I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. This just went through a peer review and was copyedited. Thank you. MG70 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Radcliffe has stated he is an atheist, and that he is "very proud of being Jewish.""This sentence confuses me. He's either atheist or jewish, not both. I think it hould be reworded along the lines of "Radcliffe is stated that he is an atheist, but that he is very proud of his Jewish heritage". Just a thought --Thanks, Hadseys15:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether publishers are provided for magazines/newspapers or not, and if so how these are formatted
Check for consistency in italicization
FN 18: page(s)?
Title capitalization should be normalized - no all-caps
Include sources for all opinions, for example "The film explored romantic elements, and included more humour than the pevious film in the series"
Be consistent in how websites are notated
FN 41: page(s)? Print sources need page numbers
FN 59: URL?
Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers, and if so how these are formatted
FN 75: URL?
FN 93: what kind of source is this?
Check formatting of quotes within quotes
Check for naming consistency - for example, The New York Times, not New York Times
FN 108: what kind of source is this?
Oppose - sorry, but there's just too many problems here. Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I note that further editing is need for both prose and MOS compliance. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
"Radcliffe was educated at independent schools for boys": the source says he went to private schools, but not that they were for boys (as opposed to mixed sex).
"he did achieve A grades in the three Advanced Levels that he sat in 2006, but then decided to take a break from education and did not go to college or university": In the UK, colleges and university are not the same (college is where you study for A-levels). I'd drop "college" here per WP:ENGVAR. More importantly, the source given (Vineyard, Jennifer (10 July 2007). "'Harry Potter' Star Daniel Radcliffe Gets Leather-y In Racy Photo Spread". MTV. Retrieved 27 May 2011.) does not mention A-levels or Radcliffe's grades.
"Rex Reed said: "Frankly, I’m sorry to see [Radcliffe] go";[48] while Rolling Stone critic Peter Travers commented on Radcliffe: "Well played, sir."[49]": These quotes seem lacking in substance, telling readers little about how Radcliffe performed.
"Set in 1970, it follows a man (Radcliffe) who discovers his calling after being drafted by the residents of a small England mill town to serve as a photographer for their most personal moments": is worryingly close to "The 1970-set tale follows a young man who discovers his artistic calling after being drafted by the denizens of a sleepy little New England mill town to serve as photographer of their most intimate moments" from this source.
"Radcliffe has stated he is an atheist, and that he is "very proud of being Jewish."[86][87][88]": why does this statement take three references? The link to The Guardian article contains a statement from Radcliffe saying "I'm an atheist, but I'm very proud of being Jewish", that should be enough so get rid of the other two.
"The motor skill disorder sometimes gets so bad that he has trouble doing simple activities, such as writing or tying his own shoelaces": that statement from the article looks a bit too close to "Radcliffe said the motor skill disorder sometimes gets so bad that he has trouble completing simple tasks, such as tying his shoes or writing a thank you note" from this source. Also, when was he diagnosed with dyspraxia?
"Radcliffe is a supporter of the Liberal Democrats": what makes a blog on moviephone.com a reliable source? I'd recommend using this BBC news story instead. Also, political opinions change, it's not like supporting a football team so I'd tweak the statement to "In 2009 Radcliffe stated that he supported the Liberal Democrats".
"At the age of 16, Radcliffe became the youngest non-royal ever to have an individual portrait in Britain's National Portrait Gallery": what the source actually says is "With the exception of members of the Royal Family and group portraits with babies mostly in photographs, the 16-year-old actor becomes one of the youngest sitters for an individual portrait in the National Portrait Gallery" (own emphasis added).
What does it matter that Radcliffe is a fan of Sachin Tendulkar?
There is some inconsistency in the way references are formatted: sometimes all-caps titles are used.
Oppose - sorry. There are so many problems here. The article suffers from proseline and many of the sentences lack logical flow, "Radcliffe took on the lead role as Alan Strang, a stable boy who has an obsession with horses, at the Gielgud Theatre". The name of the theatre belongs in the previous sentence. This is just one example. There are periods in image legends and other WP:MOS problems. The nomination is premature and should be withdrawn. The article lacks the FA sparkle. Graham Colm (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Chrono Trigger is considered by many as one of the best games of all time. While there was a sequel to the original in 2000, there hasn't been another installment in the Chrono franchise. So to fill the void, a group of dedicated fans decided to make an unofficial sequel to the game, set between Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross. It was stated to be released in 2009 but after Square Enix, the creators of the Chrono games, sent a cease-and-desist letter to the group, it caused the five year project, with all of the 98% of the work, to be cancelled. This article is about the game that would have been. I believe the article meets FA criteria and that you too will agree. GamerPro6418:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The development team made the battles more difficult than in Chrono Trigger, as they felt players would be familiar with challenging role-playing games." - source?
The two articles you nominated for PUD are both considered to be part of creative commons. I was told by User:Zeality, who was one of the people that was part of the project, that they were here. If you would like the consenting e-mail I can ask him. GamerPro6421:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Send the email to OTRS, have them put a ticket on it, and then I will be happy to close the PUF. Also, I should have mentioned this earlier, but I'd appreciate it if you converted the FURs on the other two images into modern, templated FURs. It shouldn't be too hard, you just have to move the information already there. Sven ManguardWha?04:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged KingZealsketch CSD G7 (uploader requested) and pointed to your comment at the PUF. That'll speed things up. Please get the email for the other image to OTRS as soon as possible. Sven ManguardWha?12:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I'm not sure this article meets 1b/1c of the criteria.
"The game, as a ROM hack, runs on the Chrono Trigger engine and has similar gameplay to the original. It is based five years after the events of Chrono Trigger and features all the playable characters from the original game. The plot involves the characters across different time periods coming together again to fight against an enemy that is attempting to change the past, involving elements from both official games. The game concludes by setting up several plot points that would be used in Chrono Cross."
The "ROM Hack" and "characters across different time periods" parts to this paragraph give me pause. I'm not sure what a ROM hack is, I'm not sure why there are different time periods, or if these are so important to understanding the topic.
The gameplay section doesn't really tell me much about the gameplay, providing a game I haven't played as a point of comparison.
I'm having a little trouble understanding your problem. The game has gameplay the same as Chrono Trigger and has added features to it like mini-games. What exactly is the section not telling you about the game's gameplay? GamerPro6400:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I have never played Chrono Trigger so comparison doesn't do much to help me. An article should be able to stand alone if necessary; if I have to link away to another article to understand something I'm not coming back. It's bad web usability and bad writing to presuppose knowledge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)17:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The characters and plot sections are incredibly long and gets me bogged down in details I can't remember by the end of the section. I'm left wondering why I should care, if the lead told me the game was cancelled?
Likewise, there's little development information, which for an unreleased game like this I feel would need to be the centerpoint of discussion. The pseudonym Zeality is given without pause, but then I'm confused as to who exactly he/she is.
Once again, what is a ROM hack? I should have some idea without linking out.
Images: Given that none of the images are the subject of critical commentary, I'm not sure any of the non-free images are defensible per WP:NFCC, especially as they might be infringing on the original IP's rights and wishes regarding the desist order (i'm not sure OTRS really solves this, if the characters are non-free; I think the works, then, are derivative.
So once I get to the reaction section... I'm left wondering how notable this mod really is. There's only a handful of sources that directly and solely discuss the game, and those only stem from its cancellation. There just doesn't seem to be enough meaningful journalism about the product to cover all aspects of a game article.
Oppose - The prose is way below the required FA standard. I am reluctant to list examples here because from my experience nominators of these poorly prepared FA candidates tend to address the examples alone. The article needs a radical overhaul from top to bottom. Graham Colm (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the majority of the issues have been dealt with, and that whatever problems still exist will not be roadblocks for this FAC. If MLP:FiM reaches FA, it will be a great day for not just the entire fandom that has grown around it, but for the WikiProject and the 13 dedicated users who have put their time and effort to getting the article to where it is now. RainbowDash!xmcuvg2MH21:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have formally closed it for you (simply saying it is being withdrawn isn't enough. You have to substitute the correct template and update the article talk as well) and struck the above. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews from Equestria Daily may be acceptable in limited circumstances, but why is something like this or this?
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc in footnotes. In general, citation formatting could be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review was closed without waiting for comment, and the FAC was brought back without correcting issues raised the first time-- see FAC instructions, archiving, please correct the issues before re-appearing at FAC, find an independent copyeditor or collaborator, or wait out a peer review until you find collaborators. FAC is not peer review, and issues from previous FACs should be addressed before re-nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the third article I have brought here on a child singer of Britain's Got Talent fame, after Andrew Johnston and Connie Talbot. Smith has arguably been more successful than either of them- Talbot saw fame in the US and the far east, and Johnston has vanished, but Smith is still a fairly big name in the UK classical scene, despite her second album failing somewhat. Like my other articles, this one faced an AfD early in its career- a fairly exclusive club among FAs. I have been working on it steadily for over three years, and I am very happy with result; it will hopefully be the lead article in a good topic when I can get a GA review for the article on her second album. I look forward to your comments. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINKs in main text: "The Times", "Daily Mail", "Paul Potts", "UK Albums Chart", "Classical BRIT Awards", "Daily Express", "God Save The Queen", "Ave Maria (Bach/Gounod)", "Andrew Johnston (singer)", "Britain's Got Talent".
links in lead or infobox, which are not linked in main text: "Singer", "Classical music", "Crossover (music)", "mezzo-soprano", "ITV", "Sony BMG", "Classical Brits", "Alice in Wonderland" ==> Lead information as summary should reappear somewhere in the main text (and usually be relinked there). GermanJoe (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could her personal life section be put first? A short introduction of her as person would read better as start, this information is almost lost after the huge career description.
'History' sounds a bit awkward for a biography, maybe just 'Career'?
The personal life typically goes at the end- I could do a few lines of "early life", but then I certainly wouldn't be able to change "history" to "career". J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I meant to review this at PR, but the gridlock there stopped me reaching it and the nominator, understandably, withdrew it after it had lain unattended for two weeks. It's in pretty good shape, though I have identified a few issues that need some attention:-
Second paragraph in the "History" section: First and third sentences have very similar beginnings; phrasing could be varied.
"It features a 60 piece orchestra,[27] which was recorded at Air Studios, in London..." I presume the album, not just the orchestra, was recorded at Air Studios.
I'm not honestly sure- I know that the orchestra recorded there, and that Smith was present, but I think the actual recording may have taken place in a number of places. I mention it because it's notable. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, there are other problems with this line. You don't need three citations to support the non-contentious facts about the recording of Faryl. The first two make only the briefest mention of the recording, and aren't worth keeping. Also, why write "third of January" rather than "3 January" per MOS? Finally, it's simply daft to imagine that the orchestra was in a different place when the album recording took place. I just want you to reword to make this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a play around. Each source, though none of them mention it much, adds something extra, but I've consolidated them into one footnote for easy reading. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "the debut of Oliver! is quite the right choice of word. Oliver premiered in 1960. I assume this refers to the latest revival.
Grammar problem: "The only Classical BRIT Award voted for by the public, the nominations are made up of the ten best-selling classical albums of the previous year". Needs rephrasing.
General point: I notice that some of the verbatim quotes are a little lengthy. For example "We're starting to look at..." This quote extends for 70-odd words while saying relatively little. I would say something like: "In an interview she expressed surprise and pleasure that the label wanted her to do another album so soon after the first" - little more needs to be said.
Fair. Changed that one, I'll look into chopping down some of the others. I appreciate that slamming in long quotes is not a good way to write. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"more mixed" is clumsy. Just "mixed" or (my preference) "more balanced"
You need to sort out the inner quote marks in "on "Close To You" and other tracks, the lack of emotional weight is telling." Same again in 2nd para of "The Prayer" section (sentence beginning "Faryl Smith was my personal highlight..."
"Smith performed at the 2009 Royal Variety Performance in front of the Queen, where she sang "God Save the Queen" with The Soldiers.[60] She later said that "I think the highlight of the year was the Royal Variety performance and meeting the Queen." This reads somewhat leadenly and repetitively. Why not, after the first sentence: "She later described the experience as the highlight of her year".
Just a comment: £2,000 seems quite a small sum to be raised at a charity concert. Are you sure you haven't slipped a nought?
"On Saturday, May 21, Faryl Smith sang at a Help for Heroes benefit at there that raised £2,000 for the charity, which helps injured service personnel." It's not a big story; I'm just trying to make sure people are aware that she's still about (unlike, say, Johnston, who's not active at all at the moment). J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt she's still about; my point was the rather small amount raised by the charity event. I thought it might be more. But I read from the source that this was at a smallish private club, so that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a bit of sorting out, if only to clarify the chronology: "Smith enjoys playing football, and formerly played for Kettering Generals FC Under 13 girls,[80][81] and played for the Kettering Generals Under 11s girls' team when they reached the Weetabix League cup final." Try: "Smith enjoys playing football; she played for the Kettering Generals Under-11s girls' team when they reached the Weetabix League cup final, and also played for the club's Under-13 girls IX."
None of these are major points, and I'll be happy to support when they are addressed. (On an irrelevant matter, I wonder what inspired Tony and Linda to name their offspring "Faryl" and "Shea"?) Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I learn from some of the more personal interviews that "Faryl" was chosen as the parents heard it while on holiday in South Africa- I don't know about Shea! Thanks for your comments, I'll look into them soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it's just trying to find a spare few minutes; I really do appreciate your comments. I will get to them today- I promise! Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (GermanJoe), seems comprehensive and well-written, leaning support, just some more minor issues:
Britain's Got Talent - "She again performed "Ave Maria",[2] but finished outside the top three." ==> What went wrong? Any additional detail available, why the finale wasn't that well-received?
If I remember correctly, the finale was still very well received; it's just that she was among tougher competition. Critics of her albums would often point back to her BGT performances. The BGT final, in case you're not familiar, attracts tens of millions of viewers and votes; Johnston, who finished third, was a comparable act, and he had what the Daily Mail might have called a convenient sob-story about growing up in poverty and being bullied for his love of classical music. The other two in the final three were dancers- I personally never liked George Sampson (winner- also had a few sob stories about illness, poverty, and not making it the year before), but Signature (second place) had some real charisma. May be worth noting that another sort-of-classical act, Escala, finished outside the top three, despite being very good. I'd be tempted to say, cynical as I am, that the public don't want a middle-class girl who goes to a grammar school singing popera to win; the want a Paul Potts, a Susan Boyle, (both of whom have that "underdog" appeal) or a dance group. I'd be interested to know where Smith placed in the final, but, unlike the last series, they didn't reveal the rankings. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Record deal - "Before the release of One Voice, it was revealed that Smith herself [and her father were] finalising the details of her own record deal. Her father, Tony Smith, said "we're dotting ..." ==> The quote states, both of them were working on the details, should be mentioned to clarify the situation.
"In January 2009 plans were released for Smith to perform with Placido Domingo. The idea was suggested by him." ==> Try to merge the stubby second sentence. Also what happened with those plans? The connection with the Charlotte Church interview is a bit unclear.
Nothing. A number of sources mention it, but nothing seemed to become of it. I could remove it, but that would leave the Charlotte Church para as rather short, and I do think that that is important- the comparison is obvious, and Smith received criticism for praising Church and for criticising her; she can't do right for doing wrong. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Faryl - "Smith is the youngest artist ever to receive a double nomination." ==> Smith became ... - otherwise the statement will probably be outdated sometimes.
"Wonderland was released on 30 November, with Smith saying "it is always a struggle when a second album comes out because you never know how it is going to do but fingers crossed people will enjoy it. I am very proud of it."[56] ==> Sorry to be the grumpy nitpicker, but Smith's quote adds no information here. That kind of personal statement is DVD bonus material, but not note-worthy encyclopedic.
Quotations see previous comments ==> per WP:MOSQUOTE single quote marks are preferred within double quotations. Also check, if some of the shorter quotations could probably be rephrased as regular text to reduce the overall number of quotes. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More Comments (GermanJoe) after another read-through.
Try to avoid filler phrases like "also", "however", ..., when not absolutely necessary.
"perform" is used very often, sometimes repeated several times in a row.
On several occasions the article adds personal statements of the main persons (Smith, her father, producers) with little information value. 2 examples (among more):
-"Smith's father, Tony, said "at the moment we're promoting the album and making sure we're in the right places at the right time.""
-"Tony Smith said that the bosses at Universal were "hoping it will sell more than the first but it's a tough market. Lots of people bring out albums at Christmas"."
==>The article should maintain an outsider's perspective on the events, too many quotes of involved persons hurt that impression. Suggest to recheck, which interview quotes are really needed for the article and provide factual information or important context and trim trivial or subjective information. GermanJoe (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because...because I'd like to get it to FA status. This is the third nomination for this article, mainly because it hasn't gotten that many reviews in the past and no supports nor opposes.--WillC00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Another featured match was Kevin Nash versus Samoa Joe, which Nash won. Kurt Angle defeated Abyss in a Falls Count Anywhere match." combining these two sentences into one, since both were featured matches, would help the article flow better.
"Hall has a history to not show up to events for either being intoxicated on drugs or on alcohol." while true perhaps, can it be reworded? Have it start with "Hall has a history of not showing up for..." and I could see others being iffy on the sentence, though it's ok for me.
"A tag team match between the teams of Roxxi and Taylor Wilde and Awesome Kong and Raisha Saeed," clarify which two teams were against each other a bit better (i.e. ..Wilde against Awesome..)
"good drama", "with a big game veteran vs. a big game "Young Lion" in a compelling match-up. Joe losing should be treated as a huge deal with proper follow-up to move Joe up to the next level. If he's losing, it needs to mean something for his overall growth." Could the quotes be combined, since it seems like they are already.
I am nominating this for featured article because since it was promoted to GA status it has had some expansions, improvements and tweakings. It covers almost everything on the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say something quick and helpful ... but it's a hard call. The prose and MOS compliance tends to be mostly fine at the beginning, and dodgier later on.
"vascularize", "recognize", but "colour", "metre": is this intended to be Canadian English?
Generally, the lead should touch on all the major topics in the article. For a long article like this one, it's hard to do it in less than 3 paragraphs, and most FAs this size have more.
Link genera at the first occurrence, not the second; many readers don't recognize it as the plural of genus.
"It is what’s known as a "calving pool".": Avoid contractions. Combine this sentence with the previous one.
"Maximum lifespan is ~25": Avoid "~".
"Only 25-50%": Only 25 to 50 percent (in AmEng or CanEng, or per cent in BritEng).
Oppose. I hope this has been helpful, you've got a lot of good suggestions below. Peer review would be a good place to continue to work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dank
1. Changed to "color". As for "metre", thats how the converter box puts it.
Oppose—First (before the onslaught of critical comments), thank-you for the work you've done so far in bringing a highly-viewed and important article to FAC. A quick read suggests that the article is enjoyable and interesting, and its GA rating is appropriate. However, it needs a MoS tuneup to meet the style guidelines (per the criteria). I'll come back for a more substantive review after this is finished. The comments below are just samples of what should be done to polish the article. Sasata (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lead is too short for an article of this length
why are those stats (mass averages, max height) being cited in the lead? Are they not mentioned in the article text … no they aren't. See WP:Lead
what's the source for the last two sentences of etymology?
there's some text squishing caused by placing images left-right, and subheadings being pushed in
some subsections (Sleep & Stereotypic behavior) are very short and could stand to get merged, or (preferably) expanded
there's a bunch of unsourced stuff in the "Art and culture" section
the "Scientific inspiration" subsection is not FA-ready yet, please expand
the references need to be tidied. Please check hyphen/dash usage; extraneous periods after journal article titles; missing issue numbers for some journals (just have to click through the doi link to get the info in some cases); missing isbn(s); consistency with title/sentence case for article book and journal article titles; consistency in author formatting; consistency with abbreviating journal titles or not, etc.
Oppose - I admire your willingness to take on this sort of article, but it simply is not yet at the standard required by the FA criteria. In addition to the points raised by Sasata, I also noted:
Some unsourced material, for example "However, elephants also routinely feed at heights up to 5 m (they knock down only a minority of the trees they feed on), and are likely competitors at these heights."
File:Climacoceras_gentryi_e.jpg: what is the source off of which this image is based?
Missing page numbers for some print sources, ex FN 31
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is ready for FA status after a month-long collaborative effort in August–September. All FA criteria are met (I think), and now it's a matter of tweaking the prose. Let's get the show on the road. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a comma separator is confusing here. Usually when giving page numbers a comma is used to indicate separate page ranges. I suggest using 2127–2142 instead of 2,127–2,142. Aa77zz (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks: I have the 2nd, 7th and 10th books in the bibliography. I have checked all the references using that material and they are good. Overall the article looks clean. Trusilver00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media Review I've been around this page before. Some notes:
File:R11-Portavions.jpg looks like it's been through some heavy color distortion. That makes it unencyclopedic. I advise you replace or scrap the image. If you do decide to keep it, please trim the artsy border, or leave me a talk page message and I'll do it.
Please add an English description to File:AV-8B Harrier II Plus spanish navy (cropped).jpg. It's not a requirement, but I treat it as a strongly advised paramater, simply because by being attached to an English FA, it is going to get clicked on by quite a few English speakers eventually. Don't replace the Spanish caption, just add the English under it. ( {{en|1= text }} )
Support - I'm not normally a reviewer of FAs, but this nomination is pretty dead, and since Sp33dyphil and I have gotten along well in the past, I figured I'd give it a kick in the rear and see what happens. Comments below. My pending support will become a normal support when point 3, the only major one, is addressed. (Please note that I have a FAC Disclaimer)
"with Jackie Jackson at the controls" and "BAe test pilots Hainz Frick and Steve Thomas cleared the aircraft carrier Príncipe de Asturias for Harrier operations in July 1989." - these seems like extranious details. Is Jackie Jackson important/notable? What about the other two? If not, why are these details in?
"In 2001, Flight International reported that Taiwan might choose to meet its requirement for STOVL aircraft by purchasing AV-8Bs, outfitted with the F-16 Fighting Falcon's APG-66 radar; this would have allowed the production line to stay open beyond 2005." - So what happened? Are they still deliberating? Did the decide on something else? Please insert a line that brings this into the present day?
The Design section switches tense back and forth between past and present, which isn't ideal.
FA?. Not until the intro is sorted. The AV-8B is not "a family". Member of the Harrier family, but not a family itself. Nor is it "the final descendant" of the P.1127. The British Aerospace Harrier II is a later derivation of the AV-8B, as the intro of that article states. Moriori (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks pretty good. I don't see any showstoppers for FA. That said, there's a whole laundry list of little things that caught my eye that I think should be tweaked or tidied up before it goes to FA, so prepare for an incoming wall o' text! - The BushrangerOne ping only17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "final descendant" thing - perhaps that might read better as "...the final member of the Harrier family that started with the Hawker Siddeley P.1127 in (year)"?
The final member of the Harrier family was the Harrier 11 which derived from the AV-8B. If that is not true then the intro to Harrier 11 must be corrected where it says the Harrier 11 "Derived from the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II....... "Moriori (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make this so complicated. The point is the Harrier II is the final member of the Harrier family. "Harrier II" covers both AV-8B and GR5/7/9 versions. Wording has been adjusted thusly. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"light attack or multi-role tasks" - not a problem per se, but this looks slightly awkward. Perhaps replacing "tasks" with "missions"?
"referred to commonly as the "Harrier Jump Jet"" - while the page is at Harrier Jump Jet, the Harrier itself is referred to as just "Jump Jet" by most people - maybe it should be changed to read that?
"replaced by the under-development V/STOL Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II" - suggest changing to "replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, currently under development" - it being V/STOL would only be mentionable if it wasn't, IMHO. And we'll leave my personal opinion of Dave-B out of this. ;)
Suggest the first dash in the "Using knowledge gleaned..." sentence be moved to immediately after "AV-16 development" - that might make the line look better.
Great work here, Bushranger, and it's a huge help. I'm reading your comments (but usually not the text, yet) ... I see your point here, but WP:DASH rears its ugly head ... since there wouldn't be any commas in the sentence after your fix, DASH says to swap those two em-dashes in for commas, and various style guides agree. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"compared with conventional carrier aircraft" - suggest "compared with conventional carrier-based aircraft"
Sentence is "The Navy declined to participate in the procurement, citing the limited range and payload compared with conventional carrier aircraft." ... Would we lose anything important if we dropped the "compared with conventional carrier aircraft"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comparison of armaments between the AV-8B and the BAe Harrier II - didn't the British aircraft use the 30mm ADEN cannon? Might be worth mentioning as an additional difference.
"increasing lift-to-drag ratio" - perhaps should include "the wing's"
"allows a 6,700 pound..." this is slightly awkward to my eye; perhaps "allows for a..."? Also, allows a 6,700 pound increase in payload etc. as compared to what? Presumably the original AV-8A, but this probably should be clarified.
This is a little obscure, but most style guides prefer "compared with", unless you're favorably comparing just one aspect. Garner's gives something like: "He compared her eyes to limpid pools." - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"over the original Harrier" - perhaps "compared to the..."?
"The technological advances incorporated into the Harrier II, over the original Harrier, significantly reduce the workload on the pilot.": If it's easier to fly, I think "technological advances" can be assumed, so maybe: "The Harrier II is significantly less demanding to fly than the Harrier." - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) (P.S. I could be wrong here, depending on what you want to emphasize ... now that I read the text, you could probably combine this sentence with the next.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tech advances have been more about making it easier on the pilot to strike a target. The main Harrier versions have a crew of one. Trainer versions are the only 2-crew versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"OPEVAL tests identified a number of shortfalls in the design, many of which had since been rectified" - slightly unclear here, had they been rectified in aircraft already being built as OPEVAL was undergoing?
"in the 1999 Operation Allied Force during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia" - suggest "in 1999, during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in Operation Allied Force"
"operating from the unit's ships off the coast" - well, I'd hope they weren't grounded. ;) Seriously though, "off the coast" was just used in the previous sentence, is it needed here too?
The line about calls for AC-130s is slightly abrupt, seeing as up till now the Marines have been singing the Harrier's praises. Perhaps add "Despite the Harrier's high marks," just before "the limited amount of time"?
"in support of the on-going Operation Odyssey Dawn" - suggest removing "on-going", it's not especially relevant and will avoid the article's becoming dated later.
"The unit originally planned to operate the aircraft first was..." - suggest "It was originally planned that the first unit to operate the aircraft would be..."
Tripartie MoU - who were the three parties? Why did they need a MoU? Perhaps this should be redlinked or linked to a stub article (if you have time to whip one up, no worries if not)?
"the Cavour", "operating from the Garibaldi" - this might just be personal preference, but IIRC as a rule putting "the" before ship names is discouraged.
Support - I don't normally participate in FAC, but I've spent a good portion of the last couple weeks checking the print references on this article. Between the books I own and the ones that I have found at the library, I am confident that the article is accurate. Overall, I am satisfied that it has met FAC criteria. Trusilver03:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But still have a few comments, all minor:
Introduce the abbreviations RAF and USMC when they first appear in the Origins paragraph
Why do you say "Pegasus engine" instead of "Rolls-Royce Pegasus"? As it is called/linked in the Design section?
Link A-4 Skyhawk
Link the Harrier here too, instead of way, way down in "design"
You introduce the abbreviation DoD on the second use of Department of Defense. Should be the first time.
Meanwhile, 75% work-share for the engine went to Rolls-Royce, which had absorbed Bristol Siddeley, with the rest taken up by Pratt & Whitney The rest of the work-share, or Bristol-Siddeley?
Who are MDD?
Why do we have For Royal Air Force and Royal Navy operations, see British Aerospace Harrier II ? Couldn't we have a summary here? (Might as well take it all, as it is only one paragraph worth anyway.)
Why isn't Lieutenant General Earl B. Hailston linked? Could it have something to do with his name being misspelled?
Who is James Amosfor? Don't you mean General James F. Amos?
I have minimal familiarity with aerospace engineering, so my questions are likely to be less technical. I'll be adding my thoughts/questions one at a time.--~TPW20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Origins, third paragraph: footnote 7 is cited twice in one sentence. Is that really necessary?
Same paragraph: is the note about the McDonnell-Douglas project being expensive relevant? If so, could you lay out why?
Designing and testing: first paragraph, the sentence "The USMC planned to order 336 aircraft at this time." Should be "that time" to agree with tense. (Sidenote: I didn't make this rather minor change because I don't know if it's appropriate to edit and review an article, but it would have taken me less time to change it than write this.)
Overview: " The Harrier II was the first combat aircraft to employ composite materials extensively; they are used on the wings, rudder, flaps, nose, forward fuselage and empennage." Does one of the print sources support the assertion that this was the first combat aircraft to use composites this extensively? This seems like a good place for a footnote.
"vertical/short": technically, a WP:SLASH violation, but I think the ubiquitous slash in the acronym makes it okay.
"After mergers in the 1990s, Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly supported the program.": If they're both still supporting the program, and you expect they will for several more years at least, then change "After" to "Since". Otherwise, remove "have".
After looking at the comments below and seeing the back-and-forth in the edit history, there's too much to do here, sorry. I'll take another look at aviation articles in general in December, when I've got more time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Phil, I'm sorry about the apparent confusion, I've only responded to Bushranger's points above, and I've copyedited the lead and part of the first subsection. There's too much to do here and I'm not going to have much time to spare until December. If it helps ... ship articles, which are similar in some ways, had problems at FAC for a long time before the copyeditors and writers were able to exhange enough information to comply with FAC standards ... and now, with a little help, ship articles sail through FAC (haha). We'll get there eventually with aviation articles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went to random spotcheck one paragraph in the middle of the article (Operational history), and found the usual prose concerns (I do wish the aircraft folk would get some collaborative copyeditors on board who aren't familiar with aircraft lingo/jargon). Some of this may be the result of my lack of MilHist knowledge, but then, that would be true of general readers as well:
"To prepare for USMC service, the AV-8B underwent rigorous evaluations. ... " Don't all aircraft preparing for military service undergo "rigorous" evaluations? Does the source say these evaluations were particularly rigourous, more so than other aircraft? If so, why? If not, why is that word included?
" ... fly close and deep air support missions in concert with other close air support aircraft, battlefield interdiction, and armed reconnaissance missions." I don't know what it means to "fly air support missions in concern with battlefield interdiction and reconnaissance missions" ... those seem to be very different things mixed in one sentence ... perhaps this is my lack of milhist knowledge, but I don't know what this sentence is trying to say.
In addition to the extra wikilink added by Phil, I've added ", as well as flying" (and removed a comma later in the sentence) to further clarify this. I'm not convinced this is actually necessary or an improvement, but if the sentence is (apparently) incomprehensible in its existing form then I suppose it's needed. Close air support and reconnaissance were already wikilinked earlier in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" ... Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and NAS China Lake ... NAS, undefined acronym, requiring reader to click on link ALso, CFB and MCAS, please check acronyms throughout the article.
" .. required the AV-8B to provide fighter escort, combat air patrol, and deck-launched intercept missions ... " Another example of what looks like mixed tenses, or else I can't figure out what it's trying to say. How does one "provide" those three?
There will unavoidably be jargon - that's the nature of the beast. We're supposed to assume competence and assume clue in our editors; the same should go for our readers. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, nor should it be. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's not be determined to assume too much. I'm quite happy to assume that the ordinary educated reader will realise that "NAS China Lake" is the name of a base or facility, and will be happy to click the link if they want to know more about the precise nature of the facility - since using the full name instead of the acronym (which I assume is what's meant by "defining the acronym") doesn't actually leave the reader any better informed anyway. However, it now occurs to me that since there's no good reason not to use the name in full instead of the acronym, why not do so? (And Fnlayson has already done so.) Equally, combat air patrolshould have been wikilinked (and I just have), since it's a specific type of mission whose nature is far from obvious to the layman (it does not involve flying around carrying bombs and then dropping them on targets that are encountered while patrolling). There may be others of these concerns that are equally valid, and the rest need discussion or explanation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I understand all the words in the article. I also think it is unfortunately not written to FA standard, hence my oppose above. --John (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, almost every point is about grammar and mixing tenses-- the exception is the lack of defined acronyms, and Dank acknowledged there was too much work for him to get to. The discussion of the clear breach of WP:ALSO is at the talk page of the Aviation Wikiproject. This has long been a problem with aviation articles, so I'll move to oppose now, since See also should be minimized in Featured articles, although there are sometimes lengthy in undeveloped articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also needs attention to either original research or citations needed.
If those are "similar aircraft", where is the citation, the discussion in text, and similar based on what? Both Wikipedia's style guide, and the Aviation WikiProject style guide, encourage the incorporation of See also into the article text; in this case, we have a claim that certain aircraft are "similar" that is covered nowhere in the text, might be irrelevant, is certainly uncited, and may be inaccurate. It's not clear why this is included, and whether that info is even necessary or useful in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That particular template is standard for every WP:AIR article that includes a "See Also" section - Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also explicitly reccomends the use of it.. And it's not supposed to be referenced, nor have the aircraft listed discussed in the text. It's not, technically, part of the article, rather, more like a "for similar aircraft, see..." section at the end of a regular encyclopedia article. See, for instance, Boeing 747#See also, McDonnell XF-85 Goblin#See also, Northrop YF-23#See also - all FAs, two very recently passed, not a peep about "See also" - you didn't have an issue with the "See Also" section in the YF-23 article when you reviewed it at the end of August. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: we don't require citations in navboxes, do we? Or for categories? The "See Also" section is the same type of reader aid. (And, as Phil points out above, WP:SEEALSO says "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." - not that it has to be stated in the text or referenced). - The BushrangerOne ping only04:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by the "see also concerns laid out, so I'm pasting directly from WP:SEEALSO to make sure we're on the same page:
Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:
Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section . . ."
I think it's clear that anything listed in the "see also" section should specifically not be linked in the text. On the other hand, maybe it's not unreasonable to provide a brief annotation on some of these per the MOS quoted above. And if everything in the section "would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article," then maybe this section in general shouldn't be very long in a featured article. I'm deriving that view solely from the MOS, and I don't have any opinion either way.--~TPW11:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the prose itself, my entire professional life is stripping out jargon and acronyms, or making same understandable to non-specialists. My military history background is comprised of what my Air Force father mentioned in passing when I was a kid - more than nothing, but just barely. I thought the use and explanation of acronyms and terminology was as easy to follow as can be expected, and I commend a job well done.--~TPW11:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2:
^ Aviation author Norman Polmar claimed the IOC of the AV-8B to be January 1985.[74]
Why "claimed" (why not "stated" or "said")? See WP:CLAIM; it's right to note this, but shouldn't doubts about Polmar's credibility be left to the reader? Or can we inform the reader, based on the source, why Polmar and Nordeen disagree on the date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but it's still unclear why our article gives preference to one account over the other, or what may have led to the discrepecancy. Why do we cite one author and footnote the other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd presume it's because the majority of sources give the date given in the main article (with just one selected to be featured as the given source), with Polmar being a notable dissenting opinion. - The BushrangerOne ping only18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and recuse, per unresolved prose issues and general copyedit needs (grammar, not vocabulary, which is not at all hard to follow but which doesn't mean we don't define acronyms for laypersons) and breach of WP:ALSO (see ongoing discussion at Aviation WikiProject talk page; [8] what may be included "See also" in undeveloped articles is not appropriate, in this case, for a Featured Article.] Besides that Wikipedia's guidelines discourge this kind of linking in "See also", the Aviation takes it a step further, by making a "claim" in the See also section ("Comparable aircraft"), without informing readers why the aircraft are comparable or discussing this in the text (if this "comparable" issue is worth mentioning, for the article to be comprehensive, it should be in text, and cited-- instead, we leave the reader guessing. For the purpose of grouping like articles, we have navboxes and categories-- in Aviation articles, instead, we have original research, and opinion. This may work for undeveloped articles, but an FA should explain why these aircraft are comparable, cited the text, and make the article comprehesive, or leave it out of See also altogether. Is the article comprehensive or isn't it? Do FAs have to meet crit. 2 or don't they? We have a Wiki-wide guideline about See also, and while a good deal of MOS is trivial and doesn't affect readers, this particular breach of MOS does misguide and affect readers-- it's not just a misplaced dash or space, it's content-related (see discussion and examples on Aviation Project), and has no place in an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you had no problem with the YF-23 article's "See Also" section when you commented on its FAC two months ago. Why is there a problem now? And why are you arguing against the Manual of Style (WP:SEEALSO)? Quoting: whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation Project has long breached MOS-- it's always been a problem, and y'all even acknowledge it at the talk page discussion-- that you've decided not to address it even after acknowledging it is a new problem. As to common sense, common sense tells me we don't send readers of an FA on wild goose chases, trying to guess why the aircraft are "comparable". IF they are, and it's worth mentioning, add it to the text and cite it-- tell us why they're comparable. And please engage some independent copyeditors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that, of the 3,776,525 articles on Wikipedia, I have yet to see any with references in their "See also" section, including a quick scan of FAs from the well-run MILHIST project, singling out the aircraft project seems a little odd. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is odd is that you don't see the difference between most article's "See also" sections, and Aviation articles "See also" sections. Aviation makes a claim (that aircraft are comparable). One that is unclear and unjustified to the reader, inclusion criteria are not explained, and it is not sourced to anything-- in other words, it's original research. For that purpose, y'all should be using navboxes or categories. What else would you like answered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. From WP:AIRMOS. Inclusion criteria, clearly explained. And you still haven't answered the question: why was See Also not a problem in your review of the YF-23 FAC, but is a problem now, two months later? - The BushrangerOne ping only04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you want our readers to know how to search out an obscure guideline to understand why some Wikipedia editor considers (original research, uncited, author opinion, as seen by the numerous links you had to delete from the Zero article) one aircraft comparable to another? Aviation breaches of MOS have always been a problem-- the Zero article problems just made it even more clear that this is not a good practice-- and most certainly not in an FA. In an FA, if an article makes a claim that aircraft are of a similar role, era, and capability, and that is worth mentioning, it should be in text and cited. Otherwise, it's editor opinion, subject to the numerous differences and edit wars and cruft that is already discussed at the Aviation Project talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume clue on the part of our readers, and therefore that they'll use their own common sense to know that a 'comparable aircraft' means 'comparable in mission and era'. Requiring referencing won't stop the fanboys and vandals. And since it's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other of our position, that's all I have to say here. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after significant work on this article, seeing it through tortuous ways, it is finally ready to take on the final test, the featured article candidacy. I personally feel that it meets criterion 1b, c, e, 2, 3 and 4. I will leave you to review its conformity to criterion 1a and d. WikiCopter01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken with the author (via email) and he says he used multiple books and magazines. If that doesn't satisfy you, I can remove the data table with the citation... WikiCopter23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check for minor formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
This is awkward: pilot would have been required to have executed a glide without power to the ground Wouldn't a better phrasing be: pilot would have then glided to a landing on under-belly skids or somesuch? Gliding is by definition unpowered. And the whole bit about executed a glide is cumbersome.
clarified
Better, though I still think that "unpowered" is redundant.
frontal cross section possible in order to increase its chances
done
Avoid nominalizations like requiring the pilot. Use, rather, "and required"
not sure what you mean... did what I could
I'd suggest combining these sentences to increase the reability: possible to increase its chances of surviving shots from the front. This also forced the pilot to lie in a prone position.
Either explain this further or delete it entirely: Parasite aircraft were unusual for aviation. And it's rather oddly phrased as well.
killed off
I doubt that the Germans called each version by the English term "Mark". They probably just used I, II, and III for the different versions. Explain the German nomenclature more precisely.
This was brought up before in some review (I forgot which :P easy with so many hanging around). The German term can very possibly be translated into "Mark".
IIRC, the German term in this case is "Baureihe", and "Mark" is a good translation for that. However, Sturm has a point, that if the Germans call it "E.381-III" etc., that's probably easy enough to understand without inserting a "Mark", since "Baureihe" wasn't there. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first comma in The E.381 was cancelled...
fixed
And fixed the capitalization of the designation for the mother aircraft.
done
You changed tenses from the rest of the paragraph here: The pilot would lie in a prone position in
fixed (I hope)
You've changed this to future tense in a paragraph that's past tense: The pilot would have been in a prone position Change the verb (only) to past tense to fix this.
This is awkward: On top of the fuselage at the wing mounts the aircraft had a blister for a single MK 108
done
Still awkward. How about Above the wing roots, a MK 108 cannon was mounted in a dorsal blister. then add the bit about its ammo in a separate sentence.
Judging by the cross-section, the rocket engine is better described as in the rear fuselage rather than under the tail boom, which is at the extreme rear of the fuselage. Same for the drogue parachute.
fixed
This is awkward: As pilots could only enter from a hatch above the cockpit, the pilot would have had to enter the E.381
done
Slightly better, but the problem is that pilots is used twice in close proximity. How about something that begins with: As the cockpit was only accessible from a hatch above it, ...?
You provide the thrust rating for the A-2 model, but what about the B model used in "I"?
I missed this before, but this sentence needs a verb: The first design, the Mark I, a fuselage with a circular cross section and a small round window in the nose for pilot vision. as well as some rewriting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It looks like neither the nom nor anyone else has time to respond to reviewer comments. Best to wait and bring this back to FAC after the various comments have been responded to. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Arado_234%2B381_parasite_aircraft.jpg: who holds copyright to this image?
Some items in the lead like the bit about cross-section dont appear in the main body.
Lead - Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been may be better as The Arado E.381 was to have been..
The first sentence is a bit lumpy and I am not sure Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany sounds right.
Lead - Each of three proposed design variants is the first mention of variants may be better worded.
Development - the interceptor was designed is the first use of the term interceptor it was not used in the lead and is not used again.
Development - carried on another aircraft may be better as carried under or carried by.
Arado E.381/1 - The aircraft's had straight wings mounted at the top of the aircraft doesnt make sense
Arado E.381/1 - The first design, the Mark I, a fuselage with a circular needs tweaking probably had a fuselage or similar.
Arado E.381/1 - The landing skid was retractable, and landing required.. although true the sentence is about landing so it may be better to say the To land the retractable landing gear was extended and a drogue parachute deployed.
Arado E.381/II - should 16ft 3in (4.95m) be the other way round, metric first.
All tweaked. Would appreciate if somebody read through the article and listed all the prose problems. RL is really catching up with me, and I have no time to spend here... As for your last point, I rounded up the meter figure (makes sense that the Germans used 5 meters instead of 4.95????? meters, right?).
After all most three weeks at FAC, this doesn't look ready. There was repetitive prose in the lead, the WP:LEAD is underdeveloped, and on first glance at a random section, I found a typo:
The second design, the Mark II was very similar to the Mark I, aside from being larger and having smaller fins[1] The variant was planned ...
Percy LeSueur was an ice hockey goaltender from the early days of the sport. He played for a small-town team against in a Stanley Cup challenge series against then-holders, Ottawa. One of the better teams in its era, Ottawa was so impressed by his play that he was playing for them nine days after his original team had lost their challenge match. As regards the article, I feel that despite being a bit on the short side, it is a well-written, thorough account of the man and his sixty years dedicated to the game of hockey, and consequently deserves FA status. Maxim(talk)20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Quite a few things for an article of relatively short length, It's a little concerning...
"In addition to serving as the team's goaltender, he was served as captain...". Don't think the "was" is proper here.
Ottawa: I see "Challenge match" and "Challenge match" here, revealing some inconsistencies in the capitalization that should be resolved.
"Having appeared in all of Ottawa's games in both season". "season" → "seasons"?
"LeSueur led the league in the wins in the seasons the team won the Stanley Cup". Second "the" doesn't seem that helpful.
Toronto: "as fellow future Hall-of-Fame Clint Benedict had taken the goaltender's job in Ottawa." The "Hall-of-Fame" needs an r at the end, and I'm not sure about the hyphens.
"In Stanley Cup play, LeSueur has a 7–2". Feels like it's missing something at the end. Perhaps "LeSueur had a 7–2 record" was the intention.
"In both of his seasons, he had a losing record." Does the "both" refer to two seasons in Toronto, or did he play two seasons for the Blueshirts? The text is unclear on that.
"the" would be nice in "After conclusion of the season".
Post-war: "His first job with after retiring from play was as an NHL referee." The "with" is hurting the flow of this sentence.
Personal life: "and teammate Cyclone Taylor on the 1909 Stanley Cup-winning Senators team". Not a big deal, but I think a more logical order would be "and Cyclone Taylor, a teammate on the 1909 Stanley Cup-winning Senators team".
Fixed all of the issues you listed, and then found and fixed a few more. I'm prone to skip over words when writing (or forget to remove a word), so I know what to look for. I fixed a bunch before FAC but obviously I had missed some of these glitches. The Toronto section was a trainwreck by itself; I don't know what happened there. :( Finally, for your point about "In both of his seasons, he had a losing record", I'm trying to say that he played one season for the Shamrocks, and one season for the Blueshirts; in each of the seasons in Toronto, he had a losing record. I've put "During his two seasons in Toronto, he had a losing record each year.", but it still sounds off to me... do you have any better ideas? I've tried a bunch of other ways but that was the best and I'm still not completely happy with it. Maxim(talk)15:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Although a good piece of work and fairly comprehensive, I don't think this is quite there yet. I have just looked at the lead and first section and found several issues, mainly with the prose which is not FA quality yet. A quick glance through the rest of the article reveals many similar problems and these should be sorted out. I notice that this article has not gone through PR or even GAN; while this is not a requirement of a FA, it is usually helpful to have the eyes of as many editors as possible before FA, so that it is not only the primary editor who has checked it and these kinds of problems can be ironed out. I am opposing for the moment and these are examples only from the lead and first section; the rest of the article should be checked thoroughly, preferably by another pair of eyes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He was noticed by the Ottawa Hockey Club in a Stanley Cup challenge match, in which he had played for the challenger, the Smiths Falls Seniors." Noticed is ambigious and the sentence is a little clunky; maybe "His performances for the Smiths Falls Seniors in a Stanley Cup challenge match attracted the attention of his opponents, the Ottowa Hockey Club."
"While his team lost the series, LeSueur was credited with keeping the games close, and nine days after his team's defeat, he was playing for Ottawa in a challenge match against the Montreal Wanderers." Clunky again and close repetition of "team": "Although his team lost the series, LeSueuer excelled in goal, keeping the games close. Nine days after the defeat, he had moved to Ottawa."
"He remained with Ottawa through the 1913–14 season. In addition to being the goaltender, he also captained the team for his three final seasons, and served as player-coach for his last season with Ottawa." Choppy, close repetition.
Second paragraph of the lead is very choppy with a succession of apparently unrelated facts.
Throughout the lead, the sentence structure is repetitive with too many sentences beginning with a noun, pronoun or simple prepositional phrase: "He…While…He…In addition…LeSueur…After…After…He…As…During…He…LeSueur." This should be looked at.
"he played amateur hockey with the hometown Victorias, Crescent Intermediates, and the Seniors." Who or what are these teams. What does "the hometown" mean? Is it the name of the team, or does it signify that Victoria were his hometown team? Intermediates and Seniors implies progression through a team, but this is not explained or clarified. Can any of this be linked? Seniors is redlinked in the following sentence, so why are the others not linked?
Given that he apparently moved from the wing to play in goal, why not mention that he played wing for his first teams?
"…he moved to Smiths Falls, Ontario, to play for the Seniors. In Smiths Falls…" Close repetition of Smiths Falls.
How did LeSueur perform for these teams?
"In March 1906, the Seniors issued a challenge for the Stanley Cup to the Ottawa Silver Seven." Context? Were the Seniors such a good team as to compete for the Stanley Cup? What kind of level did they play? Why was the challenge issued and why to that team?
"In the two-game, total goals series played…" Could this be explained for the non-specialist? Also, it is uncomfortable prose.
"Despite surrendering 14 goals during the match, LeSueur's work in net was noticed." Surrendering seems the wrong choice of word for an encyclopedia, and "noticed" is ambiguous unless it is changed to "good work". Noticed by who? Critics? Opponents? Journalists?
"he had held the first game close": Sporting shorthand is not really the best style. What about "His performance had kept his team in contention in the first game"?
I also notice that there is very little about his early life or upbringing; this should be expanded if possible but I appreciate the material may not exist. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having a look through. These are the best for covering the facts included within the article. Most are for the separate sports clubs in Ickenham, but others are for organisations who have produced the most detailed histories of themselves available. Harrison49 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is yet the finished article. One example: the Transport section is four very short paragraphs. And another: the Education section tells us that the library was closed for a year for refurbishment. What has that to do with Education (as opposed to public services) and why is it worthy of note in an encyclopedia article? MalleusFatuorum01:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, Middlesex is my first featured article nomination. Prior to my first edit to the article on 1 February 2010, the article looked like this. Since then, I've made over 450 edits to the article.
Without the guidance of the seven above editors, I am certain I would not have had the confidence to nominate Middlesex at FAC. Their collective experience with the FAC process, prose, and references have taught me much about writing and researching articles.
Thank you for the source review. I have added locations to the references, fixed the inconsistent italicization, and standardized the naming of the Salon references. I will address the other issues later.
Would you clarify what you mean by "Bibliography formatting should match that used for complete citations in footnotes" by providing an example of an inconsistency between the two? I don't know what you mean. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 34: I've fixed the reference to show the publisher.
I've fixed Salon as I mentioned above.
I've added the month for Book Magazine
I've fixed the double periods.
For FN 86, I've added a period. The source does not give a page number for FN 95.
Okay. Inconsistencies remain in the citations as to when you provide publisher and location information - check please. Check formatting on FN 35, 97, 146. Some italicization issues remain - for example, according to our article on the subject, Book Magazine, not Book Magazine, is correct. As for bibliography/citations: for the most part, your magazine citations provide both location and publisher; your magazine bibliography entries mostly do neither. Also, in citations you spell out or omit state names, whereas in bibliography you abbreviate them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I omit the "publisher" parameter for newspapers. When the publisher of a journal is an individual person instead of a company (such as the London Review of Books), I omit the "publisher" parameter as suggested at Template:Cite news. I include the publisher parameter for journals, books, and university publications. For the journal The New Republic, I was unable to find a publisher.
I fixed the formatting of FN 35, 97, and 146. I revised the wording of Book Magazine to Book because the article and its sources generally call it Book.
Comment: These remarks are not on the basis of a complete review. I have read the lead and the first couple of sections and taken a general look. These points may be indicative of other issues requiring attention.
A few prose matters
"evasive historical figure": I think you mean "elusive"
"Set in the aftermath of the 1922 Greco-Turkish War and amid graphic scenes of the Great Fire of Smyrna, the siblings are forced to seek refuge by emigrating to America." The word "set" should be removed, otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense.
Another sentence which is put very oddly is "Praising MacDowell Colony for its settling solitude and quiet, which Eugenides felt fostered productivity, he traveled to the New Hampshire art colony to write Middlesex". This needs rephrasing. Then, it is followed by "It took Eugenides nine years to write the novel." Does this mean he stayed in the colony for nine years?
General prose style: There is a tendency to begin rather too many sentences with the "ing" verb form – "Praising..." (see above), then "Discussing...", "Believing...", "Researching..." etc. Sometimes this works, but generally it doesn't, and overuse of the form can be tedious to the reader.
Couple of general points
For consideration: try reversing the order of the second and third paragraphs of the lead. To me, that reads better.
Structure: "Background and publication" seems an odd combination of topics for a section, particularly as the only publication information given is date and publisher's name. I notice other structural oddities in the article; for example, why are "Genres" and "Criticism" included as subsections of "Style"?
Reworded to say he began writing Middlesex at the colony. He did not stay there for nine years.
I've fixed the "ing" verb forms you've pointed out. I will check the rest of the article later for more "ing" forms.
I've revised one more instance of the "ing" verb form. The rest do not have the convoluted form you noted above ("Praising MacDowell Colony for its settling solitude and quiet, which Eugenides felt fostered productivity, he traveled to the New Hampshire art colony to write Middlesex.") They are sufficiently spread out in the article so that the reader will not be overwhelmed. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed the order of the second and third paragraphs of the lead.
I've removed "publication" from the header. "Genre" was included as a subsection under style because I based Middlesex's structure on To Kill a Mockingbird's. Genres of a novel are based on a set of stylistic criteria (from Genre), so I believe "Genre" fits under the "Style" section.
The "Criticism" subsection consists of reviewers and scholars critiquing Eugenides' style of writing ("uneven throughout", "verbose voluptuousness", "footloose", having a "preachy and nervous" tone). Cunard (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments:
You have dealt with most of my minor points, though there are still a few dodgy "...ing" beginnings to sentences. I suggest you check out "Flashing...", "Depicting..." and "Participating..."
Your response to my point that "Background" and "Publication" were an odd combination in a single section was to change the section title. Do you propose to give no other publication details? A summary of the book's publishing history (number of editions, overseas publications, translations, paperback rights, etc) would be helpful, within a subsection of its own, perhaps.
I still have some problems in following the logic of the article's structure. For example, it is confusing to have "Criticism" and "Critical reception" as subsections of two different sections. And I don't understand why "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" comes under "Style", while "Incest and intersexuality" appears under "Themes". The organisation of To Kill a Mockingbird, I have to say, looks a liitle tidier. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the "...ing" beginnings to the sentences.
I have added a section about the book's publication history.
The "Criticism" subsection of "Style" is meant to be a summary of the critiques of Eugenides' writing style in Middlesex.
The "Critical reception" subsection of "Reception" is meant to be a holistic review of the book: It details the skill with which Eugenides discusses gender issues and Detroit and the deficiencies in the scope and structure of the novel. It explains how critics have called Middlesex a "Great American Novel" and contrasts it with Eugenides' debut novel, The Virgin Suicides.
The two subsections are about two distinct topics.
What do you suggest I do with this subsection? I can think of five options: (i) remove the subsection header and place the content under the section "Style"; (ii) move it to the "Critical reception" section; (iii) leave it as is; (iv) retitle the subsection header to something like "Criticism of writing style"; and (iv) delete it.
I placed "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" in the style section because it pertains to Eugenides' writing style: of why he chose in some cases to use the word "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". I am open to suggestions about restructuring the content in this subsection but believe it falls under the style section.
The "Incest and intersexuality" subsection of "Themes" discusses how incest led to the birth of an intersex and the societal implications of correlating the two. A scholar and an intersex activist wrote about the message, or the theme, the book is giving readers: Intersexuality results from incest.
Although I believe the article's structure is sensible and accurate, if there is a better way of structuring the article, feel free to propose how you would do so. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I gave a favorable opinion at the article's peer review, but I agree with Brian's comments on the placement of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" under "Style"; the choice of a word does not seem to reflect the style of writing for the book. Re-reading the sections and bits of the article, I think the contents of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" can be reworked into "Gender identity". Jappalang (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My justification for including "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" under "Style" is that Eugenides' word choice represents a stylistic decision he has made. Your suggestion is a good resolution to the issue, so I have revised the article accordingly. Cunard (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for FAC simply because I think it meets the criteria. This is the second nomination as I had to close the first one due to my extended leave. This time I'm here to stay, so please review and help reach consensus :) Thanks everyone! CallMeNathan • Talk2Me05:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Gear-Live. As for Contactmusic, its an entertainment website. I removed it in two instances, and left it for a few. All it is currently referencing is the location of the 2005 VMAs and a list of nominations. I see no issue in using a popular UK based entertainment website to source these statements. I would understand if they were sales claims etc, but this is simply media information. If you still require its removal, I'll happily oblige.
Check italicization, for example in FN 29
Stylus Magazine is an online magazine (not printed), therefore it should not be italicized.
Comment. Forgive me, but I do believe that nomination was a bit premature. I had initially planned to raise a concern about the article, but did not realize that the FAC would come this soon. For such a massive record that all but redefined the singer's career, there is limited information about the actual writing process/studio sessions that produced the songs: there's only one paragraph, and it discusses only her collaboration with Dupri. I went ahead and researched, and was able to come up with this (you're probably going to have to search for the original document from which it was copied). At least we gain some insight into the thought processes behind the writing and recording sessions. Orane(talk)17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I found this. If I'm not mistaken, the writing and recording section is an older version of this Wikipedia article. See if you can reclaim some of the text, and source and incorporate it here, and the section will be perfect. Orane(talk)17:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me Orane, I have been aware of that information on the older versions of the article. Unfortunately, have not been able to find any references that support these sessions etc. So, unfortunately, I cannot add any further detail of the albums recording. Know this, I took a lot of time into researching this, so understand that the article is about as complete as it can be. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck:
ref #1[14] does not support the quotation: "I had worked myself very very hard for many many years and I never took a break, and last year, I had just become very very exhausted and ended up just not really in a good place physically and emotionally. I learned a little more about how to work hard but also how to be healthy and take care of myself, and now, in general, in my life, I'm in a really good, happy place." If it is behind a paywall, you should use the Format=Subscription required parameter.
ref #6[16] does not support the statement: "During her five-month stay, she began writing and producing material for a new studio album, using some of the experiences she had gone through in recent months as themes for the albums material."
ref #13[17] doesn't support the statement: "The Emancipation of Mimi was described by Carey as her most most expressive album to that point; in her words, it signified her creative freedom, as she was oppressed by the expectations of record executives in the past" It does ay "It's also a slap in the face to the Virgin boys who didn't have the guts to stick with the singer when times got tough." which is not quite the same thig.
The issues remain unaddressed since its last FAC. To mention one, there are far too much information about the promotion section which actually is just a listing of live performances Carey had during that period. Aside from its trivial and fancrufty importance, most of them do not bear significance at all, just mere live performances which many artists do within the "promotional campaign period" for their newly released album. What makes this significant? "The following week, she performed "We Belong Together" at the 2005 BET Awards, with an additional appearance at the annual VH1 Save the Music special, filmed live on April 17 at the Beacon Theatre.[64][65][66][67]" And supported by four inline citations? How can that be justified? --Efe (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I don't think the article needs to mention every live performance of the singer for year-long duration of the album's promotion. Ín fact, I disagree that the information in this section is appropriate. We need to be reading about Carey's promotional campaign: live performances are a must, but we need to hear about what Carey or the record company was thinking during the weeks leading up to the release, as well as after the release (the promotional slogan "the return of the voice"; the idea of bringing her back to her roots; etc etc). If you decide to avoid this route, that's fine. But it's just a thought.
Also, a sentence in the "promotion" section reads "Following the tragic events involving Hurricane Katrina ... she was featured as a headlining performer at the Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast concert charity benefit..." I doubt Carey was trying to promote the album at this event, and its mention in this section gives the impression that she was using the tragedy of the hurricane to promote/sell the album (an impression made clearer by the fact that you even included viewership numbers about the program!). Orane(talk)05:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... the article has improved massively in the past two months and I have worked really hard on it for it to keep its green icon (even though it was far from it when I started editing the article). So, it has been through Good Article Reassessment, where multiple editors were involved with giving feedback and comments on how to improve the article. It has also been copy-edited by a GOCE editor. Thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By quick scanning the article, it is littered with typos in the lead alone. [22]. What is corture? Please go over the article at once! --Efe (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - re:ellipses on quotes, see WP:ELLIPSIS, which sayeth: "Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation, unless square brackets are used to gloss the quotation ... ". I admit I didn't put the spaces in correctly. I'll correct this v. soon. But not tonight. I deliberately left 'corture', 'militant horns' etc. - IDK what they mean either. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read that page, but it doesn't justify things like "...sexy". Material is not being omitted from the course of the quotation, as in "very...sexy", and it is implicit that the entire source is not included in the quote, so the initial ellipsis is redundant and unnecessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done all Nikki. And with regard to About.com, I saw you told Jivesh that if usage is keep to bare minimum (there is only one case of About.com in the article) then it is allowed? :P Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, Nikkimaria; I'm now de-quoting single-word quotes as I find them - I think they're rather pointless. I thought you'd meant that no quotes should have ellipsis points. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a song that makes no mention whatsoever of what the song's lyrics are actually about. What is Rihanna singing about? What/who is "hard"? Orane(talk)06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that Rihanna nor the writers or producers have ever elaborated upon the lyrical meaning. To be honest, I don't even know the meaning or how to interpret it. I'd make a guess at it showing how strong she is perhaps? With regard to her assault. But other than that, I have no idea. And the video doesn't give anything away either, as I'm pretty sure it's not about her wanting to join the army. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!10:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's already in the article. And it doesn't haven't anything to do with what the song means. The reviewer is simply saying that Rihanna adopts Jay's vocal stylisation in that line. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!13:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, if one word describes how Rated R sounds, quite another encapsulates what it's about. Rihanna is all posture and swagger here, alternately presenting herself as "the hottest bitch in heels", a "gangster for life" and a gun-toting, grenade-pitching soldier. On 'Hard' she offers this as a terse CV summary: "Brilliant, resilient, fanmail from 27 million."
" "Hard" was Rihanna's thirteenth top-ten single on the Hot 100; making Rihanna, together with American R&B recording artist Beyoncé Knowles, the female artist with the most US top ten hits since 2000 " — Improper use of semi-colon.
" The video's theme is one of "couture-military," with Rihanna commanding an army, and wearing several army inspired outfits. " — Unsourced quote, and do not link inside quotes, per MOS:QUOTE.
An NBSP (non-breaking space) is a script kind of thing (sorry, I'm no computer expert) placed where a black space would go, and still leave a white space, but would not get disrupted when moving to the next line. See the link for a clearer explanation and click the edit button on Love the Way You Lie to see how it's done and find a date in it. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's invisible, but actually, it prevents the group of words/numbers to be broken to start a new line, preventing it from looking confusing. Don't argue with the all knowing Manual of style! :) —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FACR wants compliance with the entire MOS. You use it inside dates, times [ex. 2:30(nbsp)pm], "number(nbsp)one", and number+unit of measurement (ex. 14(nbsp)kg). —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Avoid beginning multiple consecutive sentences with the same word.
Saying "He said, 'I like Rihanna.'", looks confusing because you have an apostrophe next to a quotation, which looks like three apostrophes. Instead, He said, I like Rihanna.{{' "}} produces He said, 'I like Rihanna.'"
" It was the first Rihanna video directed by Matsoukas, who directed " → " It was the first video Matsoukas directed for Rihanna; Matsoukas would direct "
Saying "Matsoukas would direct others including Rated R' singles, "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101"." doesn't make sense, it sounds like she would like to do it. I will re-phrase your suggestion. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
" Rihanna wears a high-waisted black bikini, waving a large black flag with a white "R" in the middle, the same logo used on the album cover for Rated R and the single's artwork. : — Source?
No, but it's a standard among song articles. Plus, you won't have to repeatedly mention Stewart and Nash. It is much more organized, and organization is necessary for FA standards. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]13:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite FA quality yet, as the prose needs tweaking and reads a bit sloppy in some areas. Images and media look good, and so do sources. I also noticed your heavy use of Noun plus -ing, and we have discussed this in WYT and S&M. Will I ever change to "Support"? The answer is 'of course' and when I feel that you have addressed issues raised by me and fellow reviewers. By the way, I LOVE the live performance images you used! —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. NB. This discussion page looks a right mess both in read and edit mode (particularly) mainly because of those silly signatures. They look unprofessional and will drive away potential reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry. This is not far off the required FA standard but the prose needs more work. There are fused participles such as "with Rihanna commanding an army". Unlike Fowler, I don't object strongly to these as long as the meaning is clear, but the use of "with" as a connector is often clumsy. This is odd "with a metronome of 100 beats per minute". A metronome is a gadget. And, what is "nude-colored" as in "a nude-colored top"? I found this in the Lead and Body confusing, "Although the song was released as a single only in the US, it appeared on charts elsewhere" - album charts? The article uses many quotations, perhaps too many, and some are not particularly helpful. This one is almost indecipherable: "When I first heard the song, I was in Paris, Dream and Tricky, they flew out and played me the record. They played me a few [songs], but this one stuck out to me. It had such an arrogance to it, which is so far from who I am ... which is part of why I wanted to do it. It was fun. It was bragging. A lot of attitude. Young Jeezy was the perfect person for the topic of the song. Just the vibe of the song. I love, love, love his verse. He added so much more to the record". There is redundancy throughout the article and plain bad grammar, "the scene changes to daytime desert scene". I suggest an independent copy-edit – the prose needs work from an editor with strategic distance. Graham Colm (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been through GAR where about 6 editors were involved in improving it, plus, it has been independently copy-edited by someone with "strategic distance", so it's can't be as bad as what you proclaim. And it's a song, so clearly about song charts. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Calvin, the copy edits were not thorough enough, there are other errors like "as it's" and "the The". A successful GAR is not and indication of FA quality. Graham Colm (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it's had a lot of work done to it lately and I think it might be ready. I don't see any problems with it. Zach Vega (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The phone just got released two weeks ago and that doesn't really make the article sable yet. As well, there should be more time for stuff like awards, criticism, and sales figures to be added before the idea of putting it at FAC can happen. GamerPro6420:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with GamerPro, plus I see many issues with prose and unreliable sourcing on a quick glance. I could do a full review, but I recommend withdrawal. Secretaccount21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because this is a great article according to me. This is one of the best article about a high school i have ever seen in Wikipedia so therefore i'm proudly here to nominate this article to be a feature article. Comments are welcome!Trongphu (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly this one is not up to snuff yet. The one paragraph lead alone is an indication (see WP:LEAD). Structure aside, the article is littered with [citation needed] and [dead link] tags. See the FA criteria for information and guidance. --Efe (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment/Suggest withdrawal - appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're supposed to discuss FAC noms with significant contributors before, not after nominating. Aside from that, I agree with Efe that the article is unfortunately not yet ready for FAC. You might consider a good article nomination or a peer review first. At minimum, you should deal with the tags on the article before nominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the above, also as a suggestion you may want to recheck and expand the lead to function as an "overview summary" of the whole article, not just an introduction with basic data (see WP:LEAD for more information). For example: What are the most important features of this school? Maybe expand on its Jesuit background aswell or add 1-2 more historical highlights in a second paragraph. GermanJoe (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I again think that it meets the criteria and this would be the final point for me for this article. The previous FAC went quite successful; older items from it have been resolved by now. All points found will be resolved in a week.R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few random minor points for attention (I have not read the article):-
Note 4: "In this article, metalloids are not threated separately..." and later "germanium is threated as a metal". Should this be "treated", or is it some scientific term that I don't understand?
Some of the notes, e.g. 10, contain statements that require citation.
Note 10 talks about things that aren't used anywhere outside this article, and only here just to make it all easier; it's like, say, note 4. Note 3, however, was given a ref.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is required in the bibliography re publisher locations. All or none.
The formatting of the first bibliography entry looks awkward, with the editor after the date. I think the citation template can be manipulated.
Possibly. I'm just sure that those who created this checked first that this strange formatting is the correct one. If you disagree, say it (again), I'll try to do it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found quite a few infelicities and downright spelling errors in the article. For example, Al is always spelled "aluminium" in an article like this. I fixed the ones I saw on a quick pass but I feel like there are probably more. I will continue to look. For now, I'd say it's not ready. --John (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't no native speaker, you know. Al should be spelled "aluminium," even though it's not an American spelling, per WP:ALUM. If you can, please try to fix other mistakes, or just notify; this would be appreciated.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
which is higher than any other element's except for neon's and helium's. - hmmm, ungainly. why not "which is higher than for any other element except neon and helium." ?
Oppose (for now). Reading through the article, everything seemed ok until the subsection "Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides"; here, the prose is much weaker, and seems perhaps to have been written by a non-native English speaker? Sorry, just read the above Examples:
"Taking relatively low but hard-to-achieve oxidation states of metals, fluorine is the key in achieving many rare high oxidation states of the transition metals." hard to parse exactly what this means
As a native English speaker, you are welcome to suggest something better instead. The thing is: the highest oxidation state for any element is achieved in either an oxide or a fluoride. When the oxidation state is among the highest, such as +8 (Os, Xe, Ru), it's achieved only in an oxide. When it is quite low in the absolute sense but very high for an element (such as +4 for Hg), it's found in a fluoride. Hope this helps--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Fluorine-containing complexes of copper(IV),[128] silver(IV),[129] nickel(IV),[130] iridium(VI),[131] and others that are examples of element oxidation state fluorine-containing compounds, rarely occurring in any other compounds, are known." awkward sentence construction
"synthesized indirectly on extreme conditions" on->in?
"The high oxidizing potential of fluorine has led to claim of gold(VII) existence in gold heptafluoride,[133] but current calculations show that the claimed AuF7 molecule was only AuF5·F2." led to claims? led to a claim? "Only" is superfluous
"It is also possible that the element 113, ununtrium, will be the first element in boron group to form a species in +5 oxidation state, the fluorine-based hexafluoroununtrate(V), UutF−6;[135] possibility of +5 oxygen-based species is not known to be calculated." I think this is missing some definite articles
"Even though fluorine is a generally stronger oxidizer than oxygen, creating, for example, nitrogen pentafluoride would need to squeeze five fluorine atoms attached to the small central atom, which is hard to perform, and the resulting molecule may not be stable at all; however, existence of this compound cannot be denied at all." I don't think this qualifies as good prose. Will engage in a full review later if the article is checked over for more like this. Sasata (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha asked me to revisit. I'm still seeing problems with the prose, and can't cross out my oppose yet. I think the article needs a line-by-line review of the prose by a native speaker. Sorry for not offering more substantive comments on the content, but the FACs go smoother if most of the spit-and-polish work is dealt with beforehand. While I'm here nitpicking at small details, the references could use some tidying. A sample:
there's a mixture of title case and sentence case for journal article titles, these should be consistent throughout
watch out for stray periods where they don't belong (see for example current refs #28, #125)
be consistent with how page ranges are given (eg 441–51 vs. 2832–2838 vs. 541–4); Robinson et al 1997 doesn't even have the full page range given
"Autumn, Kellar (2006). Properties, Principles, and Parameters of the Gecko Adhesive System. pp. 225–256. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31049-5_12." Journal name?
"...allowing for longer times between dosing and application." Needs to explain the difference between dosing and application. Perhaps it was intended to say 'activation'?
"Although it is not one of basic magnetic resonance spectrometers used in science and medicine, fluorine-19..." Fluorine-19 is a magnetic resonance spectrometer?
"In the electrolysis of the metal and its purification, it acts to lower the melting point of aluminium oxide and acts like a powerful flux for glass." How did glass enter into this? It seems to be changing the subject of the sentence.
"The range of organofluorine compounds is thus diverse, in part because the area is driven by commercial value of such compounds in materials science and pharmaceutical chemistry." Perhaps it was intended to say 'useful organoflourine compounds'? Or perhaps 'known organofluorine compounds'? Otherwise this doesn't seem quite right.
The mentioned examples seem to be better now (lines above are used to make me see clearer which points I didn't even start to address)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...but the reaction between pure sulfur and pure fluorine gas is most commonly used in industry": is this meant to say "the most commonly used"? "more commonly used"?
There's a number of sentences that employ "used" twice, which makes it stand out. Please substitute a synonym, or reword.
"The largest use for elemental fluorine..."
"The second largest use for fluorine gas is..."
"Elemental fluorine is used for production..."
"The volatility of these compounds...": induced & induce
Repeated use of key word 'induce' makes it stand out, at least for me. My understanding is that repetition is okay for emphasis, but it's normally discouraged. There's plenty of synonyms you could use.
"The general trend is fluorination allows to achieve relatively low but hardly achievable for an element compounds..." Huh?
"The general trend is fluorination allows to achieve relatively low but hardly achievable oxidation states": Sorry but I'm still not quite groking this. What is it trying to say?
Feel free to suggest something instead, as I don't know what would be better than this: the text means fluorine allows to reach some oxidation states that are not extremely high numbers but are very hard to synthesize (+2 for Kr, +4 for Hg, so on) as compared to the highest states (+8 for Ru/Os/Xe, +7 for Mn/Tc, so on) that are impossible for fluorine.
Okay, maybe part of the issue I'm having here is that "allows" is a verb, but the target is unclear. I'm left uncertain "what" flourine allows to achieve relatively low oxidation states. Would it be "reagents"? How about: "The general trend is [for] floridation to allow [reagents to] achieve relatively low [oxidation states, such as +2 for Kr or +4 for Hg. However, these low states are very hard to synthesize, while the highest states, such as +8 for Ru/Os/Xe or +7 for Mn/Tc, are impossible to achieve with flourine.]" Did I interpret what it is saying correctly? RJH (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...but krypton difluoride is well-known": Never heard of it.
"...while ruthenium tetroxide is well-known": Never heard of it.
"With [the] exceptions of the +7 and +8 oxidation states...":
Ack, the "Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides" section
is a mess. Sorry, but I think this article needs more work before it is FA ready. RJH (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, could you give some advice? (About the subsection, I added level 5 subsections, but am sure you (and others) will not consider this enough)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's few more observations:
There's a few places that seem to be missing articles (&c.), but it's difficult to tell. For example: "...and only in [the] form of a fluoride...", "...in [the] form of tetroxoaurlyl...", "...but not [as] a fluorine-based..."?
"With the exception of countries with planned economics, about 17,000 tonnes of fluorine are produced per year by 11 companies in G7 countries." Why start with the seemingly irrelevant exception here? Is this intended to list the total world-wide production?
Good one. The problem is it's almost impossibly to find F2 production numbers. The only source I found clearly states: "With the exception of of countries with planned economics." Don't know why, maybe they keep it in secret, or whatever. Just no data around.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. However my other concern is that the first part of the sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the second. It is in need of clarification. RJH (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...this is a well-known process for [the alkali metals] sodium and potassium": well-known by chemists, perhaps?
Yep. I haven't added "the alkali metals," but gave links to the metals.
"...the only well-known analogous nonmetal compound": ditto.
"However, only four atoms of ununoctium have been synthesized, and its chemical properties have not been examined yet.": No cite for this assertion. It is also time sensitive.
"Even though fluorine is a generally stronger oxidizer than oxygen, creating,. for example, nitrogen pentafluoride would need to squeeze five fluorine atoms attached to the central atom." First, this sentence is an awkward read; it almost seems to be two different sentences conglomerated into one. Second, it is not made clear what the comparison with oxygen has to do with nitrogen pentaflouride.
If you're talking about the redlink on the image page, that's a typo; the image can be traced to File:Cubic crystal shape.png
File:Henri_Moissan.jpg: who was the photographer, and what was his/her date of death?
Published before 1923, so fine for the U.S. Appears to have been a photograph by an organization in Sweden, published no later than 1908, actual photographer seems anonymous, so fine in Sweden too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... the article got prose "lifting". This is my second nomination of it. As I said in the first nomination, I worked really hard on it for maybe 3 months with a help from a lot of users that can be seen in the second peer review of it. At first time I addressed some of the prose issue by myself, however I couldn't do it with the others. So the user Baffle gab (and also Chaosdruid) made a major copy-edit in it according to the FAC comments. If you oppose, please address the issues. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing?21:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inconsistency in date formatting in the references. You must either, for example, use 2011-10-16 or October 16, 2011. Not flit between both.
I'm not sure if the use of "..." is needed in all of the quotes? Is this stipulated by Wikipedia or is it a copy-editors personal preference? As other FAs do not have this.
Can you reduce how much you say "Rehab" and replace with other ways of referring to the song? For instance, you write "Rehab" eight times in the Release section.
The Credits and personnel section needs to be completely c/e. There is no linking and hasn't been formatted correctly. See Hard (song) for how it should be written and formatted.
Not sure about the "Recording" as it is a studio and cannot really record anything on its own ... all amended, though still need linking. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Chart performance could be expanded by looking at the Charts table.
Quite a fews instances of awkward phrasing and short sentences in the article, which is affecting the prose quality and flow. Reads like a list of hard facts, which isn't good to read.
An audio might be useful to add to the media in the article.
" "Rehab" was recorded and mixed by Demacio Castellon " — Try to avoid overusing passive voice. How about " Demacio Castellon recorded and mixed "Rehab" "? Apply this suggestion for the following sentence.
" According to the American music magazine Rap-Up "
I am English so I feel uncomfortable about removing that one - if American was not there it would be even more strange to lose the "the" to my English eyes. Can you explain why it should be removed a little more so that I can correct myself if I am making such a mistake generallly? (especially as the next one suggests putting it in?) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is like how you say "Barbadian recording artist Rihanna" and not "the Barbadian recording artist Rihanna". There are many American music magazines, so the article "the" is omitted. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused with usage of "the". Here, the full name of the music shopping site is "iTunes Store", but it would read awkward to say it without "the" because the name includes a common noun (Store). Similar to NY Times, Washington Post, etc. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet American is a proper noun, so why would a noun have it an a proper noun not? "According to the American music magazine" same as "He spoke to the American traveller Mr. Blah." Chaosdruid (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the word that is described ("Store" and "Rap-Up"), plus "American" is not a proper noun. Read my reply above, would you say "the Barbadian recording artist Rihanna"? No, you wouldn't, because it does not make sense. Only use "the" before a word/phrase that describes a common noun. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" "slinky-assisted" " — Should there be ellipses here? Be consistent.
Contrary to its name, Slant is not italicized because it is an online publication. Apply this for the reference as well.
According to MoS online publications shold be italicised. "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized ..." Chaosdruid (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the lead GOCE coordinator to apply the dashes script, which unfortunately still seems to be not working properly for me. Apologies for that. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid putting references in the middle of sentences, unless distinguishing sources is absolutely necessary, like contrasting information.
Avoid beginning consecutive sentences with the same word.
(Music video)
Digital Spy overlink. You already linked in a section above.
" In other scenes, Rihanna wears a high-waisted green bathing suit, a multi-colored wrap, metallic earrings, and a demure net-hat with silver stilettos. While lounging in the sun, she wears suspenders and a pair of 1940s-style sunglasses. " — These two sentences need sources because they give detailed descriptions instead of a brief summary.
(Live performances)
" ["Rehab"] would have benefited " — Use single quotes.
Seemed a little more complicated than that to me as there is a large amount of text missing after it - perhaps it should be placed outside the quotes? Perhaps wrote that "'Rehab' ... would have "benefitedChaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" at the 2008 American Music Awards where she won the awards for Favorite Pop/Rock Female Artist and Favorite Soul/R&B Female Artist " — Comma after "Awards".
Per citation template documentation, unless "Inc" is part of the name of the company itself, remove this part of the publisher's name. Time Inc for example is an exception, because that is the actual name. Apple and PopMatters, Inc are not.
Once again, I am prepared to change my "Oppose" if I feel that the article is ready. So, let me know promptly which comments you have addressed or when you have addressed them all, so that I can strike out the ones you did correctly. Looking at the length of this review, it may also need to be collapsed, but delegates will do that if they want. Note that I conflicted with Calvin, so he may have already brought up some of the issues that I did. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close/withdraw - the previous nomination was closed only three days ago. Per the FAC rules, you are required to get delegate permission if you wish to renominate before two weeks have elapsed. It appears you are getting some of the same reviewers opposing as you did in the previous review, so it would be beneficial to take some time to address substantive points before renominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it brings back to life a chronology of storms forgotten by all but a few devoted scholars. These cyclones relentlessly battered the U.S. coastline, submerging small delta communities nestled between the Mississippi, the Atlantic, and Lake Pontchartrain. I wrote this article, and am nominating it here, to build knowledge of historically significant storms that nobody has ever heard of. I have utilized all available outlets for information, which, admittedly, is limited to two or three sources, and have built what I consider to be the most comprehensive and complete account of this deadly series of storms anywhere. Juliancolton (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't think this can be considered "the most comprehensive and complete account" of this topic when there's a book chapter (not used here as a source) on the same topic. A glance at the references for this book chapter will reveal several additional sources that could be used here. Sasata (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Historical Accounts of the Drought and Hurricane Season of 1860
Author(s): Dodds Stephanie F.; Burnette Dorian J.; Mock Cary J.
Editor(s): DupignyGiroux LA; Mock CJ
Source: Historical Climate Variability and Impacts in North America Pages: 61-77 DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2828-0_5 Published: 2009
Yes, but that source has little to add to Ludlum and Partagas; in fact, it's based primary on them. There are perhaps one or two tidbits to add (hydrological benefits of the storms), which I'll look into tomorrow, but nothing major. Juliancolton (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have the newspaper articles cited in Partagas been checked for additional details? What about Sullivan 1986 and the other sources cited by Partagas?
Need page numbers for Roth
Date ranges should use endashes, even in titles
I haven't looked at the article cited by Sasata, but I too am unsure as to whether all available sources on this topic have been exploited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the note that I reviewed it for GAN. I was rather impressed with how alive JC made the storms feel. He did a great job using the sources available, and I am very pleased with the writing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For a season that was over 100 years ago, with little references like we have today, I am fully supporting this article. Good job JC! TropicalAnalystwx13 15:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You say Hurricane One impacted Biloxi early on, but a gale was experienced later, which makes it sound like the storm retraced back along its path. Can you clarify?
The section entitled "Hurricane Five" has an infobox that is labeled as "tropical storm". Why?
En dashes needed in Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale in the Storms graph and in the first paragraph of Hurricane One. Also, there's one in Hurricane Two needing a dash, and one in Hurricane Four.
"The cyclone drifted south of west for three days". Makes more sense to me to just have the word "southwest" in there, since it's a bit easier for the reader.
"experienced a gale beginning of the morning of August 11...". Should the first "of" be "on" instead?
Hurricane Four: "It was first detected on September 10 local time...". Is the time itself missing, or is that just referring to the day?
Typo in "Its fist data point in the hurricane database list it as...". Also, "list" should probably be "lists".
Capitalize last word of "Mississippi River delta"? It's that way earlier in the article.
For the future, please don't strike out a reviewer's comments by yourself. The FAC instructions recommend against this, and it creates problems when reviewers come back to check on an article. Here, the first comment wasn't fully resolved in my mind, which no one reading this FAC can see when somebody else strikes it out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. For covering something that occurred about 150 years ago, this article is pretty damn good. However, I think the writing might be a bit unnecessarily fancy in some areas. I'm not sure whether this would be detrimental to a featured article, so I'll just point out some instances below. Auree ★19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"in rapid succession" seems a tad superfluous. I'd get rid of it
"[...] caused severe inundation of low-lying and coastal communities, inflicting severe damage and killing dozens of people." – You twice use the word severe in one sentence.
"onslaught" seems awkward in hurricane terminology, to be honest.
"In many cases, the only evidence that a hurricane existed was reports from ships in its path, and judging by the direction of winds experienced by ships, and their location in relation to the storm, it is possible to roughly pinpoint the storm's center of circulation for a given point in time." – Split this beast into two separate sentences after "in its path"
"As the three landfalling storms progressed inland, information on their meteorological demise was limited." – This sentence seems a bit too extravagant.
"although its track is obviously truncated due to a lack of available information" – same as above
"and in Balize, nearly every structure in the town was destroyed:" – "in the town" is redundant, and replace the colon with a semicolon
"In New Orleans proper, heavy rain and gusty winds were reported, but no flooding was reported." – reported, reported
I feel that using ambiguous wording such as "probably" in an encyclopedic article weakens the prose. Any way to avoid this?
"The storm was just as severe at Mobile, Alabama" → in Mobile, Alabama?
"efforts made to piece together wind observations from ships reveal" – A bit verbose
I question the usage of "life" in hurricane terminology. How about "existence" or "duration" instead?
"the most densely populated areas were now located in the eastern semicircle of the storm, which is the most intense." – Oh? Since when?
"laid to waste vast fields of sugar cane" – Abstruse wording.
"Flood waters rose until early on October 4, when they slowly began to let up" – Change "let up" to "recede"?
Don't get me wrong, the article is brilliant, but as an encyclopedic piece I'm not too sure it needs to be as fancy as it is right now. Auree ★20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I worked really hard on it for a long period of time. First I promoted it to GA status in July 2011, and put on a peer review later. I really wasted my whole energy on it. However, many users helped me during its maintenance and editing. All of them can be see here on the peer review. I wish to credit them, but by there will I will left you see in the review. I know there will be a lot of opposes in the beginning, so I will be pleased if all the users who oppose the article leave their points and opinions here or eventually on my talk page. Thank You — Tomica1111 • Question Existing?18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rihanna Rehab.ogg.ogg needs a much improved rationale. How does it contribute significantly? What aspect discussed is it illustrating? These need to be explicitly explained in the rationale of use. As nice as a sound sample is, there has to be a reason why it is used. If my math is right then the length of the clip is acceptable (4:54 = 294 seconds, of which 10% is 29.4 seconds. The clip is 29 seconds long so it falls under that threshold).
This isn't a mandatory part of the FA criteria, but I highly, HIGHLY recommend you archive all active weblinks. It will mean a lot of tedious work, but if a website is remodelled links can be lost permanently, meaning that the information can no longer be verified. Sometimes articles are only available for a finite amount of time; then they're either taken down or hidden behind a subscription barrier, as happens with Hot Press and billboard.biz to name two examples. The latter can be satisfactorily saved with the use of {{Subscription}}, but if you don't have a text source to back it up (and since this is a recent subject you probably don't outside of the occassional newspaper article), the information can be lost forever. It's a tedious process, but entirely worthwhile. WebCite is excellent for this. All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates if you use them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, checklinks shows a few possible problems with some of the URLs; might want to check them out to make sure they are still in service and, if not, to replace them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per the citation guidelines, and to avoid ambiguity, please spell out months of dates and format them properly as they appear in the article body (i.e. September 10, 2011 and not 2011-9-10).
Nikkimaria's comment does not relieve you of this problem. She said that for most dates, you can use the yyyy-mm-dd format, but for publication dates (all your newspaper sources), you need to write the dates out. Orane(talk)22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction, when referring to lists and countable objects, "latter" is used when referring only to two things. So, "production was handled by Lane and Mosely" and not by the "latter two".
""Rehab" is mid-paced song containing prominent R&B ballad characteristics." What exactly are "prominent R&B ballad characteristics"? I read the "Composition" section to see if I could find out, but it still remains unclear. And if there's "prominent" R&B ballad characteristics, does this means that there exists more "obscure" ones? Also, what does "engaging in a bitter sexual chemistry" mean?
"who was the special guest at some concerts on Justin Timberlake's FutureSex/LoveShow tour in 2007". Did you mean he appeared as the special guest at certain dates?
If you're using words like "emotional" and "tension-filled", these are qualifiers, and need to be placed in quotation marks and sourced to show they are not original research or POV.
None of us can gain access to the reviewer's feelings. So, we write "she observed", "she noted", "she stated", "she commented" and not "she felt" or "she thought".
"Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine thought that "the track is further evidence that [Timberlake] is better off penning lyrics about sexy backs or dicks in boxes" — talking about Timberlake's 2006 singles "Sexy Back" and "Dick in a Box"[33]". Awkward. Can you write "in reference to Timberlake's" or "alluding to Timberlake's", or something more compelling?
" He stated that nobody should even try to write a song called 'Rehab' so closely following Amy Winehouse's,[33] referring to the latter's 2006 single of the same name." What latter? Only one name was mentioned.
"She thus became the first artist to extract eight Hot 100 hits from a single album since..." "Extract"? She "extracted" the hits? Sounds fancy, but suggests that the songs were hot 100 hits before being pulled out of the album. I'm sure you can say this better.
" It was directed by Anthony Mandler, who previously worked with Rihanna for her music videos.[50]". Either mention the others, or reconstruct sentence.
"It was reported by Digital Spy that Jessica Biel, Timberlake's girlfriend at the time, was "fuming" at Timberlake because of the sexual chemistry between he and Rihanna in the video.[52] " Please leave gossip and National Enquirer-type news out of the article. If you want to say it differently, you can state that critics commented on the sexual chemistry between the two singers, so something of the sort.
"In his book Post Cinematic Affect (2010), Steven Shaviro concluded that the video of "Rehab", together with "Love Sex Magic" and "4 Minutes"—on which Timberlake is featured—"can be contrasted with Timberlake's own Future Sex/Love Sounds album"." On what grounds? And can we get a page-number for that book source?
No, not done. I asked on what grounds? You can't simply say that a critic noted the contrast between Timberlake's work and these videos without also explaining what these differences were. Orane(talk)22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rehab" was added as the fourth track on Rihanna's set list for her Good Girl Gone Bad Tour (2007-09". "track" is for a CD etc. Did you mean the fourth song?
Your use of colons to introduce quotations is not completely correct. In other words, you use colons where commas would suffice. Please review. Orane(talk)06:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of colons is incorrect. You use it to introduce the quotations when you don't need to. You have, "Rihanna explained that she enjoyed working with Timberlake and learned a lot from their time in the studio, saying: 'Working with Justin in studio is just great'...". You should use a comma between "saying" and the quotation. This problem exists throughout the entire article. Orane(talk)22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with most of these points, except the first: WP:CITE and WP:MOSDATE allow YYYY-MM-DD format for retrieval dates, regardless of what is in the article. Publication dates, conversely, should follow the article format. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A colon is used to introduce a block quotation, or a lengthy quotation that is not set apart from the prose. --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose vote remains. The prose is just not as compelling and as polished as it could be. Thank you so much for addressing some of my concerns, but the prose is still awkward in places. Example: "'Rehab' opens with a "tension-filled" string section,[14] played by Stevie Blacke,[3] as a contrasting violin, cello, and tambourine instrumental groove with Hannon Lane's keyboard melody.[9] " I just don't understand the sentence, and it stems from the ambiguous nature of the word "as", in the sentence. Is it used as a preposition or a conjunction? Also, "Rihanna's vocal range spans from the low note of F3 to B4.[10]". That's a verbose way of saying "Rihanna's vocal range spans the notes F3 to B4, or, better yet, "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from F3 to B4." Also, "The development of "Rehab" began while Rihanna was accompanying Timbaland..." The development began? That does not make sense. "Both Timbaland and Timberlake worked on the song". Awkward. "In an interview with Entertainment Weekly about Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad, Timberlake concluded..." "Concluded"? Did he say this at the end of his interview?
Overall, I can see that a lot of work has been put into this article and I have given it the best copyedit I'm able to, but I don't think the prose is quite there yet. Some specific issues (but please note these comments come from someone with limited musical/Rihanna knowledge):
Production and recording
I'm not too happy with the first sentence, but can't think of anything better off the top of my head
"Both Timbaland and Timberlake worked on the song. They had worked together on two of Timberlake's previous albums, notably FutureSex/LoveSounds in 2006. Timbaland worked" – avoid repitition by finding a synonym for worked
"This was the same technique he employed during the writing process of Timberlake's album." – 1) I thought we were already talking about Timberlake? 2) Which Timberlake album?
Actually the first sentence was referring only to FutureSex/LoveSounds. And with the later one, I wanted to note that all the songs for the album were created as "Rehab" in the last moment or very fast. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing?09:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed ""Rehab" was one of three songs that were produced by Timbaland, and that made it onto the final track-listing of Good Girl Gone Bad." --> ""Rehab" was one of three songs produced by Timbaland that made it onto the final track-listing of Good Girl Gone Bad." – please make sure that's what was meant
"Margeaux Watson from Entertainment Weekly also commented that the song is a "lovesick ballad"." – this sort of comes out of nowhere – could a way be found to make it gel better?
""Rehab" opens with a "tension-filled" string section, played by Stevie Blacke, as a contrasting violin, cello, and tambourine instrumental groove with Hannon Lane's keyboardmelody." – I'm not sure what, but something doesn't quite feel right here (but perhaps it's just that I don't understand musical terms)
"however the latter one was chosen." – is any reason given as to why that was?
"serviced the song for airplay" – as a non-musical person, I don't really know what this means
Music video
I'm still not entirely comfortable with the whole Jessica Biel thing – it feel really tabloid-y and sourced to the likes of The Sun, I'm not sure if it really passes the spirit of BLP
The paragraph describing the video is problematic – it just jumps from one sentence to the next and has no real flow. I read over it a few times and I'm still not really sure what happens in the video
"can be contrasted with Timberlake's own Future Sex/Love Sounds album". – I agree with a comment above, you need to explain how the author thought it contrasted, not just that he thought it did
Why is Best Female Artist in quote marks, but Best Music Video isn't (or vice versa)?
Live performances
"Rihanna performed "Rehab" on a therapist's couch adorned with metal casts of human heads and limbs." – just once, or did she do that at every concert?
"Andy Downing of the Chicago Tribune felt that her performance of the song was "internally push-and-pull fueled"." – umm, I have no idea if this is positive or negative; perhaps paraphrase a little of that article to put it into context
Why is however used in the last sentence – what are you contrasting it with?
Ok, I've made a ce, so please check if it still makes sense. Also, is a reason given for why it was dropped for the Australian leg? Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" Critics felt that "Rehab" bears similarities to Timberlake's previously released songs " I think there is a better word than "felt", something like "suggested" or "noticed".
" According to the online music publisher Rap-Up " Rap-Up is actually a printed magazine.
" "Rehab" was physically released as a CD single on December 8, 2008 "
" A live performance of the song recorded during the Manchester show of Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad Tour (2007—09) and it was made available for download on iTunes in both countries " Read that aloud word for word and tell me what's wrong ;)
" "Rehab" generally received mixed to positive reviews from music critics " None of the reviews were particularly "mixed". They were either positive or negative. Note that this applies to the lead aswell.
" a single album " Is "single" really necessary?
" To date, the single has sold more than 160,000 copies in the United Kingdom. " To what date?
Watch out for usage of "while". Only use it when to events take place simultaneously and not just to connect facts.
" who had worked with Rihanna for several of her previous music videos " ("Several" is too vague of a word to give added meaning.)
" between Rihanna and Timberlake must be difficult for their partners, Chris Brown and Jessica Biel respectively, to watch " Why present tense?
"Speaking to Access Hollywood" Link AH and italicize because TV programs are just like that.
Again, it seems redundant to use "speaking" and "described" simultaneously.
" The video begins with Rihanna, "scantily-dressed" and wearing fishnet stockings, standing against a convertible car in a desert." Source?
" While lounging in the sun, she is wearing suspenders and a pair of 1940s-style sunglasses " Tense inconsistency.
" David Balls of Digital Spy praised the video, writing " Comma after "writing"
" Ethan Stainislawski of Prefix Magazine " To my understanding, Prefix is not a printed publication and is not italicized.
" He criticised her need to wear the eye patch and added that her outfit made her look like "an award trophy" " Use American English spelling of "criticized".
" Rihanna was scheduled to perform at the 51st Grammy Awards, however she canceled her performance at the awards ceremony " Wrong punctuation; use semi colon after "Awards" and comma after "however".
" Reports later surfaced regarding an alleged altercation with her then-boyfriend, singer Chris Brown " Brown was already introduced in MV section, unlink and remove "singer".
I am nominating this for featured article because... it is a comprehensive, well-documented, clearly written article on the Shapley-Folkman lemma and its applications and because it features two graphs (created by User:David Eppstein). Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support - I was involved in the A class review and approved of the article generally then. However the article has been expanded significantly since then. I will take a close look at the applications section but I don't feel comfortable with the rest of the text. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Applications section covers three (somewhat) conceptually distinct subjects; economics, optimization and probability theory. The text introducing the section should give the reader a mini road map of what to expect from the subordinate parts.
True. I believe that the OR by synthesis is trivial: I am synthesizing statements made within 3 disciplines, which are obviously true, and saying that the statement is generally true, and has giving three examples of the statement.
UPDATE: "The Shapley–Folkman lemma enables researchers to extend results for Minkowski sums of convex sets to sums of general sets, which need not been convex. Such sums of sets arise in economics, in mathematical optimization, and in probability theory; in each of these three mathematical sciences, non-convexity is an important feature of applications and the Shapley–Folkman lemma has renewed research that had been stumped by non-convex sets. In all three disciplines, the break-through application of the Shapley–Folkman lemma has been made by a young scientist" (whose innovations have then spread through the discipline ...).
Conceivably, I could be asked to provide citations establishing all the authors' youth: If so, then I'd just delete the inspirational statements about young researchers shaking up things. K.W.
I don't think synthesis is necessary. Right now we have a one sentence introduction for the three sections. I am suggesting a few sentences more (some of which could be recapitulated later on) to give the reader a quick indication of what is to come. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have not seen the applications-introduction after I updated it a few days ago? I provided a short overview. However, it is not possible to go into (much) more detail, because each application has a special vocabulary needing explanation.Kiefer.Wolfowitz12:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On this set of baskets, an indifference curve is defined for each consumer..." the two paragraphs in Economics feel somewhat out of order. Given the context of this article, we don't need to resort to describing preferences as indifference curves before bringing to bear the topological intuition. I would introduce the concepts of baskets of goods and constraints. Then note that optimal choices among those goods under those constraints under the assumption of convexity leads to relatively simple and painless intuition and graphical explanation. Then segue into indifference curves. After that you can return to the last few sentences in the second paragraph. Now you are set up for explaining why non-convex preferences might need another solution.
Using indifference curves allows us to work with convex sets. If we work with maximizing utility, then we have to introduce quasi-concave functions (having convex upper-levelsets), which is a more complicated approach, imho; if we discuss maximizing quasi-concave functions, then economics should follow optimization. (I first took this material from existing articles and then reworked it with precise references. I thought that our explanation was similar to Varian's Intermediate Economics, which I read 20 years ago: My memory has failed me before.) K.W.
No, you're correct. Let me think about how to better explain my concern with this paragraph, which are almost entirely about ordering. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The non-convex preferences section is ok, but I would like to see a more general explanation to begin with. You give a good example of non-connected demand (though it is basically copied from the summary article) and the Hotelling quote is handy. However you might want to open up a bit more generally or offer some examples from more well behaved areas where preferences are non-convex. If you prefer you could shorten the section a bit.
Just 'okay'!?!!! ;) What does your "summary article" refer to? (Certainly not Ross M. Starr's New Palgrave survey, which has no examples of anything!) My example was similar to examples given from Wold, Morgenstern, etc., and inspired by Harry Potter's Hogwart'sschool and by memories of Dungeons and Dragons! :D (I remember Starr's Econometrica article having some nice examples.) This may be a matter of taste; students should use this while they are looking at an intermediate or M.A. textbook in microeconomics, and most of these have examples of non-convexities; more advanced students and researchers will find my literature collection (with references and precise page numbers) very valuable, I hope. I think that one example and pointers to good textbooks should suffice for the general public, particularly because we have an article on the convexity of preferences. K.W.
Okay, now I understand. :) I emboldened my wink above, and added a smiling face. :D Actually, the non-convex economy article was a spin-off from this. I realized that Sraffa and company's contributions to non-convexities and production economics discussed problems besides aggregation (and this article was becoming long).
"The previously noted papers were listed" I'm not sure which papers you mean.
The JPE, Shapley-Shubik, and Aumann papers were discussed by Starr's Econometrica paper. K.W.
Improved: "Previous publications on non-convexity and economics were collected in an annotated bibliography by Kenneth Arrow. He gave the bibliography to Starr, who was then an undergraduate enrolled in Arrow's (graduate) advanced mathematical-economics course." K.W.
It is nice to show a demand function, because our consumer theory lacks a demand function. Showing an equilibrium can only help non-economists. (I agree that the illustration is not essential, and wouldn't object if another editor and you removed it.) K.W.
Volunteer Marek also finds this graph sub-optimal, for another reason. The graph shows only one market, whereas our article discusses general equilibria (for N markets where N is a positive integer). However, N=1 is a special cases of general equilibria, so I discount VM's vote in this instance. Again, if anybody wants to remove the graph, then I would not object. Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Following Starr's 1969 paper..." This paragraph can be extended (at the expense of the non-convexity section if you wish). We get (or at least I get) the immediate implication for general equilibrium models but the article should offer some other more concrete examples.
This may be a matter of taste. I think that the article is rather long (although much of the length is due to the meticulous referencing, which may turn off some readers); I am skeptical about the value of more applications. I would rather have more pictures, perhaps an animation of the set I mentioned on the talk page of the article (similar to Mas-Colell's example). Kiefer.Wolfowitz03:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I agree that an example of another economic application would be useful. I suppose that the aggregation of non-convex budget sets would be interesting, and I am aware of estimated (non-convex) budget sets for Swedish consumers.
However, I do not know of any public-domain graphics for single consumers. I do not have access to my library for 2 weeks, but the references I gave were all rather mathematical. I am afraid that it may be difficult to give an empirical example of an application of the SF lemma (using a real-world agent's estimated budget set or production set or preferences) without doing OR. K.W.
In that same paragraph you should remove the references to mathematical optimization and measure theory, as you are about to explain those in detail.
I believe you are referring to Aubin's book on mathematical techniques for game theory and economics and then Trockel's book, which uses 2-3rd year Ph.D.-level mathematical analysis (ergodic theory, differential geometry/topology) to study economics. Aubin's book has a lot of non-probabilistic mathematics, and an extensive and original treatment of game theory and some economic models; I do cite it later in optimization, of course, because of the results with Ekeland. These two books (Aubin and Trockel) don't fit in the later sections (although your conjecture was very reasonable). Kiefer.Wolfowitz03:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"An application of the Shapley–Folkman lemma represents..." Maybe this sentence should be followed by a quick non-technical explanation.
DONE! "Of course, the given optimal-point is a sum of points in the graphs of the original summands and of a small number of convexified summands, by the Shapley–Folkman lemma." (I have not given a further non-technical explanation, because I'm not sure what that would be, and your "maybe" question is not an actionable complaint ....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" In 1973, the young mathematician Claude Lemaréchal was surprised by his success..." this is a neat bit of information. Perhaps some elaboration would help. Explain to the reader why Lemaréchal's results could be surprising without Shapley-Folkmann but are understandable with it. The text kind of does this now but it might help to make it more clear.
Thanks!
I wrote the following expansion:
"In 1973, the young mathematician Claude Lemaréchal was surprised by his success with convex minimizationmethods on problems that were known to be non-convex; for minimizing nonlinear problems, a solution of the dual problem problem need not provide useful information for solving the primal problem, unless the primal problem be convex and satisfy a constraint qualification. Lemaréchal's problem was additively separable, and each summand function was non-convex; nonetheless, a solution to the dual problem provided a close approximation to the primal problem's optimal value. The crucial step in these publications is the use of the Shapley–Folkman lemma."
the probability section is dense, but good. I get the feeling that there is a deep connection between measure theory and Shapley-Folkmann but I can't pin it down.
Searching for "Shapley Folkman" and "vector measure" on Google Scholar/Books will give you more food for thought. I thought that our treatment was appropriate for a summary style. Also, ending with the discussion by Vind, Debreu, Mas-Colell nicely ties the abstract mathematics with economics, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'm no mathematician, but I have a few observations nevertheless. This isn't particularly advanced mathematics, so we shouldn't be scared of it. (That was a rallying cry to other FA reviewers who may be as much math dunces as I am.)
I think it's important that the lead is accessible to the general reader, who may not understand what a lemma is.
"Following Starr's 1969 paper, the Shapley–Folkman–Starr results have been widely used to show that central results of (convex) economic theory are good approximations ...". What does "central results" mean?
Updated"; for example, quasi-equilibria closely approximate equilibria of a convexified economy." (This rephrases a phrase only a few sentences earlier. I suspect that repetition may help readers rather than bore them.) K.W.
"Minkowski addition is defined by the addition of the sets' members". Is it defined by it or as it?
Sharply observed, MF! It should be "as". (Three corrections on page) K.W.
"A real vector space of two dimensions can be given a Cartesian coordinate system in which every point is identified by a list of two real numbers". A list isn't two.
"This distance is zero exactly when the sum is convex". What does that mean? Exactly zero when the sum is convex? Why "exactly"?
"exactly" is a conversational way of writing "if and only if". I'll change it (because temporal "when" is distracting). (DONE) The word "exactly one" recurs in the image's alternative caption, because the statement that there exists 1 dollar in my bank account is true even when I have 2 or more dollars there. K.W.
"The Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem states that an upper bound on the distance between the Minkowski sum and its convex hull—the convex hull of the Minkowski sum is the smallest convex set that contains the Minkowski sum." Something's gone wrong with the punctuation or grammar there.
That is weird. I'll check the history in case my keyboard mistyping deleted something important. It could be fixed by deleting "that", although the long dash is jarring. K.W. AHA! The "that" was inserted by MF! :D *LOL* I think that "the theorem states an upper bound" is proper grammatically and conventional mathematically: Other word choices should be considered. Kiefer.Wolfowitz04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"More generally, any real vector space of (finite) dimension D can be viewed as the set of all possible D-tuples of D real numbers { (v1, v2, . . . , vD) } together with two operations". How can a real vector space be viewed as two operations?
First, we have the real numbers, which can be considered to a vector space over itself. This means that every pair of real numbers can be multiplied and added . More generally, with two dimensions, we can consider the multiplication of a 2-dimensional vector by a real number , which forms the scalar-vector product ; every pair of 2-dimensional vectors can be added, thusly . The operations for higher-dimensional vector-spaces are defined analogously (elementwise). Kiefer.Wolfowitz18:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that a real vector space is a set of real number pairs, but it's the "together with two operations" I'm unhappy about. The operations are specifically addition and multiplication, not any old operations, and they're applied to the vector spaces. MalleusFatuorum20:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! "A set on which two operations are defined: Vector addition and scalar-vector multiplication". K.W.
Shapley–Folkman theorem and Starr's corollary
"Starr used the inner radius to strengthen the conclusion of the Shapley–Folkman theorem". Theorems don't have conclusions.
The SF theorem is a conditional theorem with an if-then statement: "If the number of sets is greater than the dimension, then ... an inequality is satisfied." K.W.
Support I've now read the whole article, and although it's not an easy read, and I'm not a mathematician, I'm persuaded that it's an accurate account that meets the FA criteria. MalleusFatuorum
Comments
For the article as a whole, I'm impressed with the meticulous care that has been taken with both the references and with the explanations of mathematical concepts and issues intended at the average reader. I think there were (there always are) some minor issues with "translating math into English" but I think Malleus caught most if not all of that.
Economics
Other than that I can really only make detailed comments about the "Economics" section. Again, I see no major problems here. There was some slightly awkward wording, as noted above, in the explanation of the graphical derivation of demand from the indifference curves and budget constraints which I reworded somewhat. Someone should probably make sure that in the rewording I didn't solve one problem by creating another.
I liked your rewording, but I made a few changes. I removed the reduction to relative prices, just because this interesting (projective-geometry, or dual-space) reduction is not needed, and may confuse some readers. I changed one "the optimal basket" to "an optimal basket", as in a non-strictly-convex example.
I also agree with the comment above that the "supply and demand" graph in the article is not really necessary. The application of the lemma in economics is to a general equilibrium but the graph depicts a partial equilibrium situation. This is fairly minor though.
One final thing - though this is more of a matter of taste - in some ways I think it would make more sense to have the "Probability and measure theory" section precede the "Mathematical optimization" section as the first is more general.
I agree with the abstract/aesthetic value of having the most general topic first, at least for experts. However, abstraction is a menace in popular science-exposition. ;)
In the case of this article, it would be very bad to begin the applications with probability. That application-section is really a summary-style section that is of greatest use to students who have had at least a course in the "principles" of real analysis (the theory of calculus, like Walter Rudin's "Baby Rudin") and a basic course in probability. Leading with probability would place a road block in the way of many readers.
The economics application deserves to come first, at least historically. The optimization application(s) could come first, mathematically. However, as discussed above with Protonk, economists have spent a century simplifying consumer theory, and it seems that the indifference-curve approach enables the article to avoid maximizing utility. (If we used utility maximization, for quasiconcave utility functions, then optimization should precede economics, in exposition as well as in abstract-to-specific ordering). K.W.
Along the side lines, shouldn't Shapley's photo be moved up in the article, perhaps to the section "Starr's 1969 paper and contemporary economics"? I understand that there are aesthetic issues involved as that may make one section over cluttered with images.
All three reviewers have supported the nomination, and the copyscape audit has revealed no problems (and there are none, I vow). I have responded to all actionable complaints and suggestions (IMHO) inside the scope of a FA nomination.
Outside the scope of a FA nomination, imho, there remains two suggestions for expansion of applications. In optimization, Protonk requests an informal explanation of the significance of the Ekeland/Lemarechal result, which should be done in a few days (e.g., following Bertsekas's textbook). Second, in economics, Protonk's request for another example can be done in 2 days, by providing short verbal explanation of an example from Starr's 1969 paper; alas, IMHO, it is impossible to provide a graphical illustration using economic data to illustrate the SF lemma without doing original research.
Finally, I thank my reviewers for their dedication and excellent suggestions, the article's creator David Eppstein for his initiative & brilliant graphics & continued efforts, the peer reviewers Paul Nguyen, Geometry Guy, & TCO, mensch EdJohnson, for great suggestions, Mike Hardy for copyediting and help with formatting, the copy-editing of LK and others, and especially Jakob for his civilized leadership in the Good Article review, which taught me most of my WikiCraft. Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) MOVED FROM ABOVE 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keifer, there is way too much bolding in this nomination. Next time, please don't bold so much within your own comments, and please do not repeat reviewer declarations. This actually makes it harder for delegates to see what is going on at a quick glance and makes it more likely that I'll miss something. I've removed some of the bolding here, but not all that should go away.
It's also unnecessary to add a summary because the delegates have to read everything through anyway. If you choose to add a summary anyway, please do it at the bottom. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Shapley–Folkman lemma provides an affirmative answer to the question, "Is the sum of many sets close to being convex?" A set is defined to be convex if every line segment joining two of its points is a subset in the set: For example, the solid disk is a convex set but the circle is not, because the line segment joining two distinct points is not a subset of the circle. The Shapley–Folkman lemma suggests that if the number of summed sets exceeds the dimension of the vector space, then their Minkowski sum is approximately convex.
The lemma has many applications in economics, where non-convexity is associated with market failures, that is, with inefficient or non-existenteconomic equilibria. Non-convex sets have been studied by many winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics: Arrow (1972), Aumann (2005), Debreu (1983), Hurwicz (2007), Kantorovich (1975), Koopmans (1975), Krugman (2008), Samuelson (1970), and Solow (1987). (more…)
This draft has 1221 characters, a palindromic number numerologically arguing against further trimming (to reach 1200 characters).
I would suggest that the article appear 11 October 2011, the day after the Nobel Economics Prize is awarded, or perhaps on the day of the Nobel Award Ceremony. Kiefer.Wolfowitz09:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is passed in time you can add this to this TFA/Requests subpage. I don't know if the article will be passed in time, though. The easiest way to get an article passed more quickly is to bring in more reviewers. Some FACs are declined for lack of reviewers even if all the reviews support the article. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Protonk!
I have written neutral announcements at the mathematics and economics projects (and asked for help with the optimization section with the systems and computer-science projects and for help with the measure theory section with the statistics project) and asked (neutrally) for help at individual talk pages, for editors like yourself who helped out at the GA or A-level review.
I have confidence in this review process, having read Malleu's comments about the FA community and having witnessed SandyGeorgia's good judgment elsewhere many times. The FA reviewers will recognize your and Marek's economic expertise (and perhaps you are known for FA work unbeknown to me) and Malleus's experience and exacting demands with FA articles and the English language. They can also see that mathematicians like David Eppstein, Geometry Guy, Ed Johnston, and Jakob S. have also given the article a careful review.
I would prefer firstly to allow the FA leadership time and secondly to respect the time-constraints of the math project, before sending out further appeals. I am pleased that you and Marek and Malleus again volunteered to read the article and provide so many thoughtful remarks.
If October 11th is no longer available, perhaps the article could be scheduled for the Nobel award ceremony week. Otherwise, it can wait a year. Sincerely and with warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expertise aside, I think the expectation of multiple reviewers exist so that we don't get tunnel vision and promote a seemingly great article with a serious flaw. It has happened before. I wouldn't send out any more mass appeals (not that doing so is bad) but if you know any really active copywriters now might be the time to drop them a line. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident that the content and prose satisfy the FA guidelines. The article has been stable for about half a year, with only minor changes. The only worry I had was whether the images (especially the animation) satisfy the FA guidelines. Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I renewed a few personal requests. At least one reviewer indicated that, given his previous work on the article, that he thought it appropriate to let others decide FA status. (He also cautioned that mathematics articles typically remain open for a while.) He suggested two FA mathematics editors, whom I've now contacted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't draft the TFA blurb here: this page is only for determining whether the article meets the FA criteria. Use the article's talk page (or some other page) instead. Ucucha (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for help at the WP page about Images and Media. Is there a description of how to do a spotcheck? Is your "I would like to see ... a spotcheck" an oppose (if this is not done)?
A "spotcheck" is performed when an uninvolved editor checks the source supplied for a given claim in the article to see if the source fully backs up the claim, and to ensure that there are no problems of verbatim copying or close paraphrasing. Usually someone will need to check several different sources throughout the article. This will be difficult in an article with sources as technical as these. – Quadell(talk)19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All images are legitimately free, either freely licensed or in the public domain. All necessary information in provided. – Quadell(talk)19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Let me first add to the praise above for the meticulous work that has gone into this well-referenced and carefully explained article on an important technical topic. The article has much improved since February (where I contributed a partial peer review). Nevertheless, on reading the article closely (having not done so since February), I find that it falls short of the demanding FA criteria in several respects, and so cannot support its promotion at present. Areas where I believe improvements could be made include: clarity of exposition, engaging/brilliant prose, comprehensiveness and organization. I will add detailed remarks shortly, most of which I hope can be easily addressed. Geometry guy21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your past comments. I shall address whatever suggestions you make to the best of my ability. (I am away from my office until next week, however.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leading issues. The first few sentences of the lead already illustrate some of the issues (numbered so that it should not be necessary to interleave replies).
The repetition "In geometry and economics... In mathematics..." is clunky; despite comments made above about readers not knowing what a lemma is, an entire sentence is overkill – why not simply wikilink "Shapley-Folkman Lemma"?
The article does not explain what the Shapley-Folkman-Starr theorem is: it discusses their results, including a Shapley-Folkman theorem and Starr's corollary, but no theorem with that name.
The lead sentence does not define the topic: the Shapley-Folkman(-Starr) results do not describe the Minkowski addition of sets in a vector space (the definition of Minkowski addition does that); they describe the extent to which the Minkowski sum of many sets is approximately convex.
The distinction between "addition" and "sum" is important. "Addition" is a synonym for "summation", the process of adding, not a synonym for "sum", the result of the addition. (We do not say "5 is the addition of 2 and 3".) The lead needs to make this distinction clear for Minkowski addition/sums, so that the terms can be selected and used for maximum clarity in the article.
The lead uses terms such as "summand(-)set" and "sumset" without defining or wikilinking them. A particularly problematic example is "average sumset". I was completely unclear about what this meant until I read section 3.2.
Theoremsdo have ("hypotheses" and) "conclusions", and I am relaxed about the idea that a theorem may "address" or "concern" a particular question. "The Shapley–Folkman–Starr results suggest..." is a bit too loose for me, however. A naive reviewer might ask "suggest to whom?", but the point of the sentence is to provide an intuitive summary of the results, not make suggestions.
"The Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem states an upper bound on the distance between the Minkowski sum and its convex hull—the convex hull of the Minkowski sum is the smallest convex set that contains the Minkowski sum." Unnecessary repetition: "its convex hull (the smallest convex set containing it)".
"Their bound on the distance..." Antecedent missing/unclear.
Final paragraph: here and elsewhere, "The Shapley-Folkman do-dah..." is used far too much as the subject of the sentence. Try turning sentences around by looking for other subjects, and cut down on the tiresome "also"s.
"The topic of non-convex sets in economics has been studied by many Nobel laureates..."
I left this to last, as it may be a more substantial issue. This segment of the lead is repeated in the article, but does not really summarize anything. The comprehensiveness criterion really bites here: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". The legacy of the Shapley-Folkman Lemma is that results previously confined to convex economics and optimization (relatively easy) could be extended to the non-convex domain (much harder) by averaging (e.g., assuming many agents); this needs to be discussed to place the article in context. The applications section contains some such discussion, but is primarily pedagogical/technical and mixes mathematical, historical and evaluative material. The segment "Starr's 1969 paper and contemporary economics" then ends with a list which cries out for elaboration. Overall the treatment of the economics background, history and legacy for the results falls short of what I would hope for in a featured article. Geometry guy23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematics issues. Considerable effort has been made to explain the mathematics behind the S-F Lemma. This is commendable and appropriate as none of the mathematics is particularly hard (at least in the context of plane geometry), so it ought to be possible to explain it to a wide readership. There are some minor shortcomings in this respect.
Introductory example. (This should not begin "For example": the section title suffices.) I read this having forgotten the statement of the Shapley-Folkman Lemma and found it didn't help me very much. It isn't clearly laid out as an example of Minkowski addition of two or more sets, and quickly goes on to discuss averages, where I had not yet got the point. There are also little distractions such as describing {0,1,2} as a subset of the integers, which seems irrelevant. At some point, the article should probably introduce the averaged Minkowski sum (and motivate why it is a useful notion).
Real vector spaces. Is it necessary to use the language of vector spaces if they are all viewed as Rn? Maybe, but readers could easily be put off. Perhaps it is more natural to use vector spaces, but not completely so: the natural setting for convexity is affine geometry, and later on, the theory makes use of Euclidean distance.
Convex sets... "a non-empty set Q is defined to be convex if, for each pair of its points, every point on the line segment that joins them is a subset of Q". This sentence is incorrect (unless points are viewed as subsets), possibly because of a partial attempt to simplify the exposition. It can be simplified further: "a non-empty set Q is convex if, for each pair of points in Q, every point on the line segment joining them is in Q". In general, it is helpful to unpack the language of subsets, as set membership is easier to discuss in a non-technical way. A small amount of copyediting would be helpful here (and elsewhere).
Convex sets. "Mathematical induction" disrupts the flow and is only need for one implication in the "if and only if". Why not define convex combinations before using them to characterize convexity?
Convex hull... "is the minimal convex set that contains Q. Thus Conv(Q) is the intersection of all the convex sets that cover Q." Here the word "cover" is incorrect: its use implies a collection of sets whose union contains Q. Conv(Q) is the intersection of all convex sets containing Q, and the the fancy word "minimal" can be replaced by "smallest" by the uniqueness (well-definedness) of this set. It may be helpful to introduce the word "convexification" here as a synonym.
Minkowski sum. The "principle of mathematical induction" again. It isn't needed to define the sum of a family, only to show that an iterated binary sum is equal to the sum of the family (and hence is associative).
Convex hulls and Minkowski sums. Yet more induction! Why is it relevant to discuss a snippet of the proof?
Statements. This begins in a somewhat pedestrian fashion with "x in Y and Y=Z implies x in Z". Repetition may be pedagogical, but encyclopedic writing should be concise and to the point.
Statements/lemma. It may be helpful to use a different letter for an element of Conv(Qn) than for an element of Qn. This would help to emphasize the point of writing the sum in two parts.
Shapley–Folkman theorem and Starr's corollary. There is a sudden jump in complexity and sophistication here. The article has been holding the reader's hand up to the lemma, but then says "okay, now you're on your own". A short subsection on Euclidean distance, distnace to a subset, circumradius and inner radius would help a lot.
Starr's corollary. Is this really a corollary to the Shapley-Folkman theorem? It provides a sharper estimate. Also, why is "non-convexity" an abuse?
Proofs and computations. "The original proof of the Shapley–Folkman lemma established only the existence of the representation..." What representation? This needs to be clarified. An idea of the proof of the lemma would be nice too.
Further issues. It remains to discuss the Applications section.
"The Shapley–Folkman lemma enables researchers...and the Shapley–Folkman lemma has renewed research that had been stumped by non-convex sets." Why "researchers"? Had "research" really been "stumped"? This informal present/perfect tense approach needs to be backed up or replaced by historical legacy material.
"In all three disciplines, the break-through application of the Shapley–Folkman lemma has been made by a young scientist." This is an editorial observation; such synthesis should be sourced or cut.
"On this set of baskets, an indifference curve is defined for each consumer..." suggests there is only one curve per consumer, whereas in fact the space is foliated by such curves: there is one through each basket.
"An optimal basket of goods occurs where the budget-line supports a consumer's preference set, as shown in the diagram..." There is too much unexplained economics jargon here. What is a budget-line, price vector and endowment vector, and how is the budget line defined in terms of the other quantities? What is an optimal basket? A feasible one? Is the optimal basket really a function? It looks like it could be multi-valued or only partially defined even in the convex case.
I remain uncomfortable with the griffin example. Apart from the question as to whether it is encyclopedic, it is distracting and confusing. What is meant by half a lion or half an eagle? It only makes sense when discussing dead creatures. Why not have a lion for six months of the year and an eagle for the other six? And surely a contemporary zoo keeper would value a griffin much more highly than a lion or an eagle, because of the fortune to be made out of visiting Harry Potter fans. Finally, the footnote gives a perfectly sensible and completely sourced example (an automobile and a boat) so why not use that?
"Previous publications on non-convexity and economics were collected in an annotated bibliography by Kenneth Arrow." This is a slightly odd start to a section. Previous to what? Wouldn't it be better to start with Starr?
"who proved their eponymous lemma and theorem in 'private correspondence' ". No they didn't: they communicated it to Starr in private correspondence or he quoted it thusly.
The mathematical optimization section spends rather a lot of time defining convex functions. The caption to the diagram is more concise.
The opening of the probability and measure theory section is confusing. The essence of the discussion is that if random quantity only takes values in Q, then its average, being a convex combination, must belong to the convex hull of Q.
I have drafted initial replies in my user space. I agree with most of his comments and I concede merit to the others. In general, I would argue that disagreements remain where I am trying to help first-time readers, with less mathematical background, by repetition.
I acknowledge that GG may well wish that this article was longer and contained more information, but I reply that FA articles need not be perfect; this article contains far more information and has better graphics than any other treatment in world literature. Readers wanting more treatment of e.g. economics should consult the sources given in the article (most of which are missing from even the union of previous articles on this topic), such as Mas-Colell's article on non-convexity and economics (in .pdf format on his home page).
You're welcome. My comments are generally provided "as is" for you and the delegates to make what you will of them. However, I see from your initial response that I need to clarify Leading issues#3 (on the lead sentence). The Shapley-Folkman lemma involves two fundamental ingredients of similar importance: Minkowski addition and convexity. The current lead sentence treats these ingredients differently, referring to Minkowski addition and then defining it, while postponing discussion of the role of convexity. This is not defining. It should not be too difficult to work convexity into the lead sentence, e.g., "In geometry and economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma describes the extent to which the Minkowski sum of a sets in a vector space is approximately convex." I'm sure you can do better than me, but a good lead paragraph should mention both Minkowski addition and convexity in the first sentence, then define them both. Geometry guy17:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The muse was not whispering in my ear, but I'm beginning to hear an improved first sentence.
If you look at my responses in user space (in history), you will notice that I tend to agree with you after first raising some initial (token) resistance.
Oppose. Here are some issues with the article as it stands:
The article never defines "sumset". It begins using the term in the lead, but the non-expert reader may not realize this is meant to be the Minkowski sum.
In the paragraph where the lead discusses the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem, the claim is first made that "[t]heir bound on the distance" does not depend on "the number of summand-sets N, when N > D". It goes on to say that "as the number of summands increases to infinity, the bound decreases to zero". My first thought was that these could not both be true, and that the article was in error. It turns out that I was wrong, because I missed the word "average". I think I won't be the only reader to make this error, so I think the paragraph needs to make a bigger contrast between sumsets and average sumsets.
Still in the lead: It's not clear to me what a convexified economy is, not even vaguely. Nor is it clear what kind of equilibrium is meant (a Nash equilibrium, I guess?) or how that's different from a quasi-equilibrium.
In general, the lead spends a lot of time trying to explain the statement of the Shapley–Folkman lemma (and its relatives). That's not the right direction. What the reader needs to learn is, "Why do I care?" Imagine, for example, that I'm a layman who has read a pop economics book, and I know what supply and demand are and what economies are, but I don't know what a convex set or a Minkowski sum is. Why should I learn about the Shapley–Folkman lemma? The lead does not answer this question. The closest it comes is near the end, where it explains that a lot of famous and successful economists have said that the study of non-convex situations is important (the lead has already made it clear that the Shapley–Folkman lemma is important for these). But essentially it's a proof by authority: All these Nobel laureates think it's important, so you should, too! This will not entice a novice reader to continue.
In general, the article is structured like (I almost hate to say this) a math article. First it describes some preliminary notions (real vector spaces, convex sets, Minkowski sums, etc.). Then it states a theorem. Then it states applications. Kind of like "Definition–Theorem–Proof–Corollary". I realize that we all write this way (including me), but we shouldn't, and we especially shouldn't in an encyclopedia article.
Right now, the article lacks a history section. I am going to suggest (this is only a suggestion, and there may be better ways of doing this) that you move some of the material from the Economics subsection of the Applications section into a new "History and Motivation" section immediately following the lead. This could put foundational material (like convexity) into a historical context: Before the Shapley–Folkman lemma, economists studied convex economies. Convexity is ..., and these are economies in which ... and they were important because of ..., but non-convex economies, which are ..., were important because ..., and prior to the Shapley–Folkman lemma nothing was known about non-convex economies. If you combine the foundational material with historical context, you make it more interesting and easier to grasp: It comes with vivid examples of what used to be cutting-edge research. By the time you are done with the historical context, you should have managed to introduce the prerequisite material for the Shapley–Folkman lemma. Then you can state it (and its corollaries and variations). Once that's done, you can move on to other applications.
The optimization section has the same "Definition–Theorem–Proof–Corollary" feel. Again, I think it would be more effective to weave together the history and the prerequisite material.
I was surprised at how short the section on probabilistic applications is. I don't know how important the Shapley–Folkman lemma is in such work, but you mention that it can be used to prove some analogs of standard results for real-valued random variables (like a law of large numbers and a central limit theorem). It would be good to include some more detail about these so that the reader at least knows how the Shapley–Folkman lemma is relevant (you don't necessarily have to state the theorems to prove this).
Also, it might be good to explain in more detail how Lyapunov's theorem is related to the Shapley–Folkman lemma.
Oregon is a place that did not exist until fairly recently, geologically speaking. The Pacific Ocean lapped at the shores of what now is called Idaho until tectonic plate movements added new land to the North American continent. So young is Oregon that it lacks fossils of the dinosaurs that lived in Idaho and further east until they collectively met their demise about 65 million years ago. On the other hand, the mammals that succeeded the dinosaurs flourished in Oregon, and the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument has the evidence to prove it. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria, and I thank peer reviewers Brianboulton, Ruhrfisch, and Wehwalt for helping make it so. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the John Day Basin is a major paleontological site, why does this article have so little on the actual fossils found? Ucucha (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The geology and paleontology section lists quite a few examples—Patriofelis, broadleaf plants, mastodons, horses—from different time periods. What is missing? If you mean information about individual fossils, I don't know of any that stand out above the others. I'm open to suggestion though. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples, yes, but what is missing is the whole picture. What were the paleocommunities like? How do the John Day faunas compare to other contemporaneous faunas? Are all the fossil faunas the result of volcanic deposition? (For example, localities in the John Day Basin have yielded the only North American record of a rodent similar to the European fossil Deperetomys, and the first North American records of modern beavers, Castor. I'm not saying that those should necessarily be included in the article, but those are the kinds of things the article should cover.) Ucucha (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I don't feel the article is comprehensive yet (see above). I'll see whether I can point you to some good sources, but I don't know very much about North American paleontology. Ucucha (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think what we have here is a difference of opinion about audience. I've chosen to write an article about a park that ordinary people visit for its scenic attractions, its relatively easy and lovely hikes, and its paleontological and cultural museums. While I love science and the idea that ordinary people can learn something about it by visiting the park and by reading this article, I don't think what's needed here is a more heavy emphasis on the science. I could add more about the paleosols and the paleoclimates, but too much of this might put ordinary readers to sleep. If the audience consisted solely of biologists, that would be a different matter, and you would no doubt be a better choice of author than I. If you have specific information that you think should be included in the article, I'd be glad to consider it. Otherwise, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Finetooth (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to meet you in the middle or thereabouts, I've added a note (diff) giving an overview of the significance of the beds to science. In compact form, it addresses the questions of the beds' relative global importance, the variations among the paleocommunities, and the nature of the deposition (largely volcaniclastic) that you mention above. Do you think this is sufficient? Finetooth (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a step in the right direction, to be sure. You have chosen to write an article on an area that is an important paleontological site, and such an article should cover the paleontology well. Samuels and Zancanella (2011, doi:10.1666/11-016.1), for example write that Hemphillian faunas in Oregon, including the Rattlesnake Formation in the John Day Monument, include some of the first records of immigrants into North America, such as beavers (Castor), bears (Indarctos), grisons (Lutravus), and lesser pandas (Simocyon). That's the kind of information the article should cover. On the other hand, it might be difficult to cover this without sources that summarize the paleontology well... I'm not sure. Ucucha (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fremd, who was the chief paleontologist at the monument for many years, says, "... the Clarno Formation includes significant Pacific Northwest Bridgerian North American Land Mammal Age (NALMA) assemblages; the John Day Formation has yielded excellent material representing over thirty mammalian families and well over one hundred species of Whitneyan through late Arikareean NALMA taxa; the Mascall Formation represents an important early Barstovian (proposed "Mascallian") interval; and the Rattlesnake Formation is a recognized principal correlate of the Hemphillian NALMA." This kind of stuff resists translation to pedestrian English, though perhaps I should mention the beavers since Oregon is the Beaver State. While the monument does include many fossils, the area of paleontological interest extends well beyond the area lying within the monument. Would you be open to the idea that this is an article about the park and that the article you are thinking of is a separate and more technical one, yet to be written, focusing on the wider area? Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There would certainly be place for a more detailed treatment of the fossils in a different article, but that doesn't mean the treatment in this article is sufficient. (By the way, your recent additions to the John Day Formation article seem to be confusing the Formation with the John Day Group, which is apparently a larger stratigraphical unit that includes the John Day Formation and several other units.) The text you give becomes more comprehensible once you understand that all the -ians are just slices of time (North American Land Mammal Ages, in this case). Ucucha (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed mention of the John Day Group. I'm sorry we don't agree about the level of paleontological detail needed here, but we don't. Finetooth (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, I never noticed the redirect, but I see that it was created in 2006. Should it be removed? I tried removing the text, but that leaves an article title connected to nothing. I'm not sure how to fix the problem. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a separate article, which is more interesting and will be more useful to the encyclopedia than simply deleting the redirect. I blame the lateness of the hour for not thinking of this last night. I'll see what I can do and post a further note here later. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of disagreements on other matters, I have a few smaller comments:
"The Clarno volcanoes subsided by the early Oligocene but were replaced about 36 million years ago"—the Oligocene started 34 million years ago.
The source, Geology of Oregon says, "By early Oligocene time the Clarno volcanic episode had subsided to be replaced by eruptions of a new complexion in the John Day period about 36 million years ago. Only a brief interval of erosion separates the two events." I've recast the sentence to say, "After the Clarno volcanoes had subsided, they were replaced about 36 million years ago by eruptions from volcanoes to the west... " Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You list "swine" among the mammals found in the John Day Formation, but pigs (Suidae) never occurred in North America. Do you mean peccaries instead?
The source says "swine", but I think it likely that you are right and that the Park Service source is wrong. I'm not sure what the source means by "swine", so I've deleted the term. Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same for "antelope"; that's a term that sometimes refers to the pronghorn of North America, and perhaps also to its extinct relatives, but is more usually limited to a group of bovids that never occurred outside of the Old World.
The source, in this case Geology of Oregon, says "antelope", and again I feel certain that you are correct and that the source is wrong. I have deleted "antelope" from the list of examples. Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was also involved in the peer review and feel this more than meets the FA criteria. If you want I can delete the John Day Formation redirect - could it also be converted into a stub? Here is a USGS ref on the formation. I have a few quibbles which do not detract from my support.
Should there be a link to Boise in By the late 1860s, the route became formalized as the The Dalles–Boise Military Road, which passed along Bridge Creek and south of Sheep Rock.?
Should there be a link to University of California in By the late 1860s, the route became formalized as the The Dalles–Boise Military Road, which passed along Bridge Creek and south of Sheep Rock.?
Image review All of the images used in the article are free, either because they are the work of Wikipedians, or the US federal government, or in case is old enough to be out of copyright. Ruhrfisch><>°°11:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—My concerns were addressed and I think this article satisfies the FA criteria. Good work! Regards, 19:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)RJH (talk) Comments—Overall this is a good article and one that I consider close to FA worthy. However, there were a few small points that came up while I was reading the content:
There's a pair of sentences in the lead that appear to be missing articles:
"...U.S. National Monument in [the] Wheeler and Grant counties in east-central Oregon."
The phrase as it stands sounds right to me. I think it would sound strange with an added "the". I would not write "U.S. National Monument in the Wheeler County", for example. I don't think the plural makes any difference in this way. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. After a little investigating, counties are not one of the exceptions where 'the' is used with geographical names. I'll mark it as done. RJH (talk)
"...the John Day basin was frequented by [the] Sahaptin people who hunted, ..."
This one is more subtle, but adding "the", it seems to me, is not an improvement. It adds an extra word and slightly distorts the meaning. Not all of the Sahaptin people frequented the basin, just some. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the statement "As early as the 18th century and probably earlier, ..." could be improved. Is it saying how long there were there, or when they were last there? The word "early" depends on the reader's perspective; it could just as easily have said "As late as the 18th century..." and meant the same thing.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I don't agree that "early" and "late" mean the same thing. The reader's perspective is from the 21st century looking back. The sources are vague about exact dates, most likely because the dates are unknown. How would researchers know what the Sahaptin peoples were doing in 1500 or 500, for example, since the tribes did not leave the kinds of historical records kept by Europeans? Finetooth (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well I still have a concern with your wording. Your intended meaning appears to be that the date range is when they were most recently known to settle in the location, which to me means the same as "as late as". But another interpretation of "As early as" is that they first appeared there at that time. "I'll be there as early as 7 am" doesn't mean I'll be there at 7 am or before. To me it's just vague and potentially ambiguous. RJH (talk)
Since no one seems to know the precise dates of the range, I have reworded to say, "Early inhabitants of north-central Oregon included Sahaptin-speaking people of the Umatilla, Wasco, and Warm Springs tribes as well as the Northern Paiutes, speakers of a Uzo-Aztecan (Shoshonean) language." Is that OK? Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Researchers have identified 36 sites of archeological interest..." needs a word to connect the topic to the first part of the paragraph. Perhaps "...of related archeological interest..."?
Deleted "is thought to be". The basic vagueness here reflects the vagueness of the two sources, which do not give exact numbers. However, "is thought to be" is probably overkill on my part. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...Edward Drinker Cope of the Academy of Natural Sciences and paleontologist Othneil C. Marsh of Yale, who accompanied Condon on a trip to the region in 1871." This is ambiguous about whether Marsh alone, or both Cope and Marsh, accompanied Condon.
The following two sentences seem somewhat off topic for the paragraph on soil types: "Volcanic tuffs and claystones that lack essential nutrients support few microorganisms and plants. Likewise, hard rock surfaces and steep slopes from which soils wash or blow away tend to remain bare." No need to delete them, but perhaps they can be relocated?
I think the paragraph flows nicely as is and that the two sentences fit just fine. They describe the kinds of soils that do not support much in the way of flora. The following sentence says, "In other soils, plant communities flourish." Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I see that bare rock does not qualify as a soil type. I've taken your advice and relocated the two sentences to the end of the paragraph with a short lead-in to maintain the prose flow. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that begins "The Park Service is considering controlled burning..." may be more appropriate at the end of the next paragraph.
I'm concerned about the capitalization of some animal species names; that may need to be checked. For example, why is "Northern pikeminnow" capitalized but not "redside shiners"? Most book sources use "northern pikeminnow".
Thank you for your insightful comments and the proofing changes you made to the article. I agree with many most of your suggestions but not all, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in - to my ears ..U.S. National Monument in [the] Wheeler and Grant counties in east-central Oregon." does not sound correct (it osunds OK without the. Ruhrfisch><>°°23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was one of the peer reviewers for this article, and my various points were addressed to my satisfaction there. I note Ucucha's objection registered above; on balance I agree with Finetooth's rationale, and I trust that the difference in view between them can be swiftly resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. I see no prospect of researching the paleontology in depth any time soon. Perhaps it would be best to withdraw the nomination if it cannot pass in its present state. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been working on this article for the last four months and hope it now meets the FA criteria. It would be great if it became a featured article in time for the start of Sheen's Hamlet run at the end of October. Popeye191 (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News International have withdrawn their newspapers from Lexis, an archive search engine that provides pdf scans (the only such site I have access to - Factavia isn't offered by my uni). Gale is supposed to be providing pdf versions of 90s editions of The Times in the future but they're not available yet. I hope the detail currently provided will be sufficient Popeye191 (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper is The New York Times, not New York Times, The Guardian and not Guardian - check similar
Can we cite something other than his CV for award nominations?
I have looked for a different source for the MEN Theatre Award nomination. While it is mentioned elsewhere, I think Roxane Vacca Management is the most reliable source available. Would you like me to remove it? Popeye191 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed one movies.about.com reference. I'd like to leave the other reference if possible because it is the source of the original interview. Rebecca Murray conducted the interview and, from reading her biography, I think she can be considered a reliable author. Popeye191 (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Collider.com is the source of three original interviews so I hope it will be considered reliable. Collider's About Us page states that they offer "a mix of up-to-the-second links to major stories and bracing original content provided by heavily connected industry insiders". Reliable third party publications such as MTV support collider.com as a reliable, self-published source. Popeye191 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one from Milhist has added our project's tag to this article yet, and I'd like to ask for feedback on that. Milhist generally tags an article on a head of state during a time of conflict, but when other wikiprojects are involved, we don't mind not tagging, or we can tag but take a back seat. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"St. James", "St. George", "St. Paul": I'm confused because I see them with and without the full stop.
I can't see any without. And I'm surprised because I was especially careful in making sure they all had one.
Oops, I mean I'm confused about how BritEng handles full stops after "St"; I see it both ways, though usually without the full stop. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lord Mulgrave (later the Duke of Buckingham)": I took the last bit out of the link; links to a name are general a noun phrase rather than noun phrase/adverb/noun phrase.
"Anne was reproached for showing no concern at the news of her father's flight, and instead merely asked for her usual game of cards.": If she was reproached for asking for a card game, then: "asking"
"as parliamentary governance unfolded ...": A plot can unfold; I'm not sure about governance.
"the traditional religious practice of touching for the King's evil ...": Some will want quote marks around the link; it depends a bit on whether you're comfortable relying on the link itself to perform the same function.
"to cause party faction.": Not familiar with "faction" in this sense.
"Sovereign": why uppercase?
"The leadership of the Admiralty, nominally under the control of Anne's husband, Prince George of Denmark, was unpopular amongst the Whig leaders. Anne was devastated by his death ...": Something doesn't work there.
"The Duchess arrived at Kensington Palace shortly before George died, and after his death insisted that Anne left Kensington for St. James's Palace against her wishes.": insisted that Anne leave? - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one point, and I generally stay away from making judgments on matters like these: two hidden comments seem to be saying that some of the text is copied verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Some editors will ask for quote marks when public domain text is copied, some will ask for attribution, some will ask for a notice somewhere on the page that some of the text is copied from the relevant PD source, and a few aren't happy with copied text anywhere in a FAC regardless of attribution. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sentences were already in the article before I started on it, and I only spotted that they were copied verbatim after the start of the FAC.[38][39] Nikkimaria asked who had written the EB article, and so I read it for the first time then. Ideally, I would prefer to find some other way of phrasing these two clauses. The language is old-fashioned and has a different "voice". DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know actually, because I don't know what "all deference due to her rank was abandoned" and "promising its restoration" mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lede is a bit choppy, but subject matter is tricky. Will muse on this and post more.
I'd link to wiktionary or explain "suppositious".
The prose uses lots of short sentences, which come over as a tad on the choppy side. I'm not seeing any overt clangers or deal-breakers but am looking to see if I can make the prose flow a little bit better.
Is there a single sentence that can be added (and sourced) that says she had a distant or difficult relationship with her father? It seems pretty obvious from reading but isn't explicitly stated anywhere
Is there no more commentary on her relationship with abigail which can be added? Is that discussed anywhere in sources?
The pop culture segment could do with some overriding sentences (if there are any) about whether portrayals are generally unfavourable or favourable
Comment: An excellent article which is informative and in general a pleasure to read. Here are a few minor suggestions, and a couple (the last two) of slightly more substantial points.
I believe "Privy Council" should always be capitalised.
The neutral encylopaedic tone is missing in this extract (I have italicised the offending words): "Anne was dismayed. When Sarah forwarded an unrelated letter from her husband to Anne, with a covering note continuing the argument, Anne wrote back pointedly, "After the commands you gave me on the thanksgiving day of not answering you, I should not have troubled you with these lines, but to return the Duke of Marlborough's letter safe into your hands, and for the same reason do not say anything to that, nor to yours which enclosed it." (I must say I have some difficulty in working out what Ann was actually saying.) Later, the use for emphasis of the phrase "over and over" also militates against a neutral tone.
No reason is given for the "almost-square coffin".
"The Electress Sophia died on 8 June" → "The Electress Sophia had died on 8 June,...", followed by "so..." not "and so"
Don't you think that ten images of the Queen (not counting the coin) is a bit excessive? Why not use a few images of other contemporary figures, e.g. her father, the Churchills, the "Old Pretender", George of Hanover, etc? Her reign was full of great names, and some pics of them would provide some welcome variety in the presentation.
To me, the "popular culture" section adds nothing substantial to the article, while providing a possible magnet whereby drive-by editors can add all sorts of trivia based on period TV productions or other dubious sources. Why do you consider the section important or necessary?
Thank you, Cas and Brian, for reading through so carefully and for taking so much time and care over your reviews. I really do appreciate it, and I shall certainly act on your comments over the coming months. However, I now believe it was a mistake to nominate this article before the publication of Somerset's new biography, which could lead to re-drafting. I have decided to wait until I have read the newer works before proceeding with a third FAC.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
As a primary editor of the page, I'm not disputing that its close to an FAC, as it has had a PR/CE, and the like. I will help anyway I can to address FAC commentors' suggestions, but I do have a slight bit of concern that there may be more work that I am unaware of in the prose. (However, I have assured that reliable sourcing is there, NFC is used where appropriate, etc. etc.). --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as one can likely see from this article, this nom can potentially attract a lot of off-site commenters due to the fandom. A caution to the FA moderators on that possibility. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - While this article is of unusual high quality (even though the bronies are the only reason why), a few issues remain (such as people bitching about EqD). This really should have been discussed before making a nomination in my opinion. RainbowDash!xmcuvg2MH23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major issue with this article is that it's a siamese twin. The reason is because you have two major areas, being the actual show and fandom. The truth is while the fandom can be split and easily be it's own article (hell, even a GA if I wanted to), the other area depends on it to be it's major organs (the massive amount of sources). My whole stance on the article becoming a FA, is that the fandom has to keep doing it's job by stirring media attention, in order for anything to happen. RainbowDash!xmcuvg2MH20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check for formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
Use a consistent date format
In general, citation formatting needs to be more consistent
The New York Times, not New York Times
Check that your wikilinks go where you want them to - for example, Top Gear
Given the length of the article, the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs
Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "Twilight becomes close friends with five other ponies; Applejack..." is incorrectly punctuated
File:Mlp_fim_storyboard_sample.png: source link is dead
See here for a list of potentially problematic links
"deviantart.com?" I knew that would come up, as it does in every review. The references are to Lauren Faust's personal deviantart. It is her personal site, and the main means to which she communicates with the fans.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Equestria Daily is a situational source; it is a fanblog, but recognized as the foremost site for the show (as reported in more RS sources). As such, the references to ED are only for interviews with influential figures from the show (Faust, Thiessen), and not for other details. Deviantart.com, as Harizotoh notes, refer to known showrunners with pages there (Faust for sure). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article may have some small problems, but as it is it provides excellent coverage on the topic. It is worthy of featured page status, as long as the errors are fixed. Biglulu (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not ready yet. There are numerous questionable sources, as outlined by Nikkimaria (do you have any commentary that proves their reliability? Something from WP:RSN perhaps?), and looking at Checklinks some are not even functional. I must also profess my astonishment that multiple people who have not edited in almost a year (and much longer) suddenly manage to find their way to this FAC page to scribble support less than 24 hours after it is nominated. If only all featured article candidates received so much attention! Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've cautioned, there's a significant fandom behind this show that this FAC is going to attract, and the fact that this article is at FAC was advertized on at least one of the sites; I've tried to caution offsite that driveby's don't help in the long run (though if they driveby and improve the article, all the better). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, please continue that effort, as drive-bys are not going to help this nomination. Melicans, I agree with you about sourcing, but given what Masem reports I think we can assume that the off-site canvassing is not the fault of the nominators, but just an unfortunate reality of these types of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying, I'm trying. As for checklinks, I just ran it this morning and only one is reporting as a unreachable link as of today. Too early to be worried about a backup source for it. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the issues raised by Nikkimaria above (which I agree with) the following also raise concerns for me. this, this, and this. Also, a number of websites lack publishers, and there are other inconsistencies. Keep in mind that it's not just "reliable" but "high quality" that is the determining factor for sourcing at FAC. You want your interviews to be from high quality journalists, not from fan sites. At the moment, too much of the sourcing is in my mind below the high quality threshold and I'm going to have to oppose until better sources are found. Obviously, the subject is being covered in the mainstream media, so we shouldn't be relying on fan sites for as much of this article as it currently does. Ealdgyth - Talk16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may be difficult. It is not the show that is being covered in mainstream but the adult men's fascination with the show that is. An issue that this article has had is that we could spin off "brony" to its own article, which would be well sourced , etc. etc., but would considerably weaken the actual coverage of the show within this article. As such, it comes to rely more on what the fandom can get that talks actually about the show (eg interviews with the creators) than what mainstream media says about it - remember, if you subtract out the fandom, this is just a toyetic girls show on a cable network shown once a week - notable that it exists but certainly not going to be the subject of deep mainstream coverage; yet through the fandom, more coverage has been discovered.
As for two sources above, though both blog-like sources; Cartoon Brew is Jerry Beck's site, a notable expert in modern day animation and thus would be considered a expert source for opinion (as its used here) on animation. Boing Boing is written by experts in modern journalism and the impact of the Internet. Can't say much on the dailybarmoeter but I think we could remove it as most of the info is duplciation now from newer sources. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of spinning off Brony as its own article, that was already discussed. There was some consensus was to merge and create a redirect to the FiM article, which is what was done. The argument was that other fandoms (eg. Trekkies) have a lot more history and notability to them, and the FiM fandom has not reached that level yet. So it could be spun off in the future, but not now. [Link]--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a (the?) primary author, I will vouch that the article text is new, paraphrasing other sources and not copypulled. As I've never seen that animeflavor source, I suspect what Grue says is true - they copypulled the text from Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And checking the toolserver link, especially the plot summary (the bulk being caught) is my unique addition to the article. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the article's history and found that "Equestia" (sic) occurs in an earlier version of the paragraph. This is evidence of priority IMHO. Thanks for the reassurances. Graham Colm (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a great topic, and the article is good, but I don't think it comes close enough to passing our FA criteria at this time. It is immediately apparent that the lede is inadequate and many sources are lacking. – Quadell(talk)18:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The article has the potential to be FA, and I have no doubt it will be eventually, but the time is not now. Nikkimaria has raised an excellent list of things which will need attending to before this article is prepared. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Korkoro has come a long way, with two peer reviews and a successful GAN, developing from a stub to a GA in the last 2 months. Would like to see this take the last lap. morelMWilliam01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I resorted to creating this image as I was not satisfied with the way multiple image template rendered the images. I changed the display resolution; it doesn't look stretchy now. morelMWilliam13:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does on my monitor- only one of the images is still in proportion. This really comes across as unprofessional, which is not what we want from a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added the multiple images template. Check if that improved the images' quality. morelMWilliam
Look sharper to me now. I moved the image up slightly on the page and added a {{clear}} template after the last paragraph it runs alongside, as it was warping the text of the next section a little in my browser - the proximity of the image and infobox templates were causing the text to overlap the edge of the soundtrack infobox. Fixed now, on my end at least. GRAPPLEX03:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer to Nail is a high quality source for this subject. It is prominent in the indi circuit. The site was co-founded by Ted Hope, one of the prominent figures in the domain. Its editors are notable enough to have pages in indieWire too. Another indi movie magazine, Filmmaker (magazine) quite often features Hammer to Nail reviews such as this. I was also able to find this review published in Film Independent's website, which presents the Independent Spirit Awards. It is also not so uncommon to find Hammer to Nail's comments listed in the press releases of movies along with mainstream magazines. Now, that makes Hammer to Nail wiki page worthy! morelMWilliam12:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patrin is widely recognised as a reliable source by the academics for Roma studies. With google, I was able to find lots of academic papers using Patrin as a source, such as this University of Arizona paper and this Oxford paper. Stanford university lists Patrin as a reliable source for information on ethnic conflicts. Lots of books on the Roma have used Patrin as a source. (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). United Nations High Commission for Refugees recognises this as a reliable source. There have been articles on BBC and Natgeo too, using Patrin as a source. Was that convincing enough? morelMWilliam13:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi. Throughout the article in sections like Themes and analysis, Reception and basically anywhere you mention a review or observation from a writer you've written things like "an observation that was supported by Le Devoir, which wrote that the film mixes humour, sensitivity and drama." But shouldn't that be "an observation that was supported by Odile Tremblay in Le Devoir, which wrote that the film mixes humour, sensitivity and drama"? For the reviews you ought to name the writer because it isn't the publication itself that has that view, it's just their film critic. For some reviews such as Hammer to Nail you already have this and it should be a pretty easy change to make. Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is of significant international political interest. It has been thoroughly reworked since the last nomination was withdrawn in July, and I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. I hope for it to achieve featured status in time for TFA on the first anniversary of the award (8 October), or failing that the first anniversary of the award ceremony (10 December). There is another window on 25 December, the second anniversary of Liu Xiaobo's incarceration. Ohconfucius¡digame!14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to preface the review with a brief comment on citations: the online version of the South China Morning Post was used in the preparation of this article. The SCMP site does not display page numbers of the printed version; they have a strange way of archiving after a few weeks so that articles are no longer available using urls even with a subscription. Syndicated articles are not archived by SCMP, so I have added alternative sources as primary references where available, whilst retaining the SCMP citation. A small proportion of articles have no alternatives as they seem to be exclusives. --Ohconfucius¡digame!14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Un-italicsed News24 (mistake on my part because our article uses italics. I'm fairly sure only print publications are italicised now. By base urls, I assume you mean news.com.au and Boxun.com? I meant to use base urls only when the base url is the common name of the publisher. See Boxun.com and news.com.au. But I also used it for two non-English sources when I was unable to find what the publisher is commonly called: news.163.com and news.hotpot.hk. Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have two different formats for quotations, rquote and quote, which look very different. Why?
There seem to be some organizational difficulties still. For instance, the first paragraph outside the lede is very short, comprising 2 sentences: the first about the candidates and the second about prize money. Then the next paragraph is about the candidates again.
Why is "Reactions inside China: Central government" separate from "Diplomatic pressure"? Both include difficulties in China-Norway relations. Does "Diplomatic pressure" deserve a top-level section rather than a subsection?
Some wikilinks use piped redirects that are uninviting for those not already familiar with the topic. For instance "the mothers" links to Tiananmen Mothers, and "the concert" links to Nobel Peace Prize Concert. I assume that the "|Democratic Party" link is a typo?
Most statements in the lede are not sourced, but some are (and some have 2 or 3 sources). There doesn't seem to be a reason. For instance, some direct statements in the lede are sourced, but others are not.
"Cyber sleuths" does not sound encyclopedic to me in an article like this.
Response to Quadell
quote styles now unified
related short paragraphs merged
I've retitled and regrouped the sections: I feel the diplomatic pressure needs to be dealt with separately as it was an intense effort to pressure for a boycott that ran as a thread separate from the barrage of censorship propaganda and governmental condemnations.
pipings now adjusted
as the lead section is a summary of sourced material in the body, the refs are now all removed
This is an article I've been working on for the past eighteen months or so, previously nominated for FAC and recently been awarded GA status. I think it's time to subject this to another round against FAC reviewers. Since its previous nomination, I've streamlined sections that, in the past FAC, were seen to be too detailed, and slightly expanded some parts, and I've got it to what I believe is neither too detailed or not detailed enough (although I am aware it is a bit of a hefty article; well, he has been in the television industry for twenty-five years). As with most Doctor Who articles, the same question about the same sources always pops up; the answer is that FAC has often accepted them as RSes and I've heard of no reason to assume that has changed. Sceptre(talk)02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check formatting of quotes, particularly as regards MOS:ELLIPSIS
Per WP:LAYOUT we're advised against using the subheading Bibliography in a bio, as the term can also mean books authored by the subject, and while some of the sources used fit that criterion one does not
Be consistent in the use of p for single and pp for multiple pages
Newspapers and other publications should be italicized
Be consistent in whether locations are provided, and if they are what information is included
Newspaper/magazine sources without weblinks should include page numbers
FN 149 vs 153, 163 vs 166: why the different formatting here?
FN 161: page(s)?
Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines
Done.
Changed to "Sources".
Done.
Done.
See, I anticipated this. A Brief History of Time Travel cites its own sources, normally to the Doctor Who Magazine's special issues. I have no doubts as to the authenticity of information, but the only Doctor Who Magazine special issue I have is #20, which indeed corroborates what Sullivan says about the fourth series. Gallifrey Base has a recognised and accountable writing staff and policy, and has been recognised by other sources (inc. SFX, BBC, io9) as a good source of information. Both have been accepted as RSes during FACs in 2008 and 2010, and I checked the reliability of the Doctor Who News Page back in 2009, with the answer of "if there's no change to the standard, then it's fine". I'll look for sources to replace Sullivan just in case.
A lot of the content dates back to 2009 when I started rewriting the article, and when the status of the News Page was somewhat in flux (and, IIRC, didn't have that feature). The Doctor Who section, in my final userspace draft, has an error in reading Aldridge/Murray which was later fixed by another editor. So: the most simple explanation is someone copying from Wikipedia. Sceptre(talk)08:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference Arado was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}