalem by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. As I have pointed out above, the article strongly and consistently underplays the Jewish nature of Jerusalem.
  • Why is there nothing at all on Jerusalem in literature and arts?
Beit Or 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Jerusalem article were any longer, it would be called too long. Editorial decisions have to be made on what to include. The time period before Herod is mentioned as including the Hasmonean rule. Note that there is also a lack of authoritative sources about this time, since it precedes Josephus. The religious significance paragraphs are merely summaries of topics that have entire subarticles devoted to them, so it is not useful to look at the difference of a few lines. Also, the Judaism paragraph appears first. nadav 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Pact of Umar, the period discussed there is the 8th century. While its eventual codified form may have only appeared later, many scholars contend that its ideas date back to even pre-Islamic times. Most importantly, the statement in the article is sourced to an authoritative work by Marcus, who writes:

The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Omar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions from established practices and precedents, the Pact was extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Omar...It is generally assumed that its present form dates from about the ninth century

So, in some form, the pact was already practiced. Moreover, the sentence in the article is also speaking about the 400 years that followed, which includes the time the time the pact was codified in its present form. If you don't like the current wording, I suggest you change it to something you find more agreeable. nadav 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beit, much of the information you may be looking for is in (or at least should be in) the History of Jerusalem article, which is more detailed and lengthy than the section in the main Jerusalem article. I'll work on a footnote for the Pact of Omar though to clarify the matter and the questionable time frame of its creation. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote on the Pact of Umar is even more POV (and, to put it bluntly, false) than the body of the article. In fact, it is the consensus opinion of modern historians that the Pact of Umar is a work of later Muslim jurists. If anything, the article seems to be getting worse. Beit Or 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you write something about it yourself for the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you give me a barnstar for that? :) Seriously, no, I'm not going to rewrite the lead and the whole history section. Beit Or 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one asked you to; we're talking about the Pact of Omar piece. I too am itching to see your take on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether anyone asked me or not, this is what the article needs. Beit Or 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not willing to propose a new wording for the footnote that you feel is neutral? I guess there's nothing else to see here then... -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One either reivews the article or makes substantial edits to it, but not both. At least, this is my understanding of the process. It is not appropriate to tell commenters on FAC "then go fix it if you care". In adidtion, I wasn't talking about the footnote only; both the body text and the footnote are unacceptable, and the latter has made the former look even worse. Beit Or 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to write something in the article, you can propose something either here or on the talk page. You can't just say the footnote is POV, but then withhold further rationale. The footnote clearly notes the timing of the Pact of Umar is debatable; one can easily find sources that support either position. What more do you want? -- tariqabjotu 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above has misrepresented my arguments. I did not "withhold further rationale", but provided it, several times by now. It is a false and unattributed idea that the timing of the Pact of Umar is debatable; the consensus opinion of modern historians is that Umar never signed such a document. I can't be more clear than that. Beit Or 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The note doesn't say he did. Everyone agrees that in its current form, it did not originate with him. But Marcus says that in some (more limited) form it probably existed in his lifetime, and many point out that the pact is very similar to the earlier Persian law. Thus (say the experts cited in the note) it is reasonable to believe that the pact was already established practice in some form. nadav 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by unattributed you mean sourced, then yes, that is correct. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're all editors here, Beit Or. We don't have one class of reviewers, and another class that does the actual work. If you want to see the section you complained about improved, and you know what you're talking about, by all means go ahead and improve it, or place your suggested text on the talk page for discussion. Can you give some sources for "the consensus opinion of modern historians is that Umar never signed such a document"? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment images- can we get more images of the city, especially the modern city into this article. I think we could have a few more images of famous landmarks in the old city, but we need more images of the modern city here.--Sefringle 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Textual criticism

edit

Recently achieved WP:GA status, a well written article, well sourced and very informative. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are very few inline citations to verify the information that has been presented. Please see other recent FAs for an idea of what I mean. JHMM13 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plentiful inline citations using the Harvard referencing style, that you may have missed. See WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there are about 30 Harvard references. Is there a reason the reference section has subsections for "Cladistics" and "Stemmatics" to list only one book? Gimmetrow 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are not plentiful inline citations. I did notice the Harvard refs, but there are not nearly enough of them. The entire "Overview" section has only one citation. I know it is not required to use the more popular ref system, but it certainly helps keep down the clutter. Any reason you prefer the Harvard style? JHMM13 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually prefer the <ref> format ... but I was not the only contributor by far and the harvard referencing was there already. I have no problem in redoing the refs using the ref tags, though. As for the lack of citations in the overview, I can fix that. My question is: should I remove the candidacy for now, work on these and re-apply later? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Depends on how fast you can get reliable sources :-D. It took me a week once to find enough sources and I was in the library every other day. I'll keep an eye on this FAC to see what you do. JHMM13 18:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are plenty of sources, so I wil see if I can get these soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please check and let me know if the Overview section is now OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Generally speaking, and I hate doing so but I feel I must here, "there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph" to encompass all the information therein and then specific citations for points that are either controversial or have quotes or whatever. You should also use either the Harvard or the ref style for consistency. That said, I like it so far! I think it's well-written, but it could do with a lot of polishing. The lead needs some work. It needs to be an overview of the whole of the aritcle. I don't like the second paragraph at all: it seems like "I couldn't describe it, so here's someone who can." That quote can be in there (maybe use a block quote), but not in the lead. Another issue might be its length. It does go on for a rather long time about a subject that might not be worthy of 51kb (in my opinion, that is). I'm not going to oppose it for that, but this might be an issue with someone else. You may want to consider spinning some sections off and leaving a summary or some such thing. It's up to you. JHMM13 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I will convert all the Harvard refs to wiki refs, and polish the lead a bit to summarize the main points. That is not a problem. As for the length, believe me when I say that is is a *short* article on the subject and a pretty good one at it There are literally hundreds of books on the subject, and this article is a pretty good summary of the main issues/methods etc on this fascinating (for some...) subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to convert the citing mechanism from Harvard to cite.php, that's up to you, but I don't quite see why it needs changing. Gimmetrow 03:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red links in See also, incorrect use of WP:DASH throughout, I fixed a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose — agree with Jossi about the refs. I also feel the ToC is too lengthy; this can be done by separating the reference section by semicolon headings instead of subheadings. Also, the lead is a bit on the short side, and contains a stubby final paragraph. The prose itself is decent, but I still recommend enlisting a pair of copy-editors to weed out any issues, including redundancies ("currently", excessive use of "also") and misplaced formality ("amongst"). — Deckiller 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. As an article in development, Textual Criticism has some significant strengths. The information is interesting and deals with an important aspect of bibliographic work. There are a number of areas though that need attention if this is to be considered as a featured article. (1) Referencing is somewhat chaotic. Even if the choice is for content notes and a reference list, the reference list needs to be a single list alphabetically arranged, not separated into sections. Works referred to in the notes need to be included in the reference list too. Some minor editing for punctuation would be good too (yes...one of the banes of documentation is getting every detail of punctuation right. :-)) Also why are the access dates given with internal links? Linking to substantive dates/years within an article make sense; linking to every access date in a reference list tends to just clutter the references up (which by their nature are cluttered enough as it is!). (2) The writing style assumes a specialist reader in this area. A general well-informed lay reader would have some difficulty with this article, especially because of the reliance on jargon. Let's take the first sentence as an example: Textual criticism or lower criticism is a branch of philology or bibliography that is concerned with the identification and removal of errors from texts and manuscripts. Using multiple subjects adds a complexity not needed. So moving "lower criticism" into a separate sentence (something like "Textual criticism is sometimes also called 'lower criticism' because...." would make the information more accessible. Also, for example, yes, this type of textual criticism is part of philology and, yes, a reader can click on philology to see what on earth it is, but how much more readable the lead sentence would be if it went something like: "Textual criticism is a branch of the studies of ancient texts and manuscripts (philology) and of books and publishing (bibliography). It is concerned specifically with the identification....manuscripts." A reader then could click on the link to philology, but wouldn't have to in order to make sense out of the narrative. Thus, revision throughout the article from the perspective of a "well-informed lay reader" would take solid information and make it accessible for readers of a general encyclopedia (i.e. Wikipedia). (3) This article assumes that there is only one referent for the term "textual criticism." This may be true within philological and bibliographic studies, but within literary criticism (looking at literary texts) and rhetorical criticism (looking at any creative texts produced by humans, from speeches to advertisements to ...), textual criticism means something quite different. Generally in these areas of study, textual criticism refers to a "close reading and detailed analysis of a particular text." This might be an internal textual criticism (looking at the verbal or visual or sound texts in the artefact itself) or an external textual criticism (looking at the contexts of the artefact, its interpretation by actual audiences, and/or its relationship to other texts and artefacts). Thus one might do a internal textual criticism of the Disney film Beauty and the Beast, looking at the use of metaphor, adjectives, etc. to understand the contrasting human-animal imagery OR an external textual analysis looking at previous versions of B/B and other animal-husband tales to see how the Disney version uses or departs from these texts. So, one can't then present textual criticism as only being concerned with history/accuracy of a written text (esp. a Biblical one). This article certainly has no obligation to develop rhetorical and literary textual criticism, but it must distinguish between these uses of the phrase "textual criticism" in a substantive way (not just a disambiguation). --- Ultimately this article has good potential to get to a featured article level, but work is needed before it gets there.Cyg-nifier 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates are customarily linked to support date preferences. Nothing wrong with that. Gimmetrow 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'm not seeing it as an issue of right or wrong, but as an issue of clarity for a reader. Linking dates in a reference citation gives attention to something that really shouldn't be a primary focus of attention and, for me at least, this seems of greater importance than facilitating the date preferences. I've certainly no problem with linking dates within articles, but a reference is a very peculiar animal and it seems anything that can reduce the amount of input that has to be processed in reading one would make sense. But that's just me -- having to adapt to several varying ways of indicating dates over the years means that it's a non-issue for me, but I realize for others it is an issue. Cyg-nifier 10:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

edit

Thanks for the useful feedback, I will delist it for now, work on it and re-submit at a later date once I have addressed all your points. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2007&oldid=1223580612"