Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2009

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

February 2009

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:17, 28 February 2009 [1].

Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.

edit
Nominator(s): Ink Runner (talk)

Unfortunately, for the last few decades, Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. has lived under the shadow of its not-very-funny parent show. Sure, it enjoyed some popularity in its heyday, but in later years, The Andy Griffith Show has all but eclipsed it. TAGS got at least three books dedicated to it, cookbooks, a TV movie, comic books, board games, canned foods, etc. Gomer Pyle got...trading cards and a lunch box. :( The article has been PR'ed, and thankfully, no Japanese or Chinese sources to translate here. :P Ink Runner (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now I want to go watch this show - I've never seen it before. I only found one issue that needs to be fixed:

Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.[fn 1] is an American situation comedy created by Aaron Ruben, originally aired on CBS from September 25, 1964 to May 2, 1969. " Missing a word here. Maybe "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.[fn 1] is an American situation comedy created by Aaron Ruben that originally aired on CBS from September 25, 1964 to May 2, 1969. "
  • "The show ran for five seasons and a total of 150 episodes." Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same; either all numerals or all words.
  • "Set in California (originally in North Carolina), it stars" What do you mean by "originally in North Carolina"? "it"-->the show.
  • I'd like to see a mention of production info in the lead.
  • "compounded with" Not sure, but should it be "compounded by"?
    • Well, I've seen both. I think "compounded with" denotes that the phrase is an "accessory" (don't know how to explain this properly), while "compounded by" is used to indicate that the subject is added to by the object of the preposition of "compounded by". Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show was produced by creator Aaron Ruben, Andy Griffith Show producer Sheldon Leonard, and Ronald Jacobs and was co-produced by Bruce Bayley Johnson and E. Duke Vincent." Much too many "and" connectors here. Maybe use a semicolon: "The show was produced by creator Aaron Ruben, Andy Griffith Show producer Sheldon Leonard, and Ronald Jacobs; it was co-produced by Bruce Bayley Johnson and E. Duke Vincent."
  • "who also composed the themes for shows-->composer for show themes such as
    • I thought about that, but if I changed it thus, then the the examples that follow would have to be the names of the themes, or it would have to read "composer for show themes such as those of..." and if streamlining were the intended effect, I don't think there would be much change in the word count. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "image of the branch"-->branch's image
  • "Nabors and Sutton were the only actors who were credited in every episode.
  • "annoyed over his mistakes." I think it should be "annoyed by", but this might be stylistic.
  • Notes 3 and 5 need references.
    • Well the episodes themselves are the refs for note5, and the opening and ending credits of every episode of the show are the refs for note 3; I don't think I need to actually write them out since I think it should be obvious that the show itself is one of the refs. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TVShowsOnDVD.com refs are mixed up; the website (TVShowsOnDVD.com) should not be italicized, but TV Guide should.

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments problems with references:
  • Everything in the bibliography should be sorted by alphabetical order. If two books appear by the same author, oldest first. If one book by an author and one another book by with author as primary author plus one or more coauthors, lone author first. I fixed them for you! Please don't forget to do this again.
  • This is wrong. It should be listed as a book in the bibliography, not a link in the notes:
  • This is wrong too. It needs to be formatted as an albun (though I don't know how to do that; there's probably a template):
  • Is "Jackson, p.334" the same as "Jackson, Kenneth T.; Markoe, Karen; Markoe, Arnie (1998)"? If so, please list secondary authors in cite.
  • Is "Beck, p.86" the same as "Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000)"? If so, please include secondary authors in cite. Please continue to check for this.
  • Is "Leonard, p.133" the same as "Leonard, Sheldon; Griffith, Andy (1995)"? If so, please fix cite.
  • Ditto for "Moore" cites to "Moore, Barbara; Bensman, Marvin R.; Van Dyke, Jim".
  • Ditto for "walter" cites to "Walter, Davis; Davis, Walter T. Jr.; Blythe, Teresa; Breibelbis, Gary; Scalese, Mark; Winslea, Elizabeth"
  • Your "Further reading" also was not in alphabetical order! I'll fix it for you. Please remember this.
  • Some books (right now I see two) in references that are not in Notes. I am moving them to "Further Reading" for you.
  • More:
  • I don't understand the value of the "Media" section. The first bits, about pilots an premieres etc., don't even seem to belong in this section. The latter bits (the book and album) do seem to belong there. However, if you take out the pilots and premieres, you're left with two sentences. That doesn't seem to warrant its own section... oh wait, DVD Releases is a subsection of Media. I think the entire section should be called Media (no DVD subsection) and the pilots and premieres removed...
  • The walter et al book is listed as "Watching What We Watch" but the actual title is "Watching What We Watch: Prime-time Television Through the Lens of Faith". Wrong book title. The black marks are kinda piling up here. When I see this many errors, I start to lean Oppose on principle: out of fear that there are many more.
  • While I'm at it, the authors are totally hosed: Davis listed twice, who is Scalese (Scales?) who is Winslea (Winans?). Do you have this book? Please triple check the date of publication and all of the authors' names.
  • Not a single place of publication on any of the publishers. I dunno this is required by MOS but it is by APA...
  • You really need to work harder on getting these cites right. The Hirschman quote appears on two pages: 73 and 75. You cite only the latter. This is an important omission because the text from 73 is a direct quote (left uncited). I... good-enough fixed it for you. I could be even pickier, but I'll let it go as long as both pages get mentioned somehow. Please check your direct quotations!
  • Why is Hal Leonard listed as the publisher of "And the Show Goes On: Broadway and Hollywood Adventures"? Should it be "Limelight Editions"? Should the year be 2004 instead of 1995? Do you have this book? please triple-check all info!
  • You have the publisher of The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge: A Desk Reference for the Curious Mind as Macmillan Publishers; I see St. Martin's Press instead. Did one purchase the other, or something?
  • CRC Press published "The Encyclopedia of Television"? Are you sure?
  • I've checked enough publishers! Please double-check each and every one. In fact, please double-check every single detail of your References and Further reading. Just go straight down the list. It's quite boring, but that's no excuse. ;-)
  • Added a {{fact}} tag to the footnote about carter not appearing in some shows.
  • "he was "promoted" to lance corporal in 2001 and again to corporal in 2007". Which of these, if any, were in-universe? The promotion in 2007 was by the actual US Marine Corps: "The Marines said the character of Gomer Pyle represented qualities the corp respects: honesty, loyalty and devotion to duty." At the very least it should be mentioned that the latter promotion was done by the marines.
  • Oppose as per WP:NOTNOW. I was thinking about this last night, and I just wouldn't feel comfortable without a couple weeks spent going over detail of the references, the quotes, the cites, etc (see above). Last post. Good luck. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked all the details of the print references, and they should all be fine now. If the publishers are different than the editions you have, the copies I use list the parent company instead of the subsidiary (like CRC Press instead of Taylor & Francis, Macmillan instead of St. Martin's, etc.) and I couldn't find anything in the MoS on which to list. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:17, 28 February 2009 [2].

Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

edit
Nominator(s): MASEM, Gary King (talk)

Being the first single video game to surpass (pinky in mouth) one billion dollars in sales, we've gotten an extensive PR to identify some faults and perform a copyedit of the text of the Guitar Hero III article to bring it to the level of FA quality. MASEM 14:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources: Should all be the standard acceptable video game sources.
  • Images: There is the game cover, one screenshot, and one free image.

Gary King (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • without hardly checking at all....I'm impressed. Most of the game articles I've seen are so 'in universe' as to be incomprehensable for non-game folks like me. The reading comprehension link gives age level of 16 to 18 readability, which might be a bit high. Though most readers I imagine are going to be older folks like me who don't know jack about the game and want to at least know what the 'kids' are talking about these days....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are still citation needed and unreliable source tags in the "Gameplay" section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added those marks to note a few issues. I have since resolved them. Gary King (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Ceranthor 02:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Why are the Technical issues and Soundtrack sections under "Development"? Also, there's remarkably little on the development of the game...the second paragraph is just a jumble of press release statements. The third is just a description of the demo. BuddingJournalist 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, theses should be their toplevel sections (and tech issues down after reception). As for the minimal dev section, the bulk of the history is in previous GH game articles; this one was merely a transfer from one developer to another (which is explained) in addition to a few more larger groups. --MASEM 02:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but surely there's more to software development than transferring rights, no? Why was Neversoft picked? It can't be only because Neversoft developers played it in their offices...there must be some business reasons. What was the development process? "revealed that all versions of the game would feature wireless controllers as well as online multiplayer and downloadable content." <-- Parroting press releases might be superficially informative, but I think an FA can do better. Why did they choose to invest in wireless controllers, and what was the development process like? What were the challenges involved in developing online multiplayer?
  • Finger hovering over the Oppose/AfD button Ye gods, is the entire "Gameplay" section WP:COPYVIO? And the article is still here? say it ain't so! Better yet, prove it ain't so. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the primary authors of this including that section, I am pretty sure that there's no copyvio going on here. What gives you the impression that there is one? --MASEM 11:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Gameplay" section, the first paragraph (a rather large) has if I'm not mistaken only one cite, and that's to "Neversoft, ed (2007). Guitar Hero III instruction manual.". Now, that is a large chunk of text to take from one source. It is given in logical order, contains (apparently) technical terms, etc. I think it would require some real elbow grease to reproduce a section that large with copying... I searched for some phrases from that section on the Internet, and many of them are reproduced word-for-word in several websites. It's quite possibe that they copied their text from Wikipedia, but it's also possible that they copied the Instruction manual. That's two pieces of suggestive (but certainly not definitive) evidence. If you would be so kind as to scan the relevant pages of the Instructor's manual, or at least two or three of them, and email them to me, I could verify that my concerns are misplaced. If it's available on the In ternet then I can look at that... I am probably wrong, but it's worth checking. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the bulk of that language is stuff I wrote myself for the game (save for further copyediting). Now, I will agree that one ref for it all seems odd, that I can fix (from sourcing the reviews), though I also note the seealso in that section, the gameplay is essentially the same). I just spot-checked the manual just to make sure likelihood of any copyvio direct from the manual, but its written in a much more informal tone (and second person) for this. The terms are consistent but that's necessary to be correct of course. --MASEM 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super support --TONO459 (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1a. I picked a random section to read, Career mode, and was not impressed. My read-through suggests that a copyedit is needed for the article.
    • First, what is this Guitar Hero III instruction manual? And why aren't page numbers given? Is it the same as the little instruction booklet that's available for download at replacementdocs.com? If so, I'm not seeing much of the material in the article that is purportedly cited to the instruction manual.
    • "The player completes songs in each tier that depend on the difficulty level" Confusing. What depends on the difficulty?
    • So many needless instances of "then". Maybe this type of wording is passable in a school book report, but FAs should aim higher.
    • So many opportunities to tighten wording. At random: "the player is required to compete" -> "the player must compete", "After a botched performance in Japan, caused by Lou, they attempt to break free of their contract with Lou, who then reveals himself to be the Devil and the contract as ownership of their souls." , "the drummer has the idea of making a video to make a name for the band"
    • "The band begins as a neighborhood sensation," Eh?
    • "then performs at an island jail (despite Lou's encouragement for them to "sell out")" ???
    • "The band is dragged down to Lou's Inferno, " which is?
    • "back the band's souls, and the title of Rock Legend" Numerous instances of incorrect comma use. I usually correct little errors such as these; however, there are quite a few, and often the sentence ought to be reworded anyway.
    • "which is arranged similarly to the single player Career mode, with one player on lead guitar and the other on bass or rhythm guitar." Huh?
    • "differences between the core members put the band on a three-month hiatus" What are the "core" members? Odd use of "put" here.
    • "where they find their way out by playing a live show." Unsure what "find their way out" means here. BuddingJournalist 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I revisited and unfortunately my oppose stands. Article does not meet 1a in my opinion. At random:
      • "The band starts as a neighborhood sensation, and after signing a recording contract with a shady music producer named Lou, gain worldwide fame," Subject-verb inconsistency
      • "The band returns to the mortal world as Rock Legends." Capitalized because? Explain if it has implications in the game.
      • "After their first performance, the drummer has the idea of making a video to make a name for the band." Tighten prose. ("has the idea of" -> "decides to" (or something similar and more direct); "to make a name for" is colloquial). What kind of video? Music video?
      • "After a three-month hiatus after resolving differences between the band members" Huh?
      • "In 2006, Activision purchased [[RedOctane] for $100 million,[30] believing the acquisiton to provide Activsion with "an early leadership position in music-based gaming"." Typos, but more importantly, the second half of the sentence is ungrammatical.
      • Repetition of "_someone_ noted that" construct in second paragraph of Development is tiring. I also spotted at least two instances where the required "that" is missing (noted [that], announced [that]).
      • Development describes decisions, but sometimes neglects to give reasons for these decisions, which is part of what makes for a compelling and comprehensive read. "that it took much work" Why? The article says that the game is "deceptively simple", but goes no further. What caused problems? Why did they opt to focus on perfecting the guitar rather than expanding instruments? BuddingJournalist 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll work on the rest of the text and try to fix up the "_someone_ noted that"; on the last point about development, unfortunately, this information is just not available; I've done a very recent scour of news.google to find any more collaborating sources for dev information and they are just not there; I don't know if its because the media didn't ask such questions, or if by this point the development aspect for GH was an issue, but I can't add stuff that isn't explained further. (This is compared to what happened with the next game, Guitar Hero World Tour where more instruments were added and thus there were a lot more questions asked by the media, instead of just a game that offered more of the same. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gah, hold on, I just realized and kicking myself for missing it. We've got three dev diaries (see the ELs) that I can work from. I don't know if these will answer those questions above, but that will flush this section out a bit more from your original considers (up this page a bit). --MASEM (t) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (undent) Aha! The new paragraphs give me much more confidence that the article meets 1b and the Production section is a much more fulfilling read (in the future, these type of large content additions should be made before FAC). Unfortunately, I'm still an oppose with respect to 1a. The new additions, while informative, read quite rough. There are odd tense changes and sentence structures, typos, unexplained jargon, simplistic language, etc. Re-read the additions; I think you'll discover quite a bit to do. Then of course, there's the rest of the article, which on my brief skim just now, still contains quite a bit of work, prose-wise. BuddingJournalist 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. Not happy with random samplings of the text. The Technical Issues section is especially mediocre. It probably needs a few hours with a fresh, effective copyeditor. Examples:
    • The Reception and Technical Issues rely heavily on long quotes instead of giving us actual prose, which I believe Ling was commenting on above in his special way. The quotes aren't even especially illuminating; the quotes in the Tech Issues heading sound like 14-year-old gamers bitching instead of decent journalism. If we can write better, let's spare the readers the quotes. Some of the items make no sense either out of context. Why does the bluetooth thing matter? Or the powering down after disuse? You've provided criticism without any context or explanation.
    • "However, GameSpot offers a patch for the PC version ..." So, who will be coming by to change this when the patch is no longer offered? That sentence also has a which/that error.
    • "Activision offers a free replacement remastered game disk ..." Ditto comment above. Also, isn't it "disc"?
    • "The company later expanded this offer to include those living in the United Kingdom and Europe." This makes little sense considering you've not mentioned previously that the offer was only to.. who? We don't know. Japan?
    • "On February 22, 2008, they further extended the replacement program ..." Spot the redundant word.
--Laser brain (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:29, 28 February 2009 [3].

Full genome sequencing

edit
Nominator(s): DoctorDNA (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... full genome sequencing is going to be one of the most important new technologies of our generation and this article brings this rapidly emerging topic to light. It presents multiple facets of the technology, such as it's history, the technology that is being disrupted by it, as well as its potential societal impact. By the end of the year this new technology will have been commercialized and without a few years a significant number of all newborns and adults will have undergone full genome sequencing. This is a major component of Kurzweil's Singularity. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDNA (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose Nice work on the article so far, but it's not ready yet. There are unformatted references that need titles, publishers, and access dates; short sections that could probably be organized better, along with an unnecessary "Company links" section; as well as several unreferenced paragraphs. Gary King (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Per consistency purposes, some references are not formatted with {{cite}} templates.
  • <ref>http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=6428</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS49869+12-Jan-2009+BW20090112</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/index.php?q=technology-introduction</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.completegenomicsinc.com/pages/materials/CompleteGenomicsTechnologyPaper.pdf</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CRGN/0x0x53381/386c4aaa-f36e-4b7a-9ff0-c06e61fad31f/211559.pdf</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/461197</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://synthesis.cc/2007/01/a-few-thoughts-on-rapid-genome-sequencing-and-the-archon-prize.html</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>[http://genomics.xprize.org/genomics/archon-x-prize-for-genomics/prize-overview "PRIZE Overview: Archon X PRIZE for Genomics"].</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS0-4M4TNKN-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=76731e3a5387a2021c72f9c339546ca2</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=939&chid=1</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.eyeondna.com/2008/02/11/whole-genome-sequencing-costs-continue-to-drop/</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=658&chid=2</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/10/pacific-bio-lifts-the-veil-on-its-high-speed-genome-sequencing-effort/</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.bio-itworld.com/headlines/2008/oct06/complete-genomics-dna-nanoballs.html</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/pacific-biosciences-garners-100m-sequencing-tech/2008-07-14</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/02/09/story1.html?b=1234155600^1773923</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21466/</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://springwise.com/lifestyle_leisure/premium_genome_mapping_service/</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.gladstone.ucsf.edu/gladstone/site/genomicscore/section/1919</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/431</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.genomeweb.com/arrays/illumina-decode-build-1m-snp-chip-q2-launch-coincide-release-affys-60-snp-array</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/07/21/daily52.html</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2006/04/24/affymetrix-gets-chipped-again.aspx</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444256a.html</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n10/full/nbt1008-1109.html</ref> Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5689052.ece</ref> Does not use a citation template
Citation templates are not required. Consistent, fully formatted references are. BuddingJournalist 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are not, but consistent formatting is. Some of the refs are fully cited with templates while other aren't. I striked one of them because it doesn't require it, but others need some type of ref formatting. In addition, to the last ref comment.TRUCO 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but your repeated use of "Does not use a citation template" is misleading. Just say "Citation not fully formatted" or similar. BuddingJournalist 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing the "Does not use a citation template" message, I am copying it from my script I use to find the problems, so sorry if it is misleading. --TRUCO 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Then please take a few seconds to just do a replace all on "Does not use a citation template" before submitting; it's misleading to nominators. BuddingJournalist 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I will do a better job in explaining as to what the problems are. So I guess I'll await your update on these minor hassles.--TRUCO 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I'm not the nominator). BuddingJournalist 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that shows my reading skills :P--TRUCO 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While a picture of rows of chromosomes suggests "genome", I don't see that as adding much informative value to an article about full genome sequencing. Emw2012 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the writing of the article doesn't meet my idea of FA requirement 1a, that the article's "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Though there are more, two stylistic issues that immediately pop out are excessive use of italics and at least several run-on sentences.
I couldn't quite put my finger on it before, but agree with Xasodfuih when he notes that the article reads like a promotion in several places. For example, in Societal impact: "Inexpensive, time-efficient full genome sequencing will be a major accomplishment not only for the field of Genomics, but for the entire human civilization because, for the first time, individuals will be able to have their entire genome sequenced." Many would agree that this technology will have significant impact on medical practice, but the wording of the example promotes the subject without providing much real information (see Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms). In its current form, the entire section seems like it could be cut down to one or two shorter and less promotional sentences, and merged into another section. Emw2012 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's lead also needs significant work. Per FA requirement 2a, an ideal lead is concise and "summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections." The first sentence in both of the lead's two paragraphs is repetitive. Other than that, the lead in large part doesn't summarize the content that follows in the article body. Each section should have at least one sentence in the lead which provides a high-level summary of the section's content.
I was contemplating opposing this nomination, but think that these issues may be resolvable in two weeks' time or less (given the article was apparently written in little over a day). Good work thus far, but there's considerable work needed to get this article to FA status. Emw2012 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - References need formatting, some are lacking publishers and/or last access dates, some are just bare urls. When that is done, I'll be happy to check the references for reliable sources. Note, however, there is no requirement to use cite templates, the only requirement is that your references be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed. Article needs significant expansion to provide sufficient context to non-specialists. For example, the 1st section opens with: "One possible way to accomplish the cost-effective high-throughput sequencing necessary to accomplish full genome sequencing is by utilizing Nanopore technology, which is a patented technology held by Harvard University and Oxford Nanopore and licensed to biotechnology companies." This will elicit a gigantic huh from 99.99% of the readers. I also have the impression that this article veers towards promotion. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional issues:
    • Titles such as "Dr." are not used in wiki articles.
Fixed. Emw2012 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LEDE says that the lede should be a summary of the article. You are using it as an introduction.
    • The tone is suitable for an editorial in Nature Genetics, but not for a Wikipedia entry, e.g. "As of February 2009, there are no indications that any of these companies have been hindered by the global recession. And thus, the race appears to be proceeding forward at full speed.[citation needed]"

Xasodfuih (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now Good article, but there's some thing I'd like to see imporved.
    • This article is lacking meaningful descriptions of the actual sequencing technique(s). It links to high-throughput sequencing (which itself is a redirect to DNA sequencing, which contains all of 3 sentences on high throughput techniques) and Nanopore (which describes the Nanopore technology, but only has 2 sentences on its application to DNA sequencing). This article need a MUCH better description of the sequencing techniques, with diagrams.
    • This article needs a picture or two of the actual sequencing machines used to do this kind of work. And I can make it really easy for you, because I happen to have a few of these pictures on my hard drive from a few years back when I toured a local biolab. I've uploaded them here:
    • My knowledge might be a little dated here, but if it is shotgun sequencing is the basis for whole-genome sequencing, where's discussion about the algorithms being used to line up the DNA fragments? Error rates?
    • Where's the discussion about gene and protein expression? I thought they were nearly as (or more) important than the actual sequencing itself?
    • You might want to drop a note on User:Rajah's talk page. I know him IRL and he knows *a lot* about this topic. He might be able to give you some pointers.
    • I suggest changing "Societal impact" to "Medical applications" Raul654 (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, an interesting article, but it's not ready yet. First of all, the article needs a good copy-edit to fix many issues with the prose and to remove much redundancy, (for example, "in order to", "genotyping..... to genotype", "..such as those mentioned above", abbreviations which are only used once, "WGS", "FGS", "EGS"), and padding ("In order to facilitate their full genome sequencing R&D initiatives"). There is a big problem with regard to accessibility; I am not an advocate of "dumbing-down" but much more effort needs to be made to make this article less of a chore to read by the non-specialist. I am a specialist—I have sequenced the genes of viruses—but I found this article hard going in places. More images, particularly diagrams are needed to help the reader to understand the sequencing methods. Lastly, the references are badly formatted and too few. Graham Colm Talk 10:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham. I've gone through and fixed the prose issues -- or, hopefully, most instances of them -- lain out in the second sentence of your comment. Emw2012 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009 [4].

York Park

edit
Nominator(s): Aaroncrick(Tassie talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. It has a lead of appropriate size, and the article is of appropriate structure. The citations seems to be fairly good and uses images well. Although not very long, it does go into necessary detail.Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 07:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Current ref 1 (Tasmanian stadiums...) still lacks a publisher. Current ref 26 (Aurora Stadium...) is still lacking a publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further ....
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Comments - Is there a reason why this doesn't have a transport section, like the one in Old Trafford? I'm also noticing some short paragraphs in the history section. Content feels thin, but a venue like Old Trafford may not be the best comparison. Oh, and get rid of the hyphen in "a deliberately-lit fire", to give one picky prose comment. I'll try to find time for a full review at some point, but I make no guarantees. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason there isn't a transport section is, that there is barely any referenced info to be found about it. I previously moved the transport section to "Structures and Facilities" because it was mentioned in a review of the article. I have once again made a transport section. Yeah well if the Tasmanian stadium reference is removed it would create a big hole in teh articles referencing. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 04:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reliable source. The article building process involves research using reliable sources. It's policy. BuddingJournalist 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So delete it? AUstadiums should stay though. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it reliable, though? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches is a great read on this subject. If the references can't be proven reliable, they need to be removed, and information sourced to them should either be cited to a quality source or taken out. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose by karanacs. This article is plagued by unreliable sources, plagiarism, improperly sourced sections, and lack of citations, all at once. As is, the article needs to be practically rewritten. I did not do a close prose read or consider comprehensiveness. Here are examples of the issues I did see; the entire article will need to be rechecked to ensure that it reflects only what is in the sources (without copying and pasting). I strongly encourage you to withdraw the article so that you have adequate time to improve it.

  • Too much of this article is sourced to unreliable sources. I agree with Ealdgyth above that those websites are not reliable.
  • References are formatted incorrectly. Newspapers/magazine names should be italicized; other publishers should not
  • The publisher for 4 is incorrect - CV Web Design might be the designer, but not the publisher.
  • Sources don't always cover the information that they claim to.
    • You cannot source York Park is a 15–20 minute walk north of the Launceston City Centre to Google maps
    • The source for this sentence Because of near capacity crowds, it was announced that the Tasmanian Government would spend $2 million in roofing for an additional 6,000 seats, resulting in almost all the seating areas being protected from the weather. mentions nothing about the cause being near capacity crowds
    • The source for these sentences York Park's interior is an oval bowl surrounded by several different stands. The largest is the two-tier Gunns Stand on the ground's Western side. This stand originally had a capacity of 2,500 and was increased to 6,000 after a 2005 extension. The $12.5 million Gunns stand now has two corporate box areas; the Gunns Function Centre and the Corporate Function Centre mentions only two corporate box areas; there is no mention of any of the numbers given here.
  • The article tone needs a bit of work. There is some POV language. examples: hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments,
  • It seems that part of the history section is taken almost completely from http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html; One example is below, but much of the rest of the history section seems plucked almost word-for-word from this source
    • Source: In 1960 it hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments when a Tasmanian team (mostly made up of Northern players) defeated Victoria's second 18 by 7 points before a long standing record crowd of 15,163.
    • article: In 1960 the ground hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments, when Tasmanian defeated Victoria's second 18 by 7 points in front of a long standing record crowd of 15,163
  • There are unsourced sentences that need citations in the Structure section and the Northern Staid development section

Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Per Karanacs. Plagarism is an automatic disqualifier for me, and fixing that and the other issues will take too much time for this FAC. Never felt comfortable with the article, and my instincts sadly weren't misplaced. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Gimmetrow 14:18, 28 February 2009 [5].

Fedor Emelianenko

edit
Nominator(s): User:2008Olympian (talk)

Perhaps the most-edited MMA article. The article seems to be well-written, comprehensive, and factually accurate with a full a "References" section. The article is neutral, especially for a sports biography, and has been quite stable for months.

It has a lead of appropriate size, and the article is of appropriate structure. The citations seem to be flawless. It uses images well, including one video from the commons. Although long, it does not go into unnecessary detail, some of the length is due to the MMA record box, standard for MMA biographies.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

This is the largest website devoted to MMA. It is the exclusive content MMA content provider for ESPN.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second-largest MMA content provider. Does substantial reporting for CNN, Sports Illustrated, and Yahoo!. See Businessweek profile], and examples of content provided on major websites: SI.com and Yahoo.com2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might have to go. It's big in Europe, but not well-established.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.efedor.ru/bio/index_eng.shtml (Lacks a publisher and looks like the subject's own website? If it is, it's a primary source and should be used very carefully.) It's also used for reprints of other articles, which has two problems, one, since it appears to be his site, how do we know the reprints are reported accurately? And two, do they have permission to host reprints of copyrighted work? All the articles that are reprints from this site need to state that they are reprinted on this site and give the correct original publication information, IF the above concerns are resolved.
It is his website.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably won't cut it.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the official site for Pride FC, as a primary its use is acceptable but limited.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--See comment below.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably won't cut it.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the link its gone, but F4W/Wrestling Observer is written by Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez. It was previously brought up at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lockdown_(2008)/archive1. --aktsu (t / c) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably won't cut it.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably won't cut it.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably won't cut it.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably won't cut it.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primary source for M1 Global, Fedor's team.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 3 references a wikipedia page, which is not a reliable source.
Done Changed to an outside reference.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 18 (I am neither...) has no publisher.
  • Current ref 15 is a forum post in Russian... what makes it reliable?
  • Current ref 28 has a formatting glitch.
  • A number of your website references need to have publishers listed for them. Please double check that they all have a publisher listed.
We have been using the "work=" field instead of "publisher=" Does it make a difference? We can change them over if it does.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done I changed the fields to publisher.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I watch mixed martial arts from time to time, and I've seen Fedor on some highlight shows. To put it simply, he is the man. I have some initial thoughts after reading the opening few sections, which are listed below.

  • In the first sentence, move the reference outside the parenthesis.

Done Reference moved entirely.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This long quote from Fedor in the lead is weird. It doesn't summarize the article at all, and I'd rather see something on his fighting style, which is discussed in detail later.

Done Long quote removed.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mixed martial arts background and training regimen: Watch for repetition like the following: "and later and his current coach, Vladimir Mihailovich Voronov. Voronov...".

Done Fixed.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Emelianenko also runs twice a day every day..." Could be "twice daily" or similar, to get rid of a redundancy.

Done Fixed by aktsu, see note below.

  • "and added a Muay Thai coach, Ruslan Nagnibeda". This is his second mention in two paragraphs, so try to account for that, perhaps by just giving his last name.

Done Fixed.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fedor's (change to last name for formality) first loss in Sambo in eight years came at the Combat Sambo World Championships St. Petersburg, Russia". Is "in" missing before the city, or is that the full name of the event?

Done Fixed by aktsu, see note below.

  • Another hyphen for "23-year old".

Done Fixed by aktsu, see note below.

  • Club affiliation: Place initials in parenthesis after first use of Russian Top Team, because initials are used later.

Done Fixed by aktsu, see note below.

  • "with Fedor alleging he was deceived by Pogodin." This is a noun plus -ing. Need to find a way to get the -ing out of there.

Done Fixed.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hyphen for "St. Petersburg based". While here, why not remove the link, since one is in the last section?

Done Fixed.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I particularly like the fact that this has a video. That's pretty rare at FAC, at least among sportsman profiles; this is the first I've seen with a video. The prose looks pretty good so far, with a few minor issues. The big hurdle figures to be the sourcing, as many of the MMA sites are fairly underground, like the sport was until a few years ago. Even today, most of the mainstream attention goes to the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and I'm not sure how much the major media sites will have on Fedor, who has never fought in the UFC. Anyway, take care of these and I'll try to come back, though I'm developing a massive review backlog at the moment. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got everything except the second, third and second-to-last point. --aktsu (t / c) 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of comments:

  • Ivan's Blog can be considered reliable, as it's run by Ivan Trembow (a sportswriter for MMA Weekly, CNN/SI, among other outlets). Most of the stories there are also copies of archived content at MMA Weekly, which are I believe pay-access only now.
  • The Wrestling Observer is also reliable, as is most stuff by Dave Meltzer. Reference #50 has a broken link though, so somebody with the print issue needs to verify it.
  • A lot of stuff that cites primary sources needs to be recited or removed. The same thing goes for quotes in the references (even though I'm the one who added them all  ). Third-party sources shouldn't be hard to find for the statements which are currently cited to quotes, since none of them are particularly contentious.
  • There's some issues with weasel wording ("Emelianenko was expected to make quick work of Fujita") and undue weight (the bit about the interview in the lead) that needs to be pruned down - I'll try my hand at this.
  • IMHO, the use of |work= in the citing templates is bizarre, especially for web sources; I've never seen that on any other article.
done Changed those fields to publisher instead.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short paragraphs need to be expanded or integrated somewhere else. The inverted-pyramid style is inappropriate, and it's something which I've seen quite a few MMA articles suffer from. The prose could use servicing in the later part of the bio section.
  • There was an article in SI about Emelianenko's early career and training which might be useful in helping to fill out the first few sections about the bio.
  • Significant and notable criticism for fighting weak opponents and putting in poor performances is not included (example: [6]).
  • Can a passing wikignome please reformat my comments so they reflect the current FAC standards? I haven't been here in a couple years. :)

— east718 | talk | 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not a subject I am familiar with which probably helps in reviewing it (note I'm reviewing this version from 03:47, 20 February 2009) - Just looking at the flow and text rather than the comprehensiveness.

  • The lead section has citations which usually indicate that there are facts there that are not in the rest of the article. I can see that, for instance, the romanized version of his name at least is not mentioned later. Citations and associated information should be incorporated into the main text.

Done All citations removed from lead and into the main text. The lead is now short, which leads me to work on the next item.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead as it stands does not summarize the article. It mentions little from the biographical and other sections. It needs to be a summary of the entire article, rather than an introductory section.
  • The sentence beginning "In <year/date> x happened" is used too frequently and it makes some sections read like a dot-point listing (like the one I'm writing). Consider the following type of changes (note that I've also reworded parts)
—Emelianenko finished high school in 1991 and graduated with honors from a professional trade school in 1994. From 1995 until 1997, he served in the Russian Army as a military firefighter. In 1999, he married his wife Oksana, and their first daughter Masha was born in the same year. In 2006, Emelianenko broke up with his wife and started a new family with his girlfriend Marina. On December 29, 2007, his second daughter Vasilisa was born. In his spare time, he likes to read, listen to music, and draw.
→Emelianenko finished high school in 1991 and graduated with honors from a professional trade school three years later. He joined the Russian Army in 1995 and worked as a military firefighter until 1997. He married Oksana in 1999 and their daughter Masha was born in the same year. His marriage ended in 2006 and he began a new family with girlfriend Marina and his second daughter Vasilisa was born on December 29, 2007. In his spare time, Emelianenko likes to read, listen to music, and draw.
  • Avoid fast dating statements "brother Ivan is currently in training" "and later under his current coach" - better to note when this is current as of.
  • The text needs editing for clarity and redundancy eg:
—However, he has specified in a 2005 interview that this is incorrect, and his training in the army was limited to running and strength training in a makeshift gym he put together himself
→He corrected this during a 2005 interview, stating that his army training was limited to running, and strength training in a makeshift gym he assembled.
—Since the fight was in a tournament format, a winner and loser was required as draws or no contests could not be awarded. Since Emelianenko could not advance due to his injury, Kohsaka moved on (the match would have been a no contest or disqualification victory for Emelianenko otherwise).
→ Emelianenko's injury prevented his advancing and Kohsaka was awarded the win. Tournament rules required a clear winner and prevented what would otherwise have been a no contest or disqualification victory for Emelianenko.
—Four months later at Total Elimination 2004, he met Pride 2000 Grand Prix winner and former UFC heavyweight champion Mark Coleman for the first time in the ring and submitted him with an armbar at 2:11 of the first round to advance in the 2004 heavyweight Grand Prix.
→At Total Elimination 2004 four months later he fought Mark Coleman for the first time. Coleman was the Pride 2000 Grand Prix winner and a former UFC heavyweight champion. Emelianenko won with a submission by Coleman to an armbar 2 minutes 11 seconds into the first round and consequently advanced to the 2004 heavyweight Grand Prix.
  • "In 1997, Emelianenko received the official certification of a "Master of Sports" in Sambo and Judo and became part of the Russian national team" - does this mean that the "Master of Sports" lead to the team entry or simply that they happened in the same year (text is unclear).

All up a good article about an interesting subject, but there is quite a bit of text work needed before it's ready for the star- Peripitus (Talk) 05:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done:They're not needed. The tables have been successfully de-flagged. Gromlakh (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are present in the fight record of all MMA fighters pages, and have for a long time. While I personally agree with the removal, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove at least within the MMA-wikiproject. See this discussion at WT:MMA. --aktsu (t / c) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no verifiability and no set reason as to the usefulness that the flags are there. Second, the discussion at WT:MAA is flawed, as there are biased opinions of mixed martial arts editors instead of unbiased Wikipedia editors. Me, Gromlackh and even yourself said they should be removed. If consensus is formed here to remove it by those who are neutral in a discussion of promoting a featured article, then a no consensus keep at a biased WP:MMA is trumped. — Moe ε 21:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --aktsu (t / c) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited Ealdgyth, Giants2008, east718 and Peripitus back to the discussion and asked them to comment on this as an unbiased party in the use of the icons in the hope that consensus is formed. — Moe ε 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think the flags are needed. Remember, consensus Wiki-wide should always trump a project's consensus. What is needed in the table, however, are en dashes in the record column and a reference for the info (hint, hint). Giants2008 (17-14) 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under EL: Professional MMA record for Fedor Emelianenko from Sherdog. Will fix the dashes. --aktsu (t / c) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moe's post here is blatant forum shopping. He knows full well that There is a discussion underway at the icons talk page. That is the proper forum for this discussion, not here on this feature-article discussion. To come here and claim a violation of the guideline when that is under dispute elsewhere is disingenuous at best, outright deceitful at worst. If consensus there is to remove the flags, then this article should follow. I fail to see how there is any bias on flags just because an editor is on the MMA project.
Moe has been vocal in his opposition to the use of flags in that discussion; he argued that the use of flags was why the project had no higher rate of good and feature articles than the encyclopedia as a whole. I think that the use of flags is a red herring as to the quality of this or any other article, but to argue that causality and then attempt to sabotage a feature-article candidacy in an attempt to make it come true is reprehensible. Whether they are necessary or in line with the recommended guideline should be discussed there, not here. That is not a discussion on the WP:MMA talk page, but at the MOS:FLAGS talk page. I will point out that the guideline gives only three instances in its "Appropriate Use" section, and one of them states that "They are useful in articles about international sporting events." MMA events bring competitors from all over the world to compete, and their national flags are shown on each broadcast.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undeniably, if consensus here is to fail the article of FA status because of flag icons, then WP:MMA has no other choice other than to reform in a different direction with the icons, because as it stands everyone but you has said they should probably be removed. Unless you have a reliable source, 2008Olympian, that verifies a flags usage with these fighters and that it proves that the flags are not being just used for decoration, then they should be removed. — Moe ε 03:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response is located where this debate belongs.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My long-winded response is over at WT:MMA. Also, just to clarify, the flags have not always been in MMA articles. When I took my Wikibreak last year, there were actually quite a few articles where many of us had successfully cleaned out all/most of the flags and it wasn't much of an issue. They seem to have returned with a vengeance in my absence. Gromlakh (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the removal of the flags has stuck, as it should. I also agree with Gromlakh that they have popped up in recent months, and my impression is that the usual high-volume editors of MMA articles aren't adding them. There is something to be said about combat fatigue when you have an endless stream of anonymous/new users adding flags, future matches in record histories, etc. — east718 | talk | 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not let this FAC devolve into sniping over flags. If there is conflict at MMA over its flags guideline, then try to resolve it there, please. BuddingJournalist 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • Just a note that the flags in the current version I can see [7] appear appear to be a reasonable, attractive usage that I have no issue with.
  • There is no mention of what Judo Dan rank he has reached
  • I think that strong attention to the article's balance is required. This is supposed to be a biography but spends little text on the man compared to that on the fights.
  • as stated above in my other comments I think that the text needs a lot of work to meet the FA standard, though it is a fair way along - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version, there's still numerous problems with sources:

  • 13, 26, 31, and 38 are dead links.
  • 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 39, and 45 are either primary sources or interviews. The usage of 13b, 20, 25, 28, and 45 are probably acceptable though, if no secondary sources can be found to replace them.
  • The original source in 9, 12, and 14 should be tracked down.
  • There's no evidence that 23 and 47 are reliable.
  • The |publisher=/|work= citing format is inconsistent. For example, "The New York Times Company" should be "The New York Times," and "Sports.yahoo.com" should be "Yahoo! Sports." This isn't a problem that's isolated to just a few refs.

Otherwise, I concur with Peripitus: the prose definitely needs paring down and checked for flow. — east718 | talk | 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Done templates above. They are discouraged because they interfere with the FAC archives and slow loading times. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009 [8].

Magic Johnson

edit
Nominator(s): Noble Story
previous FAC (00:14, 28 May 2008)

As you can see, this article was nominated at FAC nearly a year ago. I've worked on it since then, and I've decided to bring it back. Fire away. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, never mind, I changed to a better ref (USA Today). Should be fine now. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Double check that all your websources have last access dates. I noted current refs 58, 51, 59, but there were others.
  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I was a reviewer at the first nomination, and will be looking at this from the top.

  • "He won a championship and a NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award" Change "a" before Finals MVP to "an".
  • "and the Lakers went on to win a total of five championships during the 1980s." A much less wordy way of phrasing this would be "and the Lakers won five championships during the 1980s."
  • To comply with the MoS, the Off the Court and Career Achievements sections should be Off the court and Career achievements, respectively.
  • Don't like the fact that "Professional biography" is the title of the main section. That doesn't really account for his college career.
  • Early years: "Johnson led Lansing Everett to a 27–1 win loss record" Hyphen for "win loss".
  • The team fulfilled their promise of winning the state title in Chastaine's honor by winning the title game in overtime." their→its. Also, change one usage of "title" to avoid unnecessary repetition.
  • Michigan State University: When Ealdgyth states that printed publications need italics, that is true for the body, in addition to citations. Sports Illustrated is in need of italics.
  • Rookie season in the NBA: "owner Jerry Buss eventually persuaded them to draft Johnson. Johnson...". Close repetition again.
  • "(Kareem) was unable to play in the remainder of the series." The source doesn't say this at all.

There were a few other changes I want to make in the lead, to provide ideas for improvement throughout. For now, take a look at these and watch for my edit. I'll come back after these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded as advised. I've split that long section into two (adding "Amateur career"). Also, the ref says "The next morning the Lakers arrived at Los Angeles International Airport for their flight to Philadelphia and learned that Abdul-Jabbar wouldn't be making the trip. His ankle was so bad that doctors had advised him to stay home and try to get ready for Game 7." I've reworded the statement a bit, and it should fit with the ref. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the original comments have been done, I'll provide some more now.
  • Byron Scott and Converse links need disambiguation.
  • Something that I happened to spot in the references was the use of pp. in all page numbers. Single pages should have just p., which can be done by changing the pages= parameter in the template to page=.
  • Ups and downs: "after Johnson airballed a last-second shot in Game 3 on a play originally designed for Abdul-Jabbar." I'd like to see a wikilink for "allballed", since that is a bit of basketball jargon.
  • "Johnson signed a 25-year, $25-million contract...". Remove the hyphen from the dollar figure, and don't forget to put in a non-breaking space, like this: $25 million. It would be a good idea to check for non-breakers in any other dollar amounts in the article.
  • "and 2.50 steals per game." Why is the 0 here?
  • Grammar: "and he credited Riley with making Lakers successful."
  • "and faced the Sixers for a third time, who featured...". Change first part to "and for a third time faced the Sixers".
  • Battles with the Celtics: Hyphen for "34 point loss".
  • "But after advancing to the Western Conference Finals". To avoid starting a sentence with but, try "After advancing to the Western Conference Finals, however,".
  • "Johnson was awarded his third Finals MVP title.[52]During...". Space needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite concerned about the heavy reliance on his autobiography. Is this primary source being used correctly? BuddingJournalist 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I mean, I guess it's up to the reviewer to decide. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comment -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

Oppose. Given the large number of biographies written about him, I'm concerned that the article instead relies on an autobiography. As a general rule, an autobiography covers information that the subject wants you to know, not necessarily a balanced overall look at the person's life. Although I think that there are uses for autobiographies (such as filling in more personal detail or providing excellent quotes), they should be used quite sparingly.

  • There are also some prose issues that will need to be addressed. Following are examples only:
    • There is some unnecessary reptition. For example, in the 2nd paragraph of early years, 2 consecutive sentences mention "nicknamed "Magic"" - this could easily be rewritten to eliminate one instance..
    • There needs to be a comma audit - I think there are a lot of unnecessary commas
  • I think some of the information included in the article is unnecessarily detailed. For example:
    • what is the point of including the information about his best friend's car accident? Did this have an impact on Johnson's later life (if so, that needs to be explicitely stated)? Did it have anything to do with basketball (as the rest of the paragraph does)? If not, why is it included?
    • Why does this article need the information about how the Lakers got the first pick in the draft? All we really care about in this article is that they had the first pick.
  • Any information on whether he ever completed his degree?
  • The article probably ought to mention that the Dream Team won the gold medal
  • Don't start a section with a quotation - this is not suitable for an encyclopedic tone
  • Don't use callout quotes - see WP:MOSQUOTE
  • Any information on respopnse to his books?
  • In the refs, ESPN.com should not be italicized - it's not a magazine (same with basketball-reference.com, which is sometimes in italic, but not always); on the other hand, Entertainment Weekly IS a magazine
  • I strongly recommend that you split out book information from the references. It is difficult to figure out which book when all you have is Bork (1994)... - I have to look through all the previous references to find out which book that is.

Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009 [9].

Black history in Puerto Rico

edit
Nominator(s): Cerejota (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria set forth in Wikipedia for featured articles. It is well-written, sourced, illustrated, stable, and a Good Article which has been successfully re-assessed once. It is a significant part of Puerto Rican history, and a great contribution to wikipedia. Cerejota (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Great content, and I wish you luck with this, but it still needs a lot of work. Can you find a good copy editor to go through this article? Here are just a few random examples of the kind of things that need to be fixed:
    • "They were allowed to live with family in a bohio (hut) on the master's land and was given a patch of land ..." Fixed
    • "... in what became the beginning of the slave trade in the New World." It wasn't really a "new world", just newly discovered (rediscoverd?) by Europeans. Best to avoid the term. Fixed
    • "An official Spanish edict of 1664 offered freedom and land to African people from non-Spanish colonies, such as Jamaica and St. Dominique (Haiti), who immigrated to Puerto Rico ...". Should be "emigrated" to Puerto Rico. Were there also unofficial Spanish edicts?Fixed
    • "It should be noted that the escaped slaves and freedman who immigrated from the West Indies ..." Why should it be noted? Fixed
    • "By the 18th century slaves were no longer branded the method of hot branding was no longer used after 1784." Fixed
    • "The event was also historical because it was the first time that the island would participate as a nation ..." Why "would participate" instead of participated? Fixed
    • "The descents of the former African slaves ...". Descendants? Fixed
    • I suggest that you move the list in Notable Puerto Ricans of African Ancestry to a separate article and convert to prose something about any particularly important people.

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A couple things I came across at quick-glance:
    • The section Notable Puerto Ricans of African Ancestry has no citations. The majority of it should also probably be outsourced to a list, with the most notable people described in prose.
    • Checklinks reports several links that are dead or have connection issues.
    • The majority of the citations are incomplete, not reporting publishers, authors, dates, etc.
    • Why are there two See also sections?

--Eustress (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you haven't even started on the work that needs to be done Tony. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know it still needs some work. You know sometimes I can't see the most obvious which is under my nose. I feel like a blind man trying to organize a dark room (smile) and I'm sorry about that. What I have done is requested the help of a friend User: SGGH who is a more experienced copyeditor with a few FA's under his belt. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • My first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. I can't even begin to address the reliablity of the sources before that's taken care of.
  • Still a number of deadlinks.
Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • [http://www.ipoaa.com/africa_puertorico.htm African Aspects of the Puerto Rican Personality], Retrieved July 20, 2007'' | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • [http://ipoaa.com/africa_puertorico.htm African Aspects of the Puerto Rican Personality by (the late) Dr. Robert A. Martinez, Baruch College], Retrieved July 20, 2007'' | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • [http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/santeria.htm Santeria, The Orisha Tradition of Voudou: Divination, Dance & Initiation], Retrieved July 20, 2007| Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Diaz - Multiple references are given the same name
  • Code - Multiple references are given the same name
  • Bio - Multiple references are given the same name
  • Santeria- Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009 [11].

Roxy Ann Peak

edit
Nominator(s): LittleMountain5

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is ready, and I don't think there is much more to add. It passed its GAN last November, and was peer reviewed in December. I also want to thank ZabMilenko, Brianboulton, Droll, Backslash Forwardslash, and the many others that have helped with the article. Thanks, LittleMountain5 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 21 (Ashland Trails...) needs a publisher
  • The "Since you Asked" refs .. the publisher is the Mail Tribune, they are just published in the Since you Asked section. Need to change those.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Comment 1: It appears to be a site that works a lot like Wikipedia, with users editing pages and things. I'm not sure if it could be considered reliable, however, it is doubled up with a least one other ref each time it appears in the article, so it could be removed if needed. LittleMountain5 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's like a wiki, then no, it's not reliable, and should be removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleMountain5 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Comment 2: Fixed. LittleMountain5 Happy Valentine's Day! 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Comment 3: Fixed. LittleMountain5 Happy Valentine's Day! 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanascs. I'm concerned about the sourcing level in this article. Some of it is sourced to self-published websites, and much of it is sourced to the local newspaper. Are there any academic studies about the mountain? Any more information on the effects of tourism on the mountain (either ecological or financial)?

  • Shouldn't geology be before history, since the first part of the geology section is about the history of the mountain's formation?
  • The unique rounded top and the height create a landmark distinguishable from as far away as Ashland, Oregon and the Siskiyou Pass on Interstate 5 - how far away are those? I'm not familiar with Oregon geography
  • Can we elaborate on the "recent evidence" that the mountain might not be volcanic?
  • The fact that the mountain is part of the Cascades is not mentioned in the article body
  • The website of a bowling alley (http://www.roxyannlanes.com/html/about.html) is absolutely not a reliable source for any part of this article
  • A large part of the article seems sourced to the Prescott Park brochure, by the city of Medford. This to me seems like a primary source, and should thus not be used so heavily.
  • It looks like the Oregon Historical Quarterly has information about the mountain's early history too [12]

Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to go over the article. As far as I know, there are no academic studies about the mountain, and besides vandalism, I don't think there are many other effects of tourism in the park.
@Comment 1: I'm not really, sure, but I've moved it because it makes sense.
@Comment 2: I've added distances.
@Comment 3: All that the referance states is that the peak may be an intrusion in the otherwise volcanic region. The info could either be removed, or someone could ask the user who added it, Seattle Skier.
@Comment 4: Where would a good place for that information be?
@Comment 5: Removed.
@Comment 6: 5 out of the 7 times the brochure ref appears in the article, it is doubled up with a least one other ref. These 5 could either be left, or removed, leaving only 2 times it is used.
@Comment 7: Thanks for finding that, I'll look at it.
Thanks again, LittleMountain5 23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about the non-bulleted comments in the opening remarks, too. I worry that this article is not comprehensive. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to indent, so I'm not sure if you saw my comments above. Also, what does it need to be more comprehensive? LittleMountain5 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see my replies to Comments 3, 4, and 6. Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be more information on 3 - how you get that data I'm don't know. For 4, I don't care - probably in Geology. For 6, if the other cite that double-ups covers all the info in that sentence, remove the brochure ref. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per 3, I cannot find any more information on the subject. It could either be left, or removed. Thanks, LittleMountain5 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for 4, and this for 6? LittleMountain5 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for comment 7, I'll try to find it in a local library sometime soon, because it is only snippet view. LittleMountain5 21:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work. Please note that my biggest issue is that there appears to be almost no information from journals/academic studies/etc. I'm worried that an article sourced primarily to newspapers is not comprehensive on a topic such as this. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the effort you put into this. LittleMountain5 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009 [13].

Franklin Knight Lane

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because this guy's one of the more underrated Cabinet secretaries, but he was quite a man in his time, and he originated one of the best putdown lines about New Jersey ever, "Nobody comes back from Trenton knowing anything more than when he went." (still used when New Jersey newspapers are in bad moods about the legislature) (I grew up in New Jersey, so I'm allowed to). Seriously, I think it meets the FA criteria. Note that I'm going away on Saturday, and my internet is likely to be spotty, but I'll respond as quickly as possible. Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concern (not an oppose at this point): The article seems to rely extremely heavily on de facto primary sources. The Google Books link in the article to The Letters of Franklin K. Lane actually goes to The United States in the First World War, so I haven't been able to verify this firsthand, but I assume from the name that it's a collection of his letters, rather than a fact-checked secondary source. If this is the case, I'm not sure it's suitable as an FA's primary reference. The prose looks pretty good, though, and it's an interesting and comprehensive article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is part bio, part collection of his letters. It's on Google books in full. Most of the refs to it either say "Lane wrote" or refer directly to the biographic parts, most usefully a chronology of Lane's life (ref name = "outline"). I will change that link, give me a minute.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was brought up rather quickly, let me cite the relevant language from WP:PRIMARY

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

A published book of letters by Lane, with an outline of his life and some biographic detail, qualifies. I should note that this was a major publishing event of 1922, and was very favorably reviewed by the NY Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that it's acceptable for use as a primary source, but I don't believe that any primary source, even one covered by WP:PRIMARY, should be used to support the bulk of material in a featured article. That said, from what you've said so far there's a (presumably secondary) biographical element to the book, which might address my concerns; I'm looking into it via Project Gutenberg, which I'm finding rather user-unfriendly (but I'm also kind of incompetent). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the google books link.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After reviewing the book on Google Books, I can confirm that a huge portion of this article is sourced from primary sources (i.e. letters written by the subject during his life) in contravention of WP:RS, which states that "articles should be based on reliable secondary sources" and of WP:OR, which states "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Most of what isn't is sourced from contemporary media reports (i.e. from the 1920s or earlier) or from the non-letter portions of his book of letters, also published in the 1920s. Has he not been the subject of any recent scholarship? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unaware of any recent scholarship on Lane, other than passing references in bios of Wilson and other figures of that era, and in books on specific subjects that involved Lane, such as national parks and the like. The biographical details inserted in the book of letters seemed strong enough, after all, they are not primary sources. Very little is taken as fact from Lane's letters, it is mostly "Lane wrote" or "Lane stated", which I think is good, because it gives a picture of the man himself. I would submit to you that it does meet the FA criteria. If there are specific things in the article which are sourced to a letter of Lane and which needs secondary source backup, let me know, and I'll look around for it. But I don't agree with you, with respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be acceptable as a RS? Here is the info on the guy who wrote it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my delay in responding; I had somehow failed to notice this question. In my view, that would be an acceptable secondary source. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the edits done at the behest of BuddingJournalist, I'm going to ask you to review your oppose. I'll drop a note at your talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that the single issue that I raised has been addressed. I hope to have time to conduct a more thorough review before this closes, whereupon I will either support or reinstate my oppose with a new rationale; for now, I've just struck it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead seems unbalanced to article and unclear in wording:
  • "Despite his support for the controversial Hetch Hetchy Reservoir project in Yosemite National Park, which flooded a valley esteemed by many conservationists, he presided over the establishment of the National Park Service." - I don't get the meaning of "despite" in this context.
  • Why is the bankruptcy of the newspaper mentioned in the lead, especially as the newspaper apparently continued to publish. But even so, is this lead material about a man that was presidential material?
  • "Friends of Lane said after his death that had he not been born in what is now Canada, he would have become president." - I can accept that he did great things, but the information in the body of the article does not seem to support the premise that he had great fame and a popular following, or that he had a huge amount of charisma, or whatever that "he would have become president", if not for birth.

—Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Death brings hagiography, of course, but the extensive coverage in the Times makes it clear that he was very well thought of. The Times, apparently unaware of the 12th Amendment, was perfectly willing to buy that he was running for VP when he had that meeting in Austin, even though he had held no office above the municpal level at that time. I'll strike the bankruptcy (and honestly, I didn't put in that pipe and will not vouch that the Tacoma News he edited was the pedecessor paper of the periodical piped to). I'll rework the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked the lede a bit and will continue to. I should add that the ICC was IMPORTANT, it regulated the railroads, and basically everything depended on the railroads. The Republicans held up his nomination for six months (of course, Congress didn't sit that much in those days, but even so) because they weren't happy about giving the Democrats an equal voice on the Commission. He went around holding these high profile hearings all over the country as commissioner. This was serious stuff, in the context of the times. After all, his main competition for the nomination in 1912 would have been Champ Clark and some Princeton professor no one had ever heard of. I can see him winning the nomination. And given how split the Republicans were ... --Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until relatively quite recently, "running" for the nomination for VP was acceptable. Last I can think of offhand was JFK in 1956, he was definitely pushing Stevenson to dump Kefauver. But, just by way of example, TR declined to give the 1904 Republican Convention any guidance as to the choice of VP (what did he care, he wasn't giving the poor slob any power). Conventions would often take two or three ballots to decide on a VP candidate, especially considering the Dems still had the "two thirds rule" which really bit them in 1924.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you know more than I do. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I simply have Wikipedia on the brain (beta version, soon to come to a cerebrum near you).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving concerns. They are struck out above. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me. I've been there twice, wanna go again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • I echo the concerns about how much of the article is sourced to the letters of the subject.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cites to the book of letters are sourced to the considerable biographic information that is included in the volume, which is a valid secondary source. For the most part, citations to the letters themselves are either quotes or else are clearly labeled, "Lane wrote" or the like. Not all, but in most cases. If someone will let me know what they say is sourced to the letters that needs additonal citation, I will look at it. I will take care of the italics issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just making it clear, since there haven't been any edits here for almost three days, that I stand solidly behind the nomination. I am waiting for guidance either here or at the RS noticeboard regarding the source I asked about, and also here regarding the Letters issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll undertake a source check in the next day or so and give my thoughts. BuddingJournalist 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some information missing from some of the sources. Web sources need retrieval dates. Books (The American Year Book, for example) need page numbers. If an author is known, s/he should be included as well. BuddingJournalist 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is going to be several days, possibly a week before I can get to the pages issue. Google Books is not letting me look at the books in full because I am presently in Colombia, which has a 100 year copyright rule. The major one is the Secretary's report for 1913. Incidently, most NY Times articles of the era did not have bylines. I've added access dates because as a matter of routine I go through every source before nominating for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, cites to the specific pages of the Interior Department report will be done next week. I've taken care of everything else, I think. I understand the concern about the cites to the Letters but I think it is misplaced. Only one fact is cited to an actual letter of Lane--that Wilson did not announce his Cabinet choices at first. I guess I could troll bios of Wilson for a secondary source to confirm that, but the fact that the NY Times only had a complete list on March 3 confirms that anyway. Every other cite is either to the biographical information regarding Lane in the book, which of course was not written by him, and which is fairly detailed (and may be verified if you want to pull up Google books) or is clearly identified as a statement by Lane and not taken as a fact. I'm just going to await additional comments by reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update...after a bit of source checking. Many of the citations to the Letters book are, as Wehwalt states, to biographical notes written (presumably) by the editors, not actual letters or other primary sources. I do wish there were more contemporary, higher-quality secondary sources to use though; it's sometimes not clear what the editors are basing their observations on.
    • I did come across one trouble spot in my random spot checking so far: the 1906 earthquake paragraph in the Interstate Commerce Commission section. The entire paragraph is sourced to pp. 59-61, and heroically presents the deeds of Lane as fact. I wonder whether this presentation is misleading. The source for this is a story written by Will Irwin who apparently heard of Lane's deeds through a friend. Who is Irwin? What is the nature of this story (was it published somewhere)? I think an attribution "according to Will Irwin, _description of Irwin_, Lane..." might be best here.
    • Will continue to plug away. BuddingJournalist 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Unfortunately, I seem to be Lane's best quality biographer since Letters was released, even the sketch which is on the Cal website which you approved of above contains errors. It is a pity, he deserves better, and his letters have proved a gold mine for biographers of other figures of the era, according to Google books searches. I've tried to make up for that by letting Lane speak for himself, to let the reader get a sense of the man, and with the other secndary sources, the Times article, the books, that at least touch on Lane. But we have to deal with the sources we have. Anyway, I will inline mention that the fire story is according to Lane's friend Will Irwin, and go on from there. Irwin was an author and poet from California, today just about unknown, but I find he has a very brief WP article and have linked. Thanks for your help so far. I knew this one would be a challenge, but I'm determined to see it through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update
    • Non-source related: "In an era when political conventions were far more free to make their own choice for Vice President than they are today" The personification of conventions reads oddly to me. No doubt the delegates to these conventions, no?
    • "Lane was offered the support of the New York delegation, which he declined" Sourced to a letter. Potentially problematic since Lane states that he heard of the offer of support through a letter from a friend who heard it from a Senator. This offer through telephone should be verified by secondary sources.
    • "While returning to California from a trip to Washington, D.C..." Can this not be sourced to the New York Times article rather than the letter?
    • "Lane 1922, pp. 48–50" Should that be 49–50 instead? pg. 48 is a letter that doesn't seem to contain anything that's being covered by that citation.
    • "He declined, preferring to remain a commissioner." Sourced to a letter.
    • "In 1910, Taft designated Lane as a U.S. delegate to the International Railways Congress." Sourced to a letter, although rather uncontroversial. Is it 1910 though? This date seems to have been extrapolated from the date of the letter.
    • "After hearing of the abuses of the express system..." Sourced to pages 100-1. What is this long quotation from James S. Harlan? What's the context?
    • ""I don't want to deal with a clerk or one..." Quotation with no attribution or context.
    • "Lane supported New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson for president, but refused to make speeches on the Democratic candidate's behalf, feeling that ICC commissioners should act in a nonpartisan manner." Sourced to a letter. A few problems with this. First, while I have no reason to doubt that Lane is being sincere, extrapolations like these are best left to scholars. There could be other reasons why he refused to go to California to make speeches other than what he stated in the letter. This brings us to the second problem: "refused to make speeches on the Democratic candidate's behalf". This is a generalization that cannot be made. The letter only gives evidence of Lane's refusal to travel to California and make speeches on Wilson's behalf. Much safer to say something along the lines of: "In a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman William F. Combs, Lane refused to travel to California..."
    • On a note unrelated to this FAC, the way citation templates are being used decreases editability (is that a word?). Lots of extraneous parameters that can be eliminated.
    • All I found for now (I may have missed some though). While not debilitating, some of these issues are troubling and need attention. BuddingJournalist 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article doesn't say Lane was going back to California, so I can't. If necessary, I will simply say he visited Austin and lose the ref to the Letters. I've taken care of the other things. Harlan was his fellow ICC commissioner for six years and became chair in 1914, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, the only unresolved thing I'm aware of is the page numbers for the Secretary of the Interior's report, which I will do tomorrow or the next day on my return to the States. I am happy to read and act on other reviews. Right now we're kind of in sleep mode. I continue to stand behind the article and welcome comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update The page numbers for the Secretary's report for 1913 have now been inserted, apparently Google Books will only let you look at it if you are in the US. Go figure. Anyhow, all concerns and suggestions have now been addressed. I'm a bit concerned, we are running a bit late in the FAC process. Still I await all feedback. I am presently at home until Tuesday, and again, internet access could be a bit spotty after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The prose needs work. I copyedited the lead and the first section, and found quite a bit that needed changing. A couple of recurring problems:
    • Lane is mentioned by name far too often, and
    • Quite often sentences begin with "In 19XX," and then go on to describe events that did not occur in that year (examples that I corrected: "In 1905, Lane was appointed a commissioner of the Interstate Commerce Commission by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt and was reappointed in 1909 by President William Howard Taft., "In 1893, Lane married Anne Wintermute, and they had two children". I'll try to get to the rest of the article, but if somebody else could go through and do a copyedit, looking especially for those problems, it would be helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to use a name in preference to a pronoun, perhaps to excess. They taught me in junior high always to use the name when the person is mentioned for the first time in a paragraph, for example, and then again if you have mentioned another person of the same sex, or if there has been a gap since you mentioned the name last. Anyhow, I've gone through it, changed some of the Lanes to "the Secretary" or "Secretary Lane" or the like. I found one other example of what you mention, events that didn't happen in that year, (the tributes to Lane) and adjusted it. Thanks for the feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own rule of thumb is to use the name on the first occurrence in each paragraph and on other occasions only when to do otherwise would be ambiguous. Anyway, I've continued my copyedit, and here are a few more points I've noticed:
  • The article relies too much on direct quotations.
  • The article tends towards sympathy for its subject: "The conservative city had no intention of electing a Democratic, reform-minded mayor", "Lane had battled [the railroads] in his law practice", and that sort of thing all give the impression of Lane as the good guy, fighting powerful forces beyond his control. I've had another look at the Letters source, and I think it suffers from much the same problem.
  • The underuse of pronouns does not only apply when talking about Lane. That said, this last issue is one that I should be able to fix on my own. The first two are likely to require some attention from you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The conservative city" thing is not there to drum up sympathy for Lane, it is to make the reader think how times have changed if San Francisco can be described as conservative. The railroads thing is in there because according to the Times, Wilson appointed Lane to the Interior Department because he had fought the railroads and was on the outs with Hearst. But I'll tone it down. I haven't found any source which foams at the mouth against Lane. The closest is Albright's book, which suggests that Lane really didn't care much about National Parks, and the ensuing blockquote makes it clear that Lane's mindset was to pave Paradise and put up a parking lot, if it furthered human progress. As for the direct quotation thing, we're pretty much at the limit of secondary sources regarding Lane. I'll see if I can get rid of a couple, but there's nothing in the barrel to replace them with. I've been thinking of buying articles from the Washington Post archives about Lane, but am reluctant to do so until I know what points are at issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out the "conservative city" thing, and rephrased the railroads thing. It has to be left in as background, so when the reasons for Wilson's appointment per the Times are put before the reader, the reader doesn't wonder why this hasn't been mentioned. I cut back four quotes by Lane I felt were dispensible. There's still, I think, five from the letters. Two are brief, in the ICC section. The third is his views on the wilderness, and that's important because it accords with Albright's view of Lane. Lane's quote before World War I is important because it makes it clear to the reader that he was beating the drum for war. The other is the lengthy quote to Cox (from what is a very long letter) which I think aids the reader because it was written less than a year before Lane died, and it is rather a valedictory speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I should say that there are also 2 quotes from Lane in the NY Times in there, plus some quotes from other people about Lane, or the famous Muir quote about Hetch Hetchy. I don't think it is excessive as it stands now. Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know. I just did a count: the article currently contains 4423 words of readable prose. Of those, fully 632—more than 14%—are direct quotes. These are included in eighteen different quotes of varying size. It was even worse before your recent cull. I have a hard time believing that there's another biographical FA with anything approaching that; I doubt there's one with more than 10% quotes, actually. I think this also goes back to my concern about the reliance on primary sources: this winds up looking more like a secondary source that the tertiary source it's supposed to be. This is above and beyond the prose issues (and the continued overuse of Lane's name: even after you did your sweep, there were still things like "...Lane pushed for a government-built railroad, which Lane believed..." in there). I'm going to step away from this for a while before finishing my copyediting and then coming back to have another look, but I'm not sure there's an FA there. Hopefully in the meantime some other reviewers will have a look at my comments and either agree or disagree with them; I certainly don't want to single-handedly scuttle an FA review, here, which I hope is obvious by the time I've spent copyediting. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it. I suspect that if I omitted the one long quote in the later life section, I'd bring that down to 10 percent, but darn it, I'm starting to dig in my heels and mumble things about editorial judgment. That letter to Cox was very much his valediction, summing up what the man had believed in and learned in a lifetime of service. I believe this meets FA criteria. Oh, I could take out a couple of quotes at this point, and disguise others, but I think you are right, we really need to hear from other reviewers. I don't want to gut the articles by removing the quotes, have it fail FA anyway, and then be left with an article which is (in my view) worse off without the quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed seven of the eighteen quotes, either by total removal or paraphrase. I'm reluctant to go any further. I've found references to a book which draws on Colonel House's diaries, that supplements the info we had on how Lane came to be appointed SecInt. Lane's letters were excerpted as well in The World's Work with bio info that is not the same (not contradictory, just different and more complete in some ways) than that in the book, which gives us an independent secondary source. I'm using it lightly though. So after a hard couple of hours work, I think your concerns are being addressed. We need some quotes in there, and the Letters have proved an important source for biographers of Wilson and other figures of the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

Fixed. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me. DrKiernan (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uneasy feeling, possible Oppose. Must go to bed now but have fears about NPOV and possible 1(b). More in 12 hours. The "would be president" sources look very very cuddly if you actually go look at them... Gotta go more later Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The would be president is from this, an account of Lane which is hardly hagiographic. It is backed up by the reference to Villard which, because he is so laudatory towards Lane, I use only for that and put in an inline cite mentioning who said it. Standard practice. I think I tried for a portrait of the man which would interest the reader, but hardly a hagiographic one. For example, I highlighted Hetch Hetchy, which in a lot of ways is what he is remembered for. Getting a valley in a National Park flooded is hardly a good thing by today's standards. The quote I end the Department activities section with makes it clear that he would have been happy to hook up Old Faithful to a steam heating system if it would have benefitted mankind to do so. Lane is a mixed figure, like most. Intriguing in a lot of ways, but mixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by this, I don't think we will hear anything more from Ling.Nut on this. I hope his concerns were addressed by the subsequent copyedit, and I also hope his comment won't now be held against the article, since I have no idea how to deal further with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The prose is just okay in many places. I ran through and made some simple changes, but I'm afraid someone needs to dig in a little deeper and root out many of the "Lane this", "Lane that" repetitiveness. This feels fairly rushed to FA, as I don't see any evidence that a peer review was obtained or even that you got a second pair of eyes on it before bringing it here. It desperately needs a fresh, effective copyeditor to spend a couple intimate hours with it. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you care to be more specific, I'll try to address your concerns. I'm unclear what you mena by Lane this, Lane that. It is the man's name, it is the same number of syllables as saying "he". Were his name "Zarablowkonski", I'd see your point a bit more clearly perhaps. However, I did some editing and now very few paragraphs begin with the word Lane. I did ask Mattisse to take a look at it before I nommed, Mattisse did a little work but really wasn't interested in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are too many issues to delineate here; hence my request for a copyedit. I implore you to get someone other than yourself, as it becomes very difficult to copyedit our own writing after a time. The "Lane" issue is a perfect example—you're too close to the text to recognize that a fresh pen is needed to phrase things in different ways so they don't all have to begin with "Lane" or even "He". The number of syllables is not the issue, it's that we've not reached "compelling" or "brilliant" yet. --Laser brain (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your opinion. With respect, I'd also like to see what other editors think. I understand that you have prose concerns, but if you see other issues that need to be addressed, I'd be grateful if you would mention them, that way they can be fixed regardless of the outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you do not intend to seek a copyedit? --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that. I had asked AuburnPilot to look at the article more generally to give me advice, as the article had been sitting here for almost a month without much activity. I will ask him if he can copyedit as well. Obviously, the more feedback the better, so I am asking you for yours on non-prose issues, if you have any. I'm just not sure how long Raul and Sandy will let this sit open, it is now the oldest active FAC and Tuesday, the day on which they often promote/not promote, is almost here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I'm sorry about the late feedback, but there is a dearth of reviewers and a sizable backlog. If this gets archived, feel free to contact me for a peer review before bringing it back. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and thanks for the offer. And I'm an abysmal reviewer or I'd help out with the backlog. If this gets archived, I'd probably nominate Rudolf Wolters next, which is a GA and is a colloboration among myself and two other editors, and spend the time while it is on the page getting a review as you suggest. I'm still strongly behind the Lane article though, and I think this nom can succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already copyedited, and changes like this one: [14] make the grammar worse to my eyes and ears. DrKiernan (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck. BuddingJournalist 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subjective matter. Most modern professional writing and style manuals (including CMOS) have abandoned the archaic rule about ending a sentence in a preposition. Why the twisted "for which he was responsible" when one word can be eliminated while making it easier on the reader? --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ending sentences in prepositions isn't something up with which I shall not put. But in that particular case, to my ears, "to oversee the parks for which the Department was responsible" sounds much better; avoids the issue of "the _noun_ the _noun_" and places the preposition closer to the object in question. BuddingJournalist 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was doing some copyediting and stumbled across "In 1882, Franklin Knight Lane was hired to work in the printing office of the Oakland Times, from which he was promoted to reporter, while becoming actively involved in the Prohibition Party." Wanted to break this up and eliminate the awkward "from which", so I checked the source only to find some inconsisties.
    • No year is given in the source for when he was hired for the paper.
    • Source does not use the word "promoted"; it's unclear this was indeed a promotion. Seems more like a horizontal career move. Newspaper printing offices are separate from the reporter's bullpen, and we're not given what his duties were with the printing office.
    • "while becoming" is inaccurate. Source doesn't say that the campaigning happened while he was working for the Oakland Times. BuddingJournalist 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. He was a "printer's devil", not an office of high responsibility and trust. Reporter would certainly be a promotion from there, but I've taken out the word anyway. I think some material from another source had sneaked into here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went and looked at Alexander Hamilton as the first US gov't official I could think of born outside the US in a political subdivision that has since changed, and basically followed that. I've done the things that you suggested, Tony.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:59, 27 February 2009 [15].

Cyclone Hondo

edit
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article. Although the Meteorological history section seems long, the storm was extremely long lived and strong, which requires more content to write on. The storm had minimal impact, only on two islands off the coast of Madagascar. To get this cleared away beforehand, I have look in both English and French sources for any more impact or preparations regarding Hondo but nothing else has shown up. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - When i reviewed this article for GA Status earlier in the week, I could not find anything wrong with it per either the GA or the FA Critera. Jason Rees (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. talk:Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Decent article, but I feel there are too many problems for this to be on FAC. One overall problem may be that it's too soon after the storm (less than one year isn't very long - the seasonal report isn't even out yet).
    • First, the lede is far too long. Either split into two paragraphs, or shorten it.
    • Second, its meteorological history is too long. Four paragraphs would be appropriate for a storm of that caliber. But even in that, there are still some uncertain details. What was its origin? Why did it move the way it did? That means both at first, and also later on in its duration. You say "started a gradual curving path", but I have no idea what that means. Why did it turn west-northwestward after the final advisory was issued? Was that expected?
    • Did anything meteorologically happen before the JTWC's TCFA? The most important part of a storm's duration is how it first formed. You have a few sentences of rambling statistics without saying what the storm did.
    • Try explaining the 1-min and 10-min thing a little better.
    • How did it strength further, after the initial increase in wind shear?
    • I see a lot of confusing details that need explanation.
      • However, it was not operationally classified as a disturbance for another two days - I think of a disturbance as an area of disturbed weather, and so might the reader. You don't say anything about the MFR classification system. Either it should be explained, or it should be removed. Keep in mind what is and isn't important for the reader to understand the storm.
      • significant strengthening was likely - this should be "considered likely". Mother nature doesn't believe in probabilities, so either it was likely to the agency, or those factors "favored significant strengthening".
      • At 0600 UTC, Météo-France classified the depression as a moderate tropical storm and was given the name Hondo;[7] a name submitted to the World Meteorological Organization by Zimbabwe - semicolon is not correctly used.
      • Ref 9 is from MFR, but you mention just "Category 1 hurricane". First, the SSHS is only for 1-min winds, and second, you don't even mention what "Category 1" is.
      • Can you shorten the end of the 3rd paragraph? It's really long and rambling.
      • "two subtropical highs" - for this sentence, you link subtropical, but subtropical highs have nothing at all to do with subtropical cyclones. Please fix.
      • Did MFR adjust the track/strength of Hondo in post-analysis while it was near Reunion?
      • For preps/impact, please either split, or re-organize to keep info together for similar areas. You go from preps in Reunion to Madagascar, then back to Reunion.
      • Lastly, you say "Up to 760,000 people were affected on Réunion". That's a pretty foolish thing to say, since the source only says 760,000 is the population of Reunion. It seems unlikely every person on the island was affected. Either explain or, ideally, get rid of it. Don't try and over-compensate for lack of information.
  • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note- After a brief off-wiki discussion with Hurricanehink concerning his comments, I've decided to withdraw this nomination. Cyclonebiskit 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:22, 24 February 2009 [16].

Ralph Bakshi

edit
Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through many improvements since its first nomination, and I believe it meets all of the qualifications. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All that seems to have happened since the last FAC are minor copyedits in the lead and some low-level cleanups. Essentially the article is the same as that which was archived on 13 January. What has been done to resolve the issues outstanding at that time? Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issues that had been brought up in the last FAC had all been resolved. Had the FAC been properly extended, it would have already been listed as a FA. The very last comments even state that "This is an outstanding article on an important figure and easily worthy of FA status. The only improvement I could find to make was to add a single wiki-link." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose on referencing. I've checked through the references in the first para ('Early life and television work') and several don't ref what they say they do, and some facts are not referenced. On the numbering current as I write this, the first para is actually taken almost entirely from reference 2 (Bakshi's own online biog), with some content from refs 5 and 6. Refs 1 and 3 don't seem to reference anything from this first para, although they are cited there. I may have missed it, but I can't see anything that refs the following facts: that Bakshi is of Krymchak descent, that as a boy he loved comic books and art and was a boxer, how he pitched Mighty Heroes. Sorry. 4u1e (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — The part about Bakshi being of Krymchak descent was added by an anonymous editor without sourcing. I removed it entirely, and switched the citations to reflect what is actually sourced. That link you mention is from Bakshi's website, but it is not a blog. It is from the biographical section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Being that this editor has yet to respond, I think it's safe to say that his comments can be written off as being outdated and inaccurate. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Wait a little. You've given him 8 hours to get back to you? You can't seriously expect an answer so soon. Apterygial 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll leave it to the FA director and/or deputy to judge whether or not a delay of about 36 hours in responding invalidates my comments. If you look at my edit history, you'll note that I've not been on Wikipedia since Ibaranoff's initial response to my oppose.
        • I agree that your recent edits have fixed the problems identified in the 'Early life and television work' paragraph. I suppose what I should have said explicitly above is that finding problems of that magnitude in the only para I looked at means I don't trust the referencing in the rest of the article. Can you confirm that you have checked through the referencing in the rest of the article for similar problems? If so, I'll check another para at random and (hopefully!) strike my oppose. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the interests of managing expectations, I'm unlikely to get much editing/reviewing time over this weekend. Hopefully I'll be able to check in this evening and possibly tomorrow morning. :) 4u1e (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have checked all of the references. I even updated the book citations for specific chapters, separating each chapter into a different citation, which is something that I do not usually do, but have picked up from other editors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • I've rechecked the citations, per request. They adequately reflect the text. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Ibaranoff and I probably have a slightly different view on whether or not the cites are fixed. After Ibaranoff's assurance above on 14th Feb that all refs had been reviewed, I found similar problems when I checked another random para. I've discussed these with Ibaranoff on his talk page and they are now fixed but the sampling approach isn't working, so I'll need to check them all in detail myself before striking my oppose. I'll report back here as soon as possible. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, done. Oppose is struck. A couple of minor points: Is ref 8 supporting anything in the first para of 'early feature films'? I can't see any material in that para drawn from this source. I think there's a misquote in 'Later work': 'Variety reviewer Todd Everett wrote "the hyperdrive visual sense for which Bakshi's animated features have been noted..."' The first part of this doesn't make sense. Could Ibaranoff check the original and perhaps re-write appropriately. 4u1e (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the Maltin book supports the statement that Fritz the Cat was the first animated film to be rated X by the MPAA, and the Variety quote is taken directly from the cited book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
            • Sorry, I meant ref 9 ( "The Filming of Fritz the Cat: Bucking the Tide") As for the Variety quote: it makes no sense as written. What was it Everett said about 'the hyperdrive visual sense'? Should it say something like: "Variety reviewer Todd Everett wrote that the film has the "the hyperdrive visual sense for which Bakshi's animated features have been noted.'"? 4u1e (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: To other reviewers, I haven't checked citation formatting or any of that stuff, only whether the content of the article reflects what is in the sources quoted. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good to me. Good work! Landon1980 (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't look ready to me. Some issues include: an overlong lead , peacock terminology in the presentation (e.g. "tried to bring a change in the industry as a pioneer"), and a subtle POV tilt towards idolizing the director. 61.18.170.66 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What change is being talked about here? ("As the American animation industry fell into decline during the 1960s and 1970s, Bakshi tried to bring a change in the industry as a pioneer of adult animation.") Was it one specific change or many?
    He tried to change the perception of animation being an immature artform for children by producing socially conscious works directed at adult audiences. This might be difficult to describe in the lead. Do you have a suggestion? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • CommentSupport ("Bakshi began working in the fantasy film genre in 1977, with the release of the film Wizards, an allegorical commentary on the destructive powers of propaganda.") This sentence is wrong for many reasons. Upon the release of the film Wizards? After? I'm going to venture that the lede means to say that "Bakshi made his first entry into the fantasy film genre with the release of the film Wizards..." but I don't know anything about this topic.DFW tragedy (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ("Bakshi garnered several awards for his work...") Is it correct to use the verb "has" here... which would need a rewrite upon Bakshi's death of course. "Bakshi has garnered several awards for his work over the years, including...." might be better.
    Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Thank you. I can see that the article is even better than it was a few days ago. LaraDFW tragedy (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. I think the article has definitely improved since its last nomination, but is probably not quite there yet. I have some concerns about sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose.

Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Even though the prose issues have been addressed and it has been established that Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi is not only not a biography, but I cannot get ahold of a copy and that the article is already very well-rounded, Karanacs refuses to look at the article or strike his opposition. This makes absolutely no sense.
  • Oppose 1b I remember "The Lord of the Rings" being absolutely loathed and despised by fans; I recall major magazines saying so. The article does not bring this out. I'll look for info over the next few days. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one (sorry for the caps; copy/pasted): ONE RING TO LURE THEM ALL CHRISTMAS 2001: TOLKIEN GOES HOLLYWOOD. ALREADY FANS HOPE FOR THE BEST, BRACE FOR THE WORST. Ralph Bakshi's 1978 film combined animation with "rotoscoping," in which footage of live actors was copied onto animation paper; in the words of another Tolkien character, "the memory is very evil." newsweek Jan 29, 2001
    • That's absolutely no reason to oppose this FAC. The opinions of fans is not encyclopedic. The article clearly shows the critical reaction to that film. The fact that it doesn't reflect your POV doesn't mean that you should oppose the FAC for that reason. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • I have to agree. The article you quote, Ling, was written more than 20 years after the film's issue and has nothing to do with its initial reception. The oppose should be withdrawn; why not make it a comment with a polite suggestion to consider your point? FAC doesn't always have to be warfare. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially because I really do think the article is 1b, but I haven't had a good chance to gather evidence to make my case yet. I agree that my case is currently weak; that's fine. If I cannot make my case, then my Oppose is of course not persuasive. If my Oppose is not persuasive, then I will eventually either withdraw it, or it will be ignored by the FAC director. My task now is either to find more evidence, or withdraw my Oppose. If I cannot find more evidence of 1b (incomplete coverage) or any other WIAFA issue, then of course I must withdraw my Oppose.
  • In addition, the FAC director decides if an article passes or fails, not me. The FAC director can Promote or Not Promote or "let it ride a little longer", depending on how strong the Opposing arguments are. [Here notice an important point: it appears to me that at present I am not the only Opposer.].. In a nutshell, my gut tells me it's 1b, so I Oppose, and now whenever I have free time (a scarce commodity) I must find more evidence to buttress my gut feelings. Is that clear enough? Your next statement will be, "But if you don't have evidence, you shouldn't Oppose." My reply will be that Opposing, in my view, is at least in part a matter of conscience. If I offer a weak Oppose and a promise that I will try to support it, but the FAC director Promotes anyhow, will I scream, will I leave nasty messages on everyone's Talk? Nope. I did what my conscience told me, but I failed to prove my assertion. My fault, but with a clear conscience. Is that clear, then? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I have a question. Have you noticed that the two people who opposed the article haven't checked the article in days to see if their questions were answered, if their concerns had been addressed? I believe that the previous opposing reviewers' comments have been addressed, but one of them is nowhere to be found and the other is an anonymous IP, and thus, is hard to track. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment pursuant to 1b: It took about 5 minutes on LexisNexis to dig up some choice criticism of Bakshi's LOTR:
    • "Cartoon Rings a Travesty", by Bruce Kirkland, The Toronto Sun, 12/12/01: "Don't confuse the newly released DVD version of The Lord Of The Rings with the movie trilogy set to launch in December. The DVD, out Sept. 11 from Warner Home Video, is the 1978 animated version by Ralph Bakshi -- and it's an unwatchable travesty."
    • "The 'Other' Lord of the Rings", by Barry Leighton, Western Daily Press, 9/23/01: "Celebrated animator Ralph Bakshi's ambitious crack at the swords and sorcery classic became an epic flop."
    • "Overcompressed TV Hobbit far from its roots", by Ray Conlogue, The Globe and Mail, 5/21/79: "As a Tolkien purist, however, that means I have to put this programtogether with Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings and conclude that the world of Middle Earth will never successfully be animated."; "Bakshi's Lord of the Rings is incomprehensible"; "The elves, dwarves and hobbits, carefully drawn to Tolkien's descriptions, were more interesting than Bakshi's cookie-cutter evocations ..."
These are just from the first page of results. --Laser brain (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it doesn't seem that these commentators are authorities on film and animation, as opposed to major film critics like Vincent Canby and Roger Ebert and animation historians like Jerry Beck, whose opinions are cited in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]


  • Oppose, 1b (comprehensive) and 1d (neutral). Just a few minutes of digging on the topic of the animated LOTR reveals this section presents Bakshi in an all-to-favorable light, ignoring prevalent criticism of the film and his work on it. --Laser brain (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is inaccurate. I removed the more favorable review quotes and kept the mixed reviews from Canby and Ebert to avoid any further accusations of bias. The article never ignored any criticism of Bakshi's work. I don't know what you are talking about when you make statements like that. That is just plain wrong. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Yes it has ignored criticism; I cite examples above. --Laser brain (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are incorrect, as I stated above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • Well, I see that this has once again degenerated into your unfortunate pattern of behavior toward reviewers, particularly any who oppose your nominations. You can't tell me I'm wrong for stating an opinion. In my opinion, you're picking and choosing sources. The article is also poorly researched. I maintain my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am stating that you are incorrect because you've clearly formed an opinion before looking at the article. What exactly do you mean that the article is "poorly researched"? You took five seconds on an Internet search to determine that the article is biased, whereas several books have been appropriated to find the most factually accurate, neutral information. Mind the "good faith" rule, please. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
              • I read the article, thanks. That I and others have so readily found sources for information you missed, the logical conclusion is that the article is poorly researched. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are incorrect. There was an extensive amount of research put into the writing of this article. It's ridiculous for you to come in and barely look at an article that has gone through at least two years of work and say that it's poorly researched. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
                  • I'm sorry, but how can you make such a claim when you've never even heard of the most prominent search tool for finding articles on a topic? Google is a crappy research tool. I am disengaging from this conversation now until you've made progress on fixing the issues brought by me, Ling.Nut, Karanacs, and Jappalang. If your reply is that we're all "incorrect", then I suggest you rethink your approach here. --Laser brain (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The article is not sourced from Google. It is sourced from multiple books and newspapers, with Google sometimes acting as a stand-in library of sorts. I own multiple books cited in the article. I sourced the article from multiple books, articles, and interviews. I say that you are incorrect because you are incorrect in repeatedly stating that the article is poorly-researched when it clearly is not. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment — Ling.Nut, may I ask you not to post links to fansites when they are not relevant to the discussion? This article is not about what random people on the Internet have to say. If a link was not written by a noted historian or film critic, please do not post it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Ibaranoff, you are rmv'ing my links. This is truly bad form. If the FAC director thinks my info is irrelevant, she will disregard it. I am establishing the fact that the movie was loathed by fans. Please, please do not rmv my links again. I... am quite surprised. To all reading this page: the links are in the hist. I'm not gonna edit war. Please do give them a look.
    • It's already been established that fan reaction is irrelevant. And as I've stated on your talk page, from what I've read on the subject matter, the majority of Tolkien fans do not loathe or hate Bakshi's film. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • While I'm here, I found a bit of info that you may find useful:
  • Sito, Tom (2006).Drawing the Line: The Untold Story of the Animation Unions from Bosko to Bart Simpson. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813124077. Page 133 states that police were called in to quell the disturbance when Bakshi screened Coonskin at the Museum of Modern art. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jerry Beck's view of the proceedings was that there was no disturbance during the screening, but there were racist catcalls during the question-and-answer session, and Bakshi's speech was cut short. I don't think there are enough sources to state that the police actually were called in. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • No, he states that he was the most ripped off cartoonist in the history of animation, meaning that he had been financially taken advantage of and his ideas stolen by others. I believe that quote is on the Wikiquotes page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments on the LotR section — I have to agree with the above that it is lacking. Granted these (Michael D. C. Droutare's J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, and John Clute and John Grant's The Encyclopedia of Fantasy p. 1027 mentions rumbling, incoherent) tertiary sources, but they show the existence of a negative reception towards the show, which can be checked in the sources cited by them. Howard Beckerman calls it a "tedious retelling" in Animation: The Whole Story, and Ernest Mathijs reported in The Lord of the Rings: Popular Culture in Global Context that the animation's $30 million takings were relatively paltry (based on a Lowson source) [p. 25]. Mathijs also said that the animation was a love-hate affair among its viewers, but it was influential enough that two of its voice actors were invited to reprise their roles (although whether this last part is a result of Bakshi is debatable) [p. 62]. It also stated the BBC radio version was the definitive version, compared to Bakshi's [pp. 65–66]. Furthermore, Jerry Beck in his The Animated Movie Guide did not call it "flawed but inspired interpretation". He said, "As artistically as this film is in many ways, many Tolkein loyalists intensely dislike Bakshi's version of The Lord of the Rings, deploring what they consider the cheap-looking effects and the missing ending." Not to mention that Beck devoted one paragraph to personally judge the film, in equal halves, praising the first half but particularly condemning of the second. The fans' reactions are important. When covered by a reliable source, they are a piece of all-rounding information. Consider p. 116 of The Rough Guide to the Lord of the Rings, which definitely shows a bad memory of the animation. Douglas Pratt was quite critical as well in his Doug Pratt's DVD. If you want something contemporary, then what about this 1978 damning review by David Denby in New York magazine? All in all, the animation's failings and poor reception are not a fringe item to deal with, and the current text in the article is overlooking them. Lastly, there are several publications that mention the animation was an influence on the staff of the film trilogy and a few fantasy artists. Look for Jackson's and Astin's biographies. Jappalang (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article mentions Bakshi expressing disappointment with the film and its animation, refers to the critical reaction as being mixed, but that reviewers generally felt that it was a "flawed but inspired" adaptation, and gives two mixed reviews from major film critics. This article has been extensively researched. Many of the items you come across report inaccurate findings. For one thing, the film's gross was not "paltry", as it only cost $4 million to produce. Secondly, I cannot trust any of the claims you make when you misspell Bakshi's name in a search result and claim that statements are made in the article that were never true. It never says that Beck made that statement. It says that is what critics generally felt about the film. If you cannot look at an article carefully, how can you say that it is lacking? And furthermore, how is a DVD review a reliable source in an encyclopedic discussion about animation history? And why do people keep posting links to books written more than 20 years after the film was released and minor reviews? And lastly, this article is about Bakshi, not Peter Jackson. Comments about Bakshi's film influencing Jackson's work are relevant there, and on the pages for his films, and on the page for Bakshi's adaptation, but this article is only discussing Bakshi and his work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • "flawed but inspired" appears here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
        • I disagree totally. Dismissing results on the search term is incorrect is totally trying to be blind and immature here, when the results show the correct name. Many books and publications aside from these have generally noted that the film is not as critically received as this article claims. [17][18][19][20] More documentation of the fans' ire in From hobbits to Hollywood by Jennifer Brayton. "Disappointed audiences were booing the end of the film" as reported in Hank Bordowitz's Bad Moon. When someone describes the gross of $30 million as "marginally successful" or "paltry", one has to consider why—especially when the cost of marketing and distribution were not factored in. Depending only on favorable reviews from Ebert and Canby is a fatal flaw. Are their reviews so authoratative that it overrides negative reviews from every other reviewer? Can only the opinion so film critics be considered? Should fan reaction only be measured by box office takings? No. Seriously, the weight of presented evidence is more than suggestive that your constant dismissal of them as "books written more than 20 years after the film was released and minor reviews" is pure defensiveness. It is doing no good to this article, as others have pointed out that it seems to be no more an apologetic endorsement of the film maker. Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There has been a great deal of research into the writing of this article, and believe me, these results you post are biased and inaccurate. There's absolutely no proof of any of the claims being made here. The claim of audiences booing the film especially strikes be as being false. It sounds seemingly invented by the author to maintain an aspect of reaction that is purely fictional and invented. And, as stated above, the film did not cost enough to where $30.5 million (not $30 million) would be considered "paltry". It's insane to dismiss unbiased reports of the movie in favor of biased reports that describe a failure that never existed. Adding these reports in would create a slanted, fictional view of the reaction to Bakshi's films. How are any of these authors authoritative, or their books truthful? Should we cite Albert Goldman's The Lives of John Lennon in an article about Lennon? Ibaranoff24 (talk) (03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Serious image concerns as follows:

  • File:Fritz the Cat (Japanese poster).JPG: how can a Japanese poster illustrate a major event? Does it show the controversy, positive reviews, popularity? This is simply no more than a decoration.
    • That image is being used because the poster showcases a number of memorable sequences from the film and illustrates the best generalization of the character. In these images, we see the film's value as an entertainment piece, and why it would be viewed as controversial within its period, in conjunction with the associated text. It's not decoration. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • No, that image does not show anything that could be controversial; except for the cat in the center, nothing else is recognizable. A single screenshot of what made the film "X-rated" would have done better than this image. Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Coonskin screenshot.png: could be made fair use with a stronger rationale. The FUR (on the image page) should explain why these images lead to the "racist" calls piled on Bakshi.
  • File:Ralph Bakshi The Lord of the Rings.jpg: again just like the poster, this is just pure decoration. You missed a very good opportunity to establish a fair use for this. Look at Bruce's (of Cinematastique) comments noted in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia above. Look for Bruce's article and integrate his comments into the text, then justify the image by writing in its FUR that the image is a particularly strong indentification of the film, and representative of Bakshi's work.
    • No, it is not decoration. It illustrates a major work of a well-known artist. Because we cannot see what the animation looks like in the text, this image provides illustration as to Bakshi's comments on his disappointment with the animation quality, the mixed reactions, favorable notice of the film's animation, etc. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • It is decorative as long as the FUR is not stating why specifically that image is used. Why should this scene illustrate the film technique quoted? Does it show the live-action footage? Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, FURs are to explain why the images should be on the page and cannot be explained by text, and in terms of why their removal would result in a significant loss to the article. None of the rationales presented for the non-free images here are particularly strong. The poster would likely have to be removed, the coonskins could be saved, while the fireside scene would be saved if the appropriate content is worked into the text and FUR re-written. Jappalang (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I'd just like to ask the readers who think that I need to go into extensive detail about how the Lord of the Rings film was viewed 20-plus years after the fact...do I also have to list every review of Fritz the Cat and Coonskin? Do you want an article that keeps going on with quotes from minor critics who didn't like Bakshi's works, or do you want a serious academic discussion of an animation figure? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Support It looks good to me. Powergate92Talk 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 21 February 2009 [21].

Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins

edit
Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the FA criteria. The article passed GA in July after going through a peer review. The article is fully comprehensive, containing all relevant, reliably sourcable information that appears to be available, and all content is completely and reliably sourced. I believe it is well-written, having not changed substantially since its PR and GA going overs. Structure follows the Film MoS with minor modifications to allow for its semi-documentary nature, and all citations are consistent (using the various cite web/news/etc templates). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your first one. All of the citations use the various cite templates? There is no use of {{Citation}}. Fixed the citations accidentally using publisher instead of work for paper names. Fixed Kilday. http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=fkmp_welcome is one of the two sites by Kalahari Meerkat Project, through which they release information about the meerkats being studied within the project. They are the ones who "control" the area where the series is filmed and which Animal Planet has permission to film from and gets information from. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "as a prequel to the hit Animal Planet series"
  • "late Whisker's matriarch Flower's early" – This is pretty messy. First of all, I'm not familiar with the series, so I don't know who these characters are, and on top of that, there are two possessives in the same breath? Surely it can be cleaner.
  • "from birth throughto her assumption"
  • "75 minute" – needs a dash
  • "before its May 25, 2008 television premiere on Animal Planet" – Why not more direct, like "before premiering on Animal Planet television channel on May 25, 2008"
  • "Breaking for the series norm" – I'm not quite sure what this is trying to say.

There are more issues like this, where a few things aren't really clear to an unfamiliar reader. Gary King (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of those. Will read through again to see if I see anymore. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose is several weeks old; has Gary King been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few issues, as Laser brain pointed out below. I found a few more, like:
  • "but the actual script was found to beconsidered too simple for adult viewers."
  • "Flower mates with his brother, Zaphod" – I was thinking why she mated with her own brother. I suggest, "Flower mates with hisYossarian's brother, Zaphod"
  • "reclaim it from" – Who's doing the reclaiming? In the sentence, it's technically Flower, but I'm assuming it's actually the group, so that needs to be fixed.
  • "that they believe this film to be the first" – Less awkward – "that they believe that this film is the first"
  • "to every be" – Typo
  • "The film iswas directed"
  • "providesd the"
  • I think a few links would be appropriate in some cases, like linking Kalahari Desert, and a few other terms that are unique and relevant and not necessarily something that is commonly known.

Gary King (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also all fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: single non-free image with appropriate rationale, no issue. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I won't lean one way or the other because I don't have time to read the whole article right now.

  • "feeling it was a"-->feeling that it was a
  • "did not think the film offered anything new for series watchers, feeling it was a "re-edited, re-scored, re-narrated" version of the series rather than a new product." Redundant phrasing "offered anything new ... new product".
  • "While he found Goldberg's narration to be of higher quality than most documentaries grew monotonous as the film moved on." This is not a sentence.

More later. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those all fixed :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, yes there is.[22] Fixed in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The prose is just OK. This could have used a peer review or independent copyedit before it was brought here, because it's not ready in its current condition. Below are some representative issues; please get someone new to go through the whole text. It shouldn't take long.
    • "... the 75-minute film first premiered" Spot the redundancy.
    • "Shot over the span of two years, the film's script ..." The script wasn't shot, the film was shot.
    • "natural history prequel" What does that mean?
    • "While Meerkat Manor is filmed with a small crew ..." This whole sentence is quite confused and badly-written. The way it begins, it reads like you are referring to the meerkats as the crew.
    • "Unknown" meerkat actors? As opposed to known meerkat actors?
    • Why aren't you using the technical term for a group of meerkats, instead of constantly saying "group"?
    • There are places where you say "the film's script" but it suffices to just say "the script".
    • "Breaking for the series pure documentary format ..." ?
    • "The camera crew continuously searched out appropriately aged meerkats to follow and film them until the meerkats displayed the appropriate actions needed for the script." Grammar.
    • "... the cinematographers had to be more careful in their movements" More careful than what?
    • "Other meerkat deaths depicted were pure reenactments." How is a pure reenactment different from a reenactment?
--Laser brain (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed most of the ones mentioned above. For "Unknown" meerkat actors, yes as opposed to the meerkats from the series. I've tried to word this better to address this. For the technical term, that is because they don't use the "technical term" for a group of meerkats (whatever it is) anywhere in the series nor in the real KMP project, they are referred to strictly as as groups and families. No idea how long a copyedit would take, but finding an actual copyeditor is a whole other issue. Will try though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 21 February 2009 [23].

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

edit
Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)
  • Images: The cover, one free image, and two fair use images. For the fair use images, the first one shows gameplay so I don't think there's any problem there. For the second, it shows a graphic panel from the game, which are used in cut scenes rather than fully animated cinematics. In the article, I explain that the developers chose to use graphic panels instead of fully animated cut scenes to push the story forward because they were more "effective", and they forced the player to interpret each panel for themselves, along with nuances, etc.
  • Sources: I think that these are all standard video game sources. The ones that are less common are used only for reviews.

I've been working on this article for two months now, and I think it is ready. Gary King (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, thanks Gary. --Laser brain (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is quite good already—only some minor tweaking should be required to get it up to par. The sources look OK to me.[reply]
    • Do we think just saying "third person shooter" is jargon? Because adding "video game" seems contrived to me. Perhaps the term has entered widespread colloquial English by now.
    • That said, I'm not sure "beating the game" is good here.. maybe "finishing"?
    • "The meter will eventually increase over time ..." Spot the redundancy.
    • "Also, when near an enemy, Max can hit the enemy with his weapon as a melee attack." This needs revision so it doesn't say "enemy" twice and "as a melee attack" is pretty weak.
    • "The game went gold on October 6, 2003 in preparation for its release." This might be unnecessary detail.
    • "James McCaffrey returned as the voice of Max." In the lead, you said the game developers played the roles in the first game. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe James McCaffrey is a software developer.
--Laser brain (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Wow, first time someone said that some information in my article might be too much; it's a nice feeling. It's a short sentence, and is interesting and useful, at least to people who know what "going gold" is as I know it's not a common phrase, but it's still fairly common in gaming circles, and it continues its paragraph's chronological list of events. Gary King (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I work in computer software and the date on which our software goes gold is irrelevant to anyone outside our company. Only the Beta and RTM dates matter. I wouldn't expect the article here about the software I work on to mention the gold date—it is internal information anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm okay, I have removed the information. Gary King (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reading the development section leads me unconvinced that this article meets the criteria. The first two sentences are inaccurate and indicative of sloppy research.
    • "Take-Two Interactive issued a press release on May 22, 2002" Really? Did you actually verify the date? This seems to suggest otherwise. The source you used is reporting Take-Two's announcement at E3. Its press release of the given information was much earlier.
    • "The following month, on June 6, 2002" Since the date is explicitly given, why is "the following month" here?
    • "The following month, on June 6, 2002, Take-Two paid Remedy $8 million to develop Max Payne 2". This is not what the given source says. This is not the first time you have misrepresented a source in your writing. Is this a chronic problem?
    • "Originally thought to be released in the first half of 2005" Take-Two originally thought? Others originally thought?
    • "Take-Two later officially" You've been through enough FACs to know that "later" is needlessly unspecific. Two years is a rather large discrepancy; explain further rather than just stating that there was a change.
    • "Originally modeled after the game's writer Sam Lake in Max Payne, Max" It's not entirely clear what "modeled" means here (character? appearance? I assume the latter...if so then "..., Max's appearance was..."). "Originally modeled in Max Payne after" seems a more logical placement of "in Max Payne".
    • "Lake wanted to break new ground..." OK, so he wanted to, but how did he achieve this? What sort of "new and unexpected subject matters" did he insert as he developed the plot?
    • "While working on the film noir theme, Lake remarked " He remarked while working on the theme?
    • "finding that since the setting and characters have already been established, the primary goal of the sequel was to be better than its predecessor and take the story to surprising directions" "finding that since" <-- awkward. Why is the present perfect ("have already been established") used here? " to be better than": like "be very effective" in the previous sentence, this is incredibly simplistic and generic. Be better how? Be effective how? Interesting preposition choice in "take the story to surprising directions". There's a difference between summarizing in encyclopedic language what was said and using exact quotations. If you're using quotations, you need quotation marks...
    • "help add to the game's" Either help or add to.
    • The second paragraph needs some better organization. First the modeling, then the voice, then some random song (how was this song used?), then the plot, all in the first three sentences.
    • "believe that the effects are used well is when " Needlessly wordy.
    • "Bullet Time...was improved" Twice in two sentences.
    • "combat scenes, which Max Payne was known for, with increased realism and dramatic, movie-like action" Yet another instance where you choose not to employ quotation marks for something that is directly lifted from a quotation. BuddingJournalist 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some more research, it looks as if the December 5, 2001 date may be incorrect. See the SEC files. This files suggest that "on June 6, 2002, Take-Two agreed to pay..." is misleading. The agreement does not appear to be separate from the earlier acquisition. It looks as if Take-Two may have issued a press release in May (you should verify this) announcing the acquisition, but the incentive payments were not made public until the filing with the SEC went through in June. When you're dealing with dates in secondary sources, you can't just extrapolate from the date of publication. Just because the secondary source may have been published on June 6 does not mean that on "June 6, 2002, Take-Two agreed to pay up to $8 million", unless the source said something like "today, Take-Two agreed". BuddingJournalist 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and reworded with the actual press release. I've kept the GameSpot link as it's still useful for the actual dollar amount. Gary King (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, when near an enemy, Max use a melee attack by hitting them with his weapon." Not entirely ture. only works of melee is seclected as the secondary weapon option.14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is true, it's just not as detailed. Gary King (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has any progress been made on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to "2004 8th Annual SATELLITE™ Awards"? That's the name of the awards, correctly capitalized, it's not the entire title that is capitalized. Does the single word need to be lowercased? Gary King (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does indeed need to be lower case, but you might wait for Sandy to weigh in, she's better at the minutiae of the MOS than I am. (I'll unwatch this since this is the only outstanding issue) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's a "TM" by the all caps, I'll ignore that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the "Gameplay" section, paragraph 1: "As they progress, players access other weapons including handguns, shotguns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles/machine guns, long-range rifles, and hand-thrown weapons." [Emphasis mine.] It has been a few years since I played the game. I don't recall any machine guns. I think that the hand-thrown weapons were grenades and Molotovs? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Plot" section indicates linear play, but doesn't the game begin in medias res? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From "Development", paragraph 4: "Previously, Max had only one expression available; in Max Payne 2, he often smirks and moves his eyebrows to react to different scenarios." Wasn't this parodied in Max Payne 2 as "a permanent constipated grin"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "machine guns". Right, only grenades and Molotovs, but I'll just leave it as "hand-thrown weapons". The entire sentence just gives a general overview of the weapons available, not the specific types. The game begins with Max in a hospital after the last game. If I recall, it's a linear story. Was his expression a parody? I just know that people said that his expression in the first Max Payne made him look constipated, but that's it. Gary King (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The game does begin with Max in hospital; this is after Winterson shoots him. Our article "in medias res" indicates that Max Payne 2 is such a game. A number of gaming sites indicate this too: [24], [25]. While watching a scene on the TV in game, Max makes a comment about the actor's permanent constipated grin. (I suppose that this isn't important enough to be in the article.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should the beginning be worded and fit into the Plot section? The story begins like that primarily for the effect on the player, I would imagine; for the sake of the article, though, it might be better to keep it linear to make the most sense. Gary King (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of sentences to the start of the "Plot" section. I don't think it's acceptable not to mention that the game starts in medias res. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it is unnecessary to mention. The Plot should be as understandable as possible—mentioning that the game begins in media res (which should be italicized) does not really help the reader understand the Plot any better, and could actually make it less understandable, as the Plot jumps from the middle of the game to the beginning in a single sentence. In any case, I removed the information for now as the source you used was unreliable (it's a review written by a player, essentially anyone can write those on GameSpot). I did a quick search on the web with "in media res" and "Max Payne 2", and very little came up, let alone from reliable sources. Regarding the constipated grim, Max was referring to how he looked in the original Max Payne, a self-reference. Gary King (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Out-dent) I see that you removed my contribution. So since you didn't think it was relevant, perhaps you would like to say: does Max Payne 2 begin in medias res or not? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant bomb, TV tropes, Mahalo, answers.com Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giant Bomb – user generated
  • TV Tropies – a wiki
  • Mahalo – a wiki
  • Answers.com – A Wikipedia mirror

Gary King (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you didn't answer my question. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Bomb is not user generated (although parts of the site are). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources notes that Giant Bomb is considered a reliable source. Both the "in medias res" summary page that I referred to above, and the main game review page here confirm my point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Giant Bomb review has a better discussion of the themes in the game, cohesively described in a single section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that question was rhetorical; the way it was worded, I thought you wanted me to put the information in the article without using a reference. As for Giant Bomb, I was able to add a comma with the "Edit Article" link on the page you provided, so I would call that a wiki. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that you don't regard this information as relevant to the article, despite your scepticism about the reliability of sources. As I mentioned above, Giant Bomb's review has a better description of the themes in the game. I won't oppose the article in becoming Featured, but perhaps you would consider adding a "Themes" section in the future if you find a source that you consider reliable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the game starts in media res, but I don't consider the information essential; sure, it would be nice to have, though. I will look for references that can help create a Themes section for the article. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the narrative starts half way through and uses flashbacks is pretty important. You don't need a secondary source for that, citing the game is fine. - hahnchen 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not happy with the Reception section. There's a massive list of reviews in the box out, and I'm not sure if they've gone through any kind of review. No one seemed to have spotted that the Play magazine review was from the US, or that the Daily Telegraph was the unrelated Australian edition. Why have two reviews by Steve Polak's been used? Do his opinions count double?
  • It's also clear that editors haven't had full access to some of the publications, merely culling quotes from Metacritic, and it reads like it too. Publication A said xxx, Publication B said xxx - so there's no real flow. In one paragraph, you have seven disjointed opinions from seven sources. I would much prefer editors stick to sources they actually have, rather than trusting Metacritic to have picked out the juiciest line from what may have been a multi page review in PC Gamer. - hahnchen 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what do you think of it now? Gary King (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you chosen those particular sources? There seems to be a focus on broadsheet reporting over the specialist press. I think it's a good thing that you have a mainstream response in there, guys like Steven Poole are definitely respected, but I would move the focus to the specialist press.
I still think the reception section reads like its just listing other opinions without any real structure. For example, the sentence "The game's action was praised by several reviewers" in the last paragraph is redundant, because you've already listed critics praising the action in the preceding paragraphs. I would break down the reception into paragraphs focused on the game, rather than on a particular reviewer - a paragraph about the gameplay, one about the story, etc. I said something very similar at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Mythology too. - hahnchen 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 21 February 2009 [26].

Olympic Games

edit
Nominator(s): H1nkles

After extensive review, editing and peer review, I believe the article is ready for FAC. H1nkles (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments You might want to give the article another once-over; I noticed some spelling/MoS errors and possibly unnatural wording.

  • There were less than 250 athletes at the first Olympic Games. -> "Fewer", not "less", I think.
  • Done
  • The Panathenian Stadium used for Zappas' Games of 1870 and 1875 was refurbished a second time in readiness for the 1896 Games. -> How about "to prepare for the 1896 Games"?
  • Done
  • "current modern Games" Redundant?
  • Done
  • "Citius Altius Fortius" - "Faster, Higher, Stronger" -> I'm pretty sure that should be an em dash, not a hyphen.
  • Done
  • "Olympic champions were treated as conquering heroes, their statues adorned Athens and their home towns." Run-on sentence.
  • Done
  • "began to declined"
  • Changed
  • "mid–19th Century; multi–sport events" Here, hyphens should be used
  • Done
  • Titles of newspapers and such publications should be italicized in citations.

etc.

Also, maybe it's just a matter of taste, but I think there should be at least a few more print sources consulted/used as references. Ink Runner (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments, I've made the fixes suggested above, I'll work on the italicizing of the newspapers/publications in the citations. After reading the article over and over again I tend to lose sight of things that a fresh set of eyes catch. I appreciate your once-over.
    • I notice that the names of the publications are in the "publisher=" field of the citations; they should be in the "work=" field, and the company that publishes the work in the "publisher=" field. For example, for a reference that points to USA Today, "USA Today" should be in the "work=" field and "Gannett Company" should be in the "publisher=" field. That would solve the italics issue, too. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh ok, I'd had a question about that in the past and I thought I was working it correctly, obviously not. I'll see how much reformatting I can do in the time I have right now. Thanks for the clarification. H1nkles (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding print references I'd like to hear what the community feels on that. I agree there is a heavy reliance on web sources. I'll defer to community opinion on that subject. H1nkles (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would like to see more book references used, because good books are the best possible sources and there figure to be no shortage of them for the Olympics. Newspaper and magazine references are also fine, and this has quite a few of those. Of greater concern are two dead links, which are current numbers 37 (Samaranch's Legacy:Controversy, Corruption) and 79 (Games hit by crisis over Iran-Israel contest). Finding replacements for these should be simple enough. I'll be around soon to offer a full review. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object article needs more info about national perception of Olympics. A lot of countries try and win to prove that their political system is better [communists], and how countries view the Olympics and national pride, showing off their country and so forth. At the moment it only includes the extreme stuff like the 1936 games. Also if preferable, I think grabbing a general interest Olympic book, or just on google books will get you a lot of this info and should be easily subbed and improve the article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have massaged the "Politics" subsection to broaden the subject in order to include Communist use of the Olympics for political gain. It is tricky to cover this subject in a summary fashion. I've also added a more general paragraph regarding the current trend of athletes competing for one country while living in another and the impact on national pride when an athlete (especially from a developing country) succeeds at the Olympics. I've added three book references to help augment the lack of print references. I will continue to look for more. Please see if this addresses your concerns. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've performed scads of fixes per your recommendations. I also left a question on your talk page re: one of your recommendations. I knew the article needed someone with encyclopedic knowledge of the MoS to review it. I hope it is now improved. H1nkles (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to those who have done copy editing and lent their knowledge on hard spacing. I appreciate your contributions! H1nkles (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The first thing I noticed was the large number of external links. Are a dozen of them really needed?
  • Done
  • Ancient Olympics: "Heracles, being his eldest son". I would remove "being" since it throws off the flow somewhat. The sentence is fine without it.
  • Done
  • "From then on, the Olympic Games quickly became very important throughout ancient Greece." Again, a word can be removed to make the prose tighter; this time that word is "very".
  • Done
  • "featuring sport events alongside ritual sacrifices..." Should "sport" be "sporting"?
  • Done
  • "It was renamed Wenlock Olympian Games in 1859". Add "the" before Wenlock?
  • Done
  • "He presented these ideas during the first Olympic Congress of the newly created International Olympic Committee, which was held. Somewhat awkward since the first thing before "which" is the committee, not the Congress as intended. Perhaps flip the two?
  • Done
  • "On the last day of the congress". Is the last word intended as a proper noun? If so, capitalize.
  • Done
  • 1896 Games: Another "very" in the section that doesn't need to be there.
  • Done
  • My biggest concern is the pictures. Two of them (Olympia and 1900 women's golf) are up for deletion, and the 2008 medals picture has a "reduction request" template. I'm no image expert, but a review is sorely needed for this particular part of the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the photos - I removed the Olympia photo. The 1900 women's golf one is tricky as the person nominating it for deletion did not put a reason for deleting it. There are a lot of photos in the article so I'm not beholden to it but I do like it as it emphasizes the role women played early on in the Olympic Movement. I'm no image expert either, is there someone else who could weigh in with an opinion on that photo? On the Olympic medals photo, there is a reduction request and I have found a smaller version of the photo but it isn't free and may be copyrighted. I'm leaning towards removing the photo just to be safe. H1nkles (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there hasn't been a large amount of activity here, I've come back for another round of comments.
  • "who even demanded Athens to host the Olympic Games on a permanent basis." A little awkward; I'd try "who even demanded that Athens host the Olympic Games on a permanent basis."
  • Done
  • Winter Games: "though they were only officially recognized by the IOC as such, in the following year." Remove the comma?
  • Done
  • Youth Games: Remove comma after "The Youth Olympic Games (YOG)".
  • Done
  • "The Youth Games will be shorter". Than what? See what I'm getting at here?
  • Done
  • Criticism: "with several members remaining on the committee for life." This sentence structure is known as a noun plus -ing, a hard-to-spot prose glitch. For more, including tips on how to fix it, see here.
  • Done
  • "The leadership of IOC presidents Juan Antonio Samaranch and Avery Brundage were especially controversial." Change "were" to "was" to make the tenses match. Also check "Samaranch's ties with the Franco regime in Spain has also been a source of criticism."
  • Done
  • "The scandal set off further reforms; changing the way host cities are selected to avoid further bribes." Make a semi-colon a regular colon.
  • Done
  • Photo captions need periods if they are full sentences. A few of these easily qualify.
  • Done
Left more on the article's talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I'll work on replacing the webwinds cite, I think you're right it's probably not reliable. The IOA cite is from the International Olympic Academy sponsored by the University of Leeds, the article this cite references is well cited itself. I feel as though it is reliable though I would defer to consensus if there was significant disagreement.
  • Webwinds cite has been replaced iwth a book citation. H1nkles (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following refs need page numbers:
    • Current ref 3 (Young...)
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: [I have not reviewed all of the material, and no doubt this has come up at some time in discussion of this article.] Why does the first sentence of the lead treat Olympics Games as a singular? The Olympic Charter treats the phrase as plural (example: "The Olympic Games are the exclusive property of the IOC which owns all rights and data relating thereto"). Not once does the charter have "Olympic Games is..."; nor does the entire site (www.olympic.org), as far as I can see. There is no grammatical or usage problem with a first sentence beginning like this: "The Olympic Games are an international multi-sport event...". I urge that the lead be changed accordingly.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sillyfolkboy

  • Why is discussion of the languages used at the Olympics in the "Symbols" section. Wouldn't it be better as part of the "olympic movement" bullet points?
  • In the "Symbols" section why not include this image. I believe that the Olympic flame is more iconic than the flag or rings are at any rate. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In an effort to return this unusually trivial FAC to substance, I will object to the treatment of the ancient Games. Girginov and Parry is, on this subject, a tertiary source, and at least misleading. It has misled our article writers into several errors and omissions, which could all be fixed from a reliable secondary source on this subject. George Grote's History of Greece is well out of copyright, and should be available on the web.

  • There were at least three legendary foundings of Olympian games: that of Heracles, traditionally dated in his lifetime, around 1230 BC; that of Iphitus, traditionally dated around 850 BC, and that of Coroebus, traditionally dated 776 BC.
  • There is no particular reason for believing any of these traditional dates. There appears to have been a list of 27 winners of the footrace in 672 BC, but that list may have been wrong, and there is no real reason to believe the early contests quadrennial.
  • 200 steps or 100 paces would be clearer than strides.
  • Oenomaus and Pelops only raced once; Oenomaus died.
  • The sacrifices to Zeus and to the hero Pelops were very different.
    Aren't the differences in the sacrifices a bit more detail than is appropriate for this length of summary? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. It would be preferable not to link them together at all; the sacrifice to Zeus is central, as the prize of the original footrace - Pelops can be reduced to "and other ritual" in this summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As reading Pausanias should have told you, many of the statues of Olympians were not honors; cheats had to buy their own statue, as a fine.
  • The games did not decline in importance after the Roman conquest. Nero had them held out of sequence during his trip to Greece, so he could win them.
  • The last Olympian games were held in 393, but the relation between this and the decree of Theodosius (of 391) is conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a couple of sources including Bury who list Theodosius as the one who abolished the Olympic Games. A History of Greece by Finlay and Tozer (p. 283–284) list it's demise in 393 though they say it was the 293rd olympiad. I'll make some changes to reflect a more balanced view of the history. Thanks for pointing it out. H1nkles (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reviewed the images yet? I'm waiting on this before offering my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't had a "professional" photo review though in response to a previous critique the photos have been reviewed, two have been removed a several have been added or replaced with better photos. H1nkles (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I think this is a good article, I do spot one semi-major issue: recentism. The word "Beijing" appears 27 times in the article, and 3 consecutive pictures are from the last Beijing Olympic Games. This should probably be amended. Best, 131.111.216.140 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • I disagree with any perceived image recentism. These are probably some of the only free ones we have. I think I can safely bet that not many Wikipedians took their digital cameras to the Olympics prior to Beijing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is well written. However, I think it would be nice to have some kind of Olympic template on the top, with links to Summer games, Winter games, Ancient Olympics, lists of venues etc. At present, there is only a picture of the flag there so it looks a bit empty. --Tone 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for the moment) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think this is an article that received lots of work, to yield a nice and well-written article. Thanks to the author(s), especially since this is such a huge topic! But, sorry to say that, I think it is far from FA status. My main concerns are comprehensiveness (an FA criterion), and balance. I reviewed the lead section thoroughly, and found a number of points where I think improvements are needed. In particular, the lead is fairly undeveloped in that it covers only half the article. From a cursory reading of the rest of the article I get the same feeling, that there are good ideas, but better structuring, both of individual sections, and of the article in general is possible (and necessary). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is somewhat unbalanced. For example, the opening and closing ceremony sections together are longer than the entire sports section. The opening section is merely a copy of (a long part of) the relevant subarticle. I suggest trimming down that section and the closing section by at least 50%. For example the paragraph starting "The Olympic Charter requires the host nation's head of state to officially open an Olympic Games," is IMO not necessary, at least not in this length, to understanding the ceremony. Likewise "After all national delegations have entered the stadium, the president of the organizing committee makes a speech, followed by the IOC president's speech." is just long (and a bit boringly written).
  • Consider putting the symbols section and the ceremony section into one bigger section? For example, the lighting of the torch would very smoothly go over into the opening ceremony, right?
  • In the lead section, I miss a sharper statement such as "The Olympic games are the biggest sports event [in terms of ...]"
  • "Currently, the Olympic Games program consists of 33 sports, 52 disciplines and nearly 400 events." -- what do you mean by events? It's unspecific.
  • Sport section: try to give the section more coherence. The first paragraph talks about what sports have (never) been excluded, the last talks about (limitations) of numbers of sports. I'd restructure the par. so as to join these two pieces of information together. Also, I'm missing a sort of qualitative statement like (I'm inventing the facts) "the early games (around 1900 or so) featured 18 games, a number that gradually increased [but never decreased], to reach 28 in 2002".
  • Sports section: first it says about 400 events. Later that it was limited to 301 events (and does not tell that this number has been revised later).
  • Lead section: "were first revived" is redundant - remove first. I'm a bit worried about occasional over-details (e.g., "initiative of a French nobleman, Pierre Frédy, Baron de Coubertin", I would trim that down)
  • "The evolution of the Olympic Movement during the 20th century forced the IOC to adapt its own vision of the Games in several ways." -- what is the specific meaning of "its own vision" (as opposed to anybody else's vision). Also, this sentence seems too unspecific to convey any real meaning.
  • "each with a summer and winter version. " remove that.
  • "
  • "The Games encompass many rituals and symbols established during its beginning, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." -- consider rewording to "The Games encompass rituals and symbols such as opening, closing ceremonies, and medals"
  • "Despite the current complexity of the Games, the focus remains on the Olympic motto" -- that's an odd conjunction. Also, I wonder whose focus remains there, and why and in what specific sense?
  • The lead section fails to even mention the content of "host cities", "sports", "olympic movement" and "champions and medallists" sections! Really, the lead has to cover the whole article!
  • Host cities section: it provides little or no added value to the subarticle. I would remove the table, replacing by a qualitative prose-style overview, or adding a map(!) where the games were hosted.
  • "Youth Olympic Games": the section conveys the picture that this is just a slimmer version of the "senior" games. I suspect athletes have to be younger than ... years? Is this right?
  • "Olympic Movement": is this the official title? Somehow, by ol. movement, I understand something like the spirit of the people attending the games(?). If so, wikilinking would be good. From the content of the section, I would use the title "IOC" (this is also the main article you link to).
  • I think the article lacks a (at least brief) section about the bidding process. (I'd put that to the host cities).
  • Also lacking is a section on media reception and more generally, public reception. I feel this is a fairly important topic to cover. The Olympic games would not be what they are without the millions watching the games.
  • Also, a note on sponsoring etc., rights management of the pictures/videos etc. seems in order. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Denote references that need subscriptions with format=registration required or something similar in the cite template (Ref 60, Encyclopedia Britannica). Don't link common geographical terms (such as continents or anglophone countries) per WP:OVERLINK. Watch out for redundancies and unnecessary vagueness such as "outside of" or "between various hospitals ". Dabs look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [27].

Bongo (antelope)

edit
Nominator(s): Black Stripe
previous FAC

This article has undergone so very much peer review & refining over nearly two years from the last nomination. All issues raised have been addressed in full. Many people have helped edit and better this to the point where it is truly one of the best places to search for information about this animal on the web. All data, pictures & links have been double checked. Black Stripe (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - nowhere near well-referenced enough. Not sure if it needs more references or just more footnotes using the existing references, but as it stands now there are entire sections without a single reference. Edit to add: I see you address this issue here, but I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're trying to say. Regardless, I can't imagine what you could say that would convince me that an article this poorly-cited is FA-worthy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - well over 20 completely unreferenced paragraphs. I understand you have a list of references at the foot of the article but you have to remember that any interested reader would find it laborious to check every single reference there to find a fact that isn't correctly cited in the article body. There are some confusing sentences, such as "Gestation is approximately 285 days (9.5 months) with one young per birth with weaning at 6 months.". I also note a lack of & nbsp ; throughout the article, as well as hyphens were endashes should be used. The pictures are very good, well done there, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four_bongo_calves_with_nanny.jpg lacks a Summary box. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs There are citation needed tags scattered throughout the article (added before this nomination), and a great deal of text that has not been marked, but really needs an inline citation. Because proper sourcing may take a long time to fix, I encourage you to withdraw the nomination for now and bring the article back when inline sourcing has been added. I would also encourage a peer review after the sources have been added; feel free to invite me to it. Other broad issues to work on:

  • The lead confused me - it makes it seem like this is the merged version of two articles. This needs to be reorganized for clarity and to eliminated very short paragraphs. The lead also does not adequately summarize the body of the article (see WP:LEAD)
  • References need to be formatted properly (italicize book names, make sure all books have the page numbers listed. The references used appear to be quality, reliable sources, they just aren't cited enough.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [28].

Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)

edit
Nominator(s): OboeCrack (talk)

I think this articles deserves the featured status as it meets the criteria. It gives exhaustive information and has lots of images. The topic is interesting and tries to have a neutral point of view. Its translation it is also in the Spanish FAC.OboeCrack (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but taking into account that most of them are translating errors. Otherwise some suggestions are placed in the talk page, if neccesarly. OboeCrack (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's refreshing to see a classical music article at FAC. I have significant reservations on the prose, though, based on a skim of the lead and the Form section. There are numerous grammatical errors, odd turns of phrase, and the Form section sometimes adopts an inappropriate tone. Was a copyedit undertaken prior to FAC? BuddingJournalist 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose 1a and copyvio concerns. I was curious about the tone adopted, so I did some hunting on Google books and compared some of the phrases in the article to one of the books used. My suspicions turned out to be correct:
    • "a sense of large-scale form at once acute and well-focused" direct lift from Harrison
    • "In this respect they resemble what Béla Bartók would call "imaginary folk music," which appeared from Bartók's having so completely absorbed the spirit and vocabulary of Eastern European folk song and dance that he sometimes composed in this style without quoting any source material." A few synonymous inserted here and there, but reads almost exactly the same as Harrison.
    • "Official recognition had come with the award of Moscow Conservatory's rarely conferred Great Gold Medal. He had found a publisher early in his career; those of his works he wished to set before the public were quickly printed and just as swiftly performed. He had won the approval and active encouragement of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the most internationally prominent figure in Russian musical life. Given all this, Rachmaninoff may have had every reason to believe that the premiere of the most important work he would have written to date would be a resounding success. Instead he would receive what would literally be the shock of his life." Entire paragraph lifted almost verbatim.
    • These are just random examples. I shudder to think what I might find if I went through the entire article. BuddingJournalist 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: File:Eugeneormandy.jpg. Images used "by permission" usually are not valid, unless the permission included commercial use and modification. See WP:COPYREQ. An OTRS ticket from the source could clear this up.-Andrew c [talk] 15:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is removed until there is no permission. OboeCrack (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [29].

Rickey Henderson

edit
Nominator: Timneu22 (talk)

This article was nominated for FA status before, but that review was a long, long time ago; the article has been drastically improved since then. It is now a good article, with plenty of sources and a good variety of encyclopedic information. This article is ready to be featured, or it is very close to it. (Ideally, we will reach FA status by July 26, his induction day for the Hall of Fame.) Timneu22 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • I'm a bit concerned about the reliance on a primary source, especially for statements such as "In 1987 he had an off-season by his standards, fueling criticism from the New York media, which had never covered Henderson or his eccentricities kindly."
    • "Manoloff, Dennis. "One on one with Rickey Henderson: future Hall of Famer - Interview". findarticles.com." Give publication name and date of publication, not just the name of the reprinter.
    • Newspapers/periodicals should be italicized. BuddingJournalist 03:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - After an in-depth look at the references, I'm concerned that the sourcing is bad. In addition to the ones that Ealdgyth found, these also concern me:

A person like Rickey Henderson should have more than enough good sources avaliable for writing an article. Honestly, it surprises me greatly to see this many questionable/unreliable sites used, and I hope that these can be replaced or removed promptly. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am sorry to say that the nominator's confidence in this article is misplaced, as it has a lot of problems and a long way to go to achieve featured status.

  • The sourcing issues above are serious. I second all the comments on sourcing above and would further stress that Rickey Henderson has been discussed a lot in a variety of media, and I am concerned that a large body of pertinent work was not consulted in drafting this article, leading to serious questions as to its comprehensiveness.
  • The retirement section is longer than any of the individual sections on his career. Now, I feel that the career summary sections are probably too short, but that does not mean the retirement section is not way to long. There is no need for multiple quotes from Rickey on his desire to keep playing and no need for a whole paragraph relating to Billy Beane and a potential signing that failed to materialize.
  • The Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes section need not exist at all. Any material from this section of importance should be integrated into the narrative flow of his career.
  • The legacy section is sorely lacking. Many baseball scholars have been debating where Rickey sits among not just the best leadoff hitters of all time, but also the best players of all time, yet there is no discussion of the complete package he brought to the number one spot and how that ranks with other players. His stolen base numbers are impressive, but they are not the sole reason he is considered one of the top players of all time. The quotes from contemporaries add nothing to the article as they are basically just aimless fawning that give no insight into his accomplishments. The quote about basestealing technique is way to long for what it adds to the article. In general, block quotes are avoided unless they are crucial to understanding a particular point. Same goes for his speech on breaking the stolen base record. Much has been made of his claim to be the greatest and this should be discussed, but the entire quote is not necessary to do so.
  • As hinted above, the career summary sections are probably too short and do not adequately explain how his performance helped the several pennant-winning teams he played on or how his performances stack up to other players throughout baseball history. There is also an over reliance on rate stats and counting stats versus arguably more useful sabermetric analysis and virtually no discussion of his defense.

Rickey Henderson is probably one of the greatest players in baseball history, but a person reading this article does not get a good sense of his value beyond the fact that he stole a lot of bases. Correcting the above issues would take this article a long way towards FA status, but even then I believe it would still fall short without a better narrative flow among other things. Indrian (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [30].

Backlash (2006)

edit
Nominator(s): TJ Spyke Save Us.Y2J

Myself and Y2J are nominating this article for featured article because it has passed as a GA, is well sourced, written in a way that even non-wrestling fans can easily understand everything in it, and is neutral/stable. The article has been peer reviewed before and there are no problems with stability or edit warring. TJ Spyke 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) - not up to the standards of WP:WIAFA and sister FA's, ie. Mainly WP:PLOT issues.

Lead
  • Wow, this article is based on the old guidelines for pay-per-view events, which is generally not favored at FAC; I'm going to break this down into section by section (except for the matches), in order to help it meet FA standards. A copyedit would have been nice before the
  • Backlash (2006) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event produced by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). It took place on April 30, 2006 at the Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky. - make it into on sentence, like it is in the other FACs.
  • Seven professional wrestling matches were scheduled on the event's card, which featured a supercard, a scheduling of more than one main event. - this would be better worded as "Seven professional wrestling matches were scheduled on the event's card, which featured a scheduling of more than one main event." [with supercard pipelinked accordingly]
  • The first of these main events was a Triple Threat match, a standard wrestling match involving three wrestlers for the WWE Championship, which saw John Cena defeat challengers Triple H, and Edge to retain his title. - 1)Remove the explanation of the match type, it clutters the lead 2)Remove the comma between Triple H and Edge
  • The other main event featured Shawn Michaels and "God" versus Vince and Shane McMahon, which Vince and Shane won following interference from the Spirit Squad. - 1)Remove why the McMahon's won, its too much detailing in the lead=cluttering 2)Add the match type.
  • One of the featured matches on the undercard was a Title versus Briefcase match between Rob Van Dam (the Money in the Bank holder) and Shelton Benjamin (the Intercontinental Champion). - 1)"featured" is to be avoided, instead use a statement like it is in Lockdown (2008) or Over the Edge (1999) leads to explain how this match received more promotion (which is stating the same thing as "featured", though per previous FACs, it should be avoided. 2)The "Title versus Briefcase" should be in quotations because its a nickname for the match 3)State the actual match type 3)add "briefcase" in between holder 4)add the WWE acronym before the name of the championship
  • The lead should have a summary of the other matches on the card, like it is in Over the Edge (1999)
Background
Reply. Took care of point 1, I think point 2, point 3, I think point 4 (one of your cited examples, Lockdown, also uses "Featured match"). I also did the first background point. TJ Spyke 02:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't review this article in detail at the moment which is why I striked my Oppose to avoid conflicts with the nomination. --<TRUCO> 503 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Poster needs to state the copyright holder (World Wrestling Entertainment).
  • Three of the other four photos, with the exception of Cena, need periods since they are full sentences.
  • "It was the 8th event under the Backlash name...". Change 8th to eighth; numbers under 10 are usually spelled out.
  • $4.3 million needs a non-breaking space, like the one I used here; hit the edit button to see how this is done. Check for this elsewhere in the article.
  • Background: Triple H could use real name in italics, like the other wrestlers.
  • Link the WrestleMania event in question earlier in the section. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. He has won World Titles under two different names. Hunter and Triple H.--WillC 22:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no he hasn't. He became Triple H in 1997, a full 2 years BEFORE he won his first world title. I think it was around September 1997, at the October 1997 PPV (Badd Blood: In Your House) he is announced as "Triple H". After that, they only referred to him as "Hunter" the same way Batista is sometimes called "Dave". TJ Spyke 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention to PPV results around the time he won his first world title, he is called Hunter without Triple H even being a remote name. That was more of a nickname at the time.--WillC 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They begin to refer to him as Triple H at least in 1998, occasionally billing him as HHH on that lower third graphic on Raw. Also in this article written the day he won the championship (albeit about the night before) he is referred to as Triple H as well as Hunter as does the offical card, and I don't know for sure but I don't think they're revisionary with cards. Tony2Times (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Triple H began using that name in 1997, and won all his World Championship reigns since then under that name (12 years now), so IMO its a pretty WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, he was credited in Blade Trinity under that name.--TRUCO 503 15:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one is really getting involved here, I'll offer some specific prose suggestions.
  • Lead: "The event received 273,000 pay-per-view buys, which was more buys than the previous year's event." The second "buys" is a redundancy and can safely be removed.
  • Background: "Backlash featured professional wrestling matches that involve different wrestlers..." Change "involve" to "involved", to signify past tense.
  • The Manual of Style advises against unspaced em dashes. Either remove the spaces or turn it into an en dash, which can be unspaced. Not confusing at all, is it? :-)
  • Don't need two WWE Raw links in one section.
  • "stating that Triple H lost of opportunity when he lost to Cena at Wrestlemania." Capitalize the m in WrestleMania, and try to get rid of one "lost".
  • "Cena forcing Edge to submit to the STFU,[9]," Double comma here.
  • "when Mr. McMahon made note of Bret Hart's DVD". This should state that Mr. McMahon was a nickname of Vince at the time. Otherwise, it's very confusing for non-wrestling fans. FAs must strive to be accessible for all.
  • Link the 1997 Survivor Series.
  • "when he eliminated Michaels from the Rumble match, though Shane was not an official participant in the match." "match" is used twice here; I'm noticing a lot of redundancies in general. To fix this one, I'd remove the last three words, or change the last word to "contest".
  • Remove comma after Sweet Chin Music."
Sorry, but I have to oppose this article for now. In addition to prose issues throughout the part I looked at, I don't think this is very accessible to readers who aren't wrestling fans. None of the moves are explained at all, and the article feels full of jargon. Usually I'm terrible at spotting jargon, but here it sticks out like a sore thumb. The moves aren't even all linked. Things like No Holds Barred match and the Sharpshooter should be linked, so we can at least know what the heck they are. I recommend finding an uninvolved editor or two to help make improvements. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giant, I think i've taken care of all your concerns. TJ Spyke 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The jargon has been explained, both in my examples and elsewhere. Still concerned about the writing throughout, however. A quick example is "a title can only change hands via pinfall or submission therefore Mickie retained the Championship." A comma or semi-colon is needed before thereafter. Another instance is "Big Show who seemed to have enough, hit Kane with a folding chair and walked away." Comma after Big Show, but is "seemed to have enough" a sufficiently encyclopedic way to phrase this? I really don't think so. Again, I recommend seeking outside help. I know wrestling articles struggle to attract copy-editors, but surely someone can be found who is willing to help. I'll even pitch in some basic fixes, but I'm not a heavy-duty copy-editor. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:WWEbacklash06.jpg needs to be reduced in size; seeing Triple's H sweat is not neccessary. 276 x 362 should be more than sufficient.
  • File:Hbk.JPG raises suspicions as a "free" image. The only description in French is "Shawn during Raw" and the uploader's only other contribution, File:Shawnmichaels.JPG ("Shawn Michaels during Raw"), is of different quality. Our FAs should not feature pictures of such dubious status.
Edge's, Cena's, and Triple H's photos are verifiably "free". Jappalang (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poster reduced in size (a little bigger than what you said, but should still be small enough), HBK image replaced with one that is much better rationale. TJ Spyke 05:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement, File:Shawn-Michaels-on-RAW-08.jpg, is fine. The cover image has been reduced and acceptable. All issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just wondering, who removed all of my stuff, I had the links, and I explained what the matches and moves were, so-non wrestling fans can understand what they are, so again, who removed all of that? Save Us.Y2J 7:29, 15 February 2009

Check the history of the article.--<TRUCO> 503 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [31].

Iloilo International Airport

edit
Nominator(s): Sky Harbor (talk)
previous FAC 02:17, June 18, 2008

I'm nominating this article again for FAC after significant improvements from the version previously submitted at FAC. Currently, the article is now a good article, and although I was hesitant, I think the article now meets the FA criteria after three successive peer reviews and a lot of improvement since last year. Comments are highly appreciated, and hope this is ready to go! --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: relating to the lead:-

  • This opening sentence is not compelling: "Iloilo International Airport is the international airport serving the general area of Iloilo city, the capital city of the province of Iloilo and the regional center of the Western Visayas region of the Philippines." Note the repetitions. It isn't necessary to say that an international airport is an international airport; it isn't clear if the three subclauses (the general area of Iloilo city, the capital city of the province of Iloilo, and the regional center of the Western Visayas region) are independent, or whether the lasr two are descriptive of the first. A more direct, informative opening, using other material from the lead, might be:-

"Iloilo International Airport, which began operating on June 14, 2007, is the fourth busiest airport in the Philippines. It serves the area around Iloila City in Iloila province, within the Western Visayas region. It opened after a decade of planning..." etc.

You would obviously need to reword other parts of the lead to avoid repeating information. A few other suggestions:-

  • Terms like "airport" do not need linking
  • "Likewise" connects two sentences that don't appear related to each other, in terms of their content
  • There is a tendency toward overdetailing in the lead. The purpose of the lead is to provide a broad general summary of the article's content; there is no need for exact distances or measurements.

I will try to read the whole article later, and to perhaps make further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to rewrite the lead, actually. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Philippine Internet circles, it's one of the most reliable websites pertaining to the province in question. The articles used as references (or portions thereof) have even been cited in Philippine periodicals (see this), although in general, Filipinos are very trusting of off-the-beaten-path websites and blogs. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am actually inclined to support, but:

  1. Can you provide citations for two sentences in 'Runway' section (marked with {{cn}} tags).
  2. In the table it is written that Zest Airways begins services to Manila on 22 February, but the year is not specified.

Ruslik (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, they were cited but the citations (which are the same as the first one) were removed because of problems involving overciting. I checked the edit history and it seems that you added citations to almost all the sections, and in certain sections (such as the ones in transportation), it appears overcited. On the second one, per WP:AIRPORTS, the year should not be mentioned unless the flight commences 13 months or later from the date. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement (and others similar) implies an exchange rate: is that from the source, or is it original research?
    ... with a final cost of around 8.8 billion pesos ($201 million) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's based on the exchange rate at the time (P48.85 per US$1 at the Manila Times) and was a suggestion raised at the article's first PR. Philippine news media does not cite the cost of the project in currencies other than the Philippine peso. However, if simple conversion proves to be OR despite the presence of the official exchange rate at the time, I would not object to removing it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • File:Iloilo Airport Access Road.jpg, File:Iloilo Airport Interior.jpg, and File:Iloilo Airport Exterior.jpg require an OTRS from the creator (or for him to specifically create a separate page with these photos on his website and explicitly releasing them into public domain or under a compatible CC license). A forum posting does not cut it, especially with the current wording. The previous FAC, 6 months ago, stated that an OTRS will be given, but, up to now, nothing seems to have been done.
  • File:Iloilo Airport Opening.jpg requires a specific page (not image link) for verification. If the page link cannot be gotten, directions in the form of "Select 'Provincial Visits' under Related Links, then go to page 13" or "Search with 'Arroyo', 'airport', 'and Iloilo'" are acceptable. Right now, one is hard pressed to know how to navigate to the image on the presidential site.

The second can likely be resolved in fair time, but one wonders what happened to the assurances for the first. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to image concerns:
  • The creator of the three images above apparently has not given me an OTRS until now. However, he is an inactive Wikipedian. There were additional posts in the said forum, but I cannot find them in the archives. I was supposed to replace the current summary with the typical "box" summary found in Commons, but I'm waiting to find the posts in question first. If I cannot find them, I will ask him again for an OTRS.
  • I added the page where the image was taken from in the description.
Thanks a lot! --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has the request for an OTRS been sent yet? Jappalang (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I e-mailed him and I'm waiting for a response. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mail has been forwarded to Commons OTRS and the pictures have been tagged with {{OTRS-pending}}. However, the pictures are uploaded here instead of Commons. If given the time, I may move them. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS request was approved and have been noted in the respective image pages. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dr pda. There are many prose issues, the lead contains out of date information, some information is not supported by the given references and there are concerns about the lead, an image and a source raised above. More specifically:

  • Examples of prose problems
    • Likewise, being the first international airport in Western Visayas and the first international airport built on the island of Panay in Iloilo, it is one of three international airports in the Visayas; the others being Mactan-Cebu International Airport in Cebu City and Bacolod-Silay City International Airport in Bacolod City. This sentence is very wordy, and includes information not contained in the body of the article. A better phrasing would be Iloilo airport is one of three international airports in the Visayas, and the first in the Western Visayas
    • Its location on the Tomas Confesor Highway, a major highway transversing the island, makes the airport accessible from all parts of Iloilo and Panay via various road-based transportation options, while its proximity to the currently defunct Panay Railways network could potentially link the airport to the rest of Panay by rail. The phrase via various road-based transportation options can be reduced to simply by road. Also it is not the "proximity" which provides a rail link.
    • proper is overused in phrases like Iloilo city proper. Sometimes this distinction is necessary, but not all the uses in the article require it.
    • Similarly, much mention is made of the airport's commercial activity, or the first commercial flights. This implies that there is other types of activity or flights, but these are not mentioned. In a number of cases the word commercial could just be dropped.
    • This is not an exhaustive list.
  • The lead says It is designated as a secondary international airport by the Air Transportation Office The ATO was replaced by the Civil Aviation Authority around a year ago; the CAAP has revamped the classification system. Iloilo is now a "Principal, Class 1" airport. See this pdf from http://www.caap.gov.ph/Downloads/ .
  • While on this topic, the fact that no international flights have operated from the airport should be mentioned in the lead; the reader doesn't find this out until (if!) they read down as far as the Airlines and destinations section. Indeed some of the sources I looked at refer to the airport as Iloilo airport of international standard rather than Iloilo international airport. This fact is not mentioned in the section on the name either.
  • The last sentence of the lead says It is said to be the most beautiful and modern airport in the country and a symbol of the Philippines' new-found economic strength.[4] The cited reference is to the President's speech at the inauguration of the airport. It is said is misleading, since this was something said only on one occasion, rather than a sentiment which is commonly expressed. Also the speech said the airport was a symbol of our collective political will and the people’s support, which is different from new-found economic strength.
  • The Runway section says Unlike the runway at Mandurriao, the longer runway at Iloilo International Airport can support aircraft as large as the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A330. Larger aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A340, can be supported, albeit with weight restrictions. The citation at the end of the paragraph only refers to the A330, not any of the other types of aircraft, and doesn't mention weight restrictions.
  • The Airlines and destinations table is not sourced. The text of this section needs to be checked to make sure it represents the current situation, e.g. a study is currently being conducted, is considering a direct route, On January 31, 2008, the Iloilo city government announced that Cebu Pacific was considering starting international services—what happened with this?
  • www.exploreiloilo.com, which is the source questioned above, now quotes part of this article in its article on the airport.
  • The statement that the new airport inherited the position of fourth-busiest airport from its predecessor Mandurriao is problematic. It is true that Mandurriao was the fourth busiest airport, based on 2006 statistics, and Iloilo did replace Mandurriao, but I don't think it is possible to therefore conclude that Iloilo is now the fourth-busiest airport in the Philippines without seeing some more recent statistics.
  • Also a map showing the airport's location (perhaps based on File:RP airports.PNG) would be good, as would a diagram of the airport's layout.

Dr pda (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some of the points raised above:
  • The name "Iloilo International Airport" is used in quite a number of news sources, including but not limited to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Sun.Star Iloilo, the Manila Standard Today and the Manila Bulletin. People as prominent as Franklin Drilon (President of the Senate at the time), who was the strongest supporter of the project, publicly called it "Iloilo International Airport". Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself called it an international airport. A local survey (albeit non-scientific) shows that a plurality of the surveyed residents would prefer keeping the name "Iloilo International Airport", and the naming controversy surrounding the airport and the proposals formed as a result thereof (which are "Panay International Airport" and "Graciano Lopez-Jaena International Airport") would imply that if the proposals failed, the airport would be called "Iloilo International Airport". The "airport of international standards" nomenclature only describes domestic airports whose facilities are up to accepted international norms, and is not a separate classification for an airport as implied in most news media.
  • I took the time to clean out the lead and correct any misleading information. Classification information was updated, for one, and the definition of an "international airport" in the article was expanded (this was done by adding Kalibo Airport, a domestic-standard airport which serves international flights to Taipei). In addition, I have added a note stating that no international flights have either flown out of or into the airport.
  • No new statistics have been released by the CAAP yet, and I'm waiting for those as well. Although statistics from 2001 to 2007 statistics were supposedly released by the ATO on its website, the link is dead. In addition, there is a pending request for an airport layout map with WikiProject Maps.
  • Unsourced information in the "Runway" section was removed.
  • The last line of the lead was clarified. The bit on "economic strength" was implicit, although "economic maturity" is explicit.
I'll take the time to address the other issues as soon as I can. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I added a bit on how proposals to launch international flights have yet to materialize. Since this airport has no official website, I'm trying to find a way to cite these flights. Airline timetables are too cumbersome. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposeby karanacs primarily based on prose issues, with a few sourcing concerns.

  • The prose definitely needs work. I echo Brianboulton's comments about the lead (none of which appear to have been addressed). EXAMPLES of issues (these need to be addressed throughout the article, not just here)
    • Watch for repetition within sentences/paragraphs. For example, the first sentence of the lead uses the words "international airport" twice in 7 words.
    • Some of the sentences are long and unwieldy (for example, the lead's first sentence and its second sentence)
    • Watch for pronoun/antecedent match. The second sentence of the lead begins "it". While I know you are discussing the airport, the proper antecedent could be Iloilo City.
    • Make sure the text is not contradictory. For example, if the airport is designated by the Philippines as domestic, why does the lead describe it as an international airport anyway? (not counting the title)
    • Don't use unnecessary words. Why is "likewise" in the first paragraph of the lead? That doesn't make sense. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for assistance with this
    • Watch for words like "currently", "recently", etc. - we need some type of reference to when this was.
  • Is it really important in the lead to list the other international airports by name? That seems too detailed for the overview.
  • The first paragraph of the history section doesn't make it clear why the "Iloilo" committee was created - what about those four airports that were studied necessitated a committee dedicated to the Iloilo area? You may need to first discuss the recommendations of the report.
  • The history section seems a bit out of chronological order to me, especially the organization within the second paragraph. That is confusing.
  • There don't need to be subsections in the terminals section - those subsections are each small.
  • Why does the airlines and destinations section begin with a table? The table is fairly small and should likely be stationed to the side of the text in this section. At the very least, the section needs to begin with a text introduction.
  • I don't think that [[32]] is a reliable source. The link you gave showing that it was "cited by a periodical" went to a forum posting.
  • There are quite a few links to press releases, which are self-published sources. Is there any way to get this information from a more reliable, independent source?

Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address the issues raised above:
  • The airlines and destinations list is based on the adopted structure for airport articles. Ben Gurion International Airport, currently the only airport FA, does no better by using a table and lists with prose describing which terminal airlines operate from, as well as the airport's largest airlines. I did add though some prose above the table describing the airlines that serve the airport.
  • Removed date-specific references to international flights. This was a contentious issue in this article's PRs in the past, and removal should make it more neutral.
  • The Iloilo Airport Coordinating Committee was formed in anticipation of future traffic demand, of which Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo's old airport, was a part of. Although it is true that Mandurriao Airport was over capacity for several years prior to the opening of this airport, there are few, if any, reliable sources that exist to verify this claim. The committee was formed in 1998, at a time when Internet content in the Philippines, particularly that of the government, was virtually in its infancy. The memorandum is not available online.
  • There are two terminals (passenger and cargo, which are also separate buildings), and the subsections exist to delineate them. Citing again Ben Gurion International Airport, two subsections in its terminals section, specifically pertaining to Terminal 2 and Terminal 4, are three-sentence long subsections. The delineation exists to avoid any confusion that can arise from merging the subsections together.
  • The second paragraph's order is based on the source's order. However, this has been re-ordered
  • I made a few changes to the prose of the lead, cutting long-winding sentences, removing the other three international airports and changing (as well as removing) a few terms here and there.
  • There are only six citations which come from government sources (both national and local). That pales in comparison to the 45 citations which cite other, more independent news outlets. Most Philippine newspapers do not have archives which date to 2004 (eliminating the possibility of replacing citations from the Office of the Press Secretary), while sources from the PNA and PIA are also republished by newspapers wholesale. An example would be Feature: The new Iloilo Airport in perspective by the PIA and A look at the new Iloilo Airport by The News Today, which takes the PIA article wholesale but giving it a different title.
Thanks for the comments and, if I find any other problems with the article, I will try to resolve them as quickly as possible. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [33].

New York State Route 382

edit
Nominator(s): Mitch32(Go Syracuse)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it does meet the FA criteria. Short as it is, the highway no longer exists, and is actually severed by the Southern Tier Expressway. I tried my best to get the information I could in. As usual, all comments are welcomed.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am a WikiCup 2009 competitor, but this is more for a FT I have been working on, which is a more important reason.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 04:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the notion of a FA on a "highway" just 1.3km long, but the prose would benefit from some tightening. As an example, the very first paragraph:

New York State Route 382 (NY 382) was a state highway in the town of Red House in Cattaraugus County, New York. The highway, 0.8 miles (1.3 km) in length, extended from NY 17 to the Red House entrance of Allegany State Park. The route was assigned in the 1930s and removed in the 1970 following the construction of Southern Tier Expressway's Interchange 19, whcih severed the highway. The NY 382 designation, now unused, is reserved by the New York State Department of Transportation as a future designation for NY 88. Maps and postcards showed the area of NY 382 and NY 17 as two local roads and a bridge over the Allegany River.

My first stab:

New York State Route 382 (NY 382) was a state highway in Red House in Cattaraugus County, New York. The highway, 0.8 miles (1.3 km) long, went from NY 17 to the Red House entrance of Allegany State Park. The name was assigned in the 1930s and removed in the 1970s after the building of Southern Tier Expressway's Interchange 19, which severed the highway. Now unused, the name is reserved by the New York State Department of Transportation as a future name for NY 88. Maps and postcards showed the area of NY 382 and NY 17 as two local roads and a bridge over the Allegany River.

I've incidentally corrected two typos in that -- rather alarming in a first paragraph. Morenoodles (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the paragraph. Looks good :) - Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 13:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am continuing my campaign of advocating for a minimum level of notability for featured articles. In my opinion a state highway that was less than a mile long and no longer exists is simply not important enough to have a featured article. I understand that the FA criteria don't explicitly demand a higher level of notability for FAs than for articles in general, so this is simply an expression of my personal opinion. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded reason to oppose. NY 382 is the only one of its kind and is notable in its own way. Your oppose is unactionable, so it can be null and voided I believe.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. The place to discuss criteria changes is Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, not on individual nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the two above comments, this is a POINTy oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on people. While I disagree with Looie496, I think he makes a reasonable point (or "POINT") and does so politely. Actually I'm touched by his point, because it raises the mind-boggling possibility of an FA being sent to AfD for non-notability of subject matter. If that did happen, the AfD would surely fail, but it might be fun to watch. (And no, I am not a lover of what's dismissively referred to as drama.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but he/she could have brought the subject up as a discussion point instead of a reason to oppose. Anyway, it is non-actionable; opposes over subject matter do not factor into the consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The bullets look tacky. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I removed them, as it's redundant to what's already in the text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::I also don't really like the heading structure - "The highway is designated" just looks weird (try "Designation"?) and "Post-designation" should probably be put under History. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - Why should a route that WASN'T even a mile long be nominated as a FA? Plus the route has been defunct for almost 40 years. I also don't like that for years existed, you have a rough estimate of 1930s-1970s. Everything should be perfect if you want "Feature status"! And I must say that there are still tons of ACTIVE state route pages that need a lot of work. I don't understand why so much time is being placed into making a dead state route FA. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's this page called the "featured article criteria". I hear it's quite helpful when trying to determine if an article should be featured. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't notable enough in my opinion. I'd find it funny if the featured article today is Barack Obama and the featured article tomorrow is New York State Route 382. Doesn't make sense to me. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::::TFA is different than FA, last I checked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::So, there are many people who have been dead for 40 years that have encyclopedia articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable enough" isn't part of the FA criteria. If it passes WP:N there's no reason why it can't become featured. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-actionable oppose. Opposes over subject matter will be discounted. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The prose could use improvement. For instance, The highway progressed eastward from the highway, and into a cut of several mountains, which were marked on the United States Geological Survey's topographical maps. It simply isn't possible to parse that sentence. Which highway progressed eastward from which highway? And what was marked on the USGS map, mountains or highways or both? Notability opposes are invalid, btw. Mitchazenia is on a productive campaign to raise the entire state highway system of New York to featured topic status, so of course that means an occasional minor article such as this one. Fellow editors should be encouraging such thoroughness in more subjects, not tossing arbitrary obstacles into the paths of hard workers. DurovaCharge! 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make the argument that everything is notable from someone's perspective. My grandfather had over 1,000 people at his funeral. If I create a wiki page for him it would be taken down in a heartbeat. From what I read NY 382 linked NY 17 to a town with 38 residents! So more people knew my grandfather than probably knew about 382. It is a nice article, well written, but we need to have a stronger definition of what notable is. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people at his funeral doesn't matter. Notability criteria for people involve accomplishments and people writing about them. That last one (written sources on the subject matter) also applies to roads. (WP:GNG) - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are missing the point. All the sources in the article pertain to the state park or areas surrounding the road. One paragraph of the article depicts a postcard that just happens to have the road in the picture. The main picture in the infobox doesn't even show the road! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in arguing about this particular article here. If you feel that minor state routes should not have articles, feel free to take 8,000 or so to AFD. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid excuse. Also, how in anyway does this article compare to New York State Route 22 that is a featured article? --GroundhogTheater (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this article should stay because other articles exist; please stop with the false accusations. What I said is that it's not a matter of deleting one article. There are thousands of state route articles on Wikipedia, and to change that, there needs to be extensive and project-wide discussion. Not a few comments at FAC or AFD. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Way to Elevation - Groundhog makes a good point, and I broke down the sources. All the sources in the article pertain to the state park or areas surrounding the road. Several are maps, and some of those maps aren't even from the state in which the road was located. And a few are from Google which any road can be found on. These two sources make no sense (#17 and #18). They say nothing about NY 382! Quantity does not equal quality! Article should not be elevated, it should be reduced to a blurb within the Allegany State Park page. If you want to put it on a main list of NY routes, that would be ok too. But for this to be featured? --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I edited this article but wasn't aware that it was a FAC until recently. This is an interesting article. I've reviewed the criteria and I support elevation to FA. Two opposes are mainly about the road being obscure. The FA criteria are all met ( see WP:FACR ). WP:FAC states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it.". Nothing can be done about the subject matter short of AFD/deletion. The article has passed AFD as keep. Many FAs are not big name encyclopedia topics (like Canada, Osama bin Laden, or World War I might be). Good job, Mitch in writing the article! Chergles (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification requested: A claim has been made that sources do not support the text cited to them. Is this true? If so, it cannot simply be ignored – the article cannot be promoted in its present state. If the claim is not true it should be withdrawn immediately. Can we have a proper response to the allegation? Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Seems to be necessary background information to me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Brian, these sources do not pertain to NY 382. They include maps from other states, from the state park in which the route does not run in, postcards of the town the route is in, and two bad links that BurpTheBaby outlined earlier. It may look like there are adqeuate sources because there are 18 sources, but they aren't good at all. I would recommend bringing in a neutral third-party to evaluate them. Rschen is a bit biased to the information being involved in the topic for so long. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

****Thank you for assuming good faith. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead - do units of measurement need to be linked? Not sure about this.
  • The link to Allegheny State Park is confusing as you cover the entire route in this article.
  • "At that time, NY 17 was an at-grade highway rather than the Southern Tier Expressway, as it is now." - seems like a weird way to phrase it
  • "The road which follows the alignment of NY 382, however, is now designated Bay Shore Road." - what? I thought it never went that far, at least how I read it...
  • Administration should not be capitalized.
  • History - how can something be both a town and community?
  • This is a US article - should use meters not metres.
  • Route 382 not route 382

I think that people have been too busy trying to bash the article on notability grounds that they are completely overlooking other aspects of the article. I found several prose errors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1c) See comments below : Evaluating the sources looks like a job for Ealdgyth to me, but in her absemce I've taken a look myself. I have to say that what I have found, on an incomplete evaluation, confirms what Groundhog says.

    • The lead map is captioned "Planned alignment of NY 382 shown in a 1923 map of Red House, New York". No such alignment is apparent from the map – where, exactly, is it indicated? The file description says nothing about Route 382: "This topographical map shows the Erie Railroad and Pennsylvania Railroad running through the town of Red House, New York".
    • Refs [2] and [13] are to the National Bridge Inventory. In what form is this inventory accessible? If published, publication details should be given, if on-line there should be a link.
    • Refs [4], [11] and [14] are other Wikipedia articles.
    • The relevance of the maps in [3] (Pennsylvania), [5] (Buffalo), [7] Pennsylvania again) and [8] (Alleghany State Park) are not immediately apparent. Were they added in response to the comment on the talkpage: "This article needs a map", or was relevance a factor in their selection?

The above were enough for me to conclude that this article is not properly referenced and fails criterion 1c. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was enough for me to conclude that this article meets criterion 1c. Refs 4, 11, and 14 are not WP articles. Someone has created a wikilink for those company names but the references themselves are scholarly references. That would be like saying "Smith, J, The Life and Times of Paris Hilton" and wikilinking Paris Hilton. I've also corrected the map caption to address any concerns. Chergles (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the first two. :) - The third one (Refs 4, 11 and 14), are actually maps, not other Wikipedia articles, the publisher of the map itself is wikilinked. As for the fourth (Refs 3, 5, 7 and 8) - They are used as relevance as a factor/reference in their respectable section. And the thing on the talk page is different then reference related.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources still don't pertain to the route at hand, and even if they did, they should be linked directly to the source. Merely linking another Wiki page is sloppy. Maybe that's fine for an article going for "B" level, but definitely not FA. As for the other maps, why are there sections on Pennsylvania when the route was in NY. This page is poorly cited, and a NEUTRAL observer in Brianboulton believes that as well. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the infobox "map" still doesn't show a planned 382 or anything to that effect. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed trying to be neutral, and fair. Let me comment on the responses to my earlier points.
  • The altered caption to the infobox map doesn't, in all honesty, help much. It says: "The alignment of which became NY 382 is on the far right near the actual community". Not the clearest of descriptions, and none of the various lines on the right, near the settlement of Red House, is identified as 382. So how can anyone identify it from this map?
  • The National Bridge Inventory references are now linked to an online page, presumably of this inventory. But both [2] and [13] are linked to the same page, which appears to describes a bridge built in 1970 with a completely different reference number. In the article we have the sentence: "Originally, the intersection of NY17 (ab-grade) and NY 382 had a 181 feet (55m) long continuous arch deck (built in 1940) which no longer exists[13]". None of these facts is evident from the linked source. So I cannot agree that my queries with these references have been "fixed".
  • I'm sorry I misunderstood the nature of refs 4, 11 and 14.
  • As to my querying the relevance of the maps in refs 3, 5, 7 and 8, I don't understand the reply given: "They are used as relevance as a factor/reference in their respectable section". So, I'm afraid, much of my scepticism about the sources remains. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the caption completely. And as for the National bridge inventory, I screwed up 2 links, sorry - they have been fixed :) - As for the last one: They are being used as sources for the sentences and/or facts they are kept to. And to GroundhogTheater, all PennDOT and PennDOH maps over the years have marked New York routes along the southern tier of the state as well. I hope that clarifies that problem.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the caption away doesn't change the fact that the map doesn't show a constructed or future 382. And just because you updated your links doesn't mean that the sources aren't still inadequate for an article going for FA. I am having real trouble finding any real connection between the route and your sources. Links to other wiki pages is sloppy. And estimated creation date is sloppy. A map that doesn't show 382 is sloppy. The route description is 20% NY 382 and 80% Allegany Route 2. Which route is this page for? "FA" is the highest an article can go, so if you really think this page has reached the ceiling, then we're lowering the standards for FA across the board. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, "Featured article" is just an assessment class. No more important than B-Class. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed and this article does not belong there. It is not worthy of being deemed top level. Its not notable, based on the sources and sloppiness of the article. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FA isn't about what is "worthy". That's fine if you have concerns about sources, but opposes regarding the notability of a subject are completely baseless. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless in your opinion. The fact most sources pertain to the surrounding areas rather than the route itself can deem the route minimally notable. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor argument. The map from Pennsylvania covers NY 382. How does that make the route non-notable? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, I am opposing this article on the grounds of sources. I am not concerned here with notability issues or anything else. The concern is the lack of sources which specifically support information given in the article. And there is the matter of the infobox map, which gives no information about the location of NY 382 and as I see it, serves no purpose. I am actually worried about the lack of concern that some reviewers are showing about the sources issue. I will try and list all my concerns within the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References review: I've now looked at all the references to see the extent to which they support the information given in the article. The problem is, I haven't found one reference that specifically refers to the old route 382, enabling us to confirm that it existed where you say it existed. None of the maps I have seen show it (but see my comments on pdf maps). I am not suggesting that the references are themselves unreliable, just that they don't support this article. Then there is the question of the entirely non-informative map in the infobox. I'm sorry, as it stands the referencing does not meet the standard required by FA criterion 1c. The good faith of the nominator is not in question, and I will be pleased if my conclusions can be proved wrong.

  • [1] is a Google-created map which shows a route 0.8 miles long between two plotted points. There is nothing on the map to show that this route is that of the former NY 382, thus it does not provide independent support for the article.
  • [2] goes to a web page from the National Bridge Inventory. The page gives details of a bridge built in 1970. It is not clear to me how this page supports the information in the infobox that cites it as its source.
  • [3] is a "Tourist Map of Pennsylvania" It's in PDF format which is a problem for me – my computer doesn't like PDF and gives me endless grief when I try to use it. So I'll make no comment on the PDF sources
  • [4] is a 1935 map of New York State. I have not seen this map, so I can't evaluate its usefulness. However, the use of other maps as "references" in the article doesn't fill me with confidence about this one.
  • [5] is a very small-scale map of upstate New York. I have no idea how this map is supposed to support the specific statements cited to it.
  • [6] is a map entitled Official Description of Touring Routes in NY State (pdf).
  • [7] is another tourist map for Pennsylvania (pdf).
  • [8] is a Yahoo-created map of a route in Allegany State Park, that has no obvious relevance to this article
  • [9] is a web page: "Allegany State Park Red House Area" published by NYS Office of Parks. It supports the sentence cited to it, about the location of Pitt Cottage on ASP Route 2. But I wonder how relevant of such information is, to an article about NY 382? Could be construed as padding.
  • [10} A printed source which I am unable to comment on.
  • [11] - this should be combined with [12], since the Syracuse State University photographs are found there.
  • [12] Neither the map nor the postcard are helpful, though the postcard is charming. The map is the same as the one in the infobox, already commented on.
  • [13} is another page from the National Bridge Inventory. Once again, no reference in the source to 382. How does the source confirm that it is referring to a bridge that used to exist at the inersection of NY17 and NY382?
  • [14] is a 1974 map of New York and New Jersey which I have not seen – see comments re [4] above
  • [15] Various route descriptions, NYS Dept of Transport (pdf).
  • [16] NYS Route 17 designations 1-86 (pdf).
  • [17] is a web page from NYS Dept of Transportation giving details of future works. I'm not able from this information to confirm that this work is relevant to the old 382
  • [18] Similar comment to {17] above.

For the present my oppose has to stand. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this later. I did look up reference 8 and it DOES support the text. Chergles (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, not every source has to relate DIRECTLY to NY 382. If you have complaints, they can go to WT:USRD as other FAs have done this and it is fine.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source #8 is a yahoo map that can be made of just about any street in the US. I'm gonna plot my home address and then make a featured article out about it. And Mitchazenia, not all sources have to directly pertain to the route, but at the very least a couple should. I think a majority should, otherwise you are losing what the page should be about and that is the route. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on references
  • [1] is used only to source the length. I am assuming that the routing has simply been transposed from what [4] shows. An explanation to that effect might be useful.
  • [2] shows that the bridge for NY 17 was built in 1970. This would require that the physical roadway of NY 382 be removed/destroyed. Since it is an indirect reference, an explanation in the text and in the citation would be useful.
  • While [5] is a small-scale map, it does have sufficient detail to show that the road formerly used by NY 382 and where the paved section ends. [7] also shows where NY 382 goes although the exact end point is not clear in this map.
  • [8] simply references the alignment of ASP Route 2. Its relevance is that it used to be part of NY 382 but this is now the current designation.
  • [13] may be problematic as this refers to a bridge carrying ASP Route 1 over Red House Brook. This needs to be looked into.
  • [6] and [14] are used to show that the route existed in 1970 but not in 1974.
  • [17] and [18] are related to NY 382 as these are planned construction work in the area where NY 382 used to be. This allows readers to find out what happened/will happen to the area.
  • All the other references which were not commented on do pertain to the facts they are being used for as a citation. --Polaron | Talk 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated comments on sources: The replacement infobox image is a big improvement on its uninformative predecessor. However, most of my concerns about the quality and relevance of the sources remain. I am not going to go through the list yet again, but here are a few examples of my outstanding concerns:
    • Self-plotted routes on Google or Yahoo maps cannot be offered as independent sources of information. If anything, they are OR. If, say, the Google map on which your route is plotted had indicated that the route in question was that of 382 then, fine. But it doesn't, and the Yahoo map without your plotted route is likewise uninformative.
    • Map [5] is a small scale map of upstate New York. The source link takes me to the map. I am unfamiliar with the geography of upstate New York - what am I supposed to do with this map? Where do I even begin to start looking for the relevant area? This is the equivalent of citing a small fact to an unindexed book with no chapter headings or page numbers. Sources are supposed to enable readers to check facts, not send them on a clueless hunt for infomation.
    • I have yet to see any comment on [12], which doesn't seem to support anything in the article specifically. It might be OK as an external link providing a period flavour, but it does not seem to be a useful source.
    • I hadn't previously investigated the PDF sources, for reasons explained, but I thought I had better look at at least one. I tried [15]; what I got was a link to an error message from the NYS Department of Transport, asking "were you looking for something?". I had to smile. Please check this link to see where it takes you.
  • I have mentioned these as examples of outstanding source concerns. I appreciate that efforts are being made to address the sources problem, along with other issues, but for the present I cannot withdraw my opposition to the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have solved all of those examples, but the first one - Yahoo and Google have been accepted in all FAs for highways, they are defined sources and are allowed.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to indicate how you have solved the problem with regard to [5]. On [15], now [14], I finally tracked down the information cited to it, but it took ages, because you don't provide any navigational aid to this site, not even a page number. Things like that are important in a prospective FA. I'm holding fire for the moment on your assertion that self-plotted routes on Google maps are allowed as independent sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding self-plotted routes, the routing is derived from other published maps. The Yahoo and Google Maps links are being utilized to source the length of the route. Regarding [5]. I'm not sure what the concern is as it clearly shows the route in question and is being used appropriately. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained very precisely what the concern is about [5]. Please read what I have said above as to how one is supposed to find route 382 on this map, without any information as to where to start looking. In its present form the source is not acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would adding the approximate map grid be sufficient? The grids are in 15 arcminute increments so it still isn't very precise. --Polaron | Talk 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section reference has already been added by Mitchazenia and I just did some formatting to better fit the cite template. I hope this satisifes the Ref [5] concerns. --Polaron | Talk 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've located the route. The northern coordinate is 42°06' not 42° which is the bottom edge of the map. Would it not be possible to crop this section from the general map? Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Aside from the inadequate sources, a point that was brought up that wasn't addressed was about the route description. Just eyeballing it seems like 75% of the route description is about a different route. I understand the routes are linked, but you shouldn't have the majority of the section pertain to something different than the actual topic. It's like the source issue. You shouldn't have 75-80% of your sources be on something different. A professor would rip you apart if you did that on a school paper. I agree other things need to be mentioned, like Red House, like a brief snippet on Allegheny 2, but not to the extent where it bleeds over the actual topic of the article. And if other "FA"s do it, they shouldn't pass either. I like the writer's passion for the topic, so don't take this as a personal hit, but take the advice and try and make the best article. As Brian said a few posts ago, I hope you can beef up the page and get this done! But I do have to oppose at the moment. --  UWMSports (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint seems to be one of TMI too much information. The FA criteria don't really address the issue. Article length has guidelines but not TMI.
In WP, we don't want to merely copy news articles or encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia really excels when information is taken from articles that are hard to search or find. For example, with the crash of 1549, there may be a rare fact reported about the Airbus A320. If that fact is put in to the Airbus A320 article, WP really becomes good. So having small facts taken from articles with a main subject of something different is not bad. It is potentially good. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed his point Chergles. He needs to reply for me to be absolutely certain that's what he meant, but here's what I took. There is nothing wrong with extra information or addressing something else. But extra information should not dilute the original topic, and it does here. Say I write a book about Phil Jackson and spend 80% of the book talking about Michael Jordan. People could say the book is really about Jordan. As important as Jordan was to Jackson's career, the book shouldn't be 80% MJ. Same here. The article shouldn't be 80% Allegany Route 2 and just 20% about the route in question. People could say that it is an attempt by the authors to stretch out content. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! --  UWMSports (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. The article now complies with the complaint about ASP Route 2 being too long. It is now 3 lines long on my computer screen. Note that the original complaint wasn't quite right. The article was not 80% about ASP Route 2. Chergles (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original complaint was right. And the route description is still +50% Allegany Route 2. Unacceptable. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys use this, File:NY382Map.JPG as the infobox map. --  UWMSports (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without going into great detail, because alot of what happened is based on a private matter at home (a few admins have been filled in with more detail), I do want to apologize for my brother-in-law's actions over the last couple weeks and anything that might have happened months ago. Please disregard any points he may have made in this discussion that no one has found applicable to NY 382. I take full responsibility for being stupid and not paying closer attention to his online activity. Please understand though that he has a mental illness that causes more problems than some out of bounds editing on Wikipedia. I extend an apology to User:Mitchazenia for his actions hurting this article's FA discussion, and also to User:Rschen7754 for his comments to you. I'm sure there are others that deserve and apology, and if I find out anything else, I definitely pass one along to you.

Personally, I am here in good faith and have been actively working on NY route pages for over 2 years. I created pages for Rockland County Routes and been helping to construct articles for NY State Routes. I have also uploaded a ton of various pictures from my travels and have assigned them to their appropriate pages.

If you have further questions, feel free to drop a comment on my talk page or hit the email function. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. The opposing editors have been blocked as socks based on Rlevse check and Airtuna08, who reports that the blocked users have mental illness, has been unblocked even though originally named as a sock. Very strange situation. This doesn't change the fact that I plan to continually improve the article even if FA status is granted. Chergles (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in view of the above, and the somewhat unusual circumstances that have affected this FAC, I am striking the oppose which I gave earlier on grounds of inadequate sources. Various steps have been taken to improve the sources since I registered the oppose, and the non-informative infobox map has been replaced. I still have reservations about the sources. I believe that all the small-scale maps need accurate coordinates to enable their use, and ref [6], which takes us to a 49-page website, needs the page number of the entry being cited. I hope that these matters will be attended to. I have other sources concerns, too; an independent sources reviewer needs to make a judgement. My view is that this nom ought to be restarted, as it is very difficult to assess its current state. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose for now by karanacs.

  • I'm concerned that the bulk of the sources for this article are essentially primary sources. NY Department of Transportation, US Dept of Transportation, and PA Depart of Highways. These are government entities which essentially oversee all or part of the roads. There next most popular sources are maps, which provide nothing but a picture of a route description. That leaves very little that can be sourced to independent sources beyond the route itself. Are there no newspaper articles that discuss any parts of the content of this article, even recent history? Surely it was reported SOMEWHERE when the road lost its designation?
  • What effect, if any, did the road's creation have on the town of Red House?
  • What effect, if any, did the road's de-designation have on the town of Red House?
  • Sources are not formatted consistently. Some things are italicized that should not be. Some terms are alternately abbreviated or spelled out. The refs need to be cleaned up.
  • There should not be subsections in the Route Description section - they contain a combined 10 sentences.
  • The prose doesn't flow that well. For example, the last sentence of NY 382 subsection is "The road continues as a state park service road." The next section begins "Allegany State Park Route 2, the continuation of former New York Route 382, begins at the entrance of Allegany State Park. " that is a very awkward transition.
  • When you plan to use abbreviations for terms, the first time the term is spelled out, put the abbreviation in parantheses next to it. Otherwise people might be confused when they suddenly run across the abbreviation.
  • The article says that The town and community of Red House, New York was important in the creation of New York Route 382 and New York Route 17 but it doesn't say how.
  • "The name of Red House was derived from a house on the banks of the Allegheny River, which, as noted, was painted red. " - as noted by whom?
  • "surrounding the remains." - this wording seems a bit odd; the road still exists, just not with this designation, so "remains" seems to be a poor choice
  • " plan started to develop " - who/what is developing this plan?
  • Can the State park route really be considered an intersection? It is a continuation of the road, not a cross street.

Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved just about everything. This was a very minor highway, and no one really reports the decommissioning of highways unless it is really major. Anyway, as for the italics, the templates are the problem (Citation templates). I hope everything meets your standard now.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the templates are doing bad things to the references, then ditch the templates. The oppose stands because the prose and the sources are not up to FA quality yet and there are MOS issues. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For now. - the prose is poor in places and generally far from engaging. Examples:

  • The route passes adjacent to some 2,200 feet (670 m) above sea level mountains, towards the city of Salamanca. - "The route passes mountains which are 2,200 feet above sea level."
  • In the winter of 2007 and 2008, a plan started to develop by the New York State Department of Transportation to replace a bridge over the Allegheny River on Old Route 17 near the former remains in Red House. - "In the winter of 2007 and 2008 the New York State Department of Transportation started to develop a plan to replace..."
  • the highway traversed eastward through a cut of several mountains - ????
  • When Exit 19 was built in 1970,[2] the roadway was severed from the interior of Allegany State Park. ??

The blurred picture in the information box is a poor show. Graham Colm Talk 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. All the reasons for the oppose have been addressed. The photo comment presents a conflicting problem because it was placed at the suggestion of another editor to replace a clear map. The highway is very old so clear maps are difficult to attain and allowance should be made in this respect. Chergles (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this point, the "clear" map that was replaced did not actually show the route. A slightly blurred picture that does indicate the route is better than a clear map that doesn't. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-drawn the map, is this accurate and better?
 
Graham Colm Talk 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost, need Allegheny respelled first :) -Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean - Allegheny for the River, Allegany for the park.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shows how blurred the other one was :-) Is this better? (You will probably have to flush your cache). Graham Colm Talk 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image needs a source for its information, otherwise it could be argued that it's original research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Julian, with respect, I get your point, but the source is the original map which I have simply copied—this is not original research. To go off on a tangent, it's high time Wikipedians recognised the difference between research and original research. The former is finding what has been discovered; the latter is discovering. The best articles on Wikipedia have been thoroughly researched. Graham Colm Talk 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 04:12, 19 February 2009 [34].

Discography of the Final Fantasy VII series

edit
Nominator(s): PresN
First FAC, first PR, second PR

I'm bringing this article back for another round at FAC. I believe that I have addressed the concerns expressed in the prior FAC, and that the article is now much better for it. I welcome all concerns and critiques, and will attempt to respond promptly. --PresN 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on sources used in the article

Owned by Craveonline Media, LLC, which is in turned owned by AtomicOnline, LLC, which is a smallish media conglomerate that runs several dozen sites in three distinct areas (men 18-34, women 25-54, teens) with 13 million+ unique pageviews a month across their main sites. Article talking about them.
A subdivision of Cerberus Media Group Inc., a Florida corporation formed to provide a backing company for the site. I have contacted both the head of the music reviews section as well as their marketing director, who both have said that all of their reviews are edited and fact-checked for accuracy, cross-checked and cited against other legitimate news sites whenever possible, and are also corrected if any error is later found.
Independent music review site (not affiliated with Square Enix itself) - about page says that they have "achieved critical acclaim from famous composers, eminent producers, and industry sites", a claim that is backed up by their interviews page, listing interviews they have done with notable people such as Yasunori Mitsuda and Thomas Boecker, producer of the Symphonic Game Music Concert series. Their submissions guidelines are here, in which they specifically say that they edit all reviews for factual accuracy.
11 year old remix hosting and production site recognized and contributed to by many industry professionals. Press comments. Run under OverClocked ReMix LLC.

Comments The summary above is distilled from the previous FAC, which basically left the sources above for other reviewers to decide for themselves on their reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden templates throughout (they don't mirror). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack.jpg - You need to alter the description of how this infobox is used. For example, this sentence is inaccurate: "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for."
  • This is just a generic template. I would suggest removing it and writing one specifically for this article, which outlines what critical commentary this image is accompanying. For help writing purposes of use, see this dispatch, particularly the section at the end. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand why we need this clip. The fair use rationale states that it is necessary "to convey the style and elements of the soundtrack's instrumental (MIDI) audio" but the article states that this piece was "fully re-recorded with an orchestra and choir", so I expected to hear the orchestra and choir version. Why is the MIDI version included?
  • The clip is from the original OST, It's in the section for the next album to avoid creating an unseemly white space gap between the two sections, or squeezing the text. Re-titled it to make it clearer. --PresN 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The overall article is concise and very informative, flowing smoothly and detailing the information enough for a casual reader fresh to the material to understand, and ends with a solid section discussing the legacy of the music. Only thing I can really point out is that you might tweak ref 36 now (Toshiba-Emi is now EMI Music Japan, and the link needs fixing appropriately. But beyond that I support this for a featured article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I have fixed the ref now. --PresN 01:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says Last Order and Before Crisis were produced as tie-ins to Crisis Core, but CC was made after those two. The way the sentence is worded seems to make it sound as if they were produced afterwards. Also, despite the name, I believe BC starts after CC. While CC ends up revolving and reaching its climax at the Nibelheim incident, BC takes place primarily before, which probably is where the title comes from. But, Crisis Core starts 7 years before FFVII and Before Crisis starts 6 years before. Other than that, though, the article looks good. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reworded to reflect this. --PresN 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good job! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. An excellent article about some of the greatest music in video game history. I did a little copy-editing, but there are still some issues:

  • “Very well received” – I have seen this several times in the article, and it’s misleading to me. By saying “very” it gives me the impression that many critics did a review of the albums and gave uniform positive reviews. But there are very few who actually reviewed the albums. “Well received” is sufficient IMO.
  • It was rated by IGN as the best song from the entire Final Fantasy series. – I think this fits better in the reception section of “Original Soundtrack”.
  • Is the catalog numbers of the albums necessary? I don’t see them as particularly useful.
  • Other notable tracks include "Main Theme of Final Fantasy VII", themes from which play during several other tunes from the soundtrack, such as "Words Drowned by Fireworks", to tie the soundtrack together. – I don't understand this sentence.
  • Both Aeris’s Theme and Aerith’s Theme are used throughout the article. Is this because her name changed later in the series?
  • Yes, though I also misspoke a couple of times- her name is "Aeris" for everything related to the original game, which is reflected in the track name on the soundtrack album/piano album. It changes to "Aerith" for all subsequent titles.
  • Fully re-recorded – What does this mean? Is "fully" necessary?
  • “Covering a variety of thematic types such as marches, New Age themes, and jazz.” – What do you mean by types? Genres perhaps?
  • As three of the tracks from this album were reused in the soundtrack to Final Fantasy VII Advent Children, reviewers have speculated that the album was produced with the intention to provide tunes for Advent Children. – Not only reviewers speculate about this, but also fans. I think you can say: “it has been speculated that…” instead.
  • The limited edition of the soundtrack includes a case which is designed to hold the soundtrack, along with the game disc and the limited edition of the "Redemption" single and associated DVD, although these other items are not included with the album. – Does this mean that the limited edition didn’t actually include these extra items, just the space for it?
  • It was Ishimoto's first major work, with his only previous soundtrack score the cell phone game prequel to Crisis Core, Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII, the soundtrack to which was released after that of Core. – This statement reads awkward and doesn’t seem to be correct, as Ishimoto previously scored The World Ends with You, a major work.
  • Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack was poorly received by critics, with Gann praising Ishimoto for writing "an excellent soundtrack" and being especially happy with the quality of the arrangements of Uematsu's pieces. – Shouldn’t the first part of the sentence be preceded with a negative comment? Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense. Also, this is the first time I’m informed about arrangements of Uematsu’s pieces; I think this needs to be stated in the first paragraph of the section for better understanding.
  • Changed, and it is in the first paragraph- "The soundtrack also includes a large number of arrangements of tunes from the original Final Fantasy VII score". --PresN 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did, however, note that because his original works were more ambient, Ishimoto's arrangements, and by extension Uematsu's work, far outshone his own new contributions. – I’m not sure if you’re talking about Ishimoto or Uematsu with “his original works” and “his own new contributions”. Needs to be clarified.
  • Before Crisis served as a prequel to Crisis Core, while Last Order was a side story to the game… – Isn’t it a side story to the original FFVII?
  • Before Crisis was Ishimoto's first soundtrack – According to [35], World Fantastista was his first soundtrack. This part of the sentence doesn’t seem relevant to the rest of the sentence anyway, so I’d remove it.
  • especially as the best tracks were used in the Crisis Core soundtrack and not repeated in this album. – Reads as POV with “best tracks”.
  • There are two people on SEMO called Chris, one born in 1992[36] and one in 1987[37]. Both of them are referred to as “Chris” in the article so it may seem that they are the same person. Maybe if you include (also known as “Dark Cloud”) after 1992 Chris as he uses that name on SEMO.

Once these concerns have been addressed, I'll gladly vote support. The Prince (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that I have addressed all of your concerns. --PresN 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I only have one last comment: "It was Ishimoto's second major work, after the soundtrack to The World Ends with You; the only title he has been the sole composer for previously was the cell phone game Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII." – Here, do you mean the sole composer of BC before TWEWY or before CC? If it's TWEWY, it's correct, but if it's CC, it's not, since Kazuhiko Toyama was the co-composer of that soundtrack. Needs to be clarified. The Prince (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. --PresN 00:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changed to support. The Prince (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is it that you feel the original soundtrack should be the only one to have identifying art? Are the other albums non-notable? Similarly for the musical samples. Final Fantasy 7 has spanned over a decade and is a series within its own right as the article's title identifies. Are the Crisis Core and Dirge of Cerberus soundtrack(s) similar in style to the original soundtrack? Does it play with the same themes? If so, then further soundbytes may not be needed, but with the range of composers in play, I would have expected a few more. You were involved fleetingly in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_38#Album_cover_images_in_video_game_discographies, you may wish to revisit that discussion if the dearth of identifying art is artificially self imposed. - hahnchen 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artificially self-imposed? It's certainly imposed, but not self-imposed. I would, personally, love to have all of the "Discography of FF#" articles renamed to "Music of" and put all of the album art back in. I know, however, that I'd get a ton of argument and opposes here at the FAC if I did. If you want a crusade I'm all for it, but please don't use this FAC as part of it. --PresN 07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I think musical samples are more important than identifying art. I've listened to snippets from the Crisis Core soundtrack (on the Warner Music website), given that there's a new main theme, a new composer, and it's not midi, I would have uploaded a sample. I have not listened to any of the other albums. There's an obvious difference between this and a list discography, self censorship is not a good thing. I do not think you should be jumping through artificial hoops in order to pander to potential FAC comments which may not be entirely relevant. - hahnchen 12:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The main issue I have with this article though, is the lack of reception information from its country of origin. I'm not too familiar with video game soundtracks, but I do know that they are a lot more popular in Japan than in the West (as is Final Fantasy). Surely, there are better, more authoritative sources for reviews in Japan than RPGFan? I would oppose a video game article if it did not include any reception from its home market, and am doing the same here. - hahnchen 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't an article I've worked on, I would be quick to point out for the sake of argument that the video game project currently lists no such soundtrack review sources in Japan. I would equally stress that it seems somewhat negligent of you to oppose on the grounds of no sources from the home country without presenting any proof that such sources even exist, especially when there are very few citable sources on even an English-speaking front discussing this material.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue with you on two points, Hahnchen. One- this is the English-language wikipedia, and I don't speak Japanese. I'd love to have more reception, but I have a hard enough time finding it in languages that I can read. If you know of any sources for soundtrack reviews, please tell me. Two, this is different from a video game- the music almost exclusively has no words, and is not stylistically tied to Japanese culture. Anyone can review the music, in the context that it was originally meant, regardless of the language they speak. --PresN 07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video game soundtracks gained their original popularity in Japan, the Final Fantasy series is more popular in Japan and it's arguable that there are stronger cultural ties. I was more hesitant to oppose, given my unfamiliarity with the albums, and a lack of substantiation for Japanese sources. But when I oppose an article on a Japanese video game because it contains no reception from the country of origin, I too am just assuming that Famitsu et al. have reviewed it. It is incredibly likely, almost certain, that these albums have been covered in the Japanese press. Regarding Kung Fu Man's comment, that there are very few citable English sources is exactly why we should be looking elsewhere. - hahnchen 12:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there hasn't been anything presented indicating such reviews occur through citable soruces on the Japanese front at this time. This feels much like how some editors would oppose a game article for FAC when it lacks sales data, when in many cases such information is impossible to get. If there's no evidence such sources exist to be cited then what's the point of opposing on the assumption they must exist?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. You say that you oppose FACs for articles about Japanese video games, because you can assume that Famitsu, a magazine that you know about and that is considered reliable, has reviewed the game, and that the editor of the article needs to prove it hasn't to justify its absence from the article. For this article, you're opposing, not because you have any proof or strong suggestion that there is a reliable Japanese review source for video game soundtracks, but because you think there should be. I'm sorry, but I can't find soundtrack reviews that are a) from Japan and b) from reliable sources without knowing the language or at the very least knowing of specific places that would satisfy the criteria. Since you do not know of any places either, this is not an actionable oppose, in that there is no action that I can take to satisfy it. This is the English Wikipedia, and English sources will just have to do. --PresN 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We cannot assume there are more references and content simply because the section is small, and after the effort to find reliable sources using a strict standard, the section may very well stay that size and still be comprehensive. The other areas of the article meet the featured article criteria as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - Some minor issues, you'll shouldn't have any trouble:
  • These albums are to date the only ones based on the soundtrack to the original game - This is a muddy sentence, anyway to clear it up?
  • Other notable tracks include "Main Theme of Final Fantasy VII" - Without a reference, this is POV.
  • showing some of the same elements from Crisis Core and Final Fantasy VII from an alternate viewpoint - What elements are these? Musical? Story? -- Noj r (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support, great work. - Noj r (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not particularly impressed with the prose, among other issues.
    • "received very positive reviews from critics" Surely we can find more encylopedic intensifiers than "very"?
    • "from the Original Soundtrack" Why is this capitalized? And which "original soundtrack" is this referring to?
    • "remain popular today" spot the redundancy
    • "Nobuo Uematsu composed and produced the music of Final Fantasy VII in less than one year, although he had taken two years to create the soundtrack for the previous title" But this is not what the given source says; the source says: "It is true, Uematsu was only given less than a year to write this music whereas he was given 2 to write FFVI (I know this sounds awkward, but apparently it's correct)."
      • He was given time periods. This does not mean he necessarily met these requirements.
      • The source says the time period was given to write the music (different from composing and producing).
      • The source seems far from authoritative on this ("apparently it's correct"??).
      • "Less than one year" is far from specific. What does that mean? Six months? 11 months? 3 months?
    • Over-reliance on the perfect tense, when the simple past tense is stronger.
    • I am not convinced that http://www.squareenixmusic.com/ is a reliable source. You state above in response to Ealdgyth that "they specifically say that they edit all reviews for factual accuracy." This is not true. What they say is that "All submitted reviews are subject to editing by the webmaster. This is intended to optimise their clarity, conciseness, level of detail, factual accuracy, spelling, and grammar." Not the same thing. Being subject to editing by the websmaster (one random individual? This Chris guy, whose e-mail is given?) is not the same thing as having an editorial process that forces submissions to undergo editing. That the authors do not list their full names is also disconcerting.
    • "Uematsu took it as a good sign" Informal, colloquial language.
    • Well-received and well-done should be hyphenated; I corrected one instance, but needs attention throughout the article.
    • "The lyrics of "One-Winged Angel", a Latin choral track which plays at the climax of the game, were taken from the medieval poetry Carl Orff based his Carmina Burana on, respectively the songs" Such an awkward sentence. Comma before which or use that. "on which Carl Orff" is less awkward, than "based...on", if you switch the first which to that. Respectively makes no sense here, and only adds to the awkwardness.
    • The discussion of the music is often superficial, and the quotations used from reviewers feature generic language such as "memorable", "beautiful", "amazing", "excellent", "spectacular", and even "very worth the purchase"(!!), that is far from informative. Where is some musical analysis of the tracks?
    • ""harsh and in-your-face" to "stunning and lovely", but were primarily used as ambient background music." Where is the citation for these quotations?
    • Note that the above prose examples are just that: examples. Please don't just fix those. Audit the whole text. BuddingJournalist 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The prose just isn't polished enough to meet 1a.. little glitches and oddities all over. It really needs some solid time with a fresh copyeditor. Just from one sample section:
    • "combined soundtrack album" and "same story elements" Spot the extra words.
    • "The album spans 27 tracks, of which the first 12 are from the game and the remainder are from the animation." Grammar.
    • "... with some tunes based on works from Final Fantasy VII by Uematsu." Grammar.
    • "The album covers a duration of 63:48." This type of unnecessary wordiness is found throughout.
  • Also:
    • The collapsing tables are god-awful. They look like someone typed a heading and forgot the content. The reader's eye is not drawn miles off to the "show" link unless by accident.
    • The citation in a table of data should not go after the heading, it should go in a proper footer row.
--Laser brain (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not wild about those collapsing tables either, sharing Laser Brain's concern that it looks as if "someone typed a heading and forgot the content". The prose could do with another pass too, but of concern are the sources listed at the top of this FAC page for reviewer consideration. Insufficient justification is given for the use of at least two. OverClocked ReMix I think I'm OK with, but in answer to questions over the reliability of rpgamer.com you basically point to the site itself and the company that owns it. The easiest way of demonstrating the site's reliability is to find an article from a more mainstream source, independent of the website (e.g. large-circulation newspaper), that explicitly names the site as reliable for the sort of information for which it's being used in this article. The "article talking about them" is a press release from the company itself and does not count as an independent arbiter of the site's reliability. Similarly, concerns over rpgfan.com are put aside by your statement that you "have contacted both the head of the music reviews section as well as their marketing director" to determine its reliability. This doesn't quite cut it. After all, I wouldn't expect them to say that their site isn't reliable or fact-checked for accuracy. All the best, Steve T • C 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 04:12, 19 February 2009 [38].

John Wilkes Booth

edit
Nominator(s):  JGHowes  talk

Nomination restarted. (Old nom). Raul654 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why did you restart it Raul? I think the article could be considerably more comprehensive than this. There are 1880 google book hits on him, not to mention the large number of newspaper extracts that are undoubtedly avilabale on the subject in the library archives. I don't think you have maximised the detail on his biography that an encyclopedia on him should. For instance in the theatrical career section when you take away the fluff on his appearance or manners there is actually little comprehensive factual information about his actual performances. The information about the escape is probably the most informative of the article as is not bad at all. Where you might improve it then, expand on his theatrical career and try to avoid too much fluff and peacock words like "greatest" etc, perhaps a little more about his earlier life, and in particular I think you need to include information about the aftermath of his death, Booth's political consequences, how did the AMerican government respond after he was killed, what measures did they implement in its place to protect future presidents, as well as more on newspaper coverage of Booth as a disgrace to his nation etc.

Aside from this to me the article looks in places like it still needs a copyedit as some of the sentences don't flow or are not of a polished level you'd expect from an FA. I think there is room for considerable improvement. The article looks like a good example of a GA but in my view don't think it is quite ready for FA yet. I'm virtually certain it could be improved further. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have added a Business ventures section discussing his oil enterprise as suggested by User:Editorofthewiki and will expand the areas you have noted, especially his theatrical career, etc. 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, look forward to seeing the expansion. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more content on Booth's theatrical career and appearances, and relied only on quotations from critical reviews, "letting the facts speak for themselves" in all instances to avoid peacockery. Due to the increased length, it seemed like a good idea to divide it into two subsections for his early career in the the 1850s and the final years of the 1860s. Also did some copyediting and changing of text order for better flow.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per earlier comments.--Patrick «» 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reassess your support given the nature of the sources used in this article. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per earlier comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reassess your support given the nature of the sources used in this article. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The sourcing in this article falls far short of what we expect at FAC. For example, this book is an illustrated children's book. Of all of the sources listed, not one is a modern scholarly biography of John Wilkes Booth. This History.com website, which has no discernable scholarly apparatus is being used as a source, when there are plenty of scholarly references available. This is dismal research indeed and absolutely cannot be used as the foundation on which to build a solid article. In my opinion, research flaws like this cannot be fixed at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There are 40+ sources cited, every one of which meets WP:RS, including Giblin, a 244-page book with 11 pages of source notes. Merely because it is deemed suitable for young people does not vitiate its use as a reliable source, published by the very reputable Houghton Mifflin. I got it from the adult section of the public library, incidentally. JGHowes  talk 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources is irrelevant. The fact is that the best sources have not been used in this article and that no Booth biography has been used means that it does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on Booth. For an article to represent our very best work, it must be based on solid research. That does not mean basing it on white-washed history for children. It is well-known that children's books are not held to scholarly standards. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a stretch to claim that the article is "based" on this one book which you deprecate. It was just added as a source only within the last two days, merely to provide basic facts such as specific dates and locations of his theatrical appearances, and quotations from critical reviews about Booth's performances as cited in that book from long out-of-print newspapers, not a scholarly analysis for a doctoral dissertation. Moreover, Giblin is so used for less than 5% of the article's overall content. What specific Booth biography do you feel needs to be consulted to make this more comprehensive for an encyclopedia article?  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses a children's book as a source - it doesn't matter for what percentage. Children's books are not peer reviewed and fact checked like scholarly works are (if there is even editorial oversight at all). They are not the high quality sources we would expect in an FA. In fact, most children's books wouldn't count as a reliable source at all. Children's history books are not designed to represent the "unvarnished truth" but rather a mythologized version of history. As a reviewer, I am not obligated to go out and do research for you. I have looked at the sources here and they are obviously wanting. This article should be based first and foremost on biographies written by historians, namely those who specialize in 19th-century American Civil War history. Sometimes good independent biographies are often written by freelance biographers as well. It is your job to find these sources, not mine. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are in error that "no Booth bio has been used". What about Kauffman (2004) and Nottingham (1998)? What are these "best sources" that you claim have been overlooked? So far, you haven't cited even one. It is difficult to respond to generalizations, especially when you won't provide any examples to support your claim that a major scholarly bio has been overlooked, despite being asked to do so. Having said all that, however, I will remove and replace the Giblin cites with others that unquestionably are held to scholarly standards and don't bear the stigma of being advertised by Amazon.com for young persons.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffman is a book about the Lincoln assassination and the Nottingham is a dramatic retelling of historical events by a Booth relative. Neither of these are full-length scholarly biographies of Booth. Look, we have argued endlessly on the FAC talk page over the amount of work required by reviewers. I used to go to the library and spend hours tracking down books for people, but, frankly I don't have time for that right now and it is unnecessary. My objection stands without it - the sources in this article are not what we would expect for an article on such a major historical figure. Furthermore, I am not asking you to simply replace the Giblin cites. I am asking you to read other books that are more reliable to make sure that the article is comprehensive. Simply replacing citations is a pointless endeavor. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I raised a number of issues at the previous nom, all of which were resolved satisfactorily, leading to my support. This was given after a favourable sources review by Ealdgyth. I am not an expert on Booth, so I can't fully assess the reliability of the sources used, though it does seem rather harsh to condemn the sourcing of the entire article for the inclusion of the "children's book"; to my untutored eye many of the sources look solid and reliable, being the products of university presses and reputable publishers. Perhaps, in including 40+ sources, the net has been cast too wide, causing a dilution of overall quality? Anyhow, I hope this issue can be resolved, as I feel that he article itself is worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not condemning the entire article based on one source and you should do your own source review, frankly. I did. You don't have to be a Booth expert to see the faults here. I gave two examples of problematic sources that anyone could find: a children's book (which the editor has yet to admit is a terrible source) and an unscholarly website. The problem is not all of the great Lincoln's assassination books that this article does reference, but the damning fact that it references no modern full-length biography of Booth! That is an appalling oversight. Imagine if you had written Mozart in Italy without reading a biography of Mozart? That is the equivalent. I'll say right now that this article is a perfect way to teach poor sourcing and I am going to use it in my class when I teach how to assess the reliability of internet sources. It has the illusion of having lots of good information because it has lots of sources, but when you start to look at the list, that illusion breaks down. A children's book. Shoddy websites. Newspaper stories. No full-length biography. That's how you know that the article is not fully-researched. Awadewit (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not do a source review that determines whether the best sources have been used, I do a source review that determines if the sources meet the minimum standards for WP. (I frankly have no time to do a "full source reveiw" on every article, that'd take four or five times the time I currently spend on FAC) No one should rely on my source review to necessarily catch everything nor should it be taken as a statement that the sourcing is "good". You'll note I say that it looks "okay" when I review. As a personal opinion, I think any article on such a well known figure that doesn't use full length scholarly biographies is lacking, but I do not have the time to do a full length review of this article, so I won't support or oppose on that. I gotta admit my fellow reviewers need to recognize that my source reviews are not the end of the story. They are just a minimum standard to fit Wikipedia's policies, just because they pass that standard doesn't mean they are reflective of WP's "best work" as far as sourcing. (As a side note, if FAs had to pass my personal standards of sourcing, most articles on non-scholarly subjects would not pass.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested sources: More reliance on the Kaufman American Brutus work, instead of Giblin. No trace of Samples Lust for Fame: The Stage Career of John Wilkes Booth, which appears to be a recent work on his stage career. Nothing on his family which American Gothic: The STory of America's Legendary Theatrical Family appears to be a recent work on that subject. I don't have reliable JSTOR access so I can't access those types of articles.Ealdgyth - Talk 04:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copy-edited per above.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Grammar - Many lines seem sub-FA quality (and I'll just choose from the lead) 1) "Booth was a member of the prominent 19th century Booth theatrical family from Maryland and by the 1860s was a popular actor, well known in both the Northern United States and the South" - The "by the 1860s" is a parenthetical statement (basically an apositive phrase) and must be separated by commas. 2)"Booth, and a group of co-conspirators whom he led, planned to kill Abraham Lincoln" - The conjunction "and" is used inappropriately. The "a group of co-conspirators" is either parenthetical or necessary. If parenthetical, then the conjunction needs to be removed and can be replaced with a word like "with". If it is necessary then the commas can be removed. 3) Then there are phrases like "the tottering Confederacy's cause" which are POV and inappropriate characterizations. 4) "Confederate sympathizer who was" - The use of the term "who" instead of "that". 5) "yet over since Confederate General" - "Since" is not an appropriate substitute for the word "because" and they carry different connotations. This should be corrected. 6) "was still fighting the Union Army under General William Tecumseh Sherman" Unnecessary addition of the General of the Union Army which confuses the object. Shorten it to just "the Union Army". 7) "fled on horseback to southern Maryland and eventually to a farm in rural northern Virginia" - "Eventually" is modifying nothing in the current form and should be remedied. The use of ellipsis in historically technical sentences is inappropriate and sub-FA quality. 8) "Following the shooting, Booth fled on horseback to southern Maryland and eventually to a farm in rural northern Virginia, where he was tracked down and killed by Union soldiers twelve days later." Dependent clause, independent clause, dependent clause. Split the sentence after Maryland. Begin the second sentence with "He eventually made his way to a farm in rural...". Change the comma to a semicolon and removed the "where". 9)"Eight others were tried and convicted and four were hanged shortly thereafter." Two independent phrases without a comma before the second "and". Please add in that necessary comma. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copy edited per above.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing issues
    • Use of Asia Booth Clarke's John Wilkes Booth: A Sister's Memoir, a primary source.
    • Use of Bishop's The Day Lincoln Was Shot for, among other claims, "As a child, he was a favorite of his mother, who called him "Pet"." The New York Times, among others, in their review of The Day... faulted Bishop for choosing to use fictional dialogue in quotation marks at the cost of historical accuracy. He also took the liberty of "describing what certain characters thought". How sure are we that the claims cited to this book are factual?
    • Use of Good Brother, Bad Brother, a children's book.
    • Why the reliance on trutv and History.com? Surely more scholarly works can be used?
    • What is this site? Who put this together? Students? Presumably, they based their information on published material; why not use them instead?
    • Use of another, very old primary source: The Life of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd.
    • Use of a very old New York Times article "John Wilkes Booth's Last Days"; why not use a contemporary historical account that is able to call upon the 100+ years of research since that article was written?
    • Another very old source: John Wilkes Booth and Jefferson Davis – a true story of their capture. I doubt that there are no contemporary, more reliable sources. BuddingJournalist 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is too much of the (otherwise good) article which is not really relevant to the subject. Some specific points.
  • Second sentence of the lead: when and how Lincoln died, and the fact he was the first U.S. President to be assassinated are irrelevant at this point in the article (the information is correctly treated later on). Sentence should be deleted and the next paragraph brought up to join the first sentence.
  • Infobox: would read clearer as "Known for: Assassination of Abraham Lincoln"; "Protestant" is redundant to "Episcopal"
Background and early life
  • Booth's parent emigrated to the United States, not "immigrated to" (unless this is a U.S. usage I'm unaware of): "came" would be a simpler verb to use.
  • There's nothing unusual that Booth's (British) mother called him "Pet", it is a very common term of affection in British English.
  • Gypsy fortune-teller, religious affiliation: why are these points important in Booth's biography?
Pursuit and death
  • The outpouring of national grief and indignation at Lincoln's assassination is not important in itself, but only insofar as it shows that Booth could not rely on any public support to make his escape.
  • 9th para: spelling "journey", "en route" fixed this myself, but the whole paragraph is probably irrelevant to a biography of Booth of this length.
Physchim62 (talk) b07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: OK, in response to the above comments/criticisms, I've given the article a thorough going-over, adding sources and copy-editing. Additional books are now used to ensure that this article is truly comprehensive enough for a FA. Giblin's Good Brother, Bad Brother is no longer cited as a tertiary source at all, and has been demoted to a "For younger readers" sub-section of "Further reading". The other questioned sources, e.g., history.com, umkc.edu, etc., have been completely removed as inline citations, as well. Clarke's memoir is reliably published by an university press and has been used with care as a primary source to comply with WP:PSTS, interpretation relying on reliable secondary sources.
The article was expanded to include more content about the aftermath, reaction, and effects of the assassination in response to previous comments (see link, above). This gives more context, I think, to Booth's actions and their effect on history, as others have suggested. At 73kb, I think this article is about the right size now for such a major historical figure and ready for FA promotion, with these revisions.  JGHowes  talk 01:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 04:12, 19 February 2009 [39].

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has been through WP:GAC and WP:PR. In addition it has endured extensive public scrutiny due to recent scandal. The article represents a synthesis of all exposure in The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, Harper's, and Atlantic Monthly prior to the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges scandal and a good summary of his involvement in the scandal.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "part of the Chicago South Side and a small portion of the southeast side of Chicago" – Isn't the southeast side part of the South Side? And why is South Side capitalized, while southeast side isn't?
  • OK.
  • "he is one of five children of Jesse and Jacqueline Jackson:" – The sentence ends in a colon. Did you mean to list the children after that?
  • However, that might actually be a better point to introduce the children's names.
  • "One of the earliest memories of Jesse, Jr. for Chicagoans was a speech given at age five from a milk crate at the Operation PUSH headquarters." – I'm assuming this is a speech that Jackson Jr gave himself, but the passive voice makes this unclear.
  • "Jackson claims that at the age of 16 he rallied support for the air traffic controllers during the Air traffic controllers' strike of 1981." – Why "claims"? If there is a controversy about this, the article should say so. And what exactly did he claim to do? "Rallied support" is kind of vague.
  • "Says" isn't much different from "claims". Is there a reason we can't just state this as a fact?
  • Here is the quote from my secondary source: "...Jackson's campaign biography said that he rallied support in 1981 for striking air traffic controllers who had been fired by President Ronald Reagan; he was 16 years old at the time." What do you think should go in the article? The secondary source is more of a primary, so I say he said as opposed to saying a secondary source said he did so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, the Chicago Bulls had just traded the popular B. J. Armstrong and Michael Jordan was playing minor league baseball." – Actually, Jordan returned to the Bulls before Armstrong left. And Armstrong wasn't traded by the Bulls; he was left unprotected in the 1995 expansion draft. (This is more Jackson's error than yours, but still... )
  • OK.
  • "The speech was perceived as one that detailed the generational transformation of the challenges of the socio-political landscape." – I have no idea what this means. Try to simplify the language.
  • Better. But why do you have to say that it was "perceived" as such?
  • "Jackson, who has only missed two votes in his first thirteen years in Congress, says the Segway helps." – Helps with what? (And this is pretty trivial, anyway.)
  • Hmmm. I think that was just a cute response to a reporter more than anything else. The implication is that people routinely miss votes because they can't walk fast enough. That seems a little silly. (Remember that the Segway didn't even exist for the first half of Jackson's career in Congress.)
  • Also, you say that "Capitol Hill is participating" in the contest (my emphasis), but the NYT article says the contest ended in June. Zagalejo^^^ 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed my primary sources in the introduction of this discussion. The article is at the fringe of the limits of WP:SIZE. Keeping the content to issues that are notable on the international level is a good cutoff. If you want to write daughter articles then additional detail from local news could be useful. Adding, things not notable enough to be mentioned in any of the primary sources above will almost certainly be adding things less important and thus less encyclopedic from the perspective of this international project in an article that is at the size limit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're assuming that the national sources will cover every important aspect of Jackson's life. You're also assuming that everything they cover is actually important. Have you at least browsed through the local newspaper articles? Zagalejo^^^ 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For his political career, these sources should be fairly comprehensive. For other sources, I use things like Chicago Magazine and local. For more detail prior to elective service you might have to go local. However, this article has sufficient detail even for FA in that regard. I imagine if 20 years from now his Congressional service is a smaller part of his life history another source balance could be used. As a Chicagaon, do you feel any specific events are missing? I don't think the proper approach would be to look at the sources and say something must be missing for an article of this length and breadth. I think unless you have specific events of periods in his life you feel are overlooked that might be a complaint. For a person of his notability and higher exhaustive secondary source searches are not necessarily worthwhile, IMO. I think once you have gone through his life from the perspective of many sources, as I have done, it is in the ballpark for appropriate effort. We have to make simplifying assumptions in these non-professional biographies. I can tell you for certain, I am not going to read every local newspaper article that has mentioned his name. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of any specific facts that are missing from the article, although I never really paid close attention to Jesse Jackson Jr, so I'm sure there are a lot of news reports I missed.
  • You make a point that this is a non-professional biography. While technically true, a featured article should try to conform to professional standards. I don't feel comfortable supporting this article knowing that you have willingly avoided dozens of potential sources. The national periodicals might have covered all the major events of Jackson Jr's life to some degree, but the local press can provide different insights and is attune to subtleties that the other sources often miss.
  • It wouldn't take an incredibly long time to skim through all the relevant articles in the Sun-Times and Tribune databases. I think it's worth the effort. If you're nominating an article for featured status, you really should try to be an expert on the subject. This will be one of the top Google hits for "Jesse Jackson Jr", so the article needs to be the best independent source available on the subject. Zagalejo^^^ 07:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Tony, I KNOW I've told you about the capitals in the link titles and the newspaper titles before. And you've been at FAC a few times, you should know by now to use the link checker tool before you nominate an article. While I'm not opposing, it does get old to repeatedly tell you to fix the same things, over and over and over again. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose by karanacs. I'll echo Ealdgyth's comments above - it is a little demoralizing as a reviewer to realize that the issues I found in this article parrot the issues I've seen in some of your other biographies. It makes me feel like you aren't paying attention at all to the comments you receive in your many nominations. Please take the constructive criticism you are offered to heart, and please try to get these types of issues fixed in your future articles before you nominate them. Otherwise you are wasting our time as reviewers. Essentially, the problems I see in this article are the exact same ones as the last one (the Buffalo mayor): the prose is not up to FA standards and the article is full of inconsequential detail.

  • The lead is full of information that seems out of place in a high-level recounting of his life. For example, do we really need to have the list of his schools in the lead? Do we really need a listing of who he has/has not endorsed for office or whose favor he has/has not gained? Also, a full paragraph on the Blagojevich stuff seems overkill for the lead; a sentence or two should be enough here, with the rest in the body of the article.
  • The Early life section seems to have a lot of irrelevant detail. Do we really need to know what nursery school and elementary school he attended? There's a lot of information about his brother Jonathan which is not necessary in this article. Do we care that he was paddled?
    • This article is just reaching a length were WP:SIZE is starting to be a concern. If he takes on future major roles in world affairs, (Cabinet, Senate, Governor, even Mayor of Chicago) his article will quickly require sub articles. This article contains some details that are sub article level details and some that would stay when we get to that point. While the full detail of the early life remains here that info is WP:PRESERVEd here. When the article gets split, that can go to a separate Early life article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concerns are not based on size, but on relevance. There is a great deal of information in this article that is essentially trivial or irrelevant to the subject of this article. Some of the information may be more appropriate in other articles; some of it should just be removed. A good question to ask yourself is "how does this fact impact our understanding of the subject?" If it doesn't, then there's a good chance that fact doesn't belong in the article (or any future spinoff article). We aren't writing a book-length biography, but an encyclopedia article. Please note also that the examples I gave above are only examples from the first section - there are similar trivial mentions throughout the article that need to be weeded out. Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs serious work. Here's what I noticed in just the first paragraph of Early life:
    • Jackson was born in Greenville, South Carolina four days after the Selma to Montgomery marches (known as Bloody Sunday). - what was known as Bloody Sunday? the marches or the day he was born?
    • One of the earliest memories of Jesse, Jr. for Chicagoans - huh?
    • His father sought media attention to shed light on important issues according to some accounts -- this is thinly disguised POV
    • His father sought media attention to shed light on important issues according to some accounts and as a result of his father's travels, his time with his father often occurred in the time between meetings - overly convulted and wordy
  • Sections should not contain only a main/further reading link. If you don't want to summarize the info, but it in the See also section.
  • per the MOS, don'tuse callout quotes; use blockquote instead
  • There's no information in the article about response to his books. What did critics think? Did they sell well?
    • There is no information about sales of Obama's books in his FA article. The book that was not co-authored with his father has its own article and critical commentary can be found there. I don't think any of it is appropriate here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If sales information is not available, that is fine. This subject is also a writer, and there should be at least a little bit of critical commentary on his writing in this article so that we get the full picture. Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it appropriate to put his writing career in the same section with gastric bypass surgery. I don't even know if it is appropriate to include gastric bypass surgery in this article.
  • It seems a little odd to have the giant bulk of hte article rolled up into a single section, Political career. Why not get rid of the umbrella section?

Karanacs (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:12, 18 February 2009 [58].

Ravenloft (module)

edit
Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because I think that it meets all of the criteria. It has been improved greatly since the last FAC and it has undergone a peer review, with all concerns addressed. I'll do whatever I can to bring it up to FA-Class. Drilnoth (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: one single non-free image with an acceptable rationale, no issue. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. For the reliability of DLNexus, the specific article being referenced is written by Tracy Hickman, and he knows more about Ravenloft than just about any other RPG designer there is, having been a co-creator of the original module. If evidence is needed for the site as a whole, rather than just the one article, I'll quote what David Shepheard (talk · contribs) has said on the subject (removing irrelevant information):

...A quick look at the Dragonlance Nexus homepage reveals that it was the winner of the 2007 Ennie Award for best fansite... A bit of research would have revealed... that Dragonlance Nexus was once given 'official Dragonlance fansite status' by Wizards of the Coast (the owners of the Dragonlance IP). Further research would have revealed that Trampus Whiteman (who runs Dragonlance Nexus) is mentioned in the credits of most of the 3rd edition Dragonlance RPG books (either as a 'thankyou' or an contributor to the product). I would say that 99.9 percent of people who know anything about Dragonlance wouldn't dream for a second of accusing this website of being unreliable.... Dragonlance Lexicon (run by Dragonance Nexus) is one of the better rechearched [sic] secondary sources available to anyone doing D&D research, and people who want to improve Wikipedia should be attempting to gain support from its staff.... Big Mac (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that information, coupled with the article itself being written by Hickman, establish reliability of that article? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It helps, but does the information in the specific article no longer exist at Hickman's site? I'm also a bit concerned that it might be reprinted on the dlnexus without permission. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the bottom of the page does say, "This item has been published here with permission from the author(s) and may not be reproduced without permission." BOZ (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The article itself does say that "This item has been published here with permission from the author(s) and may not be reproduced without permission" and this page lists other things on DLNexus accredited to Hickman, if that helps. Here's a link to the original messageboard discussion; would it be better to reference that? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one, we'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (I do now remember seeing that line at the bottom... I plead too many bishops this morning...) I lean slightly reliable on this one, but better to let other reviewers decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am CoIed from supporting or opposing (I worked a few years as a game tester for the company that bought TSR), but I wanted to say that I was impressed and that the formatting appears clean. The last line of the second paragraph in "Original edition" might need a citation. Also, with the last line of the first paragraph of "Silver Anniversary editions" and "Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill". I believe I still have these somewhere. You failed to mention that there was a long novel series, which may need a small section or added to the "campaign setting". There were what, over 20 of the novels? It may have expanded since I was last involved with the company (before 2002). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could mention the novel series, but I suspect those had more to do with the Ravenloft setting than the Ravenloft module (two related, but totally separate animals). Although I do remember at one point the article saying something about a novel or two which had been adatped from the module itself, and if so those should get a mention. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)The novel series doesn't directly relate to the module, but to the setting as a whole (I think that the Ravenloft article has some info about it). I'll take a look at those sentences you mentioned. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mentioned sections for the addition of citations are all verifiable by looking at the books being discussed, so I don't think that citations are really needed (it's kind of like a plot summary for a book not having many refs). -Drilnoth (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Overall, I'm also impressed by this one. This round of comments comes after I read most of the article; I'll read the rest later.

  • Original edition: "The outer cover is designed in keeping of the style of many Dungeons & Dragons module covers of the time." I get what "in keeping of the style" means, but I think it can be worded better.
  • Critical reception: Italics for White Dwarf, a printed publication. Do this again for Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill.
  • Master of Ravenloft: "who must defeat the evil vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich in his dangerous home in order to save a young girl from becoming one of the undead." This change would remove a touch of wordiness.
  • House of Strahd: Another "in order" that can be taken out.
  • Silver Anniversary editions: "with the only difference from the original being...". This sentence structure is known as noun plus -ing, and is a hard-to-find prose error. For tips on how to fix it, please read this.
  • Expedition to Castle Ravenloft: "with new design that compliments the original." Should "a" be placed before new?
  • "similar to those the maps in the original Ravenloft adventure." One word too many. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll fix these later today. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this edit fixed all of your points. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill: "each of whom worked on their own section in order to meet a deadline." Same as the two above.
  • "The adventure is designed for first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons characters of levels 8-10." Change the last part to either "levels 8 to 10" or "levels 8–10".
  • "who stated the module as a "strong sequel to I6 Ravenloft" and recommended it highly." Change "as" to "was"?
I'm all done here after these are checked out. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've become a little concerned about Laser's oppose, especially since it involves jargon, which I never seem to catch. Holding off support for now, and awaiting more work to resolve his concerns. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. As a former AD&D fan, I was interested to read this, and you have a great start! However, the prose falls short of FA quality. I've listed some sample issues below just from the lead and beginning; these are indicative of article-wide problems. Please get someone new to copyedit the whole article. Additionally, it needs treatment for game jargon that a general audience will not understand.
    • The DLNexus site seems reliable (enough) to me, noting the discussion above.
    • "The plot of Ravenloft centers around ..." Centers on, or revolves around.
    • The sentence in the lead about the ranking needs to be put in active voice so we know who ranked.. why make the reader click a footnote or even read a source to find out?
    • "spin-off"
    • "alphanumeric"
    • First sentence of the first heading loses me... a general audience reader will have no idea why they are reading about coding.
    • "The outer cover is designed similar to of many ..." To of?
    • Outer cover.. outer (glossy) side of the inner cover.. very confusing.
    • "The module originally had the working title of Vampyr, and it was tested every Halloween for five years ..." Again, specialist language. How is a module "tested"? Why only on Halloween, and for five years?
    • "... before it was printed, before being sold" This sort of repetition is not ideal, and affects readability.
--Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've fixed everything (in this edit), except for clarification of what testing is, and why on Halloween for five years, because the source used wouldn't be able to support those statements. I've read the article a few times and feel like the prose can't really be improved much more, but if you mention anything else I'll be sure to try and fix it. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, as I said, these are sample problems. The article needs treatment by someone fresh to the text—often it is difficult to see our own prose issues and an effective copyeditor can help volumes. There are far too many issues to delineate here. --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Scapler (talk · contribs) has started a copy-edit. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have finished an initial copyedit, and I will go over my edits tomorrow, when I have a fresh perspective on them. As of now, there are still a very few trouble spots where I feel that jargon I am not familiar with should be clarified. Besides these, I feel the prose is FA level. The term "encounter layout" should be explained, and I would question the use of each module alteration including the character levels it is recommended for. Scapler (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe that I have clarified the "encounter layout" section. I think that having the character levels is useful... they may not be very helpful to readers unfamiliar with the game (although I think enough explanation is provided that their inclusion isn't detrimental), but they are very helpful to readers who are interested in or play the game. Being a D&D player myself, I can't really separate the jargon out of the rest of it... if you could point out the confusing points, I'll try to clarify them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments I haven't had time to go through the whole thing again, but my random samples aren't encouraging.
    • Why, if the names of campaign settings are not in italics, is the alternate title Realm of Terror in italics?
    • After reading a couple sample sections, the prose seems to have improved somewhat; the accessibility, not.
    • I am still finding prose issues:
      • "how much filler material seems to be used to fill"
      • "The adventure's artwork has been criticized ..." This odd piece of prose places the criticism on the artwork (correct) but the blame also on the artwork (incorrect). The artwork didn't use or reuse anything, the designers and artists did.
--Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look at those other prose issues. For Realm of Terror being italicized and Ravenloft (in references to the setting) not, Realm of Terror was an actual, printed product. Setting names, such as Ravenloft, aren't italicized. It's similar to the relation between Forgotten Realms (setting) and Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (the book that describes the setting).
        For accessibility, I assume that you are referring to "gamer jargon." It's difficult for me to differentiate the two, being a player of D&D to whom the terminology seems natural at this point, so if you could point out what places need clarification to make it more accessible, I'd be happy to rewrite them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I had some hope that you'd had time to iron things out here, but I'm still readily finding issues. I got no further than the lead and the first few sentences of the first heading. Please withdraw this until you've had time to get a careful and effective copyedit; until then, this is not ready. Just from a few lines:
    • There is a mixture of en dashes and em dashes to indicate a pause in the text.
    • "At the time of Ravenloft's release in 1983, Dungeons & Dragons adventures all had alphanumeric designations to indicate which module "series" it was a part of." Grammar.
    • "The inside of both covers contain maps of Castle Ravenloft." Grammar.
--Laser brain (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Maralia 18:26, 15 February 2009 [59].

Zanzibar Revolution

edit
Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Following on from my last (and first!) FA, Anglo-Zanzibar War, here is another Zanzibar related article which has gone through GA and the MilHist A-class processes and which I feel is of suitable quality for an FA. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Perhaps it did convey something different to what I had thought, I have changed it per you suggestion - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has not been through PR, perhaps I should have sent it there first (I usually do so before I take my articles to GA). However I thought the prose was good enough for FA, it is as well sourced as I could make it and there were no MoS problems that I could see. If there are some grammatical errors that are causing you to oppose could you point them out so that I can fix them. I have been through the article a few times recently and not found much. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, just taken a long hard look at the article and made some fairly significant prose changes (must have missed them completely before!). Please let me know if that has helped the situation at all. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off hand it looks as if the article could use a copyedit. A good article for sure, amazing progress since I asked the nominator to expand it but I would have recommended a peer review before this FA nomination. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above comments it is cleat that this article is in need of another pair of eyes and so I am withdrawing this nom in order to get a peer review. Many thanks for the helpful comments guys. I am not sure what actions should be taken for withdrawing the article from the list so hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will spot this and sort it out. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I will hold off nomming for peer review until this nom has been closed as the rules say it cannot be at both FAC and PR at the same time - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 15 February 2009 [60].

Super Mario Bros. 3

edit
Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk

Another bundle of gaming goodness from the good old days. Super Mario Bros. 3, the creation of the great Shigeru Miyamoto, is recognized by Guinness World Records as the best-selling video game sold separately from a system (over 17 million copies). A feat few other video games have ever come close to beating. It introduced several elements that were carried over to later titles in the series. Among the new elements are whimsical power-ups like special suits that turn Mario into either a frog, tanuki, or Hammer Brother.

For those interested, it recently passed GA and underwent a peer review. I feel that it meets the FA criteria and will do my best to address any comments or suggestions that reviewers bring up. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose My check of the development section did not inspire confidence, and suggests that an audit of the entire article is necessary. At random:
    • "approximately ten people" Approximately? Ten seems a rather low number to waffle on.
    • "To assist less skilled players, earlier worlds were populated with bonus coins and 1-ups, while later worlds presented " Parallelism and tense issues. Presented does not make sense in past tense. Also, why not use stronger active voice instead of "were populated"?
    • "The two player mode had" Hyphen needed. "Had"?
    • "to balance the amount of play time between the two" Spot redundancies
    • "developed concepts revolving around Mario transforming " awkward
    • "and was kept because the designers felt it was practical " How exactly was this practical?
    • "Mario's style." What style? His design?
    • "from different real-life experiences." Different is unnecessary. Whose real-life experiences?
    • "children were based on seven of the game's programmers " Grammar
    • "as a tribute to their work and efforts, and were each designed to be unique in appearance and personality." Ambiguous their. So many redundancies.
    • "that generates a " Odd shift in tense.
    • "MMC chips are smaller..." More odd shifts in tense in that sentence. BuddingJournalist 21:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Myself and others have done some copy editing to the article. I believe the prose is tighter and the verb tenses match up now.
      To answer some of your questions:
      • I'd love to tell you the exact number of staff involved, but I'm just going by what the source said, "over ten people". Do you think stating that exactly would be better?
      • Again, I'm just going by the source for the raccoon tail, "worked best from a practical point of view and it fit right in with Mario's style". If I had to guess, the practical point of view was easy to animate (not like a larger sprite that may be needed for a centaur), and the style being the somewhat whimsical/silly idea of a plumber in a kingdom of mushroom people fighting giant reptiles by jumping around collection colored mushrooms and flowers. But that's just my guess and I have no source that explains "practical" and "style" further.
      • The their references to the work and efforts of the programmers. I'm actually at a lose at how to make that blatantly apparent without a pronoun. I figured "their" was better than "seven programmers as a tribute to the programmers' work and efforts."
      Hopefully the copy edits address you issues. Please let me know otherwise. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
That's unfortunate that there are no other sources for that number. For "practical" and "style", if you're unsure of what is being meant, then it makes little sense to include it in the article. Only serves to confuse readers. As far as "their", I have no idea what my original point was; sorry! Will revisit the article soon, but on a cursory glance, it seems like many of my above points remain unaddressed or only partially addressed. Thus, I'm not striking my oppose for now. BuddingJournalist 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the content about "practical" and "style". Let me know what issue you're talking about: verb tense, redundancy, or needing clarification. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Still not terribly impressed with the prose. See my edits for some examples.
    • "paid close attention from the initial concepts through the final stages." Paid close attention means what? And paid attention to what?
    • "He processed ideas with his staff in order to organize thoughts into full concepts." Vague and unclear what is being meant here; whose ideas? This high-level sentence could use some more fleshing out to make it more informative. An example of this collaboration process, perhaps?
    • "Miyamoto considered interesting and original gameplay ideas to be the key to making a successful game." Danger of slipping into platitude territory here.
    • "The two-player mode has" In my admittedly vague "had?", I was questioning both the tense and the word choice. Such a weak verb for the job.
    • "The development team sought to introduce new power-ups, and develop concepts that would give Mario the appearance of different creatures to provide new abilities." When doing copy-edits, carefully re-read the result. Here, we have an out-of-place comma. With the current construction, you can either remove it and tie "develop concepts" to "sought to" or keep it and switch develop to developed. However, you should be thinking carefully about your sentence structure. You have "sought to", which, when not dealing with the abstract, emphasizes the attempt and often implies a failure (which doesn't seem to be the case here). Can it be eliminated for tighter prose?
    • The second paragraph is full of the weak passive, which made for some dull reading.
    • "a bad experience Miyamoto had with a dog as a child" Nothing objectively wrong, but "bad experience" is unduly generic and not the most encylopedic way of phrasing things. More use of weak "has".
  • Skimmed through the Gameplay section and still found little errors here and there (some of which I've corrected).
    • "In addition to running and jumping moves, the player can fly and float with the aid of special items, slide down slopes, and execute new types of jumps." Unclear which one of these (all of them?) are the aforementioned "new elements".
    • "Each region is a kingdom that serves as a game world, which is divided into stage levels, and an eighth is included as the final world, Bowser's kingdom." Redundancies and opportunities for tightening of prose (for example, we're told a king rules each region in the previous sentence). Two clauses are uncomfortably mashed together with "and". BuddingJournalist 16:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the size of the box cover.
Of the two gameplay images, I'd prefer to keep the over world map as I think it's a more prominent feature among the images. But if others think the frog suit image should stay instead, I'll go with that.
(Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dengeki.com is the website for a series of Japanese hobby and gaming magazines, many of which have been around for over a decade. The publication is owned by ASCII Media Works.
Impress Watch is media site owned by Impress Group, a holdings company. GameSpot has cited their articles and interviews before. This source is not really needed, and I can remove it if there is any problem.
(Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please withdraw: Given that I'm not a great writer, I have more pressing real-life matters to take care of, and I believe the accuracy of the development content is starting to slip, I request this nomination by withdrawn. Thank you for the time and attention given to the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:13, 12 February 2009 [61].

Run to You (song)

edit
Nominator(s): Daskill (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been of Good Article quality for some time and I believe that it meets FA requirements. Daskill (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Is there really no more reliably-sourced information to be found about the music video, the writing of the song, analysis of the lyrics, etc.? This doesn't scream "comprehensive" to me in its present form. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's stuff missing I'd want to know. What is the song about? What happens in the music video? What's the musical structure of the song? Key/major instruments/tempo/style? Also, you've nicked a large chunk (three-fifths I'd say) of Stewart Mason's review. I say nicked because there's no quotation marks. Even with quotes, I'd think copying over 50% of a review goes beyond fair use. Did no-one else review the song? Why talk about writing the song after the recording? AlexJ (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even overlooking the question of the comprehensiveness of the article, there are lots of errors in the prose and other problems:
    • "Adams fourth studio release" - missing apostrophe
    • The same error occurs in at least two other places
    • "a short lived UK dance act by Tony Jackson in 1992" doesn't read right - you don't say "an act by a musician"
    • The bracket round "a short lived....." isn't closed
    • Tony Jackson links to a guy who died in 1921
    • Dave Taylor links to a disambig page
    • So does Savior
    • "Savior" album title should be in italics
    • Discussion of Rage, Lou Barlow, Novaspace covers are unreferenced
    • "on his cover' album" - why is there an apostrophe after "cover"
    • Last sentence of Covers section is not in fact a complete sentence
    • ....and the EP title should be in italics
    • Why is there a "(!)" after "six" in the Release section?
If you check the reference listed after that paragraph, you can see it's lifted directly from the source. There's no quote marks to show that though. AlexJ (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • October 1984 release is mentioned twice
    • Article says the writing of the song lasted from March 1984 "through the summer", but the infobox says specifically that it was written in April - which is correct?
    • Last sentence of the Release section is unreferenced and seems like OR
  • This is just a selection of the issues with the article, it is a long way from FA quality as it stands..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The British synthpop band Schmoof on their extended play Warm Electro for Cold Ears." is not a sentence.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy withdrawal - article is barely beyond start class, barely nothing at all on the writing of the song. I probably have more information on that song in the Shania Twain biography I have which mentions Bryans and Mutt Lange's work. Not even GA standard in my view as it lacks comprehension. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I don't think the article is comprehensive, and the prose right now is sloppy, with lots of punctuation issues.

  • My first instinct was to write "lead is much too short and can't summarize article", and then I realized how short the article was.
  • There is inconsistency in italics - Reckless should be italicized every time it is referenced.
  • I can't read Danish. What type of site is skolarbete.nu. http://skolarbete.nu/skolarbeten/bryan-adams/?
  • Need a source for this sentence or its OR - The long instrumental is indicative of the theme of the music video where the protagonist is serenading his guitar as the object of his affection.
  • There needs to be information about the lyrics and how the song is written. A few articles I saw online also mentioned that this is the song that really helped him become popular in the UK - that should be included.
  • I did a cursory search for free online sources and found the following. A more in-depth search (or paying to view some of the articles) should net a lot more potential sources.

Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination has been archived. A bot will run within several days to remove the FAC note from the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:59, 11 February 2009 [64].

History of Mumbai

edit
Nominator(s): KensplanetTC

I am nominating this article for featured article because all the issues regarding sources have been addressed. KensplanetTC 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's only been a week since the last FAC was archived, and it doesn't look like the concerns previously brought up have been adequately addressed. Image concerns still remain unaddressed. Sources used are questionable, including sources that are very old (Da Cunha, 1993 was published in 1900; 1993 was just a reissue). One random example I clicked on: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=137543, a news article. This is being used to back up the following: "In 1795, the Maratha army defeated the Nizam of Hyderabad. Following this, many artisans and construction workers from Andhra Pradesh migrated to Bombay and settled into the flats which were constructed by the Hornby Vellard. These workers where called Kamathis, and their enclave was called Kamathipura." Yet, all I spot in the source is a quotation from some random shopowner: "Our community was among the first settlers here. A lot of them were masons or kamathis from Andhra Pradesh. That is why the name Kamathipura." Surely there are more reliable, scholarly sources to be used in the construction of this article. BuddingJournalist 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dineshkannambadi
  • Could you elaborate a little on this point Bombay was hit by a water famine in 1824 in the City development. Seems a bit choppy by itself.
  • Is this a notbale enough event to mention in the article?—In July 1832, the Parsi riots took place in consequence of a Government order for the destruction of pariah dogs which infested the city.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC has been removed from the main page and is already close

It's not possible for me to resolve Sourcing issues. If in the future, anyone is interested, they can elevate this to FA status. Thanks, KensplanetTC 10
24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [65].

Moncton

edit
Nominator(s): Stu_pendousmat (talk)
previous FAC (01:51, 19 May 2008)

I'm nominating this article for FA status again because I believe the article has been improved since last time and multiple issues were resolved. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please check with the link checker tool over to the right and double check your links. A LARGE number of them are dead.
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Statistics Canada or Statistics Canada? Pick one and be consistent. Also decide whether to list it as author or publisher.
  • Current ref 7 (Boudreau...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 10 (Larracey..) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 15 (Larracey.. ) is lacking a page number
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as DND, GMIA, etc.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still one dead link http://www.saferhealthcarenow.ca/ViewResource.aspx?resourceId=664. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
haha, that one was fine when I checked, I replaced it with a Google archive of that page. Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

  • I fixed all those issues except the page numbers, I was wondering if I add them when the info is on more than one page (the ref is used multiple times for different info in the article). If you know how please let me know. Thanks for the help! Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For books, I'd say list the books themselves in the "references" section (as you already seem to have done with some of the books) and then use the "notes" section only to indicate the page numbers (e.g. "Boudreau 27"). There are probably other acceptable ways, but that's how I do it. Apart from that, I'm going through and doing some copyediting - so far everything looks pretty good, and I hope to be able to support once I'm through. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs, primarily on sourcing grounds, but I also believe the prose needs work.

  • I'm concerned with the sheer number of Self-published sources listed here. There are two issues with this:
    • This gives the appearance of original research. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover what independent, reliable sources think are important in the topic area. Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate.
    • Self-published sources cannot be used to cite some of the claims that are being made - it is blatant POV. For example, "Moncton's Capitol Theatre, an 800-seat restored 1920s-era vaudeville house on Main Street, is the main centre for cultural entertainment for the city" is cited to the theatre's web site. The theatre is absolutely not a reliable source for whether it is "the main centre for cultural entertainment"
      • I did up most of the references myself and the main issue I found is that we are dealing with a relatively small city, so self-published sources etc are, most of the time, the only sources. We dont have 15 papers reporting on every day things like in NYC or other places, we have one daily newspaper that only keeps online archives for less than a year. Beyond that they use an organization called "FPinfomart" which charges 5$ per article. Believe me, if there was any way to avoid this I would, but it is difficult to find sources. I would hate to lose information from the article just because its only cited to a self-published source etc. Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, the fact that sources are not online (or not free) is not a good reason for not including them (or at least consulting them). Your library may be able to get microfilm copies of past newspaper issues for a minimal charge (or none at all), or you may be able to find someone in the area who can assist with a search. What is the next largest city nearby? Sometimes those newspapers will cover the outlying towns as well. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some information is not cited that should be. Examples:
  • Why the reliance on press releases? Surely much of this information can be found in the local newspaper?
  • I'm unhappy with the Teams section being completely a table. This needs at least an introductory paragraph of prose to explain what the teams are and on what level they play. I'm unfamiliar with the abbreviations used, and this doesn't make complete sense to me.
  • The prose needs a good going over. Examples only:
    • Make sure that sentence structure is varied. Many sentences in the Major events section begin "Moncton (has/will) host[ed]." This needs to be varied a bit.
    • Many of the paragraphs seem focused on describing a particular event/building/something from that focus of that event/building/etc (and not a focus on the city in general). This leads to sections that do not flow well. Much of this can be fixed with wording choices that make sure the focus remains on the city and why whatever is being described is important to the city.
  • Why have a list of concerts that have been at the concert site? That seems very trivial in this article.
  • Watch for overlinking - Moncton Flight College is linked three times in two sections
  • What makes http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2529/ a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - Some work needs to be done on the images.

Please respond underneath each image. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [66].

Byron Brown

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is greatly improved. It has depth and breadth. I think it may be ready. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hi Tony, nice read. But could you link double to something that explains what a double is in the context of "Brown was raised in Hollis, a southeastern neighborhood in New York City's Queens borough in a double that his family shared with his grandparents". Clearly its a type of home but its not a phrase I've heard before, is it US specific? WereSpielChequers 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article, some quibbles jimfbleak (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like bare minority. What about member of any minority or similar? jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for his proclivity to wear suits. or, perhaps less old-fashioned, from his habit of wearing suits.? jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine with me jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is very wide and looks awful. I would have put the districts across the top, and parties down the side.
    • I agree that in New York State, where third parties are non-trivial, it looks odd. This is the standard format for election result tables that I have seen. I have just never seen more than 4 or 5 parties before. I am not married to this table since I could not find mayoral results on the public record. I was able to call the board of elections and get them to send me an email, but I can not source such info properly for the article in a way that is not WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if that's the standard, let it be unless others object jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed something Talk:Byron_Brown#Election_results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SPECIAL COVERAGE ON THE PASSING OF TIM RUSSERT: Read the transcript from the special coverage". MSNBC.com. Microsoft - must we have the caps?
Any comment on this one? I'll support soon, just want to get the remaining bits sorted one way or another jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the "suit-and-tie guy" point, it used to just read that way. In the GA review, I indicated that I didn't really know what that meant - I assumed it had something to do with a state of mind or a political style or something - and suggested that it could use some elaboration. Once Tony clarified, I suggested the whole thing just be removed, which remains my favoured option (I just don't think it's that notable that a high-ish level politician wears a lot of suits and ties). But I wanted to make it clear that the wording you take issue with is my fault, not Tony's. With regards to your third last point (two years ago, what happened then?), I also raised that point in the GA review, and Tony indicated that subsequent developments didn't receive third party coverage. In light of that, I suggested that that whole incident be removed (arguing that if it wasn't important enough for the media to follow through on, it might not be important enough for a Wikipedia article), but Tony felt that it was notable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fault? I'm not blaming anyone for anything, just suggesting improvements. I tend to agree that both could go, but let's see what the nominator thinks jimfbleak (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was probably more for Tony's benefit that I said that. I could just see himself throwing up his hands and saying "the GA reviewer says add that in, the FA reviewer says take it out..." and then maybe going insane and writing that Brown is secretly one of those Inter-Dimensional Reptilian Shape-shifters. Which would be kind of awesome, in its way, but not really what we're going for. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comments on the kid and the car are above. As far as the suit and tie goes. I mostly saw him on Saturday mornings and still recall seeing him in Suits. If people want personal info on the guy this is kind of interesting, IMO, if we can get it worded grammatically. I would prefer it kept than removed unless it would keep you from supporting the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My preference is to remove both the car incident and the "suit and tie" thing, but these will not, in isolation, have any bearing on my decision on whether to support listing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess the rule that I used for this artile was that once he became a State Senator all stories about him had to be in The New York Times to be included in the article. This left two stories primarily about other people in the article during this time period. For the rest of his life and for stories relating to him but primarily about others the Buffalo News was a sufficient source. Thus, I think a story about his son that makes the Buffalo News is encyclopedic regardless of whether we can determine every detail about the story. In this case, we have a fairly complete story except for its conclusion. Determining what is encyclopedic content for a person of this notability is difficult. I think if Byron Brown had a car accident that was only covered in the Buffalo News it would not be encyclopedic because important stories about him should now be carried by the NYT. However, stories about his son are different, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the suit and tie guy bit comes from an article that provides a lot of color about the guy. It is an interesting story that as a first grader he went to school in a suit and tie. It adds a lot more color to the article than the following sentence "After PS 134, he attended PS 109, a junior high school, and then August Martin High School."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, I am willing to remove both, but think they are interesting for people looking for some personal stuff. Is there a rephrasing of either story that would make them more encyclopedic to you--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I said above, I conducted the GA review, so quibbles I had were worked out there. I've just taken another look over it, and I think it's FA-quality. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The only concern I have is with the very last reference, the one that was recieved by email. I don't think this counts as a printed source.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no publicly available record of the 2005 Mayoral Election Results. We have three choices: 1.)Include 2005 election results received by email upon request with notation that they were receiveed upon request as anyone could do; 2.)Include 2005 election results without any citation; Exclude 2005 election results. I think on WP:AGF a reply from a reference librarian at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library on Buffalo Mayoral results is acceptable, but I am willing to change to one of the other two alternatives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They did not report it in the newspapers? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not final official results. Read the letter on the talk page from the reference librarian.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I think it's not a good idea, but I'll leave this one for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I myself would not include it in an article I was writing, but that's my choice. Other reviewers may have different ideas. (unwatching FAC page now) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of publicly available data, Official Results for the Buffalo Mayoral election that are available upon request to the Board of Elections are very much in the grey area of OR. In this case, I think the data is sufficiently important that the borderline activity is acceptable. Two others have said this was O.K. on my talk page and one at Talk:Byron Brown#Mayoral Election Results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the article's talk page, I agree with Tony here. It seems to me that we require sources for two major reasons: ensuring accuracy, and allowing readers to verify the information they see. The source is obviously authoritative, which takes care of accuracy, and provided the organization is willing to send this information to anybody who asks, that takes care of verifiability. Plus, if enough people ask, maybe they'll put the information on their damned website. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1b 1c (for now). I have a really hard time believing this Mayoral Election information was never published. Every podunk county in the US publishes election results on their web site and in the local paper, and this is Buffalo. The current solution is not ideal. Prose review forthcoming. --Laser brain (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the email on the talk page from the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library, I have tried and they have tried to find a published source. Your objection is only actionable by removing data that is not controversial in the sense that it is likely to be challenged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it. I don't think something is necessarily missing because a reference librarian can't find it. I bet it was on a web page, and I bet an archive can be found. It's not that it's likely to be challenged, but if Wikipedia is going to be the only readily available source of the information, it's all the more important it be verifiable. Tabular data must have a proper source. --Laser brain (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are many cases where I might believe you over a Buffalo & Erie County Public Library research librarian, 2005 Buffalo Mayoral election results are not one. I can not find the results in the Buffalo News archive. Where else do you think they would be if neither the state or county board of elections does not continue to post them. The point is that there is no proper source. The data is available upon request from the county election board. It is that or nothing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to believe me. However, as the nominator, the burden falls on you to find a proper source. If the FA director deems my point invalid, it will be disregarded. --Laser brain (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to find the data and requested the assistance of an expert to find the data. It does not seem to exist in common public formats. Thus, it is included like it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT is this some sort of revenge of the POV-Pushers. Are you also interested in adding a bunch of Artvoice stories. There is nothing that is missing from his article. I have gone through the dozens and dozens of articles from The New York Times and nothing is missing from the international encyclopedic perspective. There may be some local stories missing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate your addressing/responding to my items quickly. As I noted, these are indicative of article-wide problems and the whole text needs treatment. I find the prose is correct in most places, but not compelling. We need a fresh copyeditor to give it a facelift and improve the tone and style. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article went through the second most extensive WP:GAC review and copyedit (2nd to Jesse Jackson, Jr.) of my 140 WP:GAs. It is here as one of the broadest and deepest articles on a Mayor in all of wikipedia. If you are not compelled to read about this by the end of the first paragraph, then nothing will ever satisfy you about this person short of attaining higher office. Also, in terms of compelling, this article presents comprehensive coverage of his life with unique detail. The prose quality is quite readable and largely grammatical. It seems that if you like to contribute your time to improving prose, this is an article you could work with. I have a deep feeling that your opposition here is as a blindly devoted follower of Sandy's attempting to give your leader support rather than as a devoted promoter of WikiPedia who is interested in supporting the devlopment of shared knowledge. This article presents shared knowledge at a level that is extremely rare for a Mayor. If you want to promote shared knowledge you would surely take the time to help refine research of this quality with prose this close to what is needed/wanted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on election result

  1. FAC goes overboard on referencing compared to any academic journal. You are required to give references for material that may be challenged. Is laserbrain saying that these are not the correct election results?
  2. Even in professional journals, person communications are included in references where appropriate
  3. We accept emails to verify copyright status, so why not to act as sources? In a bio article I wrote, I emailed Pamela C. Rasmussen to get personal info that was not available on line (like her middle name!). I'm not planning on bringing this article to FAC, but presumably if I did an email from Professor Rasmussen would not be an acceptable source?
  4. I have no reason to doubt Tony's honesty in reporting the election results, and presumably anyone could do what he did to verify the results by email, so it's not as if there is no way of checking. It's more easily checkable than a reference to an out-of print book.

I do not have a problem with this section jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection of Tony's points about the matter and your thoughts, I've stricken my 1c objection. Thanks for weighing in. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so now all three supporters and the lone objector are satisfied with the references, including the one in question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently leaning Oppose This article is getting a little hagiographic around the edges, don't you think? See forex: "The rising number of homicides and continuing decay in the city a year after the election of Byron Brown was disappointng for residents both in the city and in the suburbs. Though Byron Brown gave himself an "A" for his first year performance, critics have pointed out that he failed to address the issues that are vital to the quality of life in the city (Meyer 2006)." What's all this about him playing trumpet, and his son's hobbies, and.. the whole "personal" section, with the exception of the car theft incident? Trash the personal section, give the car theft its own section [Please don't resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to defend the fluff in this article]. See Guofang Li "Culturally Contested Literacies: America's rainbow Underclass and Urban Schools". I would prefer if this nom were withdrawn, then some time spent washing off all the sugary icing. Then spend time looking for criticism. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)In what sense is it a hagiography. The only sense in which it might be a hagiography are some artifact awards that predate my involvement in the article. I would freely remove them if that is your problem with the article. Most experienced reviewers usually say that an article lacks breadth if you do not add any personal stuff. Are you attempting to make some sort of joke that suddenly personal sections are not appropriate. Usually a review would say something like you don't tell us anything about pre-professional periods of his life. In this case, when I find out that he was in the school band in high school and you say remove it. This is contrary to most conventional review advice. Your whole review misses the meat of the article.
    • Generally, when I do politicians, I go through Time, Newsweek, U.S News & World Report and The New York Times. Then to fill in early career information I look for local newspapers. I haven't really done national figures who have lots of books written about them. In this case, I used the Buffalo News as a primary source until he became a New York State Senator. After that I required a story to be in NYTimes to be included if it was directly about him. The only controversies are about the preservationists. It is not POV. There was nothing else controversial in my normal sources. Check them out. I was surprised to see you found a source from a text for Brown. However, I know of no reason why your source is not a WP:RS. I will incorporate it.
    • Other people have questioned the accident and supported other stuff. You say the accident is important. I have tried to include a balance of things. A hagiography would not include his kids auto accident or the preservationist so I don't see your point and it is pretty hard to follow any advice it includes. What part of WP:WIAFA is this really violating in your eyes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Full Oppose. Please consider withdrawing nom. Please do your homework. See the following, but don't forget to delete the fluff in this article:
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that I have found the Li source to be quite dubious, I am not sure what if any credence to place in your objection. You have offered no WP:RS that would support any sort of hagiography. Again, I invite you to review any and all articles in the sources I list above especially the New York Times to point out any controversial topic that has been omitted or portrayed in a POV manner. You have asked me to remove things that people commonly request be added. You have asked me to emphasize things in their own sections that other reviewers have questioned the importance of. Your review seems to be lacking a sense of normalcy. Furthermore, it is quite rare to request a withdrawal of an article and feel your advice on this topic is meritless.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • SANDY if I am missing anything actionable about this OPPOSE let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for outlining your research approach. It's obvious to me that by sticking solely to the mass-market magazines you miss a great deal. Forex the Li book, written in 2007, contains an interesting discussion of Buffalo. It contains a number of cites to different sources. I suggest you track down those sources (all of them) and see what they have to say (here's one: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=424439&page=3).
    • Like I said all the sources in Li seem to have been published so early that I can not in good faith regard it as a WP:RS. As far as mass media goes, I hold both Republican and Democrat articles to the same standard. Note for Jack Kemp's entire political career, he was too prominent to use the Buffalo News as a primary source for encyclopedic content, IMO. (He is currently at WP:PR, BTW if you like BFLO politics.) The Meyer piece is probably a rare exception to my rule on BFLO politicians that if you can not find it in the NYT or better it is not encyclopedic. I will incorporate it as a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I look more closely at Meyer and consider my policy, I view his article as a neutral WP:RS on the "state of the city" after his first year. I continue to believe that any individual act or story by him as a Mayor should appear in the NYT to rise to sufficient encyclopedic notability for WP. I will incorporate it broadly. I am not going to delve into Buffalo politics that are not notable enough to be mentioned in NYT that directly relate to Brown. I think below you make specific mentions. As widely published as Brown was in the NYT, this is a reasonable standard. I would do the same for Republican Kemp.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what "sense of normalcy" you think I am lacking.
    • I have tried to clarify my comments above. In general, you seem to be POV-pushing a piece that relies on sources that undermine its own credibility as far as Li goes. Meyer is a good source, but I have attempted to keep references to the encyclopedic level. I will call other reviewers back for thoughts on your suggestions because I am not sure what to make of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the fluff in the article, you cover a large amount of info that is perishingly irrelevant. His son's info, aside from the car theft, is irrelevant. Much of his life—the "suit and tie" guy schtick, the marching band in high school etc.— is irrelevant. Wikipedia wishes to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, and you're adding stuff that belongs in puff pieces from entertainment mags. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as his son goes, I devote less than 300 characters to introducing him prior to a controversial story about him. Maybe I would cut some of it if he was not going to be a relevant character later in the article. I think they should know he was a local basketball star. I think the second paragraph in personal is relevant info. It is largely the type of personal info that is hard to find, but if found is welcome content to broaden an article. I don't think making this an article that focusses entirely on his political career is correct. This is a biography, not a career summary. Although nothing in that paragraph is notable, it does take us beyond his political life in a way that rounds out our picture of Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentioning that his son
  • 1b concerns as well:
  • Probe of Brown critic raises issue of motive. Buffalo News, The (NY). February 1, 2009.
  • SUNY Student Chapter Takes Buffalo Mayor to Task on Economic Issues. Iannaccone, William G.; Iannaccone, William G. Guild Notes (0148-0588) 12/1/2007. Vol.33,Iss.4;p.25-25
  • Race Plays Silent Role in Campaign for Mayor of Buffalo. JONATHAN HICKS. New York Times (1857-Current file); New York, N.Y. (0362-4331) Oct 13, 2005. p.B6
  • All Eyes on a Black Candidate in Buffalo's Mayoral Race. JONATHAN HICKS. New York Times (1857-Current file); New York, N.Y. (0362-4331) Jun 4, 2005. p.B2
  • No mention of CitiStat program
  • No mention of Department of Economic Development, Permit and Inspection Services,etc.
  • Etc. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Li is not "quite dubious". It cites periodicals, not books. Feel free to read all the sources. But see above for 1b etc. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Skip this. I looked them all up for you; there's nothing in them but a bunch of useless generalizations. Some of the other articles above have useful info though. Email me if you want some of them. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not People magazine. This is an international encyclopedia. Please take out all the silly horsecrap about marching bands and bowties. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope to give this article a little more time later. On a quick readthrough of the first few sections I found a chronological confusion in the Early life section. According to the previous section Brown graduated from college in 1983. He worked for a year as a sales rep, which brings us to 1984. Then, 2 years as aide to Ashe, up to 1986, 2 more years as aide to Blackwell, up to 1988, two years working for Eve, up to 1990, and eight years as director of Erie County Equal Employment Ops Commission. This brings us to 1998, yet he evidently resigned this directorship in 1993 to run for public office. The ten years between college and resignation appear to encompass 15 years of employment. Please clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like Brown took some time off from college and some of his legislative aide time must have occured then. He started college at age 17 (probably Fall 76 and graduated Spring 83 instead of Spring 80). He must have worked full or part time as an aide in college. I will go back to the sources and see if I can dig anything up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ref 2 says he worked on three campaigns in college and then later says he worked as an aide for three people after college. There may be some sort of chronology mix up in this story. From secondary sources, I can do no better than what is in the article. However, there is no explanation as to why it took him seven years to graduate. He must have had to work to pay his way through school or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Here are a few more suggestions:

I have also done some small copyedits Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Different topic)

  • Comment on my Opose (which was struck at 04:06, 7 February 2009): My problem with this article is not the existence of fluff per se, but the fluff-to-content ratio. A bit of fluff is often acceptable. Let's say forex Barack Obama played Sousaphone in high school, and the editors wanna throw it in as some "Gee I'm just a regular guy" fluff. Well, you know... that's probably fine. There will unquestionably be many truly substantial issues to be covered. The Sousaphone bit would just be garnish. In the case of this article, however, we have a guy who is solely and only a local politician. On the national scene, he's only barely notable (he's very clearly notable for Wikipedia's purposes, don't get me wrong). The editor of this article has made an editorial decision that explicitly limits the info he has decided to cover: "I used the Buffalo News as a primary source until he became a New York State Senator. After that I required a story to be in NYTimes to be included." That sounds like a principled stand; even a reasonable one. But the problem is, that leaves us with a very short article... unless we prop it up with "regular guy" fluff. And in this case, for the reasons given above, the fluff has become a significant part of the wordcount. When fluff weighs nearly as much as content, alarms start to go off, and the whole thing begins to have a definite odor of "hagiography"... so my point is this: If you're gonna bring a local politician in to FAC, then no problem: but be prepared to use a larger proportion of local sources. It's common sense. Also, watch out for the fluff-to-content ratio, since content is (by definition) relatively low on local politicians. Lower your geographic standards—Byron Brown hasn't done too much NYT-worthy. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a short article. It is probably the most developed article about a politician whose highest elective office was mayor on WP. AFAIK, there are no mayor FAs and this is more developed than the three other GA mayors that I have written (Tom Weisner, Arthur Schultz, and Scott Smith (mayor)). I am not sure you understand what the point of the source decision. Buffalo is a very significant city in the context of New York State politics and its political dealings are well-chronicalled in The New York Times. There is very little of international encyclopedic merit about Buffalo politics that can not be read in the NYT. A very simple rule to prevent POV-pushing for this bio is to say if it is encyclopedicly notable for an international encyclopedia it is in the New York Times. Look at the length of this article. Basically, as a wannabee POV-pusher you are complaining that none of your push content is considered of worth to be published in the NYT, but that you want to fill this article with that crap. You are arguing about a bunch of Artvoice (Buffalo's Village Voice). If you were writing an article about Michael Bloomberg that was approaching sufficient quality level to be at FAC and someone came by with a handful of Village Voice articles that were not supported by any other source what would you think. You should appreciate this article as the most well-developed Mayor article on WP and stop trying to add a bunch of unencyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops wow, I'm a POV pusher! That's not good. I'm not gonna instigate a hailstorm of WP:NPA links. Instead, I'll strike my Oppose and unwatch. I am so sorry that you took this to the personal level, and I deply regret creating the impression in your mind that I push a political agenda... despite, as I mentioned in my email to you in which I sent you several sources, having spent a nontrivial amount of time working to improve articles whose political position I disagree with quite strongly. Striking Oppose. Unwatching, but not with a bitter heart. :-) . I am deeply sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to call names. I apologize if you think it is namecalling. I also greatly appreciate your removal of your oppose. I just don't think Artvoice omissions are significant in the international context of writing encyclopedic biographies. Also, you really have to fight for mayors around here. Mayors get badly disrespected here on WP. I am constantly fighting about Mayor templates. Look at Scott Smith (mayor) and jump to the bottom to see what you learn from his templates. People have fought with me as if the templates have no merit. There is a current TFD about another Mayor template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't strike my Oppose because I conceded the points of the discussion; I struck it for the good of FAC's reputation as scrupulously adhering to NPOV. I w/drew because you called me a POV pusher. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On further review today of the sources Ling.Nut posted, I have added criterion 1b to my opposition above. I'm not convinced we've given this subject its proper treatment. I concede the point that it is a comparatively thorough Mayor article, and I have no idea what the ramble above about templates is supposed to signify, but comparison to like articles is not an FA criterion. Further, I can't help but to notice that many of the sources Tony is trying to dismiss as insignificant don't exactly cast Brown in a positive light. Given Tony's claim that he knows the subject personally, there is a possible conflict of interest here. Tony is also claiming these sources don't meet our policy on reliable sources, but this is a red herring. --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oi, there you go with the "POV pushers" meme again! This forces me to make my second highly undesirable link to WP:NPA. I passed GA for Alexander Berkman and Norman Finkelstein. I put in a fairly large amount of work for the latter. You're gonna force me to start calling for verification of these claims. Please do stop. Please... rethink your opinions. This is not a passion play, and you are not the noble but beleaguered hero standing up to the nefarious baddies. This is just a bunch of anal reviewers going over a more or less standard nom. Nothing more, nothing less. Please rethink the scenrio you have playing out in your mind, and please do take the time and make the effort to re-label the participants to something a bit closer to the actual case. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're saying that because he's only a local figure, you need to include more of the local coverage, both good and bad. In fact, those files I sent you covered several positive facts about Brown, mixed in with a few dirty socks. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. This article is not properly balanced. It contains an excessive amount of irrelevant information (some downright trivial) yet does not discuss enough what accomplishments and failures the subject actually had as an elected official. The article also seems very, very positive - I find it difficult to believe that a mayor of any city won't have a fair share of detractors or controversial positions. These are either not covered in the article or glossed over. On a lesser note, the prose needs work and their are MOS issues that need to be addressed. Please note that the prose examples given are EXAMPLES. Fixing only the examples given is not enough for me to lift that objection.

  • Birth location should not appear in the parentheses giving birth date.
  • I don't believe Mayor should be capitalized in the article. Unsure about State Senator.
    • This is a tricky one. When refering to an office like Buffalo Mayor or New York State Senator, it is capitalized. However, the word in general such as "one of the original 15 mayors" should not be capitalized. I could use some help distinguishing between the two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose needs a lot of work still.
    • could definitely be tightened. EXAMPLE only: "went on to become" -> "became"
    • Watch pronoun agreement. EXAMPLE only: 2nd paragraph of Background section, who is the He in second sentence? Direct antecedent is Brown's father, but that makes no sense.
    • noun agreement in general -> "Brown and his sister" don't equal "generation"
    • Not enough context in some places. Who is Randy Smith? I shouldn't have to click a wikilink to find out why someone would have admired him.
    • Vary the way sentences are started. EXAMPLE only: First paragraph of lead every sentence starts with "He". In the second paragraph, 3 of 4 sentences begin with He or Brown.
  • Does his endorsement of candidates during the 2006 gubernatorial election really belong in the lead? That seems a bit trivial in the grand scheme of things.
  • I echo the reviewers above who think there is too much trivia here. How is it important (or encyclopedic) that he is a Mets and Knicks fan? Same with the trumpet and the exact names of the schools he attended before college. Why do we need to know that he was a delegate to the 1992 Democratic National Convention?
  • First paragraph of Early career section reads like proseline. Is there any other information that could be added or taken out?
  • The Grassroots details are not relevant to this article (but definitely to the Grassroots article). We don't need to know how the organization's appeal grew to understand Brown.
  • Don't wikilink half the name of something!!! That is confusing to readers. And why is Martin Luther King, Jr. Award italicized? See wP:ITALICS
  • Some of the small sections on his early political career should probably be combined. At the VERY LEAST, state senate election and service sections need to be combined.
  • I think there may be too much information about the elections. As a reader, I'd much rather see information about what he did after being elected.
  • Make sure things are properly attributed. He was envisioned - envisioned by whom?
  • I don't see the relevance of the Harlem Clubhouse reference (I don't really understand the Harlem Clubhouse reference).
  • Did he do anything else as part of the state senate? The only thing mentioned is casinos. This is where local newspaper references are most critical - the NYT is not going to cover anything but the biggest accomplishments of state legislators from other parts of the state.
  • By 2004 it seemed clear that he was eyeing the mayor's office - How was it clear? What did he do?
  • relevance? even though the city had not elected a Republican since 1961
  • There is very little in the article to really talk about his impact on local matters as mayor. Did he do anything else besides the crime stuff that is mentioned?
  • Seriously, ordering flags at half mast for Tim Russert is encyclopedic and deserves an entire paragraph in the article????

Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Gary King 16:51, 9 February 2009 [67].

Sheng Long

edit
Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)

WITHDRAWN Sorry for wasting everyone's time it would seem.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Sheng Long after working extensively on the article and receiving an extensive copyedit by User:Guyinblack25. The subject matter in the article is covered fully, handling all aspects of the subject from it's origin, presentation, and legacy. As always if any issues exist within the article that have been missed I'll be more than happy to fix them immediately. Thank you for your time and patience.Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit torn over this. On one-hand, it's a sub-20kb article, which is nearly always grounds for an oppose from me. Same for only having two sections, and clocking at just under 1750 words. On the other hand, you do appear to have put a lot of effort into it. And perhaps, for a subject this obscure (though maybe not; Ryu always stopped me from getting the Akuma ending, so I heard of Sheng Long a lot), maybe this is all you can write. Hrmm. Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, 1a. This is quite a ways off base currently. This absolutely has to be treated for digestion by a general audience, despite the specialized nature of the content. The lead is not well-written at all. I had a hard time comprehending it and I'm a gamer—imagine how others will struggle. It is a confused combination of explaining the hoax and explaining the character that lacks organization and clear logic. "[O]ne of the most enduring and well-known legends in video game history" is a fantastic claim that is not backed up in the prose or in the listed sources. Perhaps in Street Fighter franchise history, but certainly not all of video games. Further examination of the prose is not possible until we have a clear lead written to a general audience. --Laser brain (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrote some of it, trying to make it flow a little better if possible. Expanded the lead with what I could, and softened the cited line with referencing towards GameSpot and GameDaily (which noted it as well known and famous, respectively). Better?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "based upon a mistranslation suggesting a character" – What does this mean?
  • "by the name of" – "named"
  • "Though introduced in 1992, Sheng Long's appearance was not defined until 1997" – End it with a period.
  • "Due toAfter other publications reprintingreprinted the details"
  • "without attempting to verify theverifying its"
  • These "Due to [...] they did this." sentences should be reworded to "After this happened, they did this." It's far easier to read. I find "Due to" to not be very easy to read in general.
  • "by sourcespublications"
  • "of Ryu's victory quotes to" – I don't know what "victory quotes" are.

The article is still a bit thick with video game terminology in places, some which even I don't understand. I think I've only played one or two Street Fighter games in my day. Gary King (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed what you mentioned, few other fixes as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ryu's win quote spawned" – Not understandable to unfamiliar readers
  • "if a player using Ryu did not suffer any damage" – So if I punch the player in the arm, this won't work?
  • "but inflictedinflict more"
  • "was faster than" – Perhaps needs a "supposedly" in there.
  • "he's stated" – "he is stated"
  • "Sheng Long makes no appearance in the game" – "Sheng Long does not appear in the game"

The prose still needs to be more direct and clear. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed each one tossed up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The prose is very poor. This article requires extensive third-party copy-editing. The nomination is premature. Graham Colm Talk 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already had two copyedits, one prior and one now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the question you left on my Talk Page, this is but one example of very poor prose throughout the article:
  • The joke, based upon a mistranslation that suggested the existence of a character named Sheng Long appearing in the Capcom video game Street Fighter II, offered a method to fight the character in the game. "The joke..offered a method to fight the character in the game"?

WRT copy-edits, it is not quantity but quality that counts. Graham Colm Talk 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "offered" to "described", which should get the meaning across a lot better. Hopefully. If you can point out outs I'll hammer them as needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is FAC not Peer Review. Graham Colm Talk 21:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And peer review's backlogged with fifteen articles, one of which is another article I've heavily worked on. Without help more than likely this is going to fail at the end of the week and just be GA. And I could go through countless copyedits and possibly never fix the parts you think are in error. So with six days left asking you to point out what you want fixed in the text and let me try isn't an unreasonable request.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say this with all due respect, Kung Fu Man, but it actually is an unreasonable request. FAC is a place to bring highly-polished articles that might need a bit of tweaking to be FA quality. Barring that, articles that need substantial work should be withdrawn and brought up to quality. FAC reviewers cannot be called upon to delineate long lists of defects. --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
I honestly have no clue. I just did eight/ten source checks for FAC in the space of a few hours, my brain is fried. If it was in all capitals before and it isn't now, then that's the one I meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael McWhertor is Kotaku's senior editor and has been interviewed by sources such as Gametrailers' Bonus Stage broadcast as seen here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed doesn't make him an "expert in his field" which is basically what you need to have for the kotaku refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews have involved him for the purposes of having said expertise actually. And still, he is their senior editor which would entail a need for reliability, no? (Not really sure how to answer the query beyond this).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Revisiting, I don't see moves toward this being FA quality. A top-to-bottom copyedit is going to be needed by someone new; however, the problems transcend plain grammar. Examples just from one section:
    • "Sheng Long is cited as an influential factor for the Street Fighter series, earning mention in articles such as GameDaily's Top 20 Street Fighter Characters of All Time list, in which the character placed nineteenth despite not being an actual character." Just one sentence, but small error ("factor in", not "factor for"), MoS breach (article titles should be in quotes), and the ending clause doesn't make sense to a non-gamer.
    • Next sentence: "The rumor is often credited with inspiring the creation of Akuma, a character who debuted as a hidden final boss ..." What rumor? A rumor has not been mentioned recently. A hidden final boss? Nonsensical to the non-gamer.
As I mentioned above, the grammar, while a major problem, is not the only problem. Before the copyedit, this needs treatment for a general audience. Please withdraw this until it is ready. --Laser brain (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been withdrawn per nominator's request. Gary King (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:12, 9 February 2009 [68].

Saxbe fix

edit

I HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO WITHDRAW THIS NOMINATION FOR SOME TIME. PLEASE WITHDRAW THIS NOMINATION.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this article for featured article because as I have stated in prior nominations this is a rare example of United States Constitutional Law that became watercooler conversation. As such the page was highly trafficked and highly edited. Based on preliminary results at WP:DYKBEST it was the most viewed DYK hook during the month of November. Thus, I think there is a lot of interest in fully developing this article in the best form possible. If I can get this to pass it is about a ten-pointer at WP:TFAR on March 4, 2009 (the centenary of the first Saxbe fix). Push is starting to come to shove in terms of the centenary, but a lot of progress has been made on the article.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, archived only eight days ago with multiple concerns, incuding comprehensive, and there have been few changes to the article since. Please take a few weeks to address concerns, and be mindful of the backlog at FAC and that FAC is not peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most concerns were addressed in the late stages of the last FAC even though they were not struck or otherwise marked as resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that comprehensiveness was raised as an issue on Jan 21 of a FAC that ran from Jan 21 – 27. Since the 21st this has been made much more comprehensive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E.G., the second of two opposes for comprehensiveness came at 13:47, 21 January 2009. Since that time the article has been expanded. Here are the changes since this complaint. In that time the article has gone from 21,730KB to 41,953KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think whole point is that FAC is really suffering right now, and Sandy has been pretty strict about the one-nom-at-a-time rule. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Sandy's Talk page I explained this. This is a March 4 centenary candidate at TFA if people think it is ready, which it may be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that another oppose popped up on the other FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The FAC delegate removed it; it should not have been added again. Moreover the article is clearly not ready. There is massive overlinking (“United States Senator from x”, linking to lists of senators from that state; there is no need for the link to the list given the following linked name of the actual senator), inconsistent capitalization and overcapitalization (“Senate Seat”), stilted prose (“attempts to attend to complications related to”, “that have been determined and that determine”), proofreading errors (“Secretary of the Commerce”, “Senator United States Senator from North Carolina”, “United States Senators from Iowa” in reference to one person, “emolument's clause”), unencyclopedic language (“fails to cut the mustard”), ambiguous use of pronoun, use of “current” which will become dated (and in Hillary Clinton’s case, already is), and inconsistent italics in case names. This nomination should be removed and given a line-by-line proofreading and copyedit before returning. Kablammo (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I am responding to the below by breaking the text because you formatted it continuously in a way that is impossible to respond to.)

TonyTheTiger, please see the WP:FAC instructions:

  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary.

Following these instructions will help keep FACs more readable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC delegate removed it; it should not have been added again. Moreover the article is clearly not ready. There is

This nomination should be removed and given a line-by-line proofreading and copyedit before returning. Kablammo (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to revisit my oppose in light of recent changes. My oppose was not an exhaustive list of my concerns, but only examples of problems indicating that the nomination was premature. The problems in the nominated version tend to reduce confidence in other areas of the article. Before nominating, both the nominator and other principal contributors should be satisfied that it is a finished product. A premature nomination can do more harm than good to an article's prospects.
Given the number and frequency of recent edits including ongoing substantive change, and the unresolved discussion on the article's talk page concerning scope, it appears that the article is still a work in progress, and lacks the stability required for an FA. There is little point in reviewing a moving target. Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand your opposition it is that the article fails stability largely because people are addressing the concerns noted here and working minor disagreements out on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is in need of thorough copyediting. A few examples:

I full endorse Kablammo's view above; this article neds to be thoroughly checked through before it's ready for FAC.

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kablammo, this is an area in which the FA director's delegate has authority, and she had the right to exercise said authority, and did so for what I deem proper reasons. God knows I don't always see eye to eye with Sandy, but she's got the right here. This nomination should be pulled or suspended.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any WP:WIAFA issues to note that might help me improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, beyond the dozen or so edits I've made to improve the article? I'll get back to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's a starter. Tony, the article says that the Knox fix was enacted on March 4, and that Knox took office on March 6. This is sourced to Times articles for February 12 and 16. This seems a problem, for obvious reasons. Also, when exactly did Roosevelt sign the bill? And shouldn't there a Public Law number? Just by way of comment, seems to me that whenever Roosevelt signed the bill is the centennial of the Knox version of the Saxbe fix, to touch on the TFA discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion of this point at Talk:Saxbe fix#When was the Knox fix enacted? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text has this fairly well resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another for you, Tony: The article contains this language: "Congress discussed reverting the fix after the appointed nominee had resigned and assumed the post so that Knox did not have to forgo any emoluments. They also discussed reverting the salaries of all United States Cabinet members." Both sentences are sourced to the Feb 10 1909 article in the NY Times. I see no mention of congressional discussions, though several congressmen apparently spoke to the reporter off the record. Big difference, the article makes it sound like there were congressional debates supported by this ref.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to make it Congressmen noted that they considered these things?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd inline cite to the NY Times and say that unnamed congressmen said such and such.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another: "Clinton received approval to use a Saxbe fix to appoint United States Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to the Supreme Court, but Mitchell withdrew his name from consideration for reasons unrelated to his eligibility." Does that mean a law was passed? That should be specified, because you can't lower the salary of serving justices under the Constitution (it's in Article III), so it could have applied only to Mitchell. Was the law then repealed so that Ginsberg or Breyer (whoever was appointed then) could draw a full salary?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think approval to use a fix means that your AG says go for it. I don't think it means it went to Congress. Clinton is recent enough that you law guys can probably track down exact details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if there was a formal written opinion by the AG. It is odd language though.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still more "But Hatch had, in the term which he was still serving, voted on a salary increase for the judiciary." So what? Voting on a salary increase for the judiciary is irrelevant to the Clause. It is having an increase passed during the current term of office.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like a precise legaleze speaker. I have only had one law course. I think he voted on an increase for the position to which he was being considered for nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. I'm a lawyer, I speak (hopefully) with precision, and I've been trained to write that way. So when I see a legal article on WP, I like to see precision. I'm probably more ready to see ambiguities than lay people, but that comes in handy copyediting. But again, the salary increase is what should be made clear. Right now, it isn't even clear there was a salary increase, nor whether it took place within the term of office Hatch was serving in 1987.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Once a fix is granted and the nominee is confirmed, it is considered unlikely that the person's appointment could be challenged in the courts. The most likely persons to have proper legal standing to challenge would be best able to do so after the fact." Apparent contradiction.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this mean that you can't have standing without already having been harmed. I don't see the contradiction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on a rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Mikva receive a fix? Should be specified. Clear from the lede he did not, but it should be in the article body.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they contested that he should have had to have a fix for the post and did not get legal standing to present the argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article at present doesn't say whether a fix was attempted, although you can derive it from the statement in the lede that no fix for a senator promoted to the judiciary has been attempted.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in love with the current opening sentence: 'The Saxbe fix or rollback is a possible solution to the restriction of the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, which prevents current and former members of the United States Congress from being appointed to positions created or for which the pay and/or benefits (collectively "emoluments") were increased, until the period for which they were elected has expired.' Solution implies problem. The Ineligibility Clause restriction is not a problem, it is rather an inconvenience for Senators who want to hold civil office. Suggest different language be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kept trying to change it and User:Simon Dodd kept reverting it. No one else seemed to care. Go for a change. I'll be watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN Can someone close this immediately so that I can bring it back for one final fresh look in 10 days or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're planning on bringing this back in 10 days, I don't see what the point is of withdrawing it. If the prose isn't ready now, are you planning to get a copyedit in the next 10 days? If not, the only thing you've accomplished is burdening the system unnecessarily by making the existing prose opposition re-state their objections. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opposes are not all based on the prose and if you look at the edit history you can see there are several people reviewing the text. However, look at the review that says "The FAC delegate removed it; it should not have been added again." The guy is not opposing based on content, but based on the article having been nominated at a time he did not want it to be nominated. Then when I asked him to review he said he was opposing because it was being copyedited. If he is objecting because it is being copyedited, then I need to withdraw it and renominate it later. I will not be copyediting it in the next 72 hours because of other responsibilities on WP. It needs a clean slate. Anyways I am the nominator and I would like to Withdraw.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have indicated that the article needs copyediting. Per WP:FAC instructions:

  • #Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria ...

please assure that the article is independently copyedited and that current issues are resolved before renominating. FAC should not be veiwed as a revolving door for submitting articles for a "fresh looks" until/unless previous issues are resolved; the article can be renominated once an independent copyedit has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Gary King 16:43, 8 February 2009 [69].

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

edit
Nominator(s): An Argento Fan (talk)

Well, it is with great confidence and even a little ego that I am leaving you all an article I have written about Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" My editor Skomorokh and I have been collaborating on this article for some time now. Skomorokh, who almost didn't want to review the article because he had made a few minor edits early on, has been invaluable. Along the way, I have actually spotted a few of the people I have written about in my article, such as David Wolman editing his own article, Seth Finkelstein repeatedly protecting Jaron Lanier's article, John Brockman pulling a prank on himself, and even neuroscientist James Olds editing a few articles in his field. All of you really have to read Norman Doidge's 2007 book The Brain That Changes Itself. I used Doidge's book for biographical information about the work of neuroscientist Michael Merzenich whom James Olds discusses in relation to Carr's essay, but it is also an excellent introduction to the topic of neuroplasticity. If neuroplastic research were applied to user interface design you might see a sea change in the way Internet navigation is done. Interestingly, working toward a featured article is an uber act of contemplation. I have read every commentary on the essay that is out there, and if you think you know of one that I have not yet read please let me know. Finally, Nicholas Carr is working on a forthcoming book that will really delve into this subject and I am waiting on tenterhooks for its release. Sincerely, An Argento Fan (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Huge swathes of the article are uncited, and that's just for a start. I'll see what else I can dig up. Skinny87 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also prose problems. To pick a random sample: 'In Carr's essay, the science about how the brain's neural circuitry can be rewired is introduced with an example in which Friedrich Nietzsche is said to have been influenced by a technology' - long-winded, poor prose that needs to be rewritten.
    I changed to In Carr's essay, he introduces the science informing that the brain's neural circuitry can be rewired with an example in which Friedrich Nietzsche is said to have been influenced by a technology..-An Argento Fan (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the article also seems to be OR and not related to the article in a great way, but that might just be my unfamiliarity with the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. I have tried to be as faithful to the sources as is possible. If some of the links are no longer available I can post up copies of these articles.-An Argento Fan (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix all dab links using the dabfinder tool. Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Thank you. Can you please list all prose problems you find. I will correct them one by one then. -An Argento Fan (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article history shows you have no edits to the article. How does that reconcile with your nom statement? Apterygial 10:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nominator may be a sockpuppet of banned user ManhattanSamurai, who is one of the primary contributors to this article. Skinny87 (talk)
Which is what I was hinting at, I just didn't think anyone could be that obvious. Apterygial 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt have no opinion on the article, but this page was created by a banned user. Per WP:RBI this page should be nuked.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for reviewers: What is unreferenced? If you are referring to the "Synopsis" section, it is usually not necessary to cite because it would just be referencing back to the article/book. -maclean 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [70].

Metropolitan Phoenix freeways

edit
Nominator(s): Rko202 (talk)

I am nominating Metropolitan Phoenix freeways for FA status because I believe that it is just about as decent as the rest of the Featured Articles on here. And also because it'd be a thrill for me as it'd be my first Featured Article on the site. Rko202 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 1a, 1b, 2a.
    • No history of these freeways?
      • I thought that adding that in would make this article huge. I figured that if people wanted to know more about each freeway, they could click on that freeway's individual page. This page is focused on the entire system, of which I have the history at the bottom under "Funding". (Should I change that to "History"?) Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As YellowMonkey states, the lead should be a well-organized summary.
    • It's not good to see an inconsistency in the very first sentence: "boasting over 1,405 lane miles as of 2008." Source says 2005. I made the change. What are lane miles?
    • "has remained a very automobile-dependent city, with its first freeway opening in 1958." Very is rather un-encyclopedic. What does "with its first freeway opening in 1958" have to do with the rest of the sentence? Was this date relatively early?
    • Linking is rather suspect. Easter egg links (nation's...and why are we linking this?) should be avoided. Why are we linking terms like funding and city, and linking freeway three times in the lead alone?
      • My linking is screwed over on the entire page if you're only supposed to have one link to one page in the ENTIRE article. I've always thought that the more wikification, the better. Can I get away with linking things maybe two times for the whole article because it's long? Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh. I ran into the same thing with one of my first FACs, too. My personal rule of thumb is to link the first reference, only link again if there's more than six sections before the next mention of the subject, and never link more than twice. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This is Phoenix's widest and arguably most congested freeway" Arguably? It either is or isn't. Give statistics.
    • "presumably after the Native American tribe" Why presumably?
      • Because this is the most cited assumption, beating out the fact the county that the Maricopa Freeway is located in is also called Maricopa and there is a town called Maricopa nearby. Are presumptions unacceptable on here? Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "or as it was officially referred to" "it" being?
    • "As it turns out" Encyclopedic language please.
    • I'm also wondering whether based on the way the article is currently organized, this may be more suited for WP:FLC. BuddingJournalist 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [71].

California State Route 78

edit
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 (T C)

This fully meets the criteria for a featured article; in fact, I would dare say that this is the best article on CA SR 78 that can be found on the Internet. The last FAC nomination grew stale. Regarding renominating so quickly Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:California State Route 78.svg - We never did resolve the question of whether the sources added to this map were sufficient to create it. Could someone with an expertise in road sources please confirm this? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are still red links around in the article. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks aren't discouraged, so long as they have potential to eventually receive articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it also acceptable that most of the sources are coming from historic maps? What about books or internet sources? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has already come up before - Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Regarding_maps_being_.22primary_sources.22_according_to_this_policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what that has to do with redlinks? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't; that was just another unrelated concern. I don't want to start a new section. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry then. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here are much better than those for 382 in NY. Not even close! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? They're two different articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... cool? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why thanks for pointing that out Julian, I was confused that they were the same! And one article has sources that fit and one doesn't. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I've never reviewed a road/highway article before (the route description sections usually bore me to tears), so forgive me if I sound ignorant in this query. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the History section reads "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78...". This is sourced to a 1919 map. However, I'm wondering whether we can be so certain in that statement. Would it be more accurate to say that as late as 1919 no road appeared on a map (don't know if there's a more efficient term for this) connecting...? Are we confident in the comprehensibility of the 1919 map (that there isn't some small road that the cartographers didn't choose to include)? BuddingJournalist 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [72].

The Guardian Legend

edit
Nominator(s): MuZemike

I think this article is comprehensive enough for inclusion as a Featured Article. Extensive work has been done to improve this article on a rather obscure video game since its rather poor state here. Several other editors have greatly assisted in copyediting and tone, and I think is very well–written and in a neutral point of view. Article has been through three peer reviews before its GA review, and it is currently assessed as A–Class by WikiProject Video games. All images displayed are of fair–use and are labeled accordingly. The article has been very stable within the past with virtually no edit warring happening within the past six months. Nearly all the information is referenced via inline citations. The article is small compared to other video game FAs, but I am hoping that the article's quality makes up for that. MuZemike 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the wayofthegeek source and the corresponding statement in the lead. The reference to GameFAQs falls under WP:VG/S#Situational sources, which stipulate that such references only be used when no other reliable sources can be found to verify the release date. The only other two sources that I can find that can verify the North American release date is at GameSpot and from Nintendo itself. Otherwise, there is nothing in any other reliable sources regarding the Japanese and European release dates or publishers. MuZemike 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go into detail about GameFAQs, but the entry at IGN here verifies the release dates as well as GameSpot here, which no longer makes by previous comment moot, and also verifies the information adequately. MuZemike 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they both updated their stuff very recently: I didn't see the hi-res box pictures on GameSpot 'til now, and IGN added game images on October 2008(!). I think it's great to see the big sites paying more attention to older games like this one. --an odd name 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the GameFAQs citations are gone? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, replaced by GameSpot. --an odd name 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "self–destruct"..."non–linear" I corrected these two examples of where hyphens should be used, not en-dashes. Needs correction throughout the article though.
    • "The game follows a lone protagonist, The Guardian, in her quest to stop a large alien-infested world named Naju before it reaches the planet Earth. The Guardian must destroy that world by activating ten safety devices scattered throughout it and then engaging its self-destruct sequence. The player, who assumes the role of The Guardian, is able to explore the alien world in a non-linear fashion to find these safety devices and thus save Earth. Different weapons can be acquired during the course of the game to combat the hostile aliens who inhabit Naju." Lots of redundant ideas (in bold) here that can be combined/cleaned up for tighter prose and to free up space in the lead. The "it" in "throughout it" makes for awkward rhythm. "Its" meaning the planet's self-destruct sequence?
    • "it has since been renowned" Renowned is great as an adjective, but I don't think I've ever seen it used as a verb in modern times.
    • "multiple-genre game, which set a standard for other games with multiple gameplay elements such as Xexyz, ActRaiser, and Sigma Star Saga to follow." Taxing repetition...consider recasting. Problematic "which" here...it's modifying "the game", which is all the way at the beginning of the sentence. "to follow" is unneeded. BuddingJournalist 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw this question out here regarding the dabs to the other reviewers that SandyGeorgia originally asked and that I tried to clarify on her talk page here. I looked at TGL (disambiguation), and it seems logical to me that TGL should point to the dab page while removing the dab on the top of the article (and also that TGL (Technical Group Laboratory) should probably be moved to Technical Group Laboratory while we're at it). Comments/thoughts? MuZemike 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes quite alot of sense. TGL (Technical Group Laboratory) is strangely named. Salavat (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All completed. Dablink removed as shown here. MuZemike 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "the player takes control ofcontrols the "
  • The first paragraph of "Gameplay" seems to be the game's Plot. Perhaps create a new section for the Plot?
  • "weapons; these include the" – "weapons: the" – a colon
  • "upgrades for the guardian in" – Why is this lowercased?
  • "obtained after defeat of a boss" – "obtained after defeating a boss"

There are some prose issues like the above, which need to be resolved. Gary King (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited those five. The US game manual uses "the guardian" once on p. 3, but "The Guardian" in most other places (including a clear Beatles "The" on p. 10), so changed to the latter. --an odd name 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [73].

Uru: Ages Beyond Myst

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)

Did you know... That the development of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst took $12 million and five years, yet did not ship with the multiplayer component originally intended to be the entire game? Did you know the game's development monikers included DIRT and MUDPIE before the final name was announced? Since my other FAC has stalled, nom'ing this one... good news folks, it will actually be the last video game FAC you see me run by you for a while (months, even!) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Uru screenshot.png - The fair use rationale for this image needs a purpose of use - the current one refers to "box art", which this is not. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I guess I forgot to fix it when copying another FUR; I've tailored it to something more appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the main aim of this image is to show the custom avatars, but it is hard to see the avatar, since it is small portion of the screenshot and the avatar's face is turned away from the viewer. Do you think we could get a better screenshot and focuses more on the avatar? Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version that has a larger avatar and lowered the resolution, as well as rewording the FUR. Unfortunately, generally the only good facial shots of avatars are for the avatar creation system itself; these images show the graphic environments and third-person view, which I think is more important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image and new FUR are much better. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll just quote each other from a previous, FAC, okay? I say "JustAdventure: According to its about, it has editorial policies and editors, and has been referenced in reliable print publications. It's an interview and is being used solely to source the interviewee's comments, not any content by the site's authors", and you say "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves." :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (whacks David) Do you know how MANY FACs I see a day, much less a month??? Consider ourselves quoted (and next time you expect me to say something like that, point it out in your nom statement ... I'll train ya'll yet...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I enjoyed reading this, and I'll support soon, but a few minor quibbles. jimfbleak (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) *Uru's creation required five years and $12 million to complete. - Would Uru required five years and $12 million to complete. be better? [reply]

  • clunky third-person controls I'm not a game player and I didn't know what it meant until the next occurrence - could it be linked in the lead?
  • there is not[sic] - should there be a space after not (just asking)?
  • # (in music table) is it really necessary to have # as a column heading for numbers, particularly as the use of # for numbers is primarily US?
  • privately-owned I didn't think -ly words had hyphens?
  • Changed the first point and simply removed the "third-person" from controls, as it's only really important once the gameplay has been discussed in depth anyhow. I fixed the sic issue and "private owned". As for the music table, that's just the template output; you'd have to take it to the template talk to change that kind of thing. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, i've no other issues, so supporting now
  • Oppose, 1a and 1b. This is a nice read, but unfortunately it falls short of FA quality. I fixed several outright errors, but it is not well-written in many places. The tone is frequently overly casual, semi-colons are overused, and the voice is more game-guide review than encyclopedia. Some sections are better than others, but the Plot and Uru Live sections need overhaul and expansion.
    • "The personal Age serves as a hub in Uru, containing a bookshelf with linking books ..." What are "linking books"? (Note: I now see it explained in the Plot section but we need some context here.)
    • "Multiplayer" is an adjective.. please fix places where you have used it as a noun ("... but criticized the lack of multiplayer in the retail version ...", "... the multiplayer was designed to allow two or more players to work together ...", there may be more)
    • The plot section seems quite sparse compared to other VG articles I've seen. Is there really no more depth?
    • "The game was originally conceived as a multiplayer-only game where players could meet and new puzzles would be added monthly." This lacks parallel structure.. "could meet" and "would be added". Please revise.
    • "However Uru Live was cancelled before being released, with Cyan stating ..." Avoid the ungrammatical "with <noun> <verb>-ing" construction.
    • "Uru's music was composed by Tim Larkin, who had started out working ..." The "started out" is overly informal.
    • "Larkin employed a combination of real and synthesized instruments, sometimes upgrading synthesized performances to those of real musicians ..." Why is moving from synthesized to real musicians "upgrading"? Has a POV shine to it.
    • "An example of the more 'exotic' aspects of the score would be Larkin's use of a group of Maasai tribesmen's chanting, who were recorded during their visit to Spokane, Washington, where Cyan Worlds was located at that time." This is just not a well-written sentence.. very awkward; "would be" is overly informal. Please rewrite.
    • The "Uru Live" section is woefully inadequate, leaving out major details about the "shard" servers and how/why they were shut down. One can deduce that there were licensing issues and such, but we need to write about it.
--Laser brain (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to the above. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the prose now. I think we still need some detail about why the shards were shut down. I mean, did GameTap demand they be shut down? Or did the people shut them down because they could now play on GameTap? --Laser brain (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find a good "final fate" to Until Uru. I've added language from a source that Cyan planned on dropping it altogether, but there's no hard evidence that fan-run servers couldn't still exist (although the lack of authentication keys means the population to play them would be finite.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you used a library journal search, or just Google? Searching some periodical databases often turns up a treasure trove of information. --Laser brain (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through all the likely resources available at my library (that's where I got all the print sources) but was unable to find anything about Until Uru. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This says that the game was also released in Europe, but this is not mentioned in the article, infobox, etc.?
  • "In a departure" - "Departing"
  • "warmly received" – I'd prefer "well received"
  • "on special worlds" – What's so particularly special about these worlds, compared to other fictional worlds? Seems like an unnecessary adjective.

Gary King (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
    • The "Uru Music Tracklist" doesn't work too well, visually. For about five minutes, I thought it was a heading where someone forgot to type the content. Then, I noticed the "show" link waaaaaaaaay off to the right. I think most readers will miss this.
    • "The plot of the single-player release was considered minimal and forgettable." Please make active voice and tell us who considered.
    • "Gamespot's Andrew Park questioned why the game shipped with the multiplayer element open only for select players when the component had previously been beta-tested." You say this again at the end of that paragraph.
--Laser brain (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've stricken some points above, but I can't in good conscience support as it stands. The prose is cleaned up to a decent degree of being "correct" but it still needs editing to become more compelling. I am still troubled by the comprehensiveness. You have one little sentence about what the multiplayer gameplay is like. I'd like to see much more comprehensive information about Gameplay, Plot, and the multiplayer experience. --Laser brain (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 February 2009 [74].

M249 squad automatic weapon

edit
Nominator(s): Pattont/c

I've put a lot of work into this article, and I'm fairly confident it is worthy of FA status. This is my first so there may be a few problems; I will try to deal with them as soon as I can if you spot any. Thanks to Juliancolton for copyediting, and also to participants in the peer and a class reviews! Pattont/c 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concerns raised here are too much to fix during this FAC. I'd like to withdraw, and perhaps nominate again in a month or two when I've addressed them.--Pattont/c 12:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are by US Armed Forces soldiers or employees, hence public domain. No issues (the little spat about which soldier is in the photo is not an actionable issue, this article is about the weapon). Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments.

  • I still think the phrase "it was decided" needs a cite or needs removal.
  • There's nothing yet about sustained rate of fire which is quoted variously as 75 or 85 rpm.
  • Support—I took part in editing this article to get it in shape for GA-Class and I've also had my hand in for minor comprehension and word flow issues for this FAC. With all that, I am a rank amateur in terms of weapons of this sort which means that I am very much able to look at this article from the viewpoint of a first-time reader. I think it is well-formed, well-illustrated and well-referenced. I support FA-Class status for it. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The article lacks any information about whether this weapon has ever been used in combat, if so how often, how many were built and how widely they are distributed. I can't see it as a featured article without that sort of information. Looie496 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I've renamed the "history" section to devlopment and will start work on a "combat history" section. It may be after the weekend before I'm finished though. Update Work started on the talk page, wiill paste in when it's finished.--Pattont/c 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Hi Patton, nice work. I think it would be relevant to give comparative figures for weight range and rounds carried for the weapon carried by other squad members. Also I agree with Looie496 that production run and combat service should be covered, and is it only in US service? WereSpielChequers 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Good start, but I'd suggest a few citation additions and some other fixes. I've thrown a few fact tags on things that should be cited, and I'm curious about the "heavy" comment in the first line of the design details section. Is that in comparison to other SAW-type weapons, or just in general? If it's in comparison to predecessor weapons, I'd strongly suggest including a small table comparing the different aspects of those weapons: caliber, weight, magazine, etc.
  • The Bonds citations need page numbers.
  • I'm extremely confused by your Web citation style. Are you putting Web citations in both the References section and the in-line citations? I wouldn't disagree with it, but I haven't seen it before, and if that's not the case, things need to be cleared up.
  • I feel a brief history of combat usage is almost required in this sort of thing. I'd suggest the Webley Revolver as an excellent example to follow, and I strongly encourage you to include some notable specific examples of usage, perhaps where the weapon's user was recognized for the action and received a medal. I'm sure there's plenty of examples from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
  • "Currently" usually is a redundant word.
  • In the development section "Since then ... had" is an awkward sentence construction. "Since then" implies that the action is still going on, but I don't think that's what you mean.
  • "Simulations of all environments" is unusual -- did they actually test it in places like Fort Greely (cold-weather testing) or Panama (jungle testing), or did they just simulate it? I'm not familiar with simulated testing of weapons other than for firing tests.
  • In the design details section, talking about the rate of fire, "speeding of the mechanism" isn't grammatically correct and doesn't tell me anything about what is done mechanically to improve the rate of fire.
  • In the final paragraph of the design details section, third sentence, which "it" are you talking about -- the RPK or the M249?
  • It's not clear why the Ultimax 100 is mentioned in the design details section. I'd infer that's because it's considered a superior weapon, but that's not stated outright.
  • In the second sentence of the reception section, "as effective" ... as what?

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original. This also applies to titles of books, etc.
  • Please alphabetize your references.
  • I can't make heads or tails of which references are being refered to from the Notes. The "FAS.org" thing.. is this a website? or make it easier to figure out WHICH reference it is. From the way the note is structured, I'd have guessed it would have been under "FAS.org" but... eventually I figured out it was the "Squad ..." ref that's out of alphabetical order. I'll do a source review when they are sorted out. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are going to do a history section the weapon was used by the SAS only (not the British Army) one notable use was by members of the Bravo Two Zero patrol but the article lacks any mention of armaments. Its sometime since I read the book but that stuck in my mind Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually own The One that Got Away, though I don't remember any mention of the M249.--Pattont/c 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this FAC as I feel the concerns here at too great to be addressed during the duration of the review. I may renominate in one or two months after I have addressed the concerns.--Pattont/c 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2009&oldid=285724475"