Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2007

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

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Beijing opera

edit

I have been working on this article for about 2 months. I now feel that it is just about ready for FAC. The topic is Beijing opera, the most famous type of Chinese opera. I think I have covered everything about this topic, without going into detail that could best be put in a sub-article. It has been in peer review for over 10 days, but I don't think it is going to get any more comments. Thanks in advance.--Danaman5 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that articles shouldn't be at peer review and FAC at the same time, so I have now archived the peer review.--Danaman5 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as I can see that the Peer Review has been "taken care of" I have to say that this is a good and well-referenced article. Booksworm Talk to me! 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All expectations have been addressed. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a reason for the lack of citations in the lead? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been a bit confused about citations in the lead. Some people say it is required, others don't. Look, for example, at the featured article on the Main Page today, Dhaka. No citations in the lead. However, look at the article Yosemite National Park, recently on the main page. Citations in the lead. So which is it? If you can direct me to some policy or some kind of discussion on this issue where there is a consensus affirming the need for citations in the lead, I will add them. Otherwise, it just seems redundant to me.--Danaman5 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Citations added.--Danaman5 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; there seems to be a slight confusion between haushan and haudan in the Dan section: "a haushan combines the status of the qingyi with the sensuality of the huashan" doesn't make sense. Is the second haushan supposed to be haudan? Other than that, this is a fine article. Laïka 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you.--Danaman5 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; an interesting and detailed article. Laïka 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the Opera Prject page/Colin Mackerras

edit

Thanks for your note on the Opera Project. As there is really no connection at all between opera and Chinese opera we don't include the latter in the scope of our project, although personally I have seen a lot of Chinese opera (in China).

One question, re FAC, why is the work of Colin Mackerras (Chinese Theatre/Peking Opera etc) not mentioned? He has written some of the most scholarly material on the subject available in English. Regards. --Kleinzach 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that the Opera WikiProject doesn't cover Chinese opera. However, I had already left a message on WP:CHINA and received relatively little attention, so I was unsure of where else to go. Do you know of any other WikiProjects that might be interested? As to your comment on Colin Mackerras, I certainly read some of his work in writing this article. I must have never actually cited any. Give me a little time, and I will see what I can include.--Danaman5 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed that I did in fact cite one article by Mackerras already - See reference 14. However, I will see if I can add anything more from him.--Danaman5 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If You Want To Know How To Listen To A Song.. Which I Am Doin, I Am Tryin To Find A Chinese Opera Song Called 18 miles away. i think, And I Cant Find Out How To Do Iht. A Need it for a school project.. about china.. if anyone can find out. please. tell me somehow.. I have told to do this.. and i need to burn iht on a Cd,,,,,,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.71.107 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit

I have added citations to the lead, fixed the typo, and added a bit more by Mackerras (I may yet add more from him). I believe I have responded to all of the above points. Please place any new comments below this point (purely for my reference).--Danaman5 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but one question - is there a reason for the liberal use of subheadings? It seems to disrupt the flow a bit for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to strike a good balance between having tiny subheadings with little information and having huge undifferentiated sections. Which subheadings do you feel are particularly unnecessary or distracting? What would be your recommended structure for the article?--Danaman5 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were putting this together, I'd eliminate most of the subheadings in sections 2, 3, and a few in 4. I'd keep the Taiwan section but move it to the end of the second section, and eliminate all the subheadings under 3. In 4, they make a little more sense and aren't as structurally jarring. Obviously, this is only my preference and it doesn't change how well done this is as a whole piece, but that's simply how I would have done it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent)Moving the Taiwan sub-section to the end of section 2 might be a bad move, as it would raise questions as to whether Taiwan is part of China or somewhere "around the world", which would surely lead to problems later. I combined them in a different way, tell me if that is satisfactory. I combined the tiny, useless sub-section at the end of section 3 into the training section, but I just can't bring myself to remove all of the sub-sections from section 3. It is just way too much undifferentiated text for my taste. I also combined two sub-sections of section 4 into one. I know that it isn't exactly the set of changes that you would have me make, but since the issue wasn't large enough to merit an oppose from you in the first place, I hope that you can accept this compromise. Take a look and let me know.--Danaman5 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's sensible, I think it looks a little better, but, again, different strokes for different folks. Great job on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going out of town this weekend and may have no access to a computer. If anyone posts any additional comments on the article, I will begin to address them on Monday.--Danaman5 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Waisale Serevi

edit

Is about the famous Fijian Rugby sevens footballer. I believe this article meets FA criteria, is well referenced, comprehensive, notable. Thanks. (self-nom) - Shudda talk 07:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some of those refs can be combined. For instance;

    Fiji advanced to the semi-finals where they faced New Zealand.[61] During the match Serevi was tackled late by New Zealander Amasio Valence.[61] Fijian player Marika Vunibaka ran 50 metres to punch Valance and a brawl then started.[61] Fiji ended up losing the game.[61]

    As the one source is describing the same game, this need only be sourced at the end of the description of the game rather than the end of each sentence.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

2012 Summer Olympics bids

edit

Self-nomination – This article is under the scope of the Olympics WikiProject, of which I am a member. Yet I only started to contribute to its improvement after a peer-review request was open for it, by another member. Since then, I've been the main editor and I believe this article has reached a very high level of information and, in general, it follows the style guidelines and the criteria needed to reach featured status. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Since I was one of the editors who got the article up to GA status, I'll abstain from voting, but will just comment and say that the article is a great overview of the 2012 Olympic bids candidate cities, like London and Paris, and of the progression of the bid in general. In all, the article is well sourced and contains a whole bunch of encyclopedic information in a logically progressive and flowing way. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A lot has been put into this article since it was last edited by myself. This article has been copyedited numerous times, and the editors have finally started settling down on a good copyedited version. I believe this article is great, and I think I can now, without bias, give my support for this article's FAC nomination. └Jared┘┌talk┐  14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I participated in the peer review and I am currently copyediting the entire article. It has shades of poor prose and layout here and there. On the whole, this is a very visually pleasing and informative article that has a lot of potential. However, a subject like this needs a little more referencing that it currently has. I'll try to highlight specific "trouble spots" that you might want to address:
    • "They were granted the right to use Olympic symbols and the label "Candidate City" (or "Ville Candidate") in their campaign literature." This sentence should have a citation to the official IOC rules regarding this.
    • "Originally, London was seen lagging behind Paris by a considerable margin, however this started to change with the appointment of Sebastian Coe as new head of London 2012, on May 19, 2004." This sentence needs a reference if it is not covered by your wrongc ref.
    • "After the Games, the East London region will have of one of Europe's largest urban parks created in decades and will be home to the Olympic Institute, a centre for sports medical centre and a place to study the Olympic ideals." This sentence is hard to rework considering I don't really know the details. In general, could you try to get the fluff out of these cit bids sections? Make them read like a Wall Street Journal report, not an IOC bid pamphlet ;-D.
    • "The bid committee also proposed the London Paralympic Games, which would be as important as the Olympic Games." Same thing here. "As important as the Olympic Games?" According to whom? Who says the Olympic Games are important or not important? This phrasing has to go unless it's specifically stated in the official literature of the London bid in which case you'll have to put quotes around it and mention who said it from a NPOV.
    • "London was considered by many to be second favourite for the bid after Paris, but last-minute intense lobbying by the bid team in Singapore probably swung the votes in their favour." By whom were they considered? If you find a source for this sentence, I suggest rewording it to this: "...but intense lobbying by the bid team at the later stages of the bid process in Singapore swung the votes in their favour." Careful with words like probably. Remember: According to whom?
    • "Following the success of the bid there were further developments and announcements, including reactions to the security fears highlighted by the 7 July 2005 London bombings." This definitely needs a citation and you need to figure out where you want to put it. Don't leave it sitting out there on its own as a one-sentence paragraph. Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
    • "Paris's plan was very compact, with the placement of several sports in the Northern and Western Clusters and the Olympic Village between the two clusters." What do you mean by "compact?" I mean, I know what you mean, but reword it better and say that they were going to be placing several sports facilities in the...
    • "The plan had gained high technical merit due to the city's well-maintained transport system, its ability to handle a peak number of tourists with plentiful accommodation, and very high support for the bid among Parisians and the nation. I understand the first two for technical "merit," which should be referenced, but I don't understand how the last one fits in. The whole thing needs to be referenced. If you have access to the IOC review of Paris, that would suffice, but be sure to say in the prose "...high technical merit from the IOC."
    • "Paris also planned to build temporary venues for some sports that can be moved and reused elsewhere after the Games (dubbed "pre-cycling")." Reword and reference this sentence.
    • "Its rich cultural and Olympic heritage were also emphasized. All of these items placed Paris in a very strong position." Now don't get me wrong, I like this sentence because it is, obviously, true. However, my problem with it comes with the use of the words "rich cultural...heritage." Paris is a fantastic city with a rich cultural heritage, but the way you word it in this sentence makes it seem like the other cities didn't have this going for them. Reconsider it unless you can find a direct IOC review reference.
    • "Madrid, Spain's capital city, beat out Seville to represent the country on the international stage." I'm sure it's easy to ref this one. It might be something people want to look into, so give them the news story.
    • "Madrid presented an above average bid, with almost all sports contested in three clusters, all within very close proximity of each other." I don't really get this sentence. What were the sports contested? How did that relate to the bidding process?
    • "The public transport infrastructure would have been able to accommodate the hundreds of thousands gathering in the capital, and this positive situation was coupled with the use of renewable energy and hydrogen vehicles." This sentence needs a reference and it needs clarification. Do other cities in the world not have renewable energy vehicles? I live right next to NYC and I know I've seen some driving around.
    • "Madrid had also organised several high-quality European and World championships, accounting for the city's hosting experience. The bid gained resounding support among the city and national population and was helped with the support of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, who was lobbying votes for the Madrid bid." These two sentences are POV and need citations and a reworking.
    • "New York City was selected over San Francisco as the sentimental favourite during the United States competition, in 2002." Could you please reference the "sentimental" favorite part?
    • "The Olympic X Plan was the main concept proposed by the NYC2012 Bid team: two primary transportation lines would have strung the several individual clusters in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn together." You have to really reconsider using so many colons. They can really begin to hurt prose if you overuse them. Was it at any point officially referred to as "NYC2012" or is this your shortening? You should call it by its full name or "the New York City bid." Why is "Bid" capitalized? Was this the entire plan?? If not, rework the whole section to make it flow better.
    • "By combining existing world-class facilities such as Madison Square Garden, Yankee Stadium, Central Park and the National Tennis Center, with new venues like the Brooklyn Arena, Greenbelt Olympic Equestrian Park, and Olympic Regatta Center, the city hoped to show that it was worthy of holding an event of such magnitude." Who says MSG is world-class? Can you provide wikilinks to these other proposed facilities? If not, can you reference them? Can you really consider Central Park a "facility?" Rework the rest of this section to remove fluff and stick to official terms. Don't just call the plan "X." Get more refs.
    • "Moscow's River Plan called for every single competition to be staged within city limits, making this one of the most compact proposals ever." Again the word compact I find weird in this context. The proposal wasn't compact, but the layout was, right?
    • "Despite the high support from the entire nation and invaluable experience..." This phrase in the Moscow section irks me. It sounds like more fluff from Moscow's concession speech.
    • "Similar allegations were repeated by several members of the Paris 2012 delegation." This needs a citation. In general with a section as controversial as this one, you need lots and lots of references that clearly point to verification of the claim. Right now there are scattered citations that have been used throughout the article and are probably general sources. Try to find the specific stories here and source them.
    • "Probably the most controversial move by London 2012 was its initiative to offer incentive packages for participating athletes (including free flights, economical accommodations, food and vouchers for long distance calling) and immediately after announcing it, London 2012 withdrew it. This U-turn was probably a result of President Jacques Rogge raising concerns because it could have started a "bidding war" if not withdrawn." Needs a citation.
    • "Paris 2012 also claimed that the lobbying by Tony Blair would have broken IOC rules." Needs a citation.
    • "This was strongly denied by Downing Street." Needs a citation.
    • Shape up the whole last section just in general. I like the referencing you have done so far, but there are some one-sentence paragraphs in there and it's overall clumsy. Get someone to copyedit it once you've finished. Just one last note: perhaps you should have responded in the peer review before bringing it here and this list might have been shorter ;-). JHMM13 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is getting really close. I've copyedited the entire thing twice now and the main editor and I have coordinated on getting some of the facts straight. I'd like to see a few other people sweep through it before I support it, but right now I would say it's 90% of the way to a FA with my efforts exhausted through copyediting and other stuff. My reccomendation to anyone thinking about flat-out objecting this article is this: this user really has put forth a tremendous effort on an article that is not only very visually pleasing, but also very informative and well-sourced. English is not his first language, so try to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you find any mistakes here and there, try to reword it a little better and we'll all get this thing up to FA status. JHMM13 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—It's quite well written, but please fix such things as:
    • "hotly-contested—no hyphens after "-ly".
    • "3rd"—spell out single digit numbers.
    • "Paris's plan also"—ungainly possessive, plus remove redundant "also". Need to reduce or eliminate possessive apostrophes for cities, e.g., "Paris's and London's delegations"—yuck.
    • Tony Blurr is linked twice; once is certainly enough.
    • "Prior to the election,"—what's wrong with "before"?
    • "tensions had started growing between"—This is WP's very own disease, which I call startitis. "tensions were growing".
      • Fixed all examples, except the Blair links (the same happens with "Jacques Rogge"). The first instances are on the lead, but the second ones are on a subsection almost at the bottom of the article. I don't think it is that unnecessary or useless to have these names wikilinked two times, as per WP:MOS-L. Anyway, thanks for catching with some bugs that escaped previous copy-edits by English speakers. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's from a cursory look; more attention is required throughout. In terms of content, I find it lop-sided (Criterion 1b) that there's no mention in the "Controversies" section of the clearly documented corruption that goes on with Olympic city competitions. Tony 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the big green ticks are one thing, but I can't change my Oppose until the whole article is spruced up. Tony 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I can do better than this, as far as writing style and prose is concerned. Although I believe I have a good English vocabulary, I'm no native English speaker. Therefore, I can only rely on those users who are. The article has been copy-edited twice by User:JHMM13 but I've already requested help from other users. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please let me know when it's ready for another look. Tony 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's too hard to read this thing with all this color-coding and green marks; would it be possible to get rid of them? It seems to be a convention taking hold this week, and it would be really good to stop it. They don't mean anything; reviewers strike objections when they consider something done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Appraisal Let me start off by first saying I find this article an interesting read? I didn't think zo much controversy would go on for the 2012 Summer Olympicz. The titles "Tony Blair's Olympic pitch", "Ivan Slavkov corruption scandal", "French recriminations following vote", and "Mistaken voting controversy" wre intriguing to me. I'll break it down like this.
    • Pros-article is interesting and a great overvew of what has happened. You wrote sections on the Bidding process (Evaluation of applicant cities, Evaluation of candidate cities, Final selection process). It was solid but more kinks could have been added. It sort of sounds too formal. Instead of "it begins", it could it started or what not. The Final selection process was explain well and brief. I like/approve of the short tables to save space for the 52kb article. The canduidate cities sections were explaine accurately and brief to fit the article.
    • Cons-Not much, article is very accurately sourced and arranged. Just for the Bidding Process and the Ivan Slakov scandal add more links or shorten up. And add more links to the article in general.
  • Support. I am now convinced that this article is worthy of FA status. JHMM13 03:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The captions of the logos up to the section titled "Candidate city overview" contain the critical commentary in part necessary to establish a solid claim at fair use. The logos included after that do not. They appear decorative to me. I recommend that they be removed and viewed if and when the reader clicks the "Main article" link? --Iamunknown 08:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I'd love to support this article, but I'm currently concerned about the use of the logos within this article - there is no need for the candidate city logos unless you are discussing the use or design of the logo. Laïka 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Support; the copyright issue has been addressed, and this is now an excellent article. Laïka 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Non-free images lack article-specific fair use rationale, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#10. Pagrashtak 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Asser

edit

Passed GA; I have since copyedited and reorganized to try to improve flow and quality of prose. I think it's fairly thoroughly sourced and feel it's ready to try to get to FA status. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first glance the lead would need to be expanded twice or maybe thrice to satisfy WP:LEAD. Isn't there an image (carving, figure, drawing, painting, whatever) of him you could put to illustrate the article? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead somewhat; sorry -- I meant to do that before I nominated. Take a look and see if you think it's an improvement. As for an image, I know of nothing depicting Asser himself, and I am sure there's nothing that even claims to be an accurate depiction. There was an image of a book cover showing a Penguin edition of the Life, but I replaced it with the manuscript image after discussion with a GA reviewer. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to take an in-depth look tomorrow, Mike, I didn't have time today. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It ssems quite good to me. I like the discussion of the manuscript sources. One request though, I would like to see the shelfmark of the Cotton manuscript listed, even though it is no longer extant, it is still an important part of identifying the manuscript. Dsmdgold 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have thought of that. I've added it, with some minor associated copyediting. Mike Christie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs)
Should be fixed now. Took me a second to figure it out; the first cite was meant to be named that, so it's just a reuse of the first Catholic Encyclopedia cite. Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further comments, so Support. You could add Persondata to the article, but it's completely optional, and as his date/place of birth and his place of death are unknown, it may not work that well with this article. Laïka 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Jerusalem

edit
Peer review, First FAC – restarted by Raul654 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination The Jerusalem article is comprehensive and very well-referenced, fulfilling all of the featured article criteria. There was some objections over some material in the lead during the previous FAC, but since then those matters seem to have been straightened out and the article stabilized. The article presents the city of Jerusalem in a neutral light with "brilliant" prose. The article does not use any fair-use images and it does not appear to violate any standards set forth by WikiProjects and Wikipedia in general. Before anyone gawks at the length shown when hitting the edit this page link, I would like to note that there are only about thirty-four kilobytes of readable prose; that is well within the "rule of thumb" established by Wikipedia:Article size. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- well referenced and good use of free use images. I think there could be some sections that could be trimmed a little, but that is not a major flaw. Thunderwing 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some of the statements with multiple refs that are not used elsewhere can be consolidated into one ref which carries the multiple citations. As you've done on ref [4]. See: [45][46], [62][63], [67][68][69], [96][97][98] and [100][101].-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of one of the triple references. The other one included a reference used somewhere else in the article. I left the double references alone as they're not really a huge problem. However, I would not make a big fuss if someone were to combine them. -- tariqabjotu 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I am not sure why I am supposed to repeat the objections raised during the previous nomination, but I will. The lead does not conform to WP:LEAD, as it does not adequately summarize the article; for example, the history is condensed into one, largely meaningless, sentence; the third paragraph smacks of recentism, many sections are not covered at all, while the description of the Old City is given undue weight and so on and so forth. The section of history is replete with POV and errors, as already discussed. Possibly, it is the result of the section relying mainly on one website[1], which appears to be wholly based on Britannica (a note at the bottom says "Source of written material: Britannica.com"). In general, the quality of sources is nowhere near what is required of a featured article: there are literally hundreds of supreme quality books and acholarly articles on Jerusalem, but none of them appears in the article, which is mostly sourced to miscellaneous websites and newspapers. I could point out further inaccuracies, especially in the "Religious significance" section, but I don't think it's worth the trouble at the moment. Beit Or 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's impossible to please everyone on the intro, as seen in the previous FAC. However, note that the intro does not need to cover every single section of the article. It is, however, permissible to cover the current state of the city (using current population figures, the fact that it's the capital of Israel, and its disputed status as capital of Israel); I'm not sure how that's recentism. I can't see how you can say "The section of history is replete with POV and errors, as already discussed."; you have not said anything about what you see as the section's bias. During the last FAC, you claimed the section was not comprehensive enough, and we pointed you to History of Jerusalem. You pointing out one thing about the Pact of Umar. After we changed it accordingly, you alleged that was not good enough, but refused to reveal your issue with the piece. You are wrong that any information comes from [2]; it comes from [3], a different location which does not mention Britannica at all. Not all of the information comes from that source anyway. I have had enough of this now Beit Or; unless you start listing some specific, real objections, I'm just going to ignore this. You have made it quite clear that there is nothing in the world one could do to satisfy your objections to this article; we change one thing, you complain about another. I'm not going to bend over backwards for you. -- tariqabjotu 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well spoken. During the last FAC, Beit Or refused to acknowledge any changes we made based on his advice. He spoke only in generalities, and refused to mention anything specifically wrong, or offer his own version of what things should look like. nadav 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tariq, your threat to ignore my objections rings hollow, since this is what you have generally done; any changes that were made did nothing to improve the article or to address my concerns. When I say it's unacceptable that the history of Jerusalem is jammed into one, mostly meaningless sentence in the lead, you dismiss me for not raising any "real" issues. Sorry, but I'm afraid this discussion has become pointless. Beit Or 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hope you don't mind if I join your discussion; the lead has been discussed very extensively, much work has gone into balancing the details and IMO it is now an acceptable compromise. With a topic so hotly debated, one cannot expect anything better without running the risk of reigniting the flamewars. Kosebamse 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given a complex and contentious topic with millennia of strife and discord, this interesting and informative article presents a good summary in a balanced and neutral fashion. Crum375 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's a great article (disclosure - I've been a minor contributer to the article). okedem 09:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very balanced. JFW | T@lk 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportSumoeagle179 19:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, since it appears that objecting is a waste of time: What will we learn when the article, once featured, will become a POV battleground? I hope I'm wrong, but I anticipate that it will be locked within hours of being featured and will probably not get stable for months.--Leifern 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said objecting was a waste of time? If you have an objection that can be addressed, you are free to bring it up. However, you cannot object just because the name of the article is "Jerusalem" and it sounds like there might be an edit war in the future. To be honest, there is very little about this subject that's controversial. It's a city. With documented history. Etc, etc. The problem is that articles like this one tend to attract people who can see bias in the number three. Ultimately, I think you're being too pessimistic. -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proabivouac is right - objecting is a waste of time, because the article was relisted mostly - it seemed - for the benefit of those who support its being featured. My view is not speculative - take any article that touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict - even tangentially - and there is huge controversy. I am all for recognizing well-developed, stable articles by featuring them; but not if having them featured is likely to lead to the article being less stable and subject to even more contention. I certainly appreciate the ambition of wanting it featured, and as I said, I hope I'm wrong and ultimately too pessimistic. But if the amount of noise created by the first FAC is any indication, I'd be remiss in not issuing a warning. --Leifern 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ..the article was relisted mostly - it seemed - for the benefit of those who support its being featured That notion is completely unfounded. -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, I'm not trying to make an argument here. I have some minor issues with the article but not enough to make a stink about it. My point is that - no matter how good the article is - this is a topic that invites controversy, and featuring it will invite even more of it. I'll support a Good article nomination, will gladly give you and other kudos for your contributions, but I must warn against the fallout of featuring an article that has ongoing, current, and vitriolic controversy. Maybe you think that's beside the point, but I think it's relevant. --Leifern 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I responded to Leifern's previous comment here Raul654 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • ...which is a bad faith response, as was the accusation of vandalism. In any event, I have noted my response here [4] and would hereby like to register my dissatisfaction with the way Raul654, who has been entrusted with an important responsibility, is handling this issue. --Leifern 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • A bad faith response? No... not at all. You downgraded your statement to merely a comment here, but on the previous reincarnation of this FAC, you objected "simply because the article - like the city, it sadly seems - will never be entirely stable, and will never be free of NPOV arguments and partisanship." You have not raised any objection to the article's current state, and I get the impression that you do indeed believe it is of supreme quality (given that you said you'd "support a Good article nomination, [and] will gladly give [me] and other kudos for [our] contributions". Thus, your "objection" is in direct violation of the FAC rules: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. You may not have exactly said "this article can never be a featured article because..." but that's clearly what you're essentially saying. Don't go throwing spurious accusations of "bad faith" and removing the comments of others because you can't understand that kind of objection is invalid. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So you know now, what I can and can't understand? And that isn't bad faith? The objection I noted was specific and addressable. As far as I can tell, there is no policy or rule that says that any article can and should be featured once all the objections are met. Now, I could have been less upfront and more obstructionist by listing all kinds of shortcomings in the article; but instead I raised an issue that we should earnestly confront, which is whether featuring an article about a highly controversial topic is wise, considering the involved risks. I think this is a valid concern, if our objective is to a) promote Wikipedia as a stable and informative source of information, and b) we should avoid inviting acrimony. --Leifern 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • [The following was incorrectly posted on the archived page in response to Raul654:] First of all, I never said "this article can never be a featured article because..." so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Second, I think it would be in good form to not direct people to ignore others' opinion. You may disagree with my point, but to discard it without further consideration is an act of bad faith. Third, we may have an unwritten policy that any article, if written well enough, can be a featured article, but I certainly think it's legitimate to raise the risk that featuring it might lead to its degradation. --Leifern 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose the notion that objecting is a waste of time comes from the fact that this was immediately relisted after the last FAC.Proabivouac 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My guess for the restarting of the FAC was that it had been unclear whether the objections raised had been satisfied and threads were very lengthy. Let me clarify that Raul had merely blanked the FAC and started it anew. I merely split the histories to two different pages (with Raul's permission). So, it may not be entirely correct to say one FAC failed, and another was created immediately afterward. I will ask Raul for the rationale behind his move, but I seriously doubt it was because he just wanted steamroll over objections. -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1c. Unnecessary Israeli bias has not been addressed. Tony 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for having to take this approach again, but this is just becoming increasingly obnoxious. People keep saying there's bias in this article, but no one will state where that bias is. Instead, they point out obscure segments of the article and claim bias based on misinformation about what a capital is, simple differences in word choice ("extends" vs. "may be found"), or the fact that certain information meant for other articles is not mentioned here. Quit inventing bias, and provide real examples. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Tariqabjotu brings up a good point - POV is subjective, so people objecting that it's POV should be prepared to present compelling examples. Raul654 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably needs a good scrutiny to check that WP:MoS issues are ok. The very first sentence is structurally wrong. A "nbsp" (or the use of Template:Convert) is missing when the area is mentioned. A number followed by an unit should have an non-breaking space (unless the said template is used). During thr first FAC, edits were done in the body of the article so that nbsp or the convert template is used. It's not good to see same mistake in the lead during the second FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the non-breaking spaces, as you requested. Was that all you meant by "structurally wrong" or was there something else? If you believe there are more violations of the Manual of Style, please point them out (or just fix them). -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I meant the lack of nbsp by "structurally wrong". I read the whole article during the first FAC. Have not read it now. So do not know if there are more such instances. But an incorrect structure in the very beginning (after a long stay in the FAC) gives an impression that the article needs one thorough scrutiny for such issues. In case I come across such deficiencies, I'll definitely fix them. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes MoS is not mandatory. And non-breaking space MoS violation is not the most glaringly obvious, probably that's why it was missed. It is a very tiny issue. However, "A featured article exemplifies our very best work" and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2 says that the article should comply "with the manual of style". Anyway, I have read some portion of the article, and it seems to be perfect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged some trivial and well known facts, like that it's the location of several holy sites, or what towns surround it. Not every single word needs a specific source. okedem 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so trivial, add a source. But if this is to be a featured article it should be completely verifiable. Trivial stuff should be sourced as well. Otherwise it is origional research.--Sefringle 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be writing new policy here. Not every trivial statement (like location - every Israeli knows that the statement is true) needs to be sourced, and certainly not statement which are easily verified (and sourced) if one just reads the linked articles. okedem 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where in the policy it says non-trivial stuff doesn't need sources? According to WP:NOR#What is excluded?, "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."--Sefringle 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, are you trying to claim that saying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in Jerusalem is original research? Almost all the things you tagged are well known facts, and have been published in numerous reliable sources. The very link you provided says what "counts as original research", and the things you tagged do not fit the description. okedem 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sefringle, that's a misinterpretation of the policy. I agree that some of the items may have needed a source, but we don't need one for every trivial statement. Do we need a source that says Jerusalem is a city? Or that we spelled Jerusalem correctly? No, of course not, and "common knowledge" can also be applied to a few more situations. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well developed article, POV free. FA material, Good work for Wikipedia to show off. Max ╦╩ 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object As before, a number of POV specifically relating to the conflict:
  • Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital[iii] of Israel and its seat of government. As i've mentioned before, simply referring to it as seat of government will suffice in the intro for npov. However , its status as capital should be explained within the context of the conflict. This is a controversial issue people, and I cannot imagine any credible encylopedia introducing Jerusalem in such a way as this article does. Just look up Brittanica and Encarta for examples.
  • Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem (captured as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial since it is seen by Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a proposed Palestinian state.[8] Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital"[9][10] is not widely recognized by the international community. - "particularly controversial", this seems a bit weasily to me. Why is it controversial? What are the most signficant points surrounding its controvery. I understand this is just an intro, but this wording seems to sidestep the issue. Also, "not widely recognised" is again too general. I suggest mentioning "Palestinians and the United Nations" instead as the two most signficant.
  • Any description of why Palestinians dispute Jerusalem's states is severely limited throughout the article. All we are repeatedly told is that it is "seen by Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a proposed Palestinian state" (intro) or "However, East Jerusalem has been seen by the Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a Palestinian state." (State of Israel) or "the Palestinian National Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state" (Palestinian claims). Nowhere are we given any depth to these 'claims' or how Palestinians 'see' it. Why do they dispute it, how signficant are their claims, who supports them? etc. I'm not saying devote a whole section to this conflict, just that the article does not try to sidestep it through vague and ambigous descriptions, or minimise the scale of the dispute surrounding the city. I believe what I highlighted is as Tony stated, part of the subtle and not so subtle pov issues which run through this article. --A.Garnet 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your objections on order:
  • It is the capital. This has been discussed many times on the talk page. I'm sympathetic toward your desire to mention the capital conflict earlier; I thought we reached a compromise on this earlier. In particular, I like the last suggestion in the compromise section. Regardless, I don't think removing capital is a good idea because Jerusalem is Israel's capital regardless of what the UN says (likewise, Isreal is a sovereign state regardless of what [insert one of several Arab countries] believes). See also: Positions on Jerusalem, linked in the footnote.
  • I added the United Nations as an example, as you requested. Regarding the controversy, see Positions on Jerusalem, linked in that sentence.
  • See Positions on Jerusalem, which I just added as a main article under #Palestinian claims. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good even-handed summary, well-written. I see 2 objects which boil down to it being too "pro-Israel", and 2 objects which boil down to it being too "anti-Israel", so it has probably hit the exact right balance. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support overall well written and would make a good featured article.--Sefringle 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One very minor quibble: East Jerusalem is already in the intro and should therefore not be linked again under "see also". A note: ignore the complaints about a perceived future lack of stability, it's impossible to please everyone here. A FA stamp would be great as it provides a reference point for any future debates. Another note: don't fiddle any more with the lead, it's a good compromise now. Otherwise, congratulations to all the patient editors. Support. Kosebamse 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — smooth authoring style and interesting, well-written content; almost certainly worthy of the status of one of the encyclopedia's best productions ~ AGK 18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment to my objection on the basis of 1c (POV): the prose needs a thorough audit to be awarded a gold star. For example, in the lead, my eyes fell on the following issues at random.
    • The first sentence is a problem: "Jerusalem ... is the capital[iii] of Israel and its seat of government"—the capital of Israel and the capital of its seat of government? Can easily be fixed (there are two simple ways of doing so), but how this has escaped previous reviewers who've gushed about the writing beats me.
      I have fixed the grammar issue. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've pointed out already that "storied history" is a problem, but was brushed off by one of the main contributors on that one. The word "history" is cognate with "story", and indeed contains the word within it. Not only is there semantic repetition, but phonological. Very poor. Most readers will not know what it means. And what history is not full of stories? Absurd construction.
      I have changed this to "extensive". -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "10th" and then "nineteenth"?
      I've fixed that. --Dweller 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV: let's take something obvious—the order in which the races/cultures/religions are placed within the lead. The Israeli thing occupies the entire first paragraph, and thus occupies the powerful point of departure of the whole article. The rider to the Israeli claim is relegated to a position right at the bottom of the lead. In between, the text is constructed around five lists. In all but one—the briefest—the Jewish/Israeli claim is given first position.
The holiness of the city to each religion. Judaism is the first of three.
That one at least seems reasonable, as it's the holiest city in the world for just one religion. --Dweller 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sections of the Old city: Jewish is the third of four.
Sites: Jewish is the first of three.
Sections of the modern areas: the Israeli is the first of two, and framed in terms of national ownership, with extension outwards towards "the country's" other urban areas; by contrast, the Arab section "can be found" somewhere.

Some of the arguments supporting this angle appear to draw on the notion that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Wikipedia should not, IMV, be endorsing this by promoting the article. Tony 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading too far into the order of the religions. In the second paragraph (and much of the article), the religions are mentioned in chronological order of their creation – Judaism, Christianity, Islam (I have changed one of the lists to match the order of the others). This same order is used at Abrahamic religion, among other locations, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The list beginning with Armenian... is in alphabetical order. Other parts are merely arbitrary, perhaps done for flow and reasonable transition. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, Tony, but I laughed when I read these comments. It was the only reaction I could muster. Let me address your points as I see it.

  • It takes a lot of effort to misinterpret this sentence the way you wrote. As is usual with pronouns, the its refers to the last noun, which is Israel in this case. There is no ambiguity. The reason no one caught this "mistake" til now is because nobody has thought of this creative misreading.
    I have fixed this; it was bad wording even though we all knew what it meant. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the life of me, I just don't understand what you have against the word storied. I suspect you were just somehow unfamiliar with its usage. I already pointed out this definition. It's a very common word. As per your more esoteric objection of "semantic repetition", storied here is used to indicate that the city's history has been retold and celebrated in may books, narratives, treatises etc. As for the phonological repetition, as you call it, to me it sounds poetic.
    I'm tired of having to deal with this minor "issue", so I just changed it to a different word. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10th/nineteenth - you have a point here
  • This point was addressed before discussion was restarted. You are reading way too much into it when you make these comparisons in the lists. Note that the city is the holiest city in Judaism, whereas in Islam it is third, so it is sensible that Judaism be mentioned first in the first list. Regarding placement of the annexation, this has already been discussed at length. I got the impression that many think that since the controversy requires a rather long treatment to be comprehensible, it would be too recentist to place that whole issue right in the first couple of lines. nadav 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should resist your urge to laugh at a reviewer—I find it offensive. Was I rude to you? There's nothing in your attempts at rebuttal that I can agree with, and I hold to my original critical examples. I will return with further objections, which you should take seriously and respond to substantively rather than by resorting to personal criticism, such as "you are reading way too much into it". Tony 12:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments:
  1. I don't think anyone will read it as you have, but let me remind you that the "seat of government" was added due to objections about having the word "capital" there, raised in the first FAC discussion. Anyway, it can be easily solved - just call it capital, and be done with it.
  2. "storied" is a fine, often used word, and I see no problem with it. It is not repetition, and even I, as a non-native English speaker, had no problem with it.
  3. "The Israeli thing occupies the entire first paragraph" - No, it occupies a part of it (the other part being the location and history). It is under Israeli control, and serves as the capital. The "Israeli thing" should definitely be first. When comparing reality, and demands for some future changes - reality wins.
  4. Judaism should be mentioned before the other religions, for, as others have said before, Jerusalem is the holiest city to Judaism, and not the primary for the other religions. Also, it was the center of Judaism, and was home to its temples long before the birth of Christianity, and very long before Islam.
  5. Jerusalem is part of Israel, and so that's the way it's written. It's claimed by Palestinians, but not by any sovereign state, so what do you want us to say? You work so hard to read political content into everything, but don't even suggest another way to phrase it. okedem 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A main issue, Tony, is that if we change the order to some other system, someone else would just come along and say now it's pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim. There's only so far we can go; if an order sounds logical, it most certainly can be used (even if it will mean the Jewish or Israeli perspective will often come first). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you change the order of one or two of those lists, it will be a good gesture towards a "balanced" treatment, where the orders are mixed. It's a minor, but significant way of being more inclusive at the top. I think the last bit should come after the first bit, as the end of the opening paragraph. As I've implied, possession should not be regarded as nine-tenths of the law here: the topic is unique. Tony 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong support, there are only minor issues here. Remarkably well done for a controversial article. Here are my minor quibbles with the article. My main concerns are with the occasional use of footnotes to prove the point to other editors. A common problem on controversial articles... and so perhaps I'm a bit too picky, but please recall that my vote here is "strong support". I don't mind if all my objections are completely ignored, I'm still voting strong support.

  1. Footnote 4 and 5 are very long and they are only backing up a very simple claim. Are the quotations actually that helpful? They seem more addressed to fellow Wikipedians than to a reasonable reader of the article. Convincing other editors is fine... on talk pages, and one can use HTML comments in the article body to direct editors to relevant discussions in talk archive X, but this should be hidden from the reader. The article text should only have the footnotes that helps a reasonable person verify the information, and it should be genuinely helpful to him. Here, I think this has gone to far.
    You are far from the first person to say this. See this. There is one person in particular who just will not tolerate someone removing references, even though you must be the fourth or fifth person to say they're excessive. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can fully understand what and why he thinks that way. It's a deeper problem with how Wikipedia works, and not a problem with this article. I just wish it were sufficient to post all the evidence on the talk page, but the world isn't perfect. --Merzul 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a very similar situation with the definition of atheism, but I very brutally trimmed it down :) I think situations like this is what Wikipedia:Citing consensus is trying to address. --Merzul 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital"[9][10] is not recognized by the United Nations and much of the international community." The footnotes are redundant. There is a note early on, when the capital is first mentioned, where this is discussed. Currently, there are two refs about the statement, and no refs about it being disputed my most of the international community! I think there should be no refs at all here. Collect all such notes in the endnote about the capital, or in the section about the capital status. (You can add more HTML comments to avoid "citation needed" tags).
  3. Three footnotes on the name of Jerusalem, again... what are they supposed to tell me? One would be enough to verify the fact...
  4. Please remove all retrieve dates for books. I don't care when you looked at the book :) It doesn't change, it doesn't go off-line. This information is redundant and confusing.
    Retrieval dates for books (and all media) are standard in referencing styles. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Actually, that's not correct. If you want the retrieval date removed from the cite book templates, I would suggest proposing its removal on Template talk:Cite book. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the examples at Template:Cite book, it looks like the accessdate field is optional and should only be used for books with an online version, and where the online version was the one consulted. This makes sense since the online edition might change or be updated with time (though the paper edition obviously won't). nadav 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I looked at most of the books I cited through Google Book Search (I'm not sure if that counts as "online"). Another thing I notice is that the accessdate, according to the template, should not be shown unless the url field is entered. I could go fix that, but I'm unsure if the pre-requisite was intentional. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the template. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would venture that Google books is not really an online version, since it is just a scan of offline books, so you don't have to include the accessdate. But I don't think it can hurt in any way to include it. nadav 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The alternative etymology of Jerusalem seems to lack a secondary source, the footnote links directly to the Bible. I'm not sure if this is standard view or our own original analysis. It probably isn't original, as the second paragraph below is repeating this view, or a view very similar too it.
    I added an additional secondary source and reworded the relevant sentence. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I really couldn't see much in terms of NPOV violations. There is one small phrasing problem, and it's the statement "The non-binding United Nations Security Council Resolution 478..." Now, adding the phrase non-binding gives me the impression of a bit of a POV, because it is perhaps too dismissive. In what sense is this less binding than any other UN Security Counsil resoulution? I understand the article on that very resolution answers my question, but I think using non-binding as the single description of the resolution is perhaps too dismissive of it. Perhaps, a more nuanced explanation of what non-binding means would be good -- a footnote or endnote would be nice.

The rest of the article seemed almost flawless, and nicely balanced in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't have much more time to pick on any more details, and since I'm not opposed this activity is perhaps just adding noise here.

  1. I'll agree with that. Certainly gives an appearance of POV. --Dweller 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Non-binding is the accurate term, to differentiate it from binding resolutions, which carry the threat of sanctions against the offending country (like the resolutions about Iran's nuclear program). It's just a technical term, I don't know how else to phrase it. okedem 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As Okedem said above, I'm not sure how this could be a biased term. It was a non-binding resolution, which is why El Salvador and Costa Rica have maintained their embassies in Jerusalem for twenty-six years since then without the UN caring. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok... I'm probably not familiar with the legal terminology, and so since I didn't know what non-binding specifically meant, I thought using it there without explaining might give the wrong impression. There is a simple solution: wikilink to Non-binding resolution, then the blue link will indicate it is a technical term, and not a POV-assertion. --Merzul 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with this FAC. --Merzul 13:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "David's reign ended around 970 BCE when his son Solomon became king of Israel" - Add "according to the bible" at the beginning of the paragraph. It must not be confused with the truth.
  • I thought this year was generally accepted. If someone does not get to it first, I'll search for a source to corroborate that (or add the qualifier if that is not the case). -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there's basically no evidence for the existence of Saul, David, Solomon, or the whole Unified Monarchy other than the bible. There is evidence for the Jews/Hebrews/whatever, but not detailed enough, and they don't mention the Unified Monarchy. There is good evidence for the successor kingdoms, by the way. okedem 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant thing to read is Davis#Historicity of David. Historians generally agree that there was a Hebrew king called David who founded a dynasty. However, the bible is the only source for the year of his death, so I agree with the change. nadav 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2006, Jerusalem had a population of 724,000, of whom 65% were Jewish, 32% were Muslim, and 2% were Christian, with a population density..." - Change "with" to "and" per subsequent sentence.
  • "...with nearly three quarters of them arriving from the United States, France, and former members of the Soviet Union" - "former members of the Soviet Union" isn't a country.
  • "In 2005, the total number of residents in Jerusalem grew by approximately thirteen thousand (1.8%) — also well above the Israeli national average" - Remove "also".
  • I don't think this change is necessary. We mention another "well above the national average" figure at the conclusion of the previous paragraph (hence the also in this section). -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York City, USA (1993)" - Remove bolding.
Michaelas10 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my objection above on the basis of 1a, I provided only examples of problems throughout the text. There seems to be little concern among the contributors for weeding out bad prose. Why is it easy to find issues such as the following at random, sprinkled through the text? These examples come from a small window I happened upon in the middle of the article. Please don't just fix these alone. Find someone distant from the text to do an audit.
    • "Sieged"—it's not a verb.
    • Why is the simple year "1917" linked? Leads to stuff about the Royal Bank of Canada and an anti-prostitution drive in San Fransisco. There are many high-value blue links in the article; please ration them to reduce the untidy scattering of blue and avoid this dilution of high-value links. Check whether the other year links have anything to do with the topic; I'm sure they don't.
    • Redundancy: "the construction of new garden suburbs"—why wouldn't they be new?
    • Redundancy: "the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in 1925"—Choose "establishment" or "founded", but not both; rationalise the wording. "The founding in 1925 of ...". Tony 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "siege" is also a verb, per this.
  • 1917, or any year, being linked, can give the reader an easy perspective of what was happening around the world at that time - it doesn't have to be a 'related topic', in fact it's more interesting when it isn't.
  • "the construction of new garden suburbs" - it could also be renovated - this implies 'brand new'.
  • "the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in..." - this is fine as it is - it implies "... which was founded ...".
Crum375 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is a verb. Coming off storied isn't a word, I think it's time you update your dictionary, or simply look online. -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an error, but a matter of preference. From WP:DATE: Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. In this case, I don't think every single year is even linked.
  • Again, this is not an issue really. There's nothing wrong with the sentence; rather, it's stylistic preference, per Crum375.
  • Not an error; a stylistic preference at best. In my opinion, your proposed wording is awkward, especially because it comes in the midst of a sentence, not the beginning of a sentence as you make it seem here. I don't see this as an error.
-- tariqabjotu 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that you use a more widely accepted dictionary than dictionary.com, which is pretty crappy. But have it your way. My advice is that "seiged" is ungainly.
  • Why not link every word then, if you want to provide unfocused, "interesting" diversions? Every single word. Smearing the whole thing with lots of blue makes it so easy to read and attractive on the screen.
  • Brand new garden suburb? Brand makes no difference—you don't construct existing suburbs. Remove "new" or use a more descriptive eptithet. Otherwise you're wasting the readers' time.
  • I repeat, "establishment" and "founding" should not both be used. Choose one, or say here what additional meaning the use of both adds.
  • Your last two points are impossible to understand—which examples do they relate to?

If you're going to take a belligerent attitude, we'll have to fight it out through every sentence of the article. Will take a great deal of time. I'm not at all satisfied with your rebuttals. Tony 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I am not sure if you are referring to my response or not. In any case, I was not trying to be 'belligerent' but to respond to your points. I think that dictionary.com is a pretty widely accepted resource. A language is what is actually spoken and written, not what is specified in some old rule book. As far as the year, I think that linking years provides a nice service to our readers to easily gain a world-wide perspective. Linking every word as you suggest would be an overkill and would create a messy clutter. Clearly we have to use common sense, and I think linking years is well within most people's common sense. As far as "establishment" and "founding" - I think it is clearly a style issue. The first is generic and talks about all institutions, whereas the second refers to a specific instance. Yes, the words are similar in meaning (though I can see some distinctions), but that is really a matter of style and I see no harm in it. Regarding the garden developments, there is a point being made about 'new' as in 'brand new' vs. 'new' as in possibly renovated. The verbiage used implies 'brand new'. Thanks, Crum375 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Martin Brodeur

edit

This article should've been nominated a while ago, I was just lazy. It has a lot of references and some really good content. If you're comparing it to the likes of Wayne Gretzky, I think it should be FA-status.

    • This sentence doesn't seem to flow too well:

In his 13-year tenure, he has led the team to three Stanley Cup championships and has taken them to the playoffs all but once since his NHL goaltending career has begun.

Surely 'since his NHL goaltending career has begun' is redundant, due to 'In his 13-year tenure'.
  • Is it worth mentioning Brodeur's father in the lead? After all, the lead is supposed to sum up the article, and I don't see any mention of him later down in the article.
  • Where's the information on Brodeur's early life?
  • I'd recommend an infobox header, and a more detailed caption for the infobox image. Most readers won't have a clue when this picture was taken.
Just a few comments to keep you busy! I'll add more comments later. CloudNine 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I fixed the first sentence. I could take his father out of the lead but family lineage is usually considered important so that's why I put it there. I do not believe, however, that an infobox image needs to be captioned. If viewers want more information from it, they can click on it. The early life should probably have a section I guess. Sportskido8 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the image infobox caption, what happens if I want (or a reader wants) to print out the article and read it? Object per criterion 3. Infobox image needs a caption. CloudNine 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an objectionable objection infobox pics do not require captions, criteria 3 is meant to refer to in-text pics. See FA's such as Michael Jordan, Sandy Koufax, Wayne Gretzky, Tony Blair, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Damon Hill, Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist, Ina Garten, etc. I'm going to assume good faith and assume you didn't know that. Quadzilla99 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add a caption but I could not find a way to add a caption in the infobox. I would consider this unactionable. Michael Greiner 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. As a huge Devils fan, I'm very happy that our guys appear to be the only ones doing anything FA-worthy. I like this article, but it could use some tweaking. I know it's a general statement, but the article could use some POV copyediting and some more referencing. I wish I could do more for you guys, but I'm really, really, really swamped with work. Here are a few examples:
    • "He finished 2nd in goals-against-average and 4th in save-percentage during the regular-season, which was surprising for a rookie goaltender. He was not originally chosen as the starting goalie, but he played so well when called upon that he overtook Chris Terreri as the Devils' #1 goalie." Is GAA really written like that? I can see the first hypen, but the second one doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I don't think regular season should have a hyphen and I'm going back and forth on save percentage, but I think it should either. I don't like the "which was surprising for a rookie goaltender." I know it was (he was/is awesome!), but unless you can source that claim, it might be better left out. "He played so well" screams POV to me and the second part of the sentence is a bit awkward. I would rephrase it as, "When the season began, he was the backup goalie, but due to his performance, head coach Jacques Lemaire awarded Brodeur the starting job." Others are free to tweak it a bunch. This sentence also could use a source.
    • Damn it, I really wish I had time to do more. Another few suggestions: don't excessively wikilink. Do something about that hanging sentence at the end of the lead. Get someone with no idea what hockey is to do one more copyedit. For instance, you might find out that you need to wikilink things like goals against average, which according to our page has no hyphens, as I thought. Try to shape it up some and I'll reconsider my conditional. JHMM13 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a couple of your concerns. These are some minor things that I overlooked when I wrote the entire structure of the article over back in the day. But rest assured, they will be cleaned. Sportskido8 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I think the second paragraph in the Personal Life section could use a source. Also, I noticed goals against average written with no hypens, hypens, or just GAA. So choose one and make it consistent. Finally, since this is a Canadian player, we should use Canadian spelling, so I'm gonna go through and see if there is any 'U-less' words; I already spotted one earlier. Nathanalex 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was very impressed when I first came across this article a couple months ago and it has only gotten better since then. I've made some minor changes on it (mostly making sentences clearer if they could be and editing stats and such) and would love to see it be featured. It covers a lot of bases and is very well-written. Bsroiaadn 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support I found and uploaded a couple nice pics for this article from flickr (they're in the commons box and the one where he gets ready for action) so I'd like to see it do well, but there is no mention of his early life, it's as though he appeared on the earth as a goaltender. That's a glaring omission. Quadzilla99 09:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other prose related issues but I'm not going to list to take the time ot list them if the article has no early life section. Quadzilla99 09:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll put an early life section in later today. I just wish somebody had mentioned this at some point in the past year so that I didn't have to do it while it's up for an FA-nomination. Sportskido8 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice work on that, I've got a couple of other issues I'll list them here and you can deal with them one by one. Feel free to strike a line through each one as you get to them:
          • This direct quote is without a source:"Brodeur is arguably the top goaltender in the world right now. Fresh off a World Cup win in 2004, and another strong performance at the 2005 IIHF World hockey championships. Also, he's still among the best puck-handling goaltenders in the game, though the NHL's new rule changes may somewhat alter that effectiveness." All quotes should have a source.
          • Sometimes when you use the cquote template you put the citation after the quote and sometimes after the colon preceding it, just put in on the colon each time to make it consistent.
          • "He then "backstopped" Team Canada", backstopped is sports lingo that probably needs to go.
          • " According to Brodeur's book, Patrick Roy, the team's starter, demanded to play every game, and he has never forgiven Roy for doing so." This sentence could use a citation, along with a page number. Also kinda choppy and poorly worded.
          • "He was also a first Team All-Star, a starter in the NHL All-Star Game, and a finalist for the Hart Trophy yet again." Yet is slightly POV just make it again.
          • "His name was used by the Loisirs' directors to create a golf tournament named after him." Name is stated twice redundant. How about "a golf tournament was created in his name" something of that sort.
          • "Entitled Brodeur: Beyond the Crease, it hit the market in October 2006." "hit the market" is not very formal could be released, or some other term.
          • Talking about things he's on pace to do in the lead, might be a little WP:CRYSTALish, but I guess it's okay.
          • "Brodeur was drafted in the first round, 20th overall, from Saint-Hyacinthe, in the 1990 NHL Entry Draft by the New Jersey Devils,[14] for whom he has played since the 1991-1992 season." The "for whom he has played" makes the sentence choppy also is probably unnecessary as you're going to make it clear he's played for them all of his career as the article goes on.
          • "The next season, which was shortened to forty-eight games due to a four month lockout that plagued the NHL with salary cap issues, the Devils finished tied for 9th overall, 5th in their conference, and were not considered a Stanley Cup contender." I'm not the biggest hockey fan, but wasn't the strike due to the owners trying to implement a salary cap? This sentence needs re-wording, it's unclear what the strike was actually about reading it.
            • That's all I see for now, I'll look again later. Quadzilla99 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fixed 'em all. Sportskido8 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Great work! Although I unstruck the pace thing as that wasn't addressed—but as I said that might not be too big of a deal, it is verifiable. Here's a couple more:
                  • "However, in 1994 Brodeur achieved notoriety when he won the Calder Trophy, an annual award for the best rookie in the NHL, after leading the Devils to 2nd place in the NHL and the 3rd round of the playoffs, where they eventually lost to the New York Rangers in seven games.[16]" Why did he achieve "notoriety"? Shouldn't it be publicity or even better recognition? Am I missing something?
                  • "His netminding career" same deal as backstopping, sport lingo not formal enough.
                  • It's also going to need WP:DASH work throughout, see the two edits I made, those dashes appear in the box down below when you edit. The only things that shouldn't be changed to the current format are the titles of articles as they use a standard keyboard dash. I've asked another use to look the article over and she knows a lot about the policy. So (if she has time) perhaps she can elaborate better than I can. Quadzilla99 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset margin) I can help today. That will probably be my last objection. Quadzilla99 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed all of my objections and changed to support. All of the info in the refs is now there (Pub date, auhtor etc.), although some might not be right template the info is there which is enough for me. The dashes are done to the best of my understanding (if the editor I referred to looks it over she'll know for certain). Here's one or two more things that could use tweaking:
    • "and had a playoff total of 7 overall, breaking Dominik Hašek's not-so-old NHL record of 6" not-so-old is clunky, I would have fixed it myself but I couldn't think of another wording.
      • Fixed this myself, removed the reference to how recent the record was set. If you want to re-insert it you could say "recently set NHL record" but I think it's smoother without any of that. Quadzilla99 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With one of the most impressive playoff performances of his career, Brodeur guided the Devils to their third Stanley Cup victory after dramatic seven-game series wins against the top-seeded Ottawa Senators and the surprising 7th-seeded Anaheim Mighty Ducks." This might be considered a little POV (not by me but others, as I've learned in the past) replace "most impressive" with "standout" or memorable. Or just say it without using an adjective. Acclaimed (with a ref) would be great.
    • I removed one or two lingoistic phrases, "He notched his 85th career shutout" try to make these are all out and formal terms used in their place.
    • As I commented on the talk page previously, since his name is pronounced "Mar-tan Bro-door" maybe you could add a pronunciation breakdown to the opening sentence.
    • Prose could still use slight polishing overall, you might want to look it over, but it's not enough for me to oppose.
Okay the article is very nice now and you should be proud of it. The reason all this stuff, which might seem minor, is important is first off that it's policy, but also if the article becomes an FA (which seems highly probable now) people will look to it as an example and therefore it should be formatted correctly so any mistakes aren't repeated. Quadzilla99 07:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Website's sources - [10] Michael Greiner 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but these just don't appear to be reliable sources. Unless you can convince me why these are good, I'll need to strongly object. We can't have featured articles based on Joethe HockeyFanSaidSo.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the 38 consecutive wins for a single team to start the season are an NHL record (He got 38 before Clemmensen got 1). I'll source it from somewhere else though, Nathan. Hockeygoalies.org is an extremely reliable source Sandy, read the "About the page" section and you'll see where the guy gets his references from. As for the other ones, maybe they don't have a big name like ESPN or Sporting News but they're entirely devoted to hockey. Couchpotato and hockeynut both reference things that I can find elsewhere so that's not a big issue. (And there are only a couple of sources with them anyway). And the career stats don't explicitly have a source because his player profile is referenced a few times and you can find them there easily. Sportskido8 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when it's all sorted out so I can have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed two of those references. The HockeyNut ones are still there but I don't necessarily think that's a bad source. Sportskido8 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... I guess I misunderstood what it meant. I thought you were implying he won 38 games in a row, but I think you mean that he won 38 games for his team without another goalie getting any wins in between... That could be reworded somehow to make it more clear. Nathanalex 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote sentence as; "The Devils first 38 wins of the season were all with Brodeur in net, leading to a NHL record for most consecutive wins for a team." Michael Greiner 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it has been rewritten and overhauled to pass FA standards. Kaiser matias 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Brodeur is an athlete whose career essentially started along with the rise of the internet. Every important game should be cited with a box score and/or recap. This will be a lot of work. I will be doing this for the 2007 season for Barry Bonds as I have begun to do. If I were the lead editor of Bonds' page or wanted get it promoted to FA I would do so historically. I am going to try to do this with all athlete pages I get involved in. For example, when you say he broke Dominik Hasek's shutout record, you should have a box score citation for each shutout since there are only seven. Going forward I will be opposing athletes on this basis whenever I pass by FAC. You are not being singled out and I just started doing this myself when I nominated Chris Young (baseball pitcher) for GA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous already. Are people TRYING to find ways to object to this article? One guy above objected it because the infobox didn't have a caption, and now you're objecting for a reason that I've never seen been given before. The Hasek reference comes from CNN SI, which is a perfectly reliable source. I'm sorry for taking my frustration out on you, but this article is very close to passing FA status and I can't understand your reasoning when all of the references are from well-known sources. Why does it matter if it's to a box score? Sportskido8 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry Sportskido that doesn't seem actionable. Summaries of every single significant game (however that would be determined) of an accomplished player's career would seriously violate WP:Summary style. We're not writing a biography here, you still have my support as above. Quadzilla99 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Sportskido, there doesn't seem to be much that could be added through box scores. Hockey is (obviously) a very different game from baseball, where box scores would be of more interest. It's very nice that Tony is going to oppose sports articles based on his own made-up criteria, but it doesn't seem to be an actual policy. Nathanalex 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing and given that people have complained that citation density can get out of hand on some of these FACs to source an article which says so and so his a game winning shot and then add a box score (which won't say that) is illogical. Citations aren't for further reading on a subject. Quadzilla99 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to find a way to object. I just went through my first successful WP:FAC and WP:FLC processes last month (totalling over 800 edits). I found that although I did not like each thing people were adding. They almost all made my article better. Anyone who is a sports fan knows that quick access to a box score or game recap can improve the encyclopedic value of an article. Despite comments above, I see nothing at WP:Summary_style#Citations_and_external_links suggesting that there is any consensus that adding box score links would detract from the article. I tell you what. I will add your first box score as I think should be added and you tell me whether you think it adds to your article. Keep in mind that most knowledgeable hockey fans will wonder about things like how many saves and power play opportunities did a goalie have to defend. I know that you as the writer are a hockey fan and thus I know that you know those are the first two things you want to know about a shutout. I am not trying to be mean. Your article will be better. It is not just my baseball articles that are improved by box score citations. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added two games (48th 2007 win, 7th 2003 post season shutout). I also noticed that for hockey ESPN.com only seems to go back to the 2002-3 season. I think USAToday.com goes back about 15 years, but I have not checked in a while. However, playing with the URL to get to their old pages is a challenge because I do not quite understand the syntax. If you want to find games you can find them though. Generally, I use sports.yahoo.com and espn.com. I haven't pushed myself to find older games from the 90s. Before the 90s you probably can't link to the net. I would not push for a print citation before about 92, but I think you can find box scores online going back that far. I would encourage you to find other important games. Clearly the last 5 seasons are on ESPN.com. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add box score sources that's fine, but I don't think there's a reason to object the article because of the fact that they're not there. You should base your decision on the current Wikipedia criteria, which seems like an easy support to me. Just my two cents...Sportskido8 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAFA 1(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are attributable and supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)" I am contesting under this. If you go to Kobe Bryant and look at the citation for the game where he had 81, a citation exists. If it Kobe were up for FA, I would say the citation does support the 81 claim, but it is a piss poor citation. Give me an AP box score and recap. Sure you can pass with any old citation for a claim. Here there is a chance to have good ones and I am encouraging that. I encourage a quality box score and recap for each important game (especially over the last 5 years). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added an external link to Yahoo Sports which includes a game log dating back to 1999 which has box scores available. Michael Greiner 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the statement in an article is that so and so made a game winning shot then a ref stating that is what is necessary, often times a box score will have no mention of who made a game-winning shot. Also we're employing summary style here, Wikipedia is not expected to carry recaps of every significatn game a player ever played. To oppose until your personal preferences are met is not what WP:FAC is about. Quadzilla99 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Greiner, I am not sure what you are telling me you did. Is it in the article somewhere? Anyway, I have confirmed www.USATODay.com box scores back to 1995. Here is the 250th calendar day in 1995 (I think) URL= http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores95/95250/95250.htm I am not asking him/her to add recaps. I am asking him to link to recaps/box scores where possible. I can only find box scores going back to 1995. I can not find recaps or game logs. I have not looked that hard yet. Do you want me to go through the article and enumerate every other game that I think needs a box score/recap. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did. I oppose a game log. It is to individual box scores as external links are to inline citations. Please seek important box scores for important games. They can be found. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COmpletely wrong Tony the score of the game is there it's completely unnecessary to get an individual box score. Quadzilla99 17:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent)Objection (cont'd) I continue to believe this article is undercited. It seems that a lot of what you are including comes from martinbrodeur.net. I am not sure of the propriety of such a resource. I understand hockey is harder to source than the other major sports. If some of the requests are difficult to find maybe I can help track some down. I would like an alternate source for as much of the following as possible:

  1. only goalie in NHL history with six 40-win seasons
  2. Brodeur was drafted in the first round, 20th overall, from Saint-Hyacinthe, in the 1990 NHL Entry Draft by the New Jersey Devils.
  3. He finished 2nd in goals against average and 4th in save percentage during the regular season, helping him eventually land the starting job over Terreri.
  4. The next season, which was shortened to forty-eight games due to a four month lockout that was focused on salary cap issues, the Devils finished tied for 9th overall, 5th in their conference, and were not considered a Stanley Cup contender. However, with the leadership of Brodeur, they defeated the Boston Bruins in the 1st round after shutting them out in three of their four wins. Brodeur had another stellar performance in the second round against Pittsburgh, where he gave up only eight goals and helped the Devils soundly defeat the Penguins in five games. In the third round the Devils defeated Philadelphia in six games, giving them their first Stanley Cup finals appearance in franchise history, opposite the heavily favoured Detroit Red Wings. But the strong play of Brodeur and the Devils' infamous "trap" method would make this series lopsided in favour of New Jersey, who would go on to sweep the Red Wings while holding them to only seven goals in four games.(each sentence)
  5. Brodeur played in 77 (of a possible 82) games, setting a single-season record for most minutes played by a goalie, while having the 2nd most shutouts in the league.
  6. In the first game of the series on April 17, 1997, with the Devils up by two goals late in the game, Brodeur fired the puck the length of the ice and into the Canadiens' empty net to ensure a 5–2 victory (box score if possible).
  7. Brodeur was runner-up for the Vezina, was named to his second all-star team, and had the lowest goals-against-average by a goalie in almost thirty years, earning him the Jennings Trophy. He also had 10 shutouts and a .927 save-percentage.
  8. In the 1998–99 season, the Devils finished first in the Eastern Conference for the third straight year, with Brodeur winning 39 games. He was among the contenders for the Vezina Trophy and started in the All-Star game, making his fourth appearance. However, Devils lost in the first round of the playoffs yet again, this time to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

(I am only half way through the article. I will get to the other half later today or tomorrow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. But this is dang close. I've added one cn tag. In the Early Life section, there are no indication of years/age of subject. Also, the copy reads awkwardly, claiming that his father was an important factor in his success, before backtracking and saying 'well, actually'... However, great job. Sports bios are tough to get through FA. Drop me a line when you've addressed those comments and I'll happily review. --Dweller 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the paragraph with the cn tag as I can not find any sources. I'm not sure what you mean by no years in the Early Life section as everything has the year it happened. (Having both the year and his age would be redundant) Also, I don't see where it says that his father didn't help his success. (unless you are counting the fact that he started as a forward) Michael Greiner 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - conditional on addressing the new {{cn}} tag I've added. I still had a problem with the father-success issue, but I've fixed it myself. Feel free to amend if it's not right English for Canadian article, but you'll get the sense. One last thing - did the placard really read "Alimony demanded from your wife"? Surely it should have read "...by your wife"? --Dweller 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added citation where cn tag was added. Michael Greiner 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My support stands... interested however, in response re the placard. --Dweller 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have your support. As for the placard, the source says "from" so I guess we'll have to use that. Sportskido8 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not really much of an ice hockey fan and I hate the NJD, but I found this a very enjoyable read. I'm pretty sure this would be the first ice hockey player article to earn Featured status. Buc 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, Wayne Gretzky is an FA, and was even featured on the front page a while ago. The more you know. Kaiser matias 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This would be the first goaltender article featured, if it were to pass. Sportskido8 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, its a really good article, really heavily sourced, almost too much I would say but if that's what it takes these days. As hockey articles go this is definitely up there with the Gretzky article. Some of the objections raised in this article are just ridiculous, its not like we are showing these Featured Articles to our cruel dictator and have to have it 110% perfect. With all this over-editing, it does nothing to prevent in later days afterwards for other editors to come along and diminish the article's quality, as is the case with all FACS. Once again, good job Sportskido8, your doing a really good job with these Jersey-related articles. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per Croat Canuck. --Krm500 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As complete a biography as I have seen. Well sourced, well organized. Good quality images. The suggestion that seven citations to seven box scores to "prove" that Brodeur set the record for most playoff shutouts is required when one reliable source stating same exists is completely ridiculous. Resolute 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, non-free dust cover of autobiography does not have a fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...ok...Sportskido8 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the fair use rational. Quadzilla99 23:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we remove the image from the article, would that change your objection? --Krm500 00:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why we can't have a book cover with a good fair use rationale in the article. Sportskido8 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never objected to the use of the image in the article and, unless someone would provide a diff suggesting that I did, I would appreciate it you forever dropped the matter. I think that the fair use rationale could certainly be strengthened and I've detailed my comments in an clear, actionable format at Image talk:Brodeurbook.jpg. --Iamunknown 06:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article was fun to read, and is very topical too : )

I added Brodeur's profile on the Hockey Hall of Fame's Legends of Hockey site into the external links section too. ColtsScore 07:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page corroborates Martinbrodeur.net (although possibly one mirrors the other). Is it possible to convert this to an inline citation reference where applicable since so many factual claims are referenced from this source. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only part of that site that this article mirrors is the early childhood section? Wherever they got their info, it was from somewhere else because a lot of sites have a similar description. Sportskido8 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Pluto

edit

This article was recently promoted to good article status and is very well referenced and it looks ready to become a featured article. Note that I have made minor contributions to the article as well as having previously nominated it for GA on 2 occassions. Watch37264 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment — I gave the article a quick run-through and it seems pretty good. However there are a few small issues that I'd like to see addressed:
    • The pounds in "five pounds" should be linked to the monetary denomination, so it is clear this is the meaning. [fixed]
    • I don't believe that m in the sentence, "Pluto's mean apparent magnitude is 15.1 m with a maximum of 13.56 m" has any meaning as a unit. It should be removed. [fixed]
    • The two images in the "Mass and size" section are colliding, creating a gap in the text. Can this be fixed?(talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [fixed][reply]
      • Now the two images at the top of the "Physical characteristics" section are colliding. — RJH [fixed- although it looks a bit stupid]
    • "(C2H6)" should be written "(C2H6)", and "(CH4)" should be written "(CH4)". Also ethane should be wikilinked. [fixed]
    • The following sentence contains two 'however's: "However, his own published writing ... cleared their neighbourhoods, however, he..."
      • Not fixed. — RJH [fixed :0)]

(talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was all ready to give my support, but a quick read-through revealed some more issues. (Also a couple of the issues above are not really fixed.)
  • The first paragraph has too many sentences that begin with "it". [fixed]
  • In multiple locations in the text, dashes are used where &mdash;'s would be more appropriate.[fixed- at least as far as I can tell]
  • "over 50°" is not a quarter of an orbit. That would be 90°.[fixed]
  • Can this be tightened up so it looks less awkward? "These can principally be divided into arising from one of two further mechanisms" => "These arise principally from two additional mechanisms." [fixed]
  • "This is a consequence of the Kozai mechanism" does not explain anything, at least for me.
Someone will have to contact Spiral Wave about that. Serendipodous 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence isn't meant to explain anything, it's meant to inform the reader what's responsible. The Kozai mechanism is tricky, and is wikilinked for the reader to follow up as they wish. I'm not sure what can be done about it: without meaning to sound facetious, the Kozai mechanism is responsible, but I don't believe it should be explained in and of itself, any more than a mention of gravitational interactions elsewhere require an explanation of Newtonian physics; just a link to gravity. I've tightened up the sentence to try and reflect why it's responsible, but I'm not sure I can do any better than that (maybe someone else can?). Spiral Wave 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Spiral; I'm sure that will be enough. Sheesh. This is rough. I'm beginning to feel like Scatman Crothers acting in The Shining; "What do you want Mr Kubrick? What do you want?" Serendipodous 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I usually get beat up for mentioning technical facts that require advanced, pre-existing knowledge on the part of the reader. So that's why I flagged it. Sorry this is proving difficult; believe me I can relate. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem, knowing where to draw the line is always a bugger, especially in articles that are both as technical and mainstream as this one. Spiral Wave 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not clear to me that it's ready yet. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: looks pretty good, I'd be very glad to support once some minor things have been taken care of. Apart from the above, I'm a bit worried by the layout (misplaced pictures cause a lot of white space in my IE) and the high number of references. I'd be happy to help, but right now I'm a bit busy since I just nominated Moon (another one in the Solar System series). Nick Mks 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this article is good, but I have some comments on the prose. I will add more later as I have time to go through the rest of the article.
  • There is some repetition in the history section.
  • Was it a "false prediction" or an "incorrect prediction"?
What do you think about "Fortuitous mistake" as a heading? Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially misleading; a lot of people, particularly Indians, are trying to retcon history to claim that they "discovered" Pluto before the evil Americans. I want to make it absolutely clear that whoever was first to make a prediction, the only person who discovered Pluto was Clyde Tombaugh. Serendipodous 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I just wanted to try to make the heading reflect the section a little bit more, but I see where you are coming from. Awadewit 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Mass and size": I like your comparisons, but what is the actual mass of Pluto?
  • Observations were able to determine Pluto's diameter when it is at occultation with Charon[31] and its shape can be resolved by telescopes using adaptive optics. - awkward - two different verb tenses
*Observations were able to determine Pluto's diameter when it is at occultation with Charon. - "were . . . was" or "are . . . is." Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it returns to a closer proximity to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface will increase, causing the nitrogen ice to sublimate into gas—creating an anti-greenhouse effect. - verb tenses
  • Pluto's temperature is 10 kelvins less than they expected - 10 kelvins fewer
  • The current best hypothesis is that the south pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years in 1987, and extra nitrogen sublimated from a polar cap. - "current best" sounds odd; also, unnecessary comma
  • In October 2006, the spectroscopic discovery of ethane on Pluto's surface, presented by Dale Cruikshank of NASA/Ames Research Center (a New Horizons co-investigator) and colleagues was announced. - awkward passive
  • The MIT-Williams College team of James Elliot and Jay Pasachoff and a Southwest Research Institute team led by Leslie Young observed a further occultation of a star by Pluto on 12 June 2006 from sites in Australia. - why not place this with the other occultation information? it seems out of place right now
  • Pluto's orbit is markedly different to those of the planets. - "of the [major] planets" perhaps?
  • The previous time around, between 30 April 1483 and 23 July 1503 this situation persisted again for around 20 years similarly to the 20th century. - very awkward
  • Although this may suggest a regular structure in the short term (measured over several millennia), Pluto's orbit is in fact chaotic. - It is usually best not to begin a paragraph with "this" because its referent can be unclear.
  • Indeed, the part of Pluto's orbit that lies as close or closer to the Sun than Neptune lies about 8 AU above the ecliptic - perhaps "Neptune's orbit"?
  • I was also thrown by the white space. I don't mind it between sections, but it is distracting in the middle of a section. Would moving some of the pictures to the other side of the page help? Awadewit 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: There is only lots of white space when I view the article using Internet Explorer, not Firefox. Unfortunately, most people seem to use IE (at my university, it is the default (and sometimes only) browser on many library computers, for example). Awadewit 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses. Re: the number of refs. These were required for this article to pass GA status. It would be somewhat awkward to have to reduce them again for FA status. Re: major planets. According to the IAU's definition, dwarf planets are not planets, so "major planets" would be misleading. As regards the empty space, personally I think the best thing to do would be to make an image of the chart and upload it onto the Commons. Without the empty space, the picture of Pluto just eats into it and obscures the data. EDIT: re: empty space. Moved image two paragraphs down, as it deals with Nix and Hydra more than with Charon. Serendipodous 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Overall, I thought that this article was quite informative and it did an excellent job of explaining scientific concepts that many lay readers may be unfamiliar with. Here are the rest of my comments.

  • In "Other factors governing Pluto's orbit," I would use "first" and "second" rather than "firstly" and "secondly."
  • Some of the ashes of Pluto's discoverer, Clyde W. Tombaugh, are aboard the spacecraft. - This sentence was oddly placed and perhaps not relevant to the Pluto page.
Could the sentence be integrated into the paragraph better, then, if you really want to keep the information? Right now the paragraph jumps around a bit as it is; this sentence just adds to that feeling even more. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pluto's official status as a planet has been a constant subject of controversy, fueled by the past lack of a clear definition of planet, since at least as early as 1992, when the first Kuiper Belt Object, (15760) 1992 QB1, was discovered. - awkward - perhaps move date earlier "has been a constant subject of controversy since at least 1992..."
  • although there was no official consensus at the time on whether to call it a planet - "whether or not to call it a planet"
  • stating that "the definition stinks" albeit "for technical reasons." - I find this an odd construction - shouldn't a scientific definition fail for "technical reasons"? This suggests that it fails for insignificant reasons to the lay reader.
Perhaps you could find a more precise quotation from this person?
I already did. :)Serendipodous 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page should either be written in American English or British English. Some sections appeared to be in AE and some in BE. Please choose a dialect and standardize the page.
  • Some of the footnotes are incorrectly cited (3 is missing the journal publication information, for example, and 4 has some odd italics going on). Please look through the notes carefully and fix them up. Also, please standardize them; decide whether you are beginning with the author's last name or first name, etc.
  • The "Further Reading" section seems rather thin. First, please cite all of the sources consistently and fully. Second, what if I really was curious about Pluto and wanted to learn a lot more? Where would I go? You seem to be referring me to two pages in one book and an article in the Times and one other book. Surely there are better sources out there!
  • I would also cut down on the "External links" - the NPR segments, for example, seem unnecessary since you have explained that material in the article. I would only link to sites that are going to provide significantly more information that is directly related to Pluto. For example, the bibliography of science fiction which is set on Pluto belongs on the "Pluto in fiction" page, I would think.
  • One question: is the image of Pluto at the top of the page supposed to look pixalated? It seemed odd to me (maybe I'm missing something). Awadewit 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could say in the caption why it is pixellated. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I've addressed some of your comments (personally I find the whole "firstly" thing a bit pedantic, but it does seem to be a niggle with a lot of people, so I changed it). I don't really see the point of standardising this article's English; all that will happen if someone picks one type is that eventually someone else will alter it or add material in their own style. The little addendum about Clyde Tombaugh's ashes being on the New Horizons is a nice little fact that links the latest exploration of Pluto back to its discovery. I'd keep it. And if you want an image of Pluto that isn't pixellated, then you'll have to wait another eight years or so. Serendipodous 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) :Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout. Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. - WP:ENGVAR. "Firstly" is incorrect, by the way. I'll reread the article again later. Awadewit 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I dissent. I am also British, which means I use British spellings. And given that the majority of English Wikipedia users are American, and given that many Americans have reverted my BE spellings as errors, I can only imagine the result if I standardised this article to British spelling. If there has to be a standard spelling, let it be American. It's easier. Serendipodous 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
There are plenty of articles in BE on wikipedia, but do what you think is best. I am almost ready to support. See the remaining issues above. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is well-written, well-sourced and (as far as I can tell, but I'm no expert) comprehensive. I was particularly impressed with its ability to convey difficult information to a lay audience. I really learned a lot about Pluto by reading this article and I actually remember it. Nice job. Awadewit 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small etiquette point: Please do not strike out other reviewers' comments - it is changing their statements and only they are allowed to do that. I had to go through the whole list of my comments again and see what I had agreed was taken care of and what the pluto editors believed had been taken care of. I quote from the talk page guidelines: "As a rule, don't edit others' comments." The exceptions to that rule do not apply in this case (e.g. personal insult, libel, etc.). Awadewit 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry :(. I was hoping to make sure that anyone logging on here for the first time would know which topics had been addressed. I should have been more considerate. Undone. Serendipodous 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I think that it is more common for editors to write "done" or "fixed" under each comment or some sort of response to indicate that it has been addressed. Awadewit 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interesting and well written. I'm a bit confused why "[the surface] is composed of over 98 percent nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide." and yet the diagram on the RHS shows "frozen methane" for a crust. This this nitrogen ice a very thin layer on top? Colin°Talk 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [fixed][reply]
  • Oppose It's excellent now!—Not yet up to the required "professional" standard of writing. I looked at the first couple of paras, which didn't fill me with confidence. Please find someone else to copy-edit carefully throughout the text. Don't just fix these examples.
    • Why "second-largest" but "tenth largest"? Both in the opening sentence, too. And why is there a hyphen here: "one-fifth the mass of the Earth's Moon"? Better "a fifth".
    • Rather than force your lay readers to travel the link to "AU", why not gloss it here and put in parentheses afterwards? ("The distance from the Earth to the Sun", isn't it?) [fixed]
    • "during a portion of its orbit"—plainer, please: "during part of its orbit".
    • "so Charon is currently regarded as a moon of Pluto"—If you want to indicate that this view is temporary/unstable, better to be explicit. Otherwise, remove "currently" as redundant. [fixed]
    • "several of the natural satellites or moons"—Is that an equative "or"? If so, at least use commas around "or moons". Several is unencyclopedic: how many? Let's give our readers precise information. [fixed]
    • "From its discovery by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930, Pluto was considered"—The first word is ambiguous, and our readers shouldn't have to get half way through the sentence to disambiguate it. "Since"? [fixed]

Tony 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed everything except the bits I didn't agree with. There are a few external links that were reccommended for removal that I decided to keep, plus the British/American English issue is unresolved. The Further Reading section is also unexpanded. Serendipodous 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really much I can do then... I did look at the external links, and must agree that it's a bit weird to have articles from news sites there, they could probably be used as refs. Also, I guess the EL need to use the cite template as well, to include author, publisher, full title, date and last access. I'll try to take care of that. Nick Mks 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the white space I had gotten out has returned somehow. Also, many inline refs will need the full citation parameters like I did for the external links yesterday. Nick Mks 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citations all look fine to me. If you mean that they don't have "last-first" in their formats than that's OK; I got the Solar System article featured without that. Serendipodous 21:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, some don't have a date or last access. But that's just nitpicking, for me this doesn't prevent a support. Nick Mks 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it help with the way-back machine if people are forced to use that to verify your information at some point in the future (say, it disappears from the site - one of the dangers of using web sources)? Awadewit 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they say. I didn't use them in the past either, since I thought that refs in FAs should always be current and updated if necessary, and these dates therefore redundant. Nick Mks 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally considered a planet, Pluto has since been recognised as the largest member of a distinct region called the Kuiper belt." According to their respective pages, (136472) 2005 FY9 and (136108) 2003 EL61 both have larger radii than Pluto.

If they do then they're wrong. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the late 20th and early 21st centuries however, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered in the outer solar system, most notably the trans-Neptunian object Eris, which is slightly larger than Pluto." It even contradicts itself.

Eris isn't a Kuiper belt object. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the top of the discovery paragraph, it mentions "Tombaugh's work was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examine each pair and determine if any objects had shifted position in that time." It does not say what method he used. I remember seeing somewhere about a machine he used to flick the photos back and forth. Can someone please find this, and link to it?

It's called a blink comparator. I can work it in if you want. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It mentions (At the bottom of the discovery paragraph) that the predicitons were near where Pluto turned out to be. It does not mention that Percival Lowell is sometimes incorrectly credited with discovering the planet. I am not sure how to say that in an article, so will someone please put that in there, along with possibly finding an incorrect reference saying Percival Lowell discovered it.

Seems a bit irrellevant to me; that Percival Lowell gave a false prediction for Pluto's position seems enough. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The name Pluto was first suggested by Venetia Burney (later Venetia Phair), a twelve-year-old girl from Oxford, England." This makes it sound like she is still 12 years old.
  • "Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigation difficult. Many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 2015, when the New Horizons spacecraft is expected to arrive there." This makes it sound like the New Horizons craft will be a much more extensive missions than it actually is.

Given how little we know about Pluto, it doesn't need to be very extensive. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does not mention under the appearance and composition sections wether or not it s visible to the naked eye.

Actually, it does. It says that it appears star-like even in large telescopes, which pretty much rules out seeing it with the naked eye. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of gas, most likely a mixture of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface." Most likely does not sound very encyclopedic.

Fixed and cited. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • some minor things, but "From the rate of dimming, the atmosphere was determined to have a pressure of 0.15 Pa, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth." 1. wouldn't this read better as "the atmospheric pressure was determined as", and 2. Is there are particular reason Pascal is not spelled out? Both of these also occour here: "Surprisingly, the atmosphere was estimated to have a pressure of 0.3 Pa, even though Pluto was farther from the Sun than in 1988, and hence should be colder and have a less dense atmosphere."

Ok... Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Relative to Neptune, the amplitude of libration is 38°, and so the angular separation of Pluto's perihelion to the orbit of Neptune is always greater than 52° (=90°-38°). The closest such angular separation occurs every 10,000 years." The 52° (=90°-38°) part is confusing. Should those parenthesis be there?

90-38= 52. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • under the section on Charon, I think there should be more information on what the tidal locking means, like people on one side of Pluto would never see Charon, Etc...

OK. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Astronomers now believe Pluto to be the largest of the Kuiper belt objects." Again, the largest part, which has been disproven
  • "Eris (see below) is also larger than Pluto but is not strictly considered a member of the Kuiper belt population." This is the only place I have seen this (that Eris may not be a Kuiper Belt object) mentioned. It is not mentioned in the see below section, nor is it mentioned in the Kuiper Belt article.

Well the Kuiper belt article's a mess. Eris is a scattered disc object. Added it to the Kuiper belt article. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave now, so that's it from me. Wow... This is the first time I have ever said anything on a FA candidate, and in my opinion, I said a lot... Just an interesting note: the date of the most recent star occultation and the naming of the 2 new moons was only 9 days apart, and the moons were discovered less than 1 month before the occultation. Megalodon99 (Talk) 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else still awake here, or do I take over? Nick Mks 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Climate of India

edit

Peer review

This is how I found the article last month; it was moth-eaten, since unreverted vandals had been randomly removing references and words. Thanks to some great feedback by Dwaipayanc and Nichalp, it's been repaired and expanded. All comments on things like prose, regional balance, comprehensiveness, etc. welcome. Saravask 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Despite its position within a high-latitude belt at 55–75° S (as opposed to its current position between 5 and 35° N), latitudes now occupied by such places as Greenland and parts of the Antarctic Peninsula, it likely experienced a humid temperate climate with warm, frost-free weather, though with well-defined seasons. This sentence is tough to understand at one go. Can it be modified? The "it" - what does it stand for? India or Pangaea?
  • four major climatic groupings predominate, into which fall seven climatic zones.... But the image India climatic zone map shows six zones.
  • However, once the dry northeast monsoon begins in September, most precipitation falls in Tamil Nadu..'. Is the norteast monsoon called "dry"? AFAIK, the northeast monsoon passes through only some parts of India (eg Tamil Nadu) and brings rain from the Bay of Bengal. The rest of India does not receive the norteast monsoon, and that's why remains dry during the winter months.

More comments later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the comments.
  1. "[I]t" is India.
  2. I know the answer, since I traced that map. The original map merged the "semi-arid steppe" and "semi-arid" regions; meanwhile, they kept "arid" separate. The seven-zone classification is sourced from the LOC.
  3. It's a common misconception that all monsoons must be humid monsoons. It's also mistakenly though that all monsoons must be noticeable. All the maps I've seen (including this one) show the NE monsoon winds advancing towards all of India. Page 118 of Caviedes 2001 has an even better map that shows the NE monsoon wind arrows placed throughout India. It goes on to state on page 120 that "[a] fundamental distinction exists between summertime sea-to-land airflows that are humid monsoons, and monsoonlike flows that are dry."
Hope these help. Saravask 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on the way, but needs a full copy-edit by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Some turns of phrase can be rationalised. I presume it's in BrEng, not AmEng (watch "kilometER", etc). I've done the lead. Tony 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning. I've added {{copyedit}} to the article, which will hopefully rustle up some volunteers. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can do by removing redundant words and editing out my usage of American spelling and idioms. Saravask 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think the tag won't do anything (might antagonise reviewers here, though). Best to approach WPians individually; research the edit-history pages of related articles (esp. FAs) to find people who've done good work. Show them you're familiar with their work. In any case, this is worth doing to build a collaborative network for future nominations. Tony 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top is image heavy. I suggest removing Uttaranchal, haystacks, one of the two images in =tropical dry=. The Haji Ali image does not add much meaningful value either. Will support once copyediting issues are resolved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. TN (and most of south India by extension) gets most of the rainfall through NE monsoon. The north gets most of the rainfall from the SW monsoon. This disjoint weather system is one of the reasons why India is called a subcontinent. The article however gives a different impression with incorrect self-generated maps. You can verify this with any second-hand geography primer textbook. By the way, where are the Spring and Autumn seasons?
No mention about tsunami and the dramatic effect of sea (rather than hills and deserts) on climate. 3% share of world is not quite a vast coal reserve, is it? Acid rain in India is certainly original research. Thar Desert plays a role in attracting moisture-laden southwest summer monsoon winds - this if true must be a wonder of the world as it defies meteorological science. Deserts are the effects of climate change, not the causes. Indian agriculture does not quite depend on monsoons anymore despite rhetoric thanks to irrigation. Also on a lighter note, it would be nice to add a paragraph about the yet-unexplored surface tension phenomenon that made elephant idols appear to drink milk nationwide!

Anwar 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A map with the NE Monsoon wind patterns could help here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the object by Anwar — "This disjoint weather system is one of the reasons why India is called a subcontinent." — this needs reference. Acid rain in India — please put citation needed tags if you feel necessary. The Thar dessert sentence has adequate inline citation. That Indian economy (and agriculture) is very much dependent on monsoon is evident in several sources, like this, this, this and BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED. "elephant idols appear to drink milk nationwide"— I don't know much about this, but don't think it was a climatological phenomenon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply to Anwar's object— That the coal reserve is indeed vast has been referenced now. India has the fourth-largest coal reserves in the world.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the object by Anwar''. Tsunami is nothing to do with climate conditions. North east monsoon has been incorporated now in the article. However his comments about significance of Thar desert to India's climate seems to be valid. That sentence seems to have been written based on references in some old books about Thar desert's role in India's monsoon. Reliable sources about Indian monsoon does not attach any significance to Thar desert.[11]

[12][13][14] Few months back,I raised this point in India article. --Indianstar 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the references. The northeast monsoon coverage has been updated. The effect of Himalayan glacier retreat on Indian major rivers has also been updated. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the suggestion. The image has been replaced. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work by Saravask. The maps are perfect, referenced, and among the best works in Wikipedia. The statistics section nicely portray numerical difference between the climate of the various sectors of the vast country. Seems to be comprehensive. The FAC helped improve whatever deficiency the article had. Language may not be brilliant, but pretty well written. Uses reliable sources and is verifiable. Complies with Manual of style. So, an emphatic support. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, excellent and in-depth information is disseminated in a very accessible manner. My only gripe - the images are way too good. I kept sifting through them rather than reading the article :P --soum (0_o) 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Umhhh... No problem with the content and citation but the page needs to be properly wikified. Sushant gupta 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has followed WP:MoS. Could you please specify where the article needs wikification?--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Fritz the Cat (film)

edit

The article is concise, well-written, well referenced, is not missing important information, excellent prose, focuses on a film with great importance in the history of animation, all of the images have fair use rationales. I worked on a great deal of the article, although many of the improvements have come from others. A lot of work has been done, and I think that it's good to go. (Ibaranoff24 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • *Support I like many of the Changes that have been made it is now looking like a FA article. I do find the Article a little bazaar, but not in a bad way just different, and that is what makes Wikipedia so great even the most far out Articles can Become FA with the right stuff. Max 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport — The whole production section could be re-organized better. "Ralph Bakshi majored in cartooning at the High School of Art and Design. He learned his trade at the Terrytoons studio in New York City, where he spent ten years working on theatrical and television animation." Very awkward intro to the directing section, starting with a bio of Bakshi, goes off-topic please put it into context. The whole directing thing goes off topic and talks about Bakshi a little too much out of the context of the film on the whole. Also since writing is also about Bakshi whay have two sections? I would say rid the section of the sub-sections and just call it productions and go chronologically. Aaron Bowen 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — The "directing" section discusses Bakshi in terms of being a director and in being an animator. The "writing" section discusses the screenwriting only. I reedited the "directing" section into two paragraphs, and made the kinds of cartoons Bakshi worked on before directing Fritz the Cat more clear, so that readers get a better sense of the fact that he was directing children's animation but wanted to make films for adults. (Ibaranoff24 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support I saw potential in this article while on wikibreak, and I think it's there. I did some restructuring, but the real-world material is fantastic. And just as good- no bloody cast list. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm going to support this article. Good work by the main editor.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- the plot synopsis isn't written very well: it's very hard to follow and choppy. I suppose the film is a bit disjointed plot-wise, but still, I would like to see that section focus more on giving a clear overview than in summarizing every scene. Mangojuicetalk 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Well, unless you want to give a go at rewriting it, I don't see how it could possibly get any better than it already is. It's been worked on by several writers, and it's already gone through a copyedit. (Ibaranoff24 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • It goes into a lot of unnecessary detail. A few examples - skip the construction worker urinating, skip Fritz's lamenting quote (and BTW - is it really "wrecked"? "wretched" would make more sense), skip Fritz's silent comment, et cetera. It seems like a lot of moments are being described because in the movie, they were funny... but the humor is lost in writing it down. Also, the text is choppy: many short declarative sentences one on top of another with identical structure. It's also not comprehensive. The text focuses almost 100% on specific events, without covering any character development or emotional story. I found it really confusing: maybe that's because I haven't seen the movie, but for a featured article, that shouldn't be necessary. The rest of the text (outside the plot section) is better. (BTW, shouldn't this section be a "synopsis" section? It should aim to be more than a summary of the events, it should be a summary of the movie.) Mangojuicetalk 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (A couple of additional notes - the opening sequence, as pointed out by a few critics, is an example of how the filmmakers feel about hippies. And yes, "wrecked" is what's said in the film. The original comic by Crumb reads "racked.") (Ibaranoff24 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
          • I'd love to help more but it's difficult without seeing the movie. You addressed a couple specific poinst: I suppose it's better for that, but it's the style of this section I'm objecting to, I really think it should be redone, almost from scratch. Maybe it should just be a lot shorter: see for instance Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (film)#Plot, another movie in which the actual events aren't so essential. Mangojuicetalk 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, but that's not a featured article. I can't really write about the characters' development without getting into original research. The current revision evolved from a plot summary that was really bad (mistakes, over-describing the film, slang, etc.) - I tried to get it where it would only present a medium-sized summary of the film's story. I don't really think I could come up with something that's much better by going back and writing a new synopsis. I can't really get an idea of what you have in mind if you don't actually watch the film, and give me specific ideas on what to do with the synopsis, or rewriting it yourself. I really don't know what you want here. (Ibaranoff24 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
              • But its plot section is better written than this one. I did some web searches on the film and what I found never summarized the movie in as much depth as the writing in this article. But on the other hand, they were all much more clear about what they did say. And the choppy text remains a problem however the summary is written: that at least you should be able to fix. Here are a few examples of clearer but shorter synopses out there on the web: [18], [19]. Some summaries I read talk about Fritz trying to find himself or define himself: that's the kind of thing I was looking for when I said this wasn't complete. Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I tried to base the style and layout of the article on that of some cult films that have recently attained featured article status, but it was hard looking for a comparison, since all the previous featured cult film articles thus far have been horror films (Cannibal Holocaust, Night of the Living Dead, Halloween). But all of these have much longer and more detailed (or perhaps equally detailed) plot summaries. (Ibaranoff24 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
                  • Also, I don't think the film is really about Fritz trying to "define himself" or "find himself"; the character, as the Netflix description states "embraces every new experience that crosses his path" - he's all about living for the sex, drugs, and cheap thrills. (Ibaranoff24 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Atheism

edit
previous fac (May 31, 2006)

After copious discussion and overhauling, this article looks very little like its former self (compare to a month ago, or tot the last FAC attempt a year ago). The article has underwent ridiculous amounts of deweaselfication and prosification, and multiple sections have been rewritten from scratch (e.g. workspace for rewrite of "Reasons" section). It is now fit to be Featured.

With the help of the regular editors of the article (who have provided excellent discussion and input), I will bring this article to Featured status. If you have any objections, please clearly explain what you believe is wrong and how you suggest to fix it, as I intend to resolve any and all objections, and implement any other improvements suggested here.

  • Weak support. Could use copyediting at places, but it's good.
    • A bit puzzled with the referencing in the article, maybe rename "Footnotes and citations" to simply "Notes"?
    • Always capitalize "God" when used singular.
    • ...and even reject the existence of a personal, creator God.[6][64] but in recent years - Remove "but" as it doesn't oppose the prior statement. Capitalize the sentence beginning.
    • He argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics than theism - a more superior basis?
    • It is argued that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary - By who?
    • Rename the Psychological, sociological, economical arguments section to Psychological, sociological and economical arguments.
    • ..and that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations - Remove "that".
    • The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, and thus are considered arguments against atheism - "and thus" wouldn't work here, how about "The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, which thus are considered arguments against atheism".
    • They argue that if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, then why is there evil and suffering in the world, and why is God's love hidden from many people? - Avoid questions in context. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your suggestions. I'll update here as I've made these changes. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 20:59Z
      • Done: I made all of your suggested changes, except for adding "more superior", since replacing "superior" with it's definition, "of higher grade or quality", still made sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 23:39Z
        • As I've said, it could still use copyediting at places. I will not retract my original weak support for now. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you be more specific? I and a few others have copyedited the grammar/style of the article thoroughly since your original vote. Where does it still need copyediting? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 17:47Z
            • I still see problems in the article's early sections:
              • such as secularism, empiricism, agnosticism (in the case of weak atheism), or the Brights movement - No need in bolding here.
              • According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak atheist or a strong atheist. - Either a weak or strong atheist.
              • It has been contended that this broad definition includes even newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas - Remove "that" and "even".
              • They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there evil and suffering, and where His love is hidden from many people - "There's", "and omnibenevolent", uncapitalize "His". Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done Thanks for the suggestions! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:22Z
      • I'm not really clear on why you say that "god" must always be capitalized when used in the singular form. Speaking generally about a deity does not necessitate its capitalization. One could make the argument that referring to the specific Christian god-concept might should be capitalized, but if use of "proper" names of deities is required like that, then it follows that references to the Jewish god should be changed to Yahweh and the Islamic god to Allah. Whitney (Talk) 11 April 2007 22:26 (CDT)
      • I disagree with the change of "Footnotes and citations" to "Notes". "Notes" isn't sufficiently descriptive: it should be kept clear that this section is full of citations. How about "Notes and citations"?
        • Maybe, but it should be noted that "citations" are equal to "references". Some of the notes lead to the actual references, so it wouldn't be justified to label them as such. Michaelas10 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that god should always be capitalized in the singular; it should only be capitalized when it refers to the specific individual referenced at God, rather than to deities (or male deities) in general. So, for example, whether "the existence of a god or gods" should be changed to "the existence of a God or gods" is debatable, especially considering the "a".
      • I disagree (as BRIAN0918 did) with the redundant and erroneous change of "superior" to "more superior". In this context, such a phrasing is as ungrammatical as "more better", and it is moreover inaccurate, as Baggini doesn't consider theism to be a "superior basis for ethics" (even one that's not quite as "superior" as atheism); in fact, he considers it to be an inferior, weak one to an extreme degree, not merely a "less superior" one.
      • I disagree with the removal of "that" from "and that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations"; this removal changes the argument from one of Baggini's to one of Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia should not take sides on such issues. -Silence 08:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
    • In the third paragraph, "conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism." was ok, but now its undefined since the negative def is not introduced in the lead. Perhaps the neg. def can be omitted and the explanation reworded, because I am not sure how significant the neg. def is in the cited literature. But if its really needed here, perhaps it can be introduced and defined at the end of the second paragraph, with respect to the change in scope. Modocc 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Implicit/Explicit section and its article seem unbalanced, and that some opposing view(s) of affirmation recognition should be included in these.Modocc 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of opposing views? The Distinctions section is more for explaining the different classifications. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 18:37Z
        • This section includes rational for the classification, "infants are atheists", either this should go, or the prevailing view that "infants are not atheists" should be included to add balance.Modocc 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "prevailing view" is not the only view. The purpose of the section "Implicit/Explicit" is to record one way in which definitions of 'atheism' differ. What you contend to be the "prevailing view" is the "Explicit" definition. The idea that newborns are atheist would fall under the "Implicit" definition. johnpseudo 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and the explicit view is given no attention, after considerable attention is given to quoting original views expressed under the implicit def.Modocc 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've made a minor change to the section. Let me know what you think. The reason "implicit" has less prose than "explicit" is because the classification system is easier to define in that way- the mention of newborns serves to define the limits of implicit atheism. johnpseudo 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Better, at least the weight, especially if the references also make it clear that the implicit view is less common. Its sterile. But, at least it puts their work into perspective. Thanks. Modocc 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning toward Oppose: Why the need for a separate "Criticism" section? It's much better to incorporate criticisms throughout the article in the appropriate sections rather than casting them into the troll-magnet ghetto of their own self-contained world. I'm hesitant to support any FAC that includes such a section as a violation of Criterion 1(a). — Brian (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of the pejoritive history of "atheism", the article actually contains a lot of criticism in sections other than the "Criticism" section. I actually thought the same thing as you in the past about how criticism should be put in appropriate places throughout the article, instead of being dumped in one section, but after my 2nd Featured article almost didn't pass FAC because there was no Criticism section, I just believed that's how it's supposed to be around here. Let's see what others have to say. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 12:56Z
    • Actually, after reading Wikipedia:Criticism, I'm now more inclined to disperse the various contents of the current Criticism section to their relevant parts. Watch for upcoming changes to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 13:01Z
    • I suggest to spread the criticism into the whole article, but leaving a "criticism" section that drives the reader pointing to the main critical arguments of the article.--BMF81 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support A significant improvement indeed. The article demonstrates the best of what Wikipedia offers, with all sides of a controversial philosophy well represented. All research is properly supported and referenced. I'd like to see this work carried into related/sub articles. -- Scjessey 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neutral Support This is a major improvement. BRIAN0918, I really like the work you have put into this, especially to simplify and clarify the article and put more emphasis on the interesting issues. I really like what has been done. I will try to see, if I can't help with anything in the days to come. For now I just want to say, great work! --Merzul 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I still think this is a major improvement, I was certainly too hasty to support FA status. I'm naturally not opposed either, but at the very least the citation system must be made consistent before this is featured, and personally I think User:Silence's approval is important. --Merzul 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think one user should have the final say over any article. Most of his suggestions are attempts, as johnpseudo put it, to turn mostly good prose into brilliant (or better) prose; such suggestions are fine, but they shouldn't prohibit featured status. If you can make specific suggestions, I'll be happy to address them. What is wrong with the current citation system? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 14:25Z
      • Done As you know, the citation system has been made consistent. Will you change to Weak/Strong Support now? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 14:55Z
        • I'm essentially back to support, but there are a few minor things left, and I will try to address some of that myself. I will post below. (re Silence, I would just personally like his approval of the article, it's not something that should block the FA process). --Merzul 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article. However, I would suggest to move "Atheist organizations" to the end. That way the prose wouldn't be disrupted by this rather long list and I personally consider the two sections below more informative and interesting. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 17:35Z
      • On a second look, I think there is a problem with the naming of the "Notes" and "References" sections. "References" appears like a "Bibliography" to me, while "Notes" seems like the actual references section with direct citations, should probably be renamed to "Footnotes and references". Also, throwing both (explanatory) footnotes and references/sources together into one section is not ideal imho; I personally prefer to keep them separated. -- EnemyOfTheState 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read WP:LAYOUT. Also, if all of the sources listed in References weren't actually used in writing the article, those that aren't sources should be moved to a Further reading or External links section (with a *very* good reason needed for adding an External link that isn't used as a source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic support. What a vast improvement! — Whitney (Talk) • 11 April 2007 22:32 (CDT)
  • Oppose. Please fix the section headings (read WP:MSH). Also, please read WP:NOT re: Atheist organizations sections. Wiki is not a web directory. There are also WP:DASH problems throughout. A fresh set of uninvolved eyes should run through the entire text. Vast improvements in an article isn't reason for featuring it; meeting current standards is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done I've made your suggested changes. Thanks for the help! I'm not sure what you mean by "fresh set of uninvolved eyes"; AFAIK, the following users were uninvolved with the article before supplying their Support rationale above: Dark Dragon Flame, Michaelas10, BrianSmithson, Grosscha, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc, and WhitneyGH. If you have any more suggestions, please list them. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 14:42Z
      • That was fast. Now, please spend some time cleaning up the messy footnotes. See WP:CITE/ES. Websources need publisher, author and date when available, and last access date; your inclusion of that kind of info is spotty and inconsistent, and it's not clear if all websources are WP:RS. Examples only, starting from the botton of the notes list: The BBC websources have last update dates on the pages, which aren't included. Date on the Harris Poll? Data on the Nature article? A zpub source linked to EB ? Who published the Price article, full date pls. Why is allrefer.com reliable? Publisher on the Stein article? I didn't review the top 50 notes; these are samples. By fresh set of eyes, I mean an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month. I found some awkward prose, but I'm not good at analyzing prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In progress. Your suggested changes are currently being made. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 15:27Z
          • I'll check back tonight; appreciate the fast work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done I'm fairly sure that all the refs have been fixed as you requested. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions. As for "an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month"... the following users in their Support mentioned nothing about the improvement: Dark_Dragon_Flame, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc. And who's to say that the ones who do mention the "vast improvement" didn't check out the prose? If you can cite problems, I'll fix them, but please don't oppose for no reason. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:09Z
              • I'm continuing to pick away at cleaning up the references. It's not clear that all websources are reliable sources (e.g.; what is rationalrevolution.net), but it is clear that there are 1a, copyedit issues. Sample prose:
                • Following the French Revolution, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophies, and many prominent 19th-century German philosophers denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche (see "God is dead"). And, that usage (see [link]) throughout is indicative of prose problems; the links should be worked seemlessly into the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Done I removed the useless SeeAlso's and incorporated the useful ones into the text. I also removed the RationalRevolution source and the relevant unsourced (and not very useful) text. Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:13Z
                    • Referencing and sourcing concerns resolved. I'm relieved to see the parentheticals removed from the lead and the See also parentheticals removed from the text, but I'm surprised that Tony approved of the prose. I'd suggest continued work. One example is two one-sentence paragraphs at the end of Early Indic religion. (Would you mind removing the green checks? It is up to reviewers to indicate when concerns have been addressed by striking them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further on the topic of dashes, can you please check the page numbers in the Radhakrishnan and Moore reference (currently ref 48) and then put an en-dash there, if appropriate? —xyzzyn 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done I verified those page numbers, and converted the page number hyphens to ndash's. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:09Z
              • Most page numbers already had en-dashes; you just replaced them with HTML entities. Please revert [20]. And what exactly does 227–49 mean? −178 pages? —xyzzyn 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've clarified the page # confusion (227 to 249). According to WP:DASH, you should use the HTML entity, but typing in the endash directly is alright as well. The revert isn't necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:36Z
                  • Thanks for disambiguating to 249. As for WP:DASH, ‘avoid typing their related codes (e.g., &ndash; for en dash) to display dashes’ seems quite unambiguous to me. —xyzzyn 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It also says, above that, "Use the HTML entity &ndash;". The reason for your quote is just clutter. Either one is fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 18:48Z
                      • Actually, the main reason is that my way doesn’t involve an additional layer of code, which means that editors see the same thing in the edit box and the rendered article (instead of having to know/figure out entities). The saving of five bytes per instance isn’t very big (although I expect Sandy might disagree…). —xyzzyn 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Late to the party. xy, I'm lost. Type in the ndash, or use the actual character from below the reply screen? I've never been clear on that. The article is *VERY* slow loading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Those HTML codes have nothing to do with speed with which the article loads. See how long this page takes to load: User talk:Brian0918/test. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 19:30Z
                            • Goodness, this page is slow to load and hard to work on. I doubt it's the dashes, but it sure could be the Harvard ref notes: I converted another article which used this system long ago as it was impossibly slow to edit and work on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • DONE! The ref/note system has been ditched, and the article loads much faster! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 13:42Z
  • Support—Well-written. But please change "utilize" to "use". I'd prefer "people" rather than "man", as inclusive of not just 49.5% of humans—even though the philosophers referred to would have used the generic male. Tony 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done Thanks for the suggestions! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 23:07Z
  • weak support because of the very impressive restructuring. There are still some style issues with the wording, but the re-organization is really well done! Oppose The prose is awkward throughout the article, although it does improve near the end. Much of the philosophical discussion is wrapped in jargon, and there are far too many long sentences with many clauses. My specific problems include:
  1. Why is there a History of Typology section and a Historysection? This isn't the only place that different parts of the article echo each other in unconnected, somewhat dissonant, and still repetitive ways.
    Done I restructed the whole thing, eliminating the "History of typology" section, moving any useful bits to their relevant places, and deleting any redundant content. It's much improved. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:52Z
  2. The parenthetical lead section. Parentheses usually a poor way to present information, and in this case I had to read that second sentence a few times to get what it meant. When I pull that sentence apart, each bit is clear and concise, but as a whole it is very difficult to process.
    Done It's been split up with semicolons and em-dashes. If this not sufficient, please suggest a better alternative. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:14Z
    How about "Definitions of atheism vary in range from disbelief in specific conceptions of God to disbelief in anything supernatural, in degree from absence of belief in gods to positive belief in nonexistence and in recognition from the implicit unbelief of an infant to an explicit statement of disbelief." I tried to edit this myself but was defeated by the huuuuge notes. See below. Enuja 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't there be some sort of punctuation between "range/degree/recognition" and "from"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 12:01Z
    The current version, without all the details, is wonderful. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The fact that the term orginated as a pejorative is repeated too often; it appears 1) in the lead, 2) third paragraph in Etymology, 3) beginning of History of Typology 4) in Classical antiquity, last paragraph 5)Modern Advancement, opening sentence. Also, why does the History of Typology section have a "further information" link to Discrimination against atheists?
    Done It took a lot of work, but I restructured the whole thing, and moved the separate parts of the "History of typology" section to their various places (deleting a lot of repeated, unnecessary text in the process). It's much improved. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:48Z
  4. Why is there a section named ""typology", especially as the rationale for atheism could also be called a "type" of atheism and is a different section? I looked up what a "typology" would be, and I'm not convinced that this a clear and useful heading.
    Done I restructed and renamed the whole thing, removing the redundant bits. It's a lot better now. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:49Z
  5. Bourne quote in Practical versus contemplative. I had to read it several times to figure out what it meant, and I don't think it's doing any good there. You do need a source to say that "the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied," but a primary source isn't even a good way of sourcing that type of thing.
    Done That quote was annoying me too. I've removed those sentences, since they're not very useful and largely unsourced. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:55Z
  6. In the Association with a positive assertion section, agnosticism does not "result" in weak atheism. I suspect that parentheses is trying to communicate that agnosticism is a euphemism for weak atheism.
    Done I changed "resulting in weak atheism" to "in the case of weak atheism". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:19Z
  7. In Strong versus weak, I don't think that a speech archived on the web is a good source for "strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge that no deities exist"
    Done I removed that whole sentence. No good source and not likely to have one. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:23Z
  8. Other distinctions is, in fact, just about Richard Dawkins. I'd cut it entirely. ("Yet other distinctions exist." is a particularly poor sentence, especially to lead off a section with, so if you keep this section, do improve it.)
    Done I also thought it should be removed, but wanted to see what others thought. Gone. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:25Z
  9. The practical atheism section of "rational" is strangely unconnected to the practical vs. contemplative section of the History section. This is more of that "echoing" problem I mentioned in pt #1.
    Done I restructured the whole thing and deleted the redundant bits where necessary. It's a lot better now. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:51Z
  10. Also in the practical atheism section:"Within the scientific community, practical atheism is exhibited in the form of methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."" implies that all members of the scientific community are practical atheists
    • I've attempted to reword the sentence a bit; it only applies to those who practice methodological naturalism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:41Z
    I've reworded it myself; now that sentence feels like maybe the idea should be in the bulleted list below, but at least it's more concise. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. At the end of the Early Indic Religion section, I'm skeptical that Taoism is the "rejection of a personal, creator God." Did the concept of a personal, creator God exist before Taoism? I'm also a bit surprised and taken aback that a Chinese tradition is mentioned under a category of "Indic Religion."
    Done I removed the Taoism reference. It never had a source, and when the section was renamed to "Indic religion", it became completely out of place. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:28Z
  12. What's with the long quote from Lucretius in the Classical antiquity section?
    Done Moved the quote to the Notes section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:32Z
    I think it's almost as bad in a notes section: see below.Enuja 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I've removed the quote from Lucretius. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 14:09Z
  13. In Atheism, Religion, and Morality, the sentence "Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism." is cited only for Harris, not for Dawkins.
    Done Removed mention of Dawkins. I've heard him say similar things before, but I'm not sure where it can be found in writing. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:34Z
  14. Most of the captions on the pictures are far too long. Many of them would work as picture of the day extended captions, but as small text that goes under a picture, they are just hard to read. If you have lots of text that goes with a picture, put the text in the article and the picture near that article. Instead of being illustrative and a nice rest for one's eyes, the over-captioned pictures are actually wordy and intimidating.
    • People read through articles in different ways. Some only read the lead section, some skip around a lot, others go straight to the pictures. I had the last group in mind when I put in pictures with interesting, detailed captions. The captions are used to pull those readers in to reading the rest of the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:00Z
    • Done? Several of the captions have been reduced in length substantially. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 14:15Z
    Much better. Some of the captions are still a bit long, I can live with it.

That's what I found with about one and a half read-throughs. I had a very hard time reading all of the way through, as we supporters or objectors are asked to do, because it really is thick reading. I was able to get through it by writing down problems, and then getting back to the text. I certainly commend you for greatly improving the article, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily ready to be a featured article. Anyway, good luck! Enuja 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Added #14 Enuja 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Struck out most of the points, changed from Oppose to weak support. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions! Many of the parts you cite as problems were edits made after I nominated the article for FAC. I'll let you know how it goes. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 03:59Z
Okay, I've read over the article again, and I'm going to stick with weak support. The prose simply isn't up to snuff, and that's not the kind of thing you can improve by following specific comments that specific editors have. It needs a nice, long bath in grammatical clarity, given when it isn't on featured article review and isn't on, about to be on, or just on the main page. In other words, this article needs to be content stable, then it needs a bunch of work before it should be grammerical stable. It is a very complete and explanatory article on a tough to write about subject, though. Enuja 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do, but it'd be better if you could list actual problems you encountered while reading through the article. Which sentences were unclear or in need of rewriting? Please be more specific. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 04:14Z
  • Comment I'm new to this Featured Article Review stuff. Personally, I don't think that long footnotes with prose or long quotes are very encyclopedic, but for all I know the consensus could be against me. Is there such a consensus, policy, or guideline? I can't find one. Personally, I think that footnotes should have only references, but that might be going to far. If clean, clear, short, readable footnotes is important for a featured article, then this article needs some serious pruning. Lots of long footnotes also make it very difficult to read and edit the text. Enuja 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quotes provide some useful context at times, although some are probably unnecessary. Given that most users don't have access to most of the sources (at least the ones that aren't online), it's useful to provide some quote to give context. However, I think there are excessive examples in Atheism, and I'll work on trimming them down. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:18Z
      • Enuja is on to something; since Dr pda wrote his prose size script, I can't recall seeing an FAC with such a high ref size for such a low prose size (Prose size 28 kB (4272 words); References (text only): 19 kB). The numbers do argue that a lot of prose is in the footnotes. If that much explanation is needed in Footnotes, it makes me wonder if the text can't be written more clearly. The ref size is the same as the extensively-cited, much-longer prose size article, DNA. Based on the numbers, this may be something to address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not really the case here. The "prose" in the footnotes is for the most part just text copied from the sources to give context. A lot of it is unnecessary and can be removed, I believe. You can't equate the size of the footnotes section with a statement about the quality of the article, given that the footnotes are just copying/pasting what other people have said to provide supporting evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:22Z
    • I've removed several of the long unnecessary citation quotes, and attempted to restructure the edit screen text for readability. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:32Z
  • Comment: Oh, my, are we back to those obnoxious green checks again <yikes> ... they are so disruptive, and don't mean anything until the original reviewer strikes objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
    • I actually use them to keep track of what I have done and what I haven't. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:38Z

Section break 1

edit
  • Oppose. Various problems, but mainly the writing quality needs much improvement. In the first paragraph alone (will expand criticism later):
  1. Articles should generally begin with "[subject matter] is X", not "[subject matter] entails X", as term-definition comes before consequences.
    • We've had long discussions about this on the talk page, and the fact that there is no one definition of atheism means that, at best, we can only make a statement about the most fundamental necessary (but not sufficient) condition for atheism. Everyone agreed that "entails" was the best choice. This illustrates that things can't always be reduced to simple statements like "Atheism is...". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:26Z
      • As I see it, "is" doesn't imply that a condition is sufficient. If I say "a dog is an animal with four legs", that doesn't necessitate that all animals with four legs are dogs. In the same way, "atheism is disbelief in deities" doesn't imply that "disbelief" is the only necessary criterion for atheism, nor does it specify which definition of "disbelief" is in use; these two factors make it the simplest way to present in a clear manner what atheism's most universally defining characteristic is. In contrast, "Atheism entails", by skipping the process of actually defining the term (which is necessary even—nay, especially—for ambiguous terms) leaves open the idea that any belief system which entails the absence of belief in deities can be a definition of "atheism". For example, nihilism, naturalism, and solipsism all qualify as definitions of "atheism" (as opposed to just being "atheistic" or "nontheistic") under this usage. Hell, one could even argue that "Atheism entails the absence of belief in deities" without defining atheism allows any belief system (for example, capitalism, realism or catastrophism) that doesn't specifically affirm the existence of deities to be justifiably called "atheism". After all, an "absence of theism" is all that's required, right? However, if you really think that simply "Atheism is disbelief in deities" is unacceptable, then I recommend still using some other "Atheism is..." form for the first sentence. You could even keep the "entails" wording if you used something like "Atheism is any of a number of stances which entail a disbelief in the existence of God or other deities". -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can a view really entail a belief/disbelief? Isn't that the same as saying a "belief that entails a belief"? Doesn't that make no sense? I want to make the change you're trying to suggest, but am not sure of the wording. If we say that "Atheism is any of a number of stances that entail the absence of belief...", then we are asserting that all of those stances are valid forms of atheism, when in fact we can only say that various people have asserted different forms of atheism as valid. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 08:15Z
        • Also, we can't call atheism a view/stance, because implicit weak atheism is not a positive assertion; it's been claimed that newborn babies are implicit weak atheists, and they certainly wouldn't be holding a view/stance. How about "a state of mind"? Or is that too obscure? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 08:19Z
        • Done We've had more discussion about it and modified the lead to read "In the broadest sense, atheism is..." and then explained the other definitions. I think this is an improvement. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:26Z
  2. "[Atheism] contrasts with theism" is awkward.
    • How? It seems alright to me, but if you can suggest something better, please do. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:26Z
      • "Contrasts" has a number of different meanings; the most common meaning is exactly the opposite, in terms of the agent, of this one (that is, the one which would say "Atheism is contrasted with theism" rather than "Atheism contrasts with theism"). A less ambiguous or unusual alternative would be preferable. Something with the meaning of "is the opposite of" or the like, for example, would also provide more specific and concrete information. -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done Changed it to "It is the antithesis of theism..." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:32Z
  3. "vary in multiple aspects" is needlessly opaque wording for what should be a simple idea. It is most important to use accessible language in a lead section, because the lead section is expected to "draw readers in".
    • Done I've attempted to avoid this problem by just stating how it varies. Let me know if this can be improved further. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:32Z
  4. The links to weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism are "easter eggs". Although I do not necessarily think this should be changed, as the solution might be worse than the problem, this is certainly a problem as Wikipedia:Piped link makes it clear that "easter egg links" should be avoided whenever possible.
    • Done I've removed the links, since they're already specified later in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:33Z
  5. I'm concerned that the "disbelief in anything supernatural" belief is being given undue weight here. Other ultra-broad understandings of atheism (for example, that it denotes irreligion) are at least as common as this one, yet the lead section seems to be endorsing the "naturalistic" understanding of atheism and condemning the "irreligious" understanding, without any real basis.
    • How do you suggest it be changed? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:12Z
  6. The grammar of the second sentence is extremely unusual. I've never seen clauses begun with dashes and ended with semicolons in a colon-following list. Again, accessibility is a major problem here; the first few paragraphs should be as smooth and fluid a read as possible, and not require readers to stop and reread a phrase a few times before they understand the sentence structure or meaning.
    • Done I've attempted to fix this problem. If you still don't believe it satisfactory, can you suggest an alternative? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:12Z
  7. "Positive belief in nonexistence" should be "positive belief in their nonexistence" or similar, else it implies that strong atheists simply believe in "nonexistence" (and that weak atheists don't). Avoid forcing readers to read too much into text or make too many implicatures, especially when dealing with difficult concepts.
    • Done Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:13Z
  8. In context, "explicit statement of disbelief" is a poor way of referencing explicit atheism, because the rest of the examples deal with beliefs, not propositions; "deliberate rejection of theism" or "conscious, active disbelief" or the like would convey the idea better.
    • Done Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:15Z
      • "the conscious rejection of theistic beliefs" isn't a very good way of putting it either, because it's needlessly convoluted: what "theistic beliefs" are being discussed? Isn't there only one relevant "theistic belief"—theism itself, the belief in deities?
        • Done Changed "theistic beliefs" to "theism"... You could have done this yourself and saved all this back-and-forth :P — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:37Z
  9. Do we need such an extensive biography of Baron D'Holbach in his image description? Wikipedia:Captions advises against such long blocks of text, and I certainly don't seed the necessity for having so much detail on this random person at the top of atheism; only the first sentence seems essential. If the rest is so important, why not transfer it to "History"? -Silence 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Captions says to keep captions succinct, not short. I can attempt to say things more clearly in less words, but I'm trying to use the images/captions to pull readers into reading the rest of the article. People read through articles in different ways. Some only read the lead section, some skip around a lot, others go straight to the pictures. I had the last group in mind when I put in pictures with interesting, detailed captions, to pull them in. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:18Z
    • Done I've shortened the caption a bit, removing the least interesting text. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:22Z
      • Adding lots and lots of words below images doesn't "pull readers in" to the text, it drives them away from it by scaring them with dueling columns of paragraphs. Simple, concise, and spartan but aesthetically appealing articles are more likely to "draw readers in" than ones with an excess of bells and whistles. People who only read the pictures are unlikely to bother with reading more than a couple of words of such a lengthy image caption anyway. -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done The caption has been shortened dramatically. While I don't necessarily like it, I understand others' concerns and will accept it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 13:19Z
  10. Aside from the issue (which I've raised at #1) of whether it raises problems by being an overly loose requirement, "absence of belief" is arguably not a NPOV way to characterize what all forms of atheism "entails" because it lends favor to the "weak atheism" definers and ignores the "strong atheism" and "explicit atheism" ones. Although this is understandable on the grounds that the weak atheism one is broader, it is still problematic, and it seems like a problem which could be easily resolved by simply using "disbelief" instead, on the grounds that "disbelief" is a word that all three sides can agree on using, even if they disagree on what it means in this context (something we can address plenty later on anyway).
    • Done? "Disbelief" has different implications (as you have stated), so the use of that word is discouraged, as it is too ambiguous. I think the most recent version is an improvement, as it just lists the various ways definitions differ. Just because we have listed the minimal characteristic first doesn't mean that one is preferred, just that it's the only characteristic that all definitions contain. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:42Z
  11. I don't like the phrasing "Atheism entails X. This may be coupled with Y, as well as Z." The "may be coupled" doesn't clarify the nature of the disagreement, implying that anyone can/does vary their definitions from time to time, or that everyone agrees on all three definitions. We should be explicit in noting that there is a disagreement here about what is and isn't "entailed" in atheism. Remember that readers will have no idea of what the point of these first two sentences is unless we are completely clear about what the issue at hand is—and that issue is that there is a disagreement regarding how to define "atheism".
    • Done I think the recent change solves your problem. It gives the minimal characateristic, and then says "Other definitions couple this absence of belief with X, as well as Y." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:43Z
  12. Most readers of Wikipedia can't read the Greek alphabet, so ἄθεος should probably be accompanied by "(atheos)", its romanization. I also question the necessity of including the word's etymology at all in the lead section, especially considering that it is explained immediately following the lead section, in Atheism#Etymology. If it was lower down the page, I could see the purpose, but for such an early section including this redundancy just seems wasteful.
    • Done Added the romanization. The reason for the mention is so that we can explain how the definition started as a pejorative in ancient greek. It would be incorrect to state (as the article used to) that "The term atheism started as a pejorative in classical antiquity" since the english word didn't exist yet, so we have to state the greek version for clarity. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:46Z
  13. "anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions" could easily be shortened to just "anyone thought to hold beliefs that conflicted with established religions", since "false gods" and "no gods" both fall under that category anyway. "Polytheists deemed monotheistic views atheistic" needs a reference, and it may simply be easier to remove this sentence (including the clause about Christians), especially considering that there's no evidence that Christians were any more "persecuted as atheists" than any other group from that time period.
    • The point of that part is to list examples that would not be immediately obvious to the modern western mind. It's not obvious that belief in false gods would be called "atheism", or that Christians were once persecuted as atheists. I've added a reference for the Roman usage of the term. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:55Z
  14. The claim that freethought and scientific skepticism predate criticism of religion certainly needs a citation, at the very least.
    • Done I've attempted a clarification. It doesn't say that it predates criticism of religion, just that it led to more criticism of religion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:57Z
  15. "application of the term became more limited in scope." should be reworded to specifically state that the term was now applied only to deniers of deities; in its current wording, some readers might misinterpret this phrase as saying that the word came to be applied less often, when in fact the reverse is the case.
    • Done I changed "became more limited in scope" to "narowed in scope". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 17:06Z
  16. "The first individuals to describe themselves as "atheists" appeared in the 18th century; today they amount to about 2% of the world population." - I wasn't aware that 2% of the world's population consisted of 18th-century atheists. Aside from that, this statistic is extremely problematic, and problematic statistics should always either be removed, or at least presented with explicit reference to the problems they raise. In this case, the main problem is that the 2% statistic applies neither to all people who self-identify as "atheists" (as is implied by context), nor to all people who can be safely called "atheists" based on the most common definitions of atheism. Encyclopedia Britannica notes that any respondents who professed "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion" were labeled atheists, whereas any respondents who professed "no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists" were labeled in a different category, "nonreligious". This is clearly problematic: first, none of the terms involved are mutually exclusive; second, many of the most pre-eminent atheistic philosophers would label many agnostics as "atheists", including even themselves! (see, e.g., Bertrand Russell); third, it seems completely arbitrary to qualify "freethinkers" and "nonbelievers" as nonreligious, but "skeptics" and "disbelievers" as atheists; fourth, it seems quite biased to label as nonreligious anyone "indifferent to all religion but not militantly so", but as atheistic "the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion)", as it suggests that one of atheism's primary defining characteristics is antireligion. These issues make it completely inappropriate for us to baldly state that 2% of the world's populace consists of atheists, without qualifying what the statistic in question does and doesn't consider an "atheist".
    • Maybe we can change it to "those who describe themselves in atheistic terms number about 2%" or "those who describe themselves in atheistic or nonreligious senses number about 15%"... Any suggestions for a way to say this that is concise, or should we just remove it? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 17:12Z
    • Done The sentences have been reworded so as to not redefine what the survey says. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 13:54Z
  17. "The most common of these are the problem of evil, the argument from nonbelief, and similar deductive arguments against certain divine traits or religious assertions" - According to whom? We need citations showing that these are the most common reasons for someone to be a self-described atheist. It seems to me that the "argument from nonbelief", although one of the most compelling logical arguments against certain deities in existence, is far from being common even among atheists, and that vastly weaker arguments like the argument from inconsistent revelations are dramatically more common. This sentence is also poor because it fails to clearly explain that these are only arguments against specific conceptions of God, not arguments against every deity (and therefore not really grounds for full atheism, by any common definition, even if they are very commonly presented as such). Furthermore, it is simply false to claim that most atheists base their views on deductive, rather than inductive, arguments; if anything, precisely the opposite is the case. "Other forms of rationale include epistemological, metaphysical, psychological and axiological arguments." is also a completely worthless sentence to our readers, providing no content or substance to the non-philosophers. Compare this to the infinitely more accessible past versions of the article, e.g., "Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical."
    • Done I've implemented the past version, as it is well written. I've also included a sentence listing common examples, such as the problem of evil, argument from inconsistent revelations, and argument from nonbelief. The paragraph is much improved. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 17:54Z
  18. "In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unethical." - Powerful citations for both claims are needed. I am also baffled as to why "assumed to be irreligious or nonspiritual" was changed to "assumed to be irreligious or unethical", as (1) spirituality and ethicality are completely unrelated; (2) religiosity and spirituality are entirely distinct, and both important; (3) being ethical or unethical has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the sentence, making it a non sequitur when Buddhism is discussed unless the reader shares the text's presumption that Buddhism is "ethical", making it a satisfactory counter-example. Also, I don't see why Hinduism is mentioned in the lead section; "atheistic schools" can arguably be found in almost any widespread religion, even Christianity, but Buddhism is noteworthy as being the religion most commonly described as "atheistic". If we're trying to list other atheistic religions along with Buddhism (which I don't see a need for), Jainism is a much better candidate than Hinduism.
    • Done I switched "unethical" back to "unspiritual". I only changed it so that I could mention secular ethics in the same paragraph, although even that is problematic. I also removed the bit about Hinduism, again. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 17:58Z
  19. How are rationalism and naturalism ethical philosophies, much less "secular ethical" ones?
    • Done I think rationalism is an ethical philosophy, but not necessarily naturalism. I've removed "ethical". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 21:12Z
  20. I also don't think the last paragraph does nearly a good job as part versions of the article did as conveying in a fluid manner the fact that atheism is associated with certain philosophies, but that it doesn't entail any of those philosophies. Compare "In addition, atheism has been associated with secular ethical philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism. However, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere." to "Although atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors that all atheists adhere to." In fact, the whole lead section comes across as extremely disjointed for the most part. There is no clear flow of ideas, and things brought up in the last paragraph are often forgotten about in the next (e.g., the definitional issues brought up in the first paragraph seem to be brushed under the rug starting in the second, although being careful to discuss "self-described atheists" is of huge help in sidestepping this problem). -Silence 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done Changed wording to the older, better version (I was unaware of that better version). As for the rest of the lead, I think the flow is much better now. Let me know what you think. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 21:16Z

Section break 2

edit
  • Support. The only remaining flaws in the article are minor, mostly "good" prose that could be "brilliant".Weak Support. Weak Oppose The only weak part of the article left is its header. It still needs-
  1. A better first sentence- one that encompasses both the "necessary" elements of definition and the idea that it has a variety of definitions
  2. More availability, with fewer words like 'entails', 'conceptions', and 'disparaging'
  3. Smoother flow, giving the impression of having one broad idea instead of listing off a number of characteristics of atheism
  4. More relation to the rest of the article, with broad ideas that draw the reader into the more detailed explanations below (especially the under-mentioned sections 'distinctions' and 'rationale') instead of listing specific characteristics of atheism. johnpseudo 20:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to clarify the first part, getting rid of the ambiguous all-inclusive sentence and just stating what the different definitions include. I've also tried to make it flow better. Let me know what you think. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 20:30Z
      • I really like what you've done with the first paragraph. The first three paragraphs almost give a comprehensive overview of the idea of atheism. They could still use mention of rationale and demographics. johnpseudo 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. That shouldn't be hard to fix. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 21:25Z
        • I've added more history to improve the flow, and added demographic info. It reads much better now. I'm thinking we might need to add another paragraph, on the different rationale, since that's a big part of the article. Any thoughts? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 09:57Z
          • More great improvements. I agree that the lead could use a paragraph concerning the rationale section, but no more than 2 sentences or so. johnpseudo 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added a short paragraph which summarizes the section on Rationale. Let me know what you think (and please consider changing your vote to Support). Thanks for the help! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 18:44Z
  • Mild support - the article is better, but still needs work. Comments here should try to be related to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - and if not, comntemplated changes to the article should be presented on the articles talk pages. I mention this because text from cited referenced has been removed in response to criticisms here. I think this whole FAC process needs fixing - repeatedly single comments here come to rule the article --JimWae 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you make some suggestions for improvement? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 14:40Z
  • some comments:
    • On section "Atheism, religion and morality" the position attributed to "Baggini 2003" seems to be much older, a "classic"; maybe adding an older ref is needed. The same could be said on the next argument attributed to "Harris 2006" (abrahamic religion are inherently "masculinist" which is directly linked with patriarchy which is directly linked with authoritarianism and dogmatism).
      • Done I've added older journal article sources for the claim Harris makes. Some has probably asserted the same claims as Baggini, but without sources we can't make that statement. Can you find any? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 14:07Z
    • what about explicitly citing the standard position in anthropology that "each religion is created by its believers"? I've also read somewhere that from an anthropological point of view you can't have a religion without having an enemy (maybe this observation can be traced back to Émile Durkheim); so this could be cited as an argument for atheism to be more "pacific".
      • I think that's covered under Psychological arguments, although if it's not satisfactory, please make a suggestion, or be bold and add some content (with good sources of course). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 13:43Z
    • what is the criteion for ordering the subsections of section "rationale"?
      • I ordered those subsections based on the ordering used in the Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy that's the main source of that section. Do you think they should be ordered differently? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 13:13Z
    • in section "Anthropocentric arguments", after the last sentence on the absence of "moral or ethical foundation" (and in general of meaning of human actions) the classical response should be added: the ethics (and the meanings) must be invented by ourselves (as I know this argument can be traced back to Rousseau's The Social Contract)
      • The beginning of that subsection was supposed to make that view clear. Maybe it should be rearranged, presenting the theistic view first, and the anthropocentric argument 2nd. Any thoughts? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 14:46Z
    • Satire has been a major source of arguments against religion, with masterpieces from Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen, Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Dario Fo. What about dedicating a couple of phrases to it? One major subtext/meaning in this kind of works is that the laugh brought by satire forces us to face a little truth that we want to reject: God doesn't exist.
      • I haven't seen that brought up by any of the various histories of atheism. Where would you propose it go? What sources do you have for it? There is satire for/against every view; is there any reason (based on source rather than your perceptions) that we should specifically mention satire in this article? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 14:54Z
    • I wonder if the removal of quotes from notes (starting with this edit), based on SandyGeorgia "request" was a good idea. Some citings might enrich the article, and they're not inherently against the FA criteria. I suggest in the case of this quotes to keep "Cline 2006a" text which is more succint, and attribute this position also to "Stein 1980, p. 3", without including its lengthy text.
      • This is more appropriate for the article talk page since it doesn't have to do specifically with FA criteria, although I'm in favor of being less ambiguous rather than more. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 14:55Z
    • The origin of the word seems to be western-centric, so would this basically allow the article to be mostly west-centered?
      • The origin of the word and the origin of the concept are two different things. What are you suggesting? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 15:09Z
    • more on section "Atheism, religion and morality": the discussion on violence by inquisitions and communist states should bring to the argument that dogmatism is inherently dangerous; shouldn't this argument be explicitly presented as conclusion? (with appropriate source, of course).
      • That statement is ambiguous (dangerous in what sense, and to whom, and in what situations?) I really don't believe it belongs in the article. A discussion on the dangers of dogmatism might go in dogmatism, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 15:11Z

--BMF81 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are a few unsourced things I found in the article, and it tagged them with {{fact}}. I would like to see them either sourced or removed before this becomes a featured article.--Sefringle 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestions! Working on it... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 01:53Z
    • Done Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 03:20Z
  • Oppose for a number of comprehensiveness and verifiability concerns:
    1. Aside from some historical associations there is no description or analysis of the social and political impacts of atheism. Surely a set of philosophies that claim over 2% of the worlds population has had some type of impact.
      • I'm not sure what you're asking for here. The article discusses how atheism has been absorbed by society (often in a disparaging sense), how atheism has influenced political powers, etc. You need to be more specific; what is being left out? Any sources? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 03:41Z
        • Aside from brief mentions of state atheism in communist regimes, with associated anti-religious efforts, there is no mention of any atheist groups goals or activities. The article states the existence of "atheist organizations of military personnel", but implies that all the groups do is dispute claims of theist philosophers. Is this a correct assessment of these groups activities? There is also no mention of politically active groups such as American Atheists. At a minimum the article needs a healthy sampling of what organized atheist groups exist worldwide along with a brief summary of the groups goals and accomplishments. --Allen3 talk 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article did have a section on atheist organizations, but it was removed as requested in this FAC and other discussion, because other articles don't have sections listing their organizations (such as Christianity, or the featured articles Sikhism, Bahá'í Faith). As for the military organization, that's mentioned simply to illustrate the "no atheists in foxholes" debate, not to summarize the organization's activities. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 18:26Z
            • What ever the reason for the inclusion of the mention of the atheist organization, the mention demonstrates that such groups exist. This existence is important because it shows that atheism is more than a spectrum of loosely related philosophies and instead is important enough for people to organize. In all three of the articles you listed there is information on the practices of each religion, along with a description of theological belief. How are the actions taken by atheists in support of their beliefs any less applicable? --Allen3 talk 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure what you'd expect such a section to include. It seems like it would amount to nothing more than a list of mostly western lobbying/meetup groups, just like any section on "organizations" from any viewpoint, which is essentially what the old section looked like. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-25 13:11Z
              • There's an interesting piece here that asserts that strictly "atheist" groups don't really exist; rather, groups exist with atheistic views, but also with other views, and those other views are actively supported (eg humanism, secularism). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-25 14:30Z
    2. The Criticism of atheism section needs further expansion, having missed classic appeals such as Pascal's Wager.
      • That section is not a complete list of criticism. The criticism has been spread throughout the article (as others have requested in this FAC and on the article talk page). The manual of style advises against creating "criticism of X" sections, and Jimbo called them troll magnets. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 03:41Z
      • Done. I restored mention of Pascal's wager to that section. It was there when I first put the article on FAC, but got cut out as the article went through a 2nd large overhaul. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 13:13Z
    3. An explanation of how the Roman Catholic Church's control of universities prevented the development of atheistic philosophies at a time when a variety of Gnostic philosophies were able to develop needs to be added. (Early Middle Ages to the Enlightenment section)
      • Done That bit has been removed, and a more specific source has been added. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 03:41Z
        • While your change has addressed the letter of this item, it has done so by confusing historical facts and adding to the prose problems raised by several other reviewers. The Roman Catholic Church had limited influence in medieval Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire, yet we are to believe that Rome was able to control all European universities? --Allen3 talk 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done Removed reference to the Church from that section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 18:32Z
    4. A full reference to the "Mensa magazine" mentioned in the Demographics section needs to be added.
      • Done The magazine is their UK edition. The full citation is from Dawkin's book, and is part of the ref. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 03:41Z
    5. Style issue - The word God is used in many places where diety or divinity are equally appropriate. Appropriate use of these synonyms will both improve readability and also help minimize conflict with various religous taboos.
      • This is more a discussion for the talk page, or maybe for the manual of style or Talk:God. Most Wikipedia articles have been using the proper noun to refer to a creator being, or interchangeably with "god"; OED has no preference. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 03:41Z
    --Allen3 talk 01:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose Comment - The prose needs tightening. Sentences such as "Concerning the degree of refusal of theism, there are various subdivisions" don't convey much information. Likewise:
    Other dichotomies have since been created to categorize the definitions of atheism. One of these dichotomies is between strong (positive) atheism, and weak (negative) atheism; this demarcation is used by philosophers such as Antony Flew[24] and Michael Martin.[25]
  • Would it not be clearer to say something like: "Philosophers Flew and Martin contrast strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism"? Some of the content of the history section is too simplistic. Averroes was quite highly regarded in medieval western thought. Likewise it seems rather POV to have "freethought was virtually unknown" followed by noting the "Church had complete control over universities". At the very minimum, the text should attribute such opinions to someone, ie "Gordon Stein wrote that it was unknown because ..." It might also be helpful to have a note somewhere on the distinction between "atheistic" and "atheist"(adj), as in "atheistic philosophers" and "atheist state". Gimmetrow 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done? Regarding "degree of refusal" sentence: it's an introductory sentence; it won't have much information. I've tried rewording it; if that is not satisfactory, please make a suggestion. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 00:55Z
      • The rewording with "demarcations" doesn't seem like an improvement. My point here is that the article has many such sentences which can be rephrased, as in the Flew/Martin suggestion. the text needs a copy edit. Gimmetrow 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The text has been copyedited by multiple people several times. Which sentences need improvement? You keep saying "many such sentences", but haven't specified anything. If you believe there still need to be improvements, the only way we can get anywhere is if you specify what needs improved... or even make the improvements yourself (the fastest solution). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 04:37Z
          • I thought I had suggested a sentence to work on. Editing takes a lot of time to do properly while maintaining all the ideas contained in the original. It's much easier if the original authors do it. Oh well. Gimmetrow 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done I've reworded the Flew/Martin sentence as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!
    • What is your source for Averroes? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 00:55Z
      • The history section still has serious problems. Just to focus on Averroes, part of his philosophy was to reconcile Aristotle with Islam, much like the medievals reconciled Aristotle and Christianity. As such, a rather nuanced notion of "freethought" is being attributed to him - a notion that would seem applies also to the medievals, who respected him as "The Commentator" for his understanding of Aristotle. The only way I can make sense of this section, it's either wrong, or POV. Given this and the prose issues, changing from "comment" to "oppose" at present. Gimmetrow 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done The mention of Averroes has been removed; it appears the source was using him as an example of how "contrary views" remained intact, not how "freethought" was being espoused. My bad. But it's been fixed. Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 04:47Z

Section break 3

edit
  • comment. Very nice work so far, there are a few more things I would like to work on. Only the first one is a show-stopper.
  1. The lead paragraph. I'm afraid we can't feature this unless there is an adequate solution to the definition of atheism. However, I think there is good work on this currently.
    • The current first paragraph is the result of all that work, and it has lasted without debate for surprisingly long (considering how often it was changing before we came to the current agreement). There is no one definition of atheism; just as in an article like Meat, they need to explain the various definitions, so must atheism. Which is fine, if it's done right, and discussion has led to the current version as the best thus far. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 00:33Z
    • Yes, it is the best thus far, but I really hope you are right about the stability... We don't want the article to have to be protected once it gets on the main page. --Merzul 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As said above by Enuja, I don't like the long quotations in the footnotes. Many of them seem to just validate the use of the sources. We should use talk-pages to verify source usage. The article itself should not try to convince other editors. I will work through all the refs, and only keep quotations that are genuinely helpful to the reader.
    • The only quotations I think should definitely be kept are the etymology ones (since they're pretty interesting and not easily verifiable). Others should be kept if the sources are hard to find or if page numbers aren't given for the sources (I'd suggest replacing the quote with a page number if possible). Thanks for the help! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 00:40Z
  3. The references section should contain the main quality sources used to inspire our general approach. Currently, Martin, Smith, and Baggini are good. I will move Zdybicka here, and remove Winston that we are using in 4 places every time citing the same page!
    • Thanks for the help! Zdybicka should definitely be moved to References. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 00:41Z
  4. A bit of a wish, but it would be very nice, if we could take the quality of sources up a notch. Add one or too more of these quality standard text-books to the reference section, and use them within the text to replace many of the website sources.
    • That's not really necessary, but shouldn't be too difficult to do. I would definitely be in favor of removing the Cline sources. Any books that have limited preview or searching abilities on Google Books or Amazon would be quick ways to switch sources over to paper. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 20:08Z
  5. I would also like to keep history of atheist thinking distinct from the political impact. Like the German article that has a section on the various impacts of atheism on society, in politics, religion, etc. (I have complained quite a bit on the talk page, that currently sources are mixed in a too innovative fashion.)
    • The German article doesn't really cover more than our article, they just have it organized differently. I don't really see the need to reorganize it based on their article; the Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, organizes it the same way we do. It doesn't seem right to split up the mention of Marx, and the mention of the communists who interpreted his work, for example; both should be part of the History of atheism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 20:05Z
    • Which sources are you claiming are violating WP:SYN? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 20:10Z
      • I guess my real worry is that two related but still quite separate phenomena are intertwined in our history. One is the political advancement of atheism, or even antitheism, in the form of state atheism, and their decline, etc. The other is the fact that despite many predictions, it seems the world isn't secularizing, and instead the role of religion in a globalizing world is increasing. These two facts can be sources from many places, but connecting these two ideas, and give the impression that atheism rose to power in communism, and with the fall of the Berlin wall "the golden era of atheism" is over... That's the thesis of The Twilight of Atheism, but it is not a very neutral interpretation of history. --Merzul 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I got it. That OR connection is not currently in the article, and I'll make sure it stays out. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 21:04Z
          • Well, the current presentation although not explicitly making the connection, does give a similar impression. It might be all in my head... Anyway, since the formulation is neutral, this is just a minor quibble. --Merzul 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Finally, any improvement to the prose is always welcome, but I can't help with that. Alright, that's my little task and wish-list. --Merzul 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm basically done harassing, and I'm satisfied with the article. You can basically consider this done. But the article has changed quite drastically, I think it is time for SandyGeorgia to have a look at it again. (I wonder whether the brutal deletion of the quotations have lead to some loss of context, because in that case, the main text should be improved to reflect it. I think it was the right thing to remove the long quotations, which in some cases were quite polemical). I'm more-or-less happy. :) --Merzul 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 4

edit
  • Oppose I'm afraid I still think there is a fundamental POV problem with this article in that it starts from the POV that Atheism = Strong Atheism + Weak Atheism and does not make it remotely clear that the concept of "Weak Atheism" is highly controversial. People who define themselves as agnostics do so specifically in distinction to being "Atheists" and the idea that newborn babies are all "weak atheists" is also highly controversial (some people think that newborn babies have a direct perception of the divine, and there is actually quite strong empirical evidence that children are instinctive theists). In addiiton leading Atheists like Dawkins specifically do not use the term. Of course it cannot be denied that some atheists have sought to extend the definition of Atheism to cover "weak atheism" - just as some Christians use the term "implicit Christian" and some Muslims suggest assert that "every child is born a Muslim"[1]. But the leading dictionaries and philosophical encycolpedias do not take this as the lead sense of the term. And no-one reading this article would realise that there was a problem. I don't think this is an insoluble issue, but I do think it needs to be solved NBeale 06:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC) amended NBeale 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of your recent edits regarding "POV problems" have themselves been reverted as POV by at least 5 editors. As you well know, this has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page, and consensus has led to the current version. The article has never been this stable in recent history. Your disagreement with the inclusion of implicit atheism does not equate to a "controversy" among philosophers. You have continually attempted to portray this view as being a fringe neologism ("some atheists controversially..."), when in fact this view has been around since at least the 1700s, and has been discussed in standard philosophical encyclopedias (such as Routledge), and countless books on the subject. You are confusing "discussion of X" with "validation of X" - the article doesn't say "Atheism = X + Y", it says "Atheism is commonly defined as X, Y, Z, etc". Regarding Dawkins: lack of commentary from 1 person on a subject does not equate to controversy regarding the subject. If you want to make a suggestion, please do so at Talk:Atheism, and let other editors respond. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 13:24Z
    • Sorry, but I do not see where the problem is. Where exactly does the article "start from the POV..." etc? It seems to me to start from a very careful statement that atheism has many shades of meaning, and it carefully avoids taking a particular stance. The recent edits by NBeale, on the other hand, have tried to push the author's own POV in defiance of a well-constructed and balanced consensus. Gnusmas 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current version does not push a POV. If you could find a reputable source to support the assertion that "Weak Atheism" is highly controversial, or that "Strong Atheism" is the most popular definition, then we could include such assertions. However, we cannot presume from our personal experiences or independent definition surveys that this is the case. The ambiguity and non-committal language of this article very carefully reflects the lack of objective study of the term "atheism", not any POV of the article's editors. johnpseudo 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are trying to balance a lot of POVs using a wide array of sources, it's a lot more difficult than NBeale implies here. I agree that most leading encyclopedias use either "explicit weak atheism" (Britannica) or "strong atheism" (Routledge) as their definitions. However, I don't see a major POV issue with first defining it broadly. Personally, I side with Rowe and Drange, I think atheism is justified belief based on overwhelming evidence that God cannot exist. Sure, logical positivists are a problem for this definition, but let's call them non-theist or "noncognitivists", and so on... The problem is that this is my opinion, and even if I'm in very good company, this is not the only view. We have explored all over the place, and I think Simon Blackburn sums up the situation very succinctly in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none." --Merzul 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not "disagree with then inclusion of implicit atheism". What I disagree with is the impression that this article gives that agnosticism is a form of atheism (eg "many agnostics may qualify as weak atheists") Now I cannot think of a single notable agnostic who would consider that the "qualify as a weak atheist". The most notable Agnostic philosopher I know of, Anthony Kenny, carefully states in his What I beleive "Why I am not an Atheist", Richard Dawkins clearly does not consider agnostics to be Atheists, nor to the polls cited in the article. And although the REP does mention this wider definition it then goes with the narrower one for the body of the article. It is all very well to say that these points have been "reverted by 5 editors" but if we are trying to make an article that will be taken seriously by a wider audience than 20-somethings with little or no training in, or published work on, philosophy, then we have to be guided by intellectual rigour and not just the preferences of half a dozen editors. Simon Blackburn is clever (though wrong-headed in my view) and is a deliberate controversialist. But the point is that these are 2 definitions of Atheism, one of which "annexes" Agnosticism and one of which does not. We should make this clear, and ideally make it clear that no-one except a subset of atheists agrees with the annexation. NBeale 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't say agnosticism is a form of atheism. It says that under certain broad definitions of atheism, many agnostics may be categorized as such. Again, this is an issue for Talk:Atheism, not for the FAC discussion. Kenny asserts a more narrow definition of atheism; Dawkins's lack of comment is not evidence of anything; the polls also use a narrower definition. We don't use any definition, but instead list them all without preference. The article already makes it clear that one definition annexes agnostics, while one does not. There's no POV problems because the article doesn't assume a single definition, but explains them all. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 17:47Z
          • Well under the broad defintion of "Muslim" all infants may be categorised as such. Can you see the problem? BTW Dawkins does not "lack comment" he explicitly distingushes between Atheism and Agnosticism, as to pretty well all leading philosophers. But this article does not. There are other problems of course but this is the most serious. NBeale 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, there is no problem. The article already makes it clear that definitions overlap with others. Dawkins adheres to a narrower definition of atheism; your other unspecified "philosophers" do too, apparently. This article doesn't adhere to any of the definitions, but instead explains them all, and is thus neutral in that respect. Again, this is an issue for Talk:Atheism. I'll let others respond if they so desire, although I know of at least a couple editors who aren't willing to get into another debate with you regarding this. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 18:14Z
  • Just to clarify, there is a lot about this on the talk page and we are I think getting somewhere, but every major encyclopedia (Britannica, REP, SEP) makes it clear that the primary meaning of Atheism is distinct from Thesism and Agnosticism and this article doesn't. Until we fix this, making this article a FA will simply bring WikiPedia into disrepute. NBeale 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot simply cite philosophical encyclopedias when defining the article. As Dannyno has clearly stated on the talk page: "Philosophical dictionaries will concentrate on rejection because "absence" is not a philosophical position"." You can't just leave out a definition on the grounds that a specialized dictionary doesn't cover definitions outside of its field. Even so, REP has a whole section on the absence definition, so please stop mischaracterizing them. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 12:05Z
    • We need to work on a reasonable compromise, but this POV issue can not ultimately block the FAC. I echo Brian's objection that you aren't doing justice to the wide range of opinions expressed in reliable sources. For example, the entire point of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "atheism and agnosticism" is that these concepts are highly related, and that many people who call themselves agnostics, e.g. Huxley and Ayer, do so because of "unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic". Look, if anything brings disrepute to Wikipedia, it is the citing of a source contra the main thesis of that source. The issue is more complicated, so let's work on a compromise... --Merzul 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 5

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

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Francium

edit

I've been working on this article for quite some time now, and I've poured information into it from every reliable source I could find. It quickly passed GA, and it has had a long and productive peer review. I feel that it is the best possible Francium there could be, and for that reason, I have nominated it for featured article status. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Avoid phrasing like this: "This missing element became the focus of many researchers, and several false claims were made that the element had been found before an authentic discovery was made." Many researchers? Several claims? Can you reference this? Sweep through it again to check for this kind of stuff. JHMM13 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak Support- I suspect not very much more could be added given what the subject matter is. I think it satsfies all criteria but the prose is abrupt in places and there are lots of short paras. However, I admit nothing jumps out as an alternative rightaway. I'll have a look if I have time and I think this should get over the line during this FAC as it doesn't need too much tweaking. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any glaring examples of abrupt prose? I know all too well where the short paragraphs are, but there's little to be done about those. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it. I've read through it again and it's very concise and succinct...maybe a little too so I dunno. I think it must be that the subject matter's so dry...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is short compared to most featured articles, but I attribute that to the topic. It is already longer than the treatment in most chemistry books and encyclopedias. There's probably no much else to say about francium without getting into really esoteric trivia from the original literature. --Itub 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. I've read through this article a number of times and closely tracked its development, aiding when I could. I believe it now requires only a few minor touch-ups before it is ready. These are:
    • A re-solution of the solution issue, see the talk page.
    • In my last round of copyediting, I left a number of comments inline where the text contains minor ambiguities, or needs a bit of clarification. Fix 'em.
Once these concerns are addressed, I shall eagerly support. Good work Cryptic! -- Rmrfstar 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I removed the solubility statement. Although it did come from an encyclopedia, the information therein may not have been updated in several years. Also, Hyde's experiment directly contradicted the statement.
I do mean that Hulubei's work was accurate, not just "good".
I looked for more information about the small branching, and I realize now that I merely inferred the statement that you tagged. Whoops. I removed it and adjusted the paragraphing.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you are making a tempest in a teacup out of the solubility statement. I don't think that any chemist would doubt that, in general, francium salts are "soluble" in water, same as sodium, potassium, rubidium, and caesium salts. Of course, some salts are more soluble than others, and some might even be called "insoluble". Exceptions are very common in chemistry, but a statement such as "francium salts are soluble" would normally be interpreted to mean "salts with a loosely defined set of 'common' anions such as halides, sulfate, nitrate, phosphate, carbonate, and hydroxide", which in fact are all soluble salts for the other alkali metals I mentioned above. Of course, one could argue that the solubility of francium salts cannot be measured in practice due to the tiny amounts of francium involved, but the periodic table has been pretty good at predicting many things in the past. ;-) There is no contradiction between being able to coprecipitate francium with caesium perchlorate and francium salts being soluble. First, because the whole point of coprecipitation is that it allows you to precipitate something soluble that would otherwise not precipitate by itself. Second, because even "soluble" salts can be precipitated out of solution by reducing the amount of solvent, the temperature, or increasing the concentration of the counter-ions. Otherwise how would anyone get highly soluble salts like sodium chloride to crystallize? I don't think you need a citation for saying that francium salts are expected to be soluble. But if you want proof that it has been said on the scientific literature, search google books for "francium salts soluble". [21] --Itub 08:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright: I'm satisfied! -- Rmrfstar 12:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No full support yet I've left quite some straightforward recommendations for improvement on the talk page. They have been generated with the peerreviewer script, which simply lists various SMART requirements that generally accepted Wikipedia guidelines give for high-quality articles. In my perception, these requirements ought to be met for a Featured Article; the only thing involved is just laborious copy-edit work. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've addressed all of the issues, except the lead, as I disagree with how the script assesses lede size. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the automated thingy not bad but I consider it a guide more than anything else (and best used prior to this point really) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too recommend using the peerreviewer script before WP:FAC, just as a simple guide and handy tool to standardization guidelines. The weasel words and the refs fixed therefore give you Weak support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What can I do to improve that to a full support? I really don't think the lede needs to be expanded, as the article itself consists of only 9000 characters. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. Very easy to read. Axl 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening

edit

The article was edited to follow the standards that the other two Devil May Cry Featured articles have, in the process becoming Good Article. After that the article received a peer review where the points presented were atended. The current quality of the article is by far superior than what Devil May Cry exhibited when it was a FAC. Any points presented by anyone will be attended ASAP by me or any other member of the Devil May Cry Task Force, thanks to anyone that comments. -凶 01:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article has been upgraded perfectly to mach its predecesors, if not better. I believe this article is ready to be rated as Featured Article. --Alexlayer 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I hate to do this, especially as a member of the Devil May Cry taskforce, but this article has a few issues which need to be addressed:
    • Reception could be a lot more meaty. The Reception section is a lot shorter than both the Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 2 articles and that needs to be beefed up a bit. Not much, but it does require a bit of attention.
    • The Development section doesn't address the development of the game in anything resembling a comprehensive manner. The first paragraph just echoes items from the Devil May Cry 2 reception section without elaborating on how CPS1 changed things, the second paragraph devotes all of one sentence to the game's development before moving on to items better left to the connected releases section and the third paragraph just mentions one of the marketing items Capcom developed before the release.
    • In Connected Releases, is there really no more information about the Source Book which could be included? If not, why does it warrant an entirely seperate section? It might be better to move both the Source Book information and Soundtrack information into a general lead-in paragraph before the Special Edition information, as a suggestion. You might also want to include a blurb about the manga there instead of just in the lead-in paragraph.
    • The PC Edition of DMC3:SE get a lot of flak for control issues and degraded visuals (despite increased system requirements), shouldn't this be addressed in the article somewhere?
  • If those issues are addressed or at least a responded to, I'll support. Otherwise, I can't in good conscience. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References need work. I looked at the last one as a spot check — the title is misrepresented, and the date is not given. Other references need work, such as removing the confusing second external jump on the publisher. Some references include the publisher with the title. I don't see the relevance of the see also links beyond the name "Dante". Is there a reason for them? Pagrashtak 05:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who's worked on the article, I don't think I should vote. Conflict of interest and all that (but everything I write is GOLD, you hear me? GOLD! :) Anyway, I would still like a better gameplay image with the HUD and clearly visible gameplay. Also, the only action figure I know of for DMC3 is the Revoltech Dante figure (which I own!), so I took out the "line of action figures" line. --Boradis 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a issues. Although the article is coming along nicely, the prose needs more work. From the first few paragraphs:
    • "The game is a prequel to Devil May Cry, and is currently the first game in the series storyline's chronological order." No need for "currently".
    • "...but was praised for its return to the engaging gameplay of Devil May Cry and various improvements." This can probably be tightened. Try integrating "various improvements" before "gameplay of DMC" somehow.
    • "Set in modern times in an enchanted tower named Temen-ni-gru,[3] the story centers around the conflict and dysfunctional relationship between Dante and his brother Vergil." "Centers around" should be "centers on", and you can axe "the conflict and" because "dysfunctional relationship" implies conflict well enough.
    • "The events of the game take place just as Dante has opened up the Devil May Cry agency[5] although he has not yet named it, and before Dante's demonic heritage has reached its full potential." removing "although he has not yet named it" will remove excessive lead info and tighten the sentence.
    • "There is a manga based on the game featuring the same characters,[7] first published in Japan in 2005, which serves as a prequel to the game." sentence needs work. Perhaps "A manga based on the game, first published in Japan in 2005, serves as a prequel to the game". You can also integrate it into the preceeding paragraph.
    • Another random thing: "as-yet" should be "as-of-yet".
  • It's making a lot of progress, and improvement can be seen with each successive FAC. Some formatting recommendations:
    • Gameplay can be one major section; no need for the two subsections (especially since one is just a paragraph).
    • It's not really necessary to subdivide the external links, especially since there are only four.
  • Good work so far; it's getting there. Please remember that these are only examples that indicate that the entire prose needs a massage by a couple people. — Deckiller 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- I have attended all the lines you present here, it's good that we focused on that part first or we would be stuck here for sure, it needs some tweaks but I will deal with the reception and development sections first, I will be back in a few hours, thanks for the points.--凶 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks worthy to me, thanks to the big overhaul it's had recently. --Oscarthecat 07:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Rashtrakuta Dynasty

edit

The Rashtrakuta dynasty is an important dynasty in the History of India. Their contributions to South Indian History, literature in Kannada and Sanskrit, their achievements in the realm of architecture and their imperial conquests makes this an important topic of Indian History. The article has been through several rounds of copy edit, a peer review (without any comments) and follows the correct citation and reference usage as in other recent India History related articles.Please provide constructive feedback on the format, grammar, content etc., to help make this article a FA.Dineshkannambadi 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  1. "Scholars claim that the early Rashtrakutas belonged to one of many ethnic groups, the Rajputs, the Kannadiga, Reddi, the Maratha, or the Punjabi." However, in the last sentence of the next paragraph, "Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas, they may have been conversant in a northern Deccan language as well." If the ethnicity is not sure, how come so surely the Rashtrakutas become Kannadigas in the next paragraph?

Reply->The controversy about language and etnicity is about the 6th-7th century Rashtrakutas only. There is no scholar that I can quote (from all the sources I have) who deny that the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (who are the main subject of study here) were locals/had become locals of Gulbarga region and hence Kannadigas by language. (As an example, The Pallavas of Kanchi are popularly known to be immigrants from Iraq who made their way thru the subcontinent finally creating a famous kingdom from Kanchi, Tamil Nadu. Every historian considers theirs a Tamil Empire and them Tamils by language because of their patronage to Tamil language, irrespective of their ancestral origin. Similarly the Sena Dynasty of Bengal. Their inscriptions call them Karnatak Kshatriyas, indicating their Kannada origin-Kamath 2001 and Karnatas of Mithila-Thapar 2003. Yet the world and historians all accept the Senas as Bengalis because they patronised Bengali language). Indian is and has always been a dynamic country. In fact the "Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" goes into these details. Kannada according to many scholars (P.B.Desai, Kamath, Altekar, Vaidya, etc, all cited) was the popular language from Kaveri up to Godavari (Nasik region). The definition of a Kannadiga is one who is a native speaker of Kannada anyhere, not just Karnataka. In fact Several Rashtrakuta kings of this dynasty even had non-Sanskrit Kannada names from inscriptions (Krishna II and III were called Kannara, Govinda IV was called Gojjiga- Reu (1931).Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the terms "Rajput", "Maratha", "Reddi" denote castes, not any particular language. There are Rajputs, Marathas and Reddies in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra etc just as there are Naidus, Kurubas etc. A reading of "Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" will be well worth it. I suspect though that the scholars who call them Rajputs may have meant speakers of a contemporeneous Rajput language from the N.W. regions of India. Similarly the other ethnic groups.Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, this citation was put in at the advice of user:Nichalp in order to satisfy a user who was banned from wikipedia. So I let it be. In fact the citation is not even complete and does not provide the full page number, publication, author etc. In the larger interest of history, I am glad you brought this topic. If you want me to remove the sentence, I would be happy to oblige. I can however, quite easily replace it with a citation from one of my other sources where I can give full cited info. Nowhere in my sources is a "northern deccan language" mentioned, though.Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Slight difficulty understanding the fall of the dynasty. Was Manyakheta totally destroyed by the invading Paramaras? Tailapa II became independent (and started what is known as Western Chalukya Empire — understood this after reading relevant portions of the article on the Western Chalukyas). What happened to the rest of the vast rashtrakuta empire? (apart from "several branches of Rashtrakutas had established themselves in North India" and "the Rashtrakutas created several related kingdoms that either ruled during the reign of the parent empire or for centuries after the its fall", anything else? Any other unrelated dynasties captured Rashtrakuta lands?)

More comments later. Could read only upto the end of "History". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->No, Manyakheta was not completely destroyed. In fact Chalukya Tailapa II made it his capital from 973 untill 1040 (approx) when Somesvara I moved it to near by Basavakalyan (or Kalyani). The Paramara's (who were untill then a feudatory of Rashtrakutas) had only raided Manyakheta and did not occupy it. The vast Rashtrakuta empire split in several smaller kingdoms like it normally happens, including the W. Chalukyas in North Karnataka, Silharas in Konkan, Paramara's in Malwa, Gangas in South Karnataka. The Eastern Chalukyas in Andhra and Cholas in Tamil regions had been suppressed by the Rashtrakutas earlier on and were only too happy to see them go. But within a few decades, the western Chalukyas consolidated much of the region between Tungabhadra and Narmada rivers. The annals of South Indian and Deccan history between 1000-1150 is essentially the fight for domination between the Western Chalukyas and Cholas. Hence the only real successors of the Rashtrakuta heartland were the W.Chalukyas. Some of the Rashtrakuta families in far off extremes of their empire like Rathodas of Rajasthan etc simply became independent minor kingdoms. In fact historians feel the Rashtrakutas were very decentralised in maintaining or expecting alligiance from their far flung kith and kin. Other feudatories like the Rattas of Saundatti, Kadambas of Hanagal, Alupas, Gangas etc., all in Karnataka region became feudatories and were absorbed into the W. chalukya empire. Even the Paramara were intermittently a W.Chalukya feudatory after several victories of the W.chalukyas in the Dhara region.Dineshkannambadi 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to reply Ok. No problem with the first point (Kannadiga etc). Regarding the fall of the empire, you can add a liitle bit of the split (what you have elucidated here in the FAC) in the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No problem. I will elucidate the split tonight.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In the society section: Intercaste marriages were uncommon except between highly placed Kshatriya girls and Brahmin boys, but was relatively frequent among other castes. The second part seems contradictory to the first. The first part says Female-Kshatriya with Male Brahmins was the only common occurence of intercaste marriage. But the second part states intermarriage happened between the other castes, ie. Vaishya and Shudra. Am I wrong or should the first part state that the only type of intermarriage between the higher castes was Kshatriya girls and Brahmin boys. GizzaChat © 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will correct the contradiction.thanks Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "...a Vishaya (district) overseen by a Vishayapathi and under that was a Grama (taluk) overseen by Gramakuta." But soon, "Below the Vishaya was Nadu looked after by Nadugowda or Nadugavunda..." What was the hierarchy? Vishaya->Nadu->Grama? Please clarify.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected mistake. Its Rashtra-->Vishaya-->Nadu-->Grama.Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Please correct the wikilink Thana in "Economy". At present, it leads to a disambiguation page.

DoneDineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are "Gadyana" and "Ctharna"?

Coins. Gadyana may be another name for Gadyanka mentioned in Administration. Ctharna may be a small silver coin.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Income tax included taxes on crown land, wasteland, specific types of trees considered valuable to economy, mines, salt, treasures unearthed by prospectors"— seems as if no income tax was levied on cultivable land, though later paragraph clarifies land taxes based on produce.

mentioned in citation #74. Land tax here includes tax on cultivable land.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The concept of following one religious tradition exclusively was rare in medieval India..."— Do you mean following (patronage) by the monarchs, or following of religion by individuals? Please provide citation.

Done provided citation, reduced sentence in length.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its correct. None of the other links make sense. This area was always under Rashtrakuta control anyway.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply unfortunately that is not clarified. But I suppose the author meant Hinduism in general and I prefer not to make a guess. So I have correctd it to Hinduism. I will read Keay's book and see what he says.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once more (like in a previous FAC), "They built secular temples as well...". Why called "secular"? Now that you explained to me, I understand here secular means temples that did not belong to the main religion/sect patronised by the empire, right? However, it would be better to rephrase the sentence so that anyone can understand at one go.

DoneDineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read upto religion. More comments later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply will take a close look at this tonight.Dineshkannambadi 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 'Art critics have written that some of the sculptures such as Nataraja and Sadashiva excel in beauty and craftmanship even that of the Ellora sculptures -- who are the art critics? Refs needed.

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 25 feet tall --> metric equivalent needed. use the {{tl|convert}] template (see Climate of India)

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. been studied by historians -- sounds odd

could not find this. Please indicate where this statement is.Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The architectural style used was dravidian -- Isn't Dravidian a proper noun?

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. but common --> more common

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Intercaste functions were unusual --> unusal -> rare

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. An emergency tax was also imposed occasionally --> choppy, merge with following sentence

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Whatever the lineage of the early Rashtrakutas --> odd reading

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is said that the drums of the Deccan -- who said it? WP:AWT, WP:APT

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. empire now spread over -- the word now reads odd

DOne Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. once again consolidated the empire --> remove once again, redundant. The remainder of the sentence should be split. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From the map, it appears the dynasty ruled parts of what are now Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, besides Karnataka. My question is, in "Language", only Kannada and Sanskrit have been mentioned. What about Telugu? Or Marathi? IMO, Marathi was at nascent stage during that time, right? May be some primitive form was in use. However, Telugu should have been present, and Tamil in southern portions of the dynasty. The section "lanuage" should mention the languages used by the common people, if any, in addition to those patronised by the kings and used as official language. Reagrds.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Depending upon the context of that section, it makes sense to mention only the languages that are widely used in literature and administration. Per the inscriptions in the references mentioned, Kannada and Sanskrit were used as the administrative language. The second paragraph talks about literature and inscriptions. Again, the languages that have been extensively used in the literature are Kannada and Sanskrit, per all the sources mentioned. In the section, no where it is depicted as Kannada and Sanskrit were the only two languages used in spoken form. Also, taking Chola dynasty as a precedence, it not even mentions a language section, still the area covered by the empire including most part of Karnataka, entire Andhra Pradash, most part of Orissa, Sri Lanka, and several South-East regions of Asia continent. Considering these facts, I believe, the existing text in "Languages" section of Rashtrakuta article is fine. - KNM Talk 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The box is meant to recognise the Official languages as proven by epigraphy and popular literature. By the 9th century, just about every language spoken in India today was already spoken at that time. Mentioning Telugu, Tamil and Marathi just because the Rashtrakuta empire covered those areas would also require that Tulu, Konkani, Kodava (Coorgi), Various versions of Prakrit, Rajasthani, Marwari, Gondi, various dialects of commonly spoken tribal languages in MP etc, etc would also have to be mentioned, leaving no room for anything else. This is why consistantly in all the FA's I have mentioned only those languages used predominantly in Inscriptions and literature. This is how the "official languages of India" in the present day context also works. Only those languages that are official are mentioned, that too based on context. Further, none of my sources even mention the other language names in an official context.

As an example, lets consider the Chola Dynasty, which is a FA. They also conquered southern Karnataka ( and rule for ~100 years), Andhra Pradesh (ruled for ~150 years), Orissa, Bengal, parts of South east Asia and Sri Lanka. I have citations for several hundred Chola inscriptions in "Kannada" (from Nanjagud, Mysore, Kolar etc). Yet all the spoken languages in those territories they captured / governed have been left out simply using "Tamil" as their official language. The same goes for Chalukyas, Marathas, Palas, Prathiharas etc, all large empires.

Emperor Ashoka ruled most of India and historians have discovered several Kannada words in Ashokan inscriptions from the Karnataka region indicating Kannada was a fully spoken language in the 2nd c. BCE. Yet historians only account for "Prakrit" as their official language. Same with the later Satavahanas. If we start recording spoken languages, there is not end to it. Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Spoken languages, there is no shortage of citations for Maratha inscriptions in Kannada, Tamil and Telugu. Similarly Eastern Chalukyas (of Andhra) in Kannada and Tamil, Pallava inscriptions in Kannada and Telugu. What I am trying to get at is , going into spoken languages or even minor inscriptional languages will open up a bee-hive of edit wars and contradictions for many many articles with no end to it.Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the box should be modified to say "official languages" to avoid conflict. In my two years on wikipedia, no issue has been more contentious than the language issue. The more clear we are about what we are conveying, the better.Dineshkannambadi 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

I think it is a good article, but several vague statements are made to give the impression that it is an empire under one dyansty and that it is a Kannadiga dynasty. If this is the case I would be quite happy to accept it, but the evidences are not there, I'm afarid. Can somebody explain the first para in the history?! What is that reference to Asoka ??--Aadal 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Aadal, Your objections seem to be a bit vague. Please pin point where there is ambiguity and I will be happy to explain. subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty explains about the possible connection to ancestors during Ashoka's time as explained by some historians.Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the tags you have added to the article, all the info is cited elsewhere in the article if you read the article in its entirety. Please dont put tags in the LEAD section because per wiki FA standards, I am not supposed to provide citations in the LEAD section. Also you have tagged those sentences that have been cited multiple times in the immedietly following sentence.Dineshkannambadi 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations that satisfy Aadals tag

1. Scholars however concur that the kings of the imperial dynasty in the eighth to tenth century made the Kannada language as important[citation needed] as Sanskrit -->citation #14,15,16,17,18 19, 120, 121, 143, 145, 146. I can provide more if necessary. If any more info needs clarification, please feel free to ask on the FAC page.Dineshkannambadi 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.There is uncertainty about the location of the early capital of the Rashtrakutas at this time.[2][3][4][citation needed]

Reply-->You can tag an uncited statement, not a citation itself. Please remove the tag. However, citations 30 (itself), 35, 36, 37 provide the needed verification.Dineshkannambadi 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar's objections
  1. The Kanauj Triangle SVG map is inappropriate. I am unable to download and view it without installing additional software. Why is the map showing the territories of other dynasties anyway? How come these overlap? Does that imply those are no man's lands and subject to frequent warfare? Also, the map ignores the great Chola expansion along the eastern coast then in the same time period. Where are the Chalukyas?
  2. There are plenty of wild claims about the dates of reign. I have tagged some. Architecture reached a pinnacle in the dravidian style... - this is too much! Anyone from south knows the Golden Age of Dravidian Architecture began under Cholas (after 1000 AD) and has nothing to do with Rashtrakutas. Elephanta Caves are not remotely Dravidian examples. I think the author has confused all Shivaite temples to be Dravidian.
  3. The History section must be urgently restructured chronologically to make a sane reading of dynastic reign by each ruler. Rashtrakutas appear to be a federation or commonwealth rather than a dynasty. The word feudatory jumps at the reader so many times.
  4. His military exploits have been compared to those of Alexander the Great and Pandava Arjuna of Mahabharata.< ref name="arjuna">Keay (2000), p199</ref > - This link is unverifiable. There are over hundred "links" in this style. Please give a screenshot of a hardcopy or a ISBN.
  5. The Rashtrakutas empire now spread over the areas from Cape Comorin...numerous horseman... - there are plenty of malformed sentences like these.
  6. There is no need for a separate detailed economy section when there is a separate article on the subject.
  7. land tax may have been as high as 20%...private mineral prospecting and the quarrying business may have been active...Amoghavarsha may have taken up Jainsim in his old age... - are samples of wild speculation and original research.
  8. Kayalpattinam and Nagore did not come under the jurisdiction of Rashtrakuta dynasty. Earliest records of those towns date back to 16th century, not 9th century.
  9. The Society section wanders away fom the gist of the article and discusses about the the general situation prevailing in India then, rather than the peculiar customs of the Rashtrakuta lands.
  10. How can sati be voluntary (!?) if arranged marriage system was strictly enforced at early age and remarriages being rare?
  11. The article seems to imply Kannada was the official language of western India in 9th century. What happened to Marathi then? Incase you are unaware, Kannada is the daughter of Telugu and grand daughter of Tamil.
  12. The article frequently states according to inscriptions... as proof. Were those inscriptions in Kannada or Sanskrit?
  13. Prose works in Sanskrit was prolific during this era as well... contradicts with ...This period effectively marked the end of the classical Prakrit and Sanskrit era... - Which is true?
  14. Is this a southern or northern kingdom? The article begins with the impression that you are going to read about a northern kingdom but by the time you complete reading, you are bombarded with so many details (without proof) about southern culture.
  15. This article desperately needs recomposition, expert attention and pass GA first after subject to rigorous peer review (with comments). I recommend immediate withdrawal from FAC.

Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  1. dont be so sure of yourself. no special software needs to be installed to view that map. Sarvagnya
  2. Okay. If you think that Dravidian architecture has nothing to do with the Rashtrakutas and that it belongs to and was followed solely by the Cholas, I can only allow you to wallow in your own ignorance, but I will be removing any related tags. You need to read some books on history and ancient Indian architecture before you can be so sure of yourself. And oh.. btw, I am from the 'south'. Sarvagnya
  3. The word "feudatory" will 'jump' at a reader even in books written by professional historians. And Dinesh(and Matisse) have done a professional job. Sarvagnya
  4. O boy! havent you seen a 'citation' before! Are you new to wikipedia? Stop being so sure of yourself. Sarvagnya
  5. Not really sure what you mean.... but you seem to be talking about a grammar or style issue. Feel free to fix it or help fix it. Sarvagnya 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dinesh has addressed the rest below.

Anwar's objections(replies by Dk)
edit
  • Object. The Kanauj Triangle SVG map is inappropriate. I am unable to download and view it without installing additional software. Why is the map showing the territories of other dynasties anyway? How come these overlap? Does that imply those are no man's lands and subject to frequent warfare? Also, the map ignores the great Chola expansion along the eastern coast then in the same time period. Where are the Chalukyas?

Reply-->The overlap area is the Kannauj Triangle, if you study the history of Rashtrakuta in the 9th-10th century. This is the area that the three empires - Rashtrakutas, Palas and Pratiharas fought over. This is why it overlaps. The map simply shows the peak territories of the three empires at different times in the 9th-10th century when the three empires were warring with each other. None of the three empires held Kannauj permanently as explained in the history section. The "great" Chola expansion happened from the very end of the 10th century, after the fall of the Rashtrkutas and begining of the 11th century with the defeat of the Western Ganga Dynasty, a Rashtrakuta subordinate at the hands of the Cholas. Dont mix up dates. The Cholas were not such a "great" empire in the 9th and 10th century. Please read up on the Chola history carefully. By Chalukyas, if you mean the Eastern Chalukyas, they were constantly at strife with the Rashtrakutas, coming under their control periodically, but gaining freedom often like under Gunaga Vijayaditya in the middle of 9th century when Amoghavarsha treated him as an ally. I can provide more details if you wish.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is unsuitable at the lead. Perhaps you can display later in the article. The Kannauj is referred in the article, but for most readers, it would not be clear where it is. Prominently marking it on the map would help. The display of the three overalapping is certainly very confusing and I would recommend removing it. I agree with DK's comments about Cholas. Medieval Cholas rose to power later. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->The map is where it should be as in the case of all other FA's. I have commented on how the map could be redrawn, without changing the Rashtrakuta territory.Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of wild claims about the dates of reign. I have tagged some. Architecture reached a pinnacle in the dravidian style... - this is too much! Anyone from south knows the Golden Age of Dravidian Architecture began under Cholas (after 1000 AD) and has nothing to do with Rashtrakutas. Elephanta Caves are not remotely Dravidian examples. I think the author has confused all Shivaite temples to be Dravidian.

Reply-->None of the claims are wild. All dates if reign are accurate. Dravidian architecture is not a term that is limited to Cholas. Please dont make your views so "Chola Centric". The authors here are well known historians like Kamath, Percy Brown, James Fergusseon, John Keay, Soundar Rajan etc. Are you claiming these scholars are confused? If you notice the very first paragraph, even a mention of Pandyan influence is mentioned. The Kailasanatha temple was modelled after the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal, which itself is in Dravidian style. This is the view of historians, not mine. The word "Peak" is a relative term. No where is it claimed that the Dravidian architecture went further than or lesser than Chola architecture.Its is only a relative term. The Rashtrakutas were masters of rock cut architecture, the Cholas of stand alone architecture. There are several terms used in architecture and one must not confuse these terms. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK's reply is correct I think, and Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal is one of the finest and few ever would dispute the Kailasanatha temple. I wonder whether DK can answer whether some of the artisans for these temples came from Tamil Nadu. There are rock cut temples in Tamil temples in Tamil Nadu, but I don't think they are comparable to Kailasanatha temple.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History section must be urgently restructured chronologically to make a sane reading of dynastic reign by each ruler. Rashtrakutas appear to be a federation or commonwealth rather than a dynasty. The word feudatory jumps at the reader so many times.
His military exploits have been compared to those of Alexander the Great and Pandava Arjuna of Mahabharata.< ref name="arjuna">Keay (2000), p199</ref > - This link is unverifiable. There are over hundred "links" in this style. Please give a screenshot of a hardcopy or a ISBN.

Reply-->All these statements come with citations. If you have counter evidence to disprove my citations we can examine it. All ISBN's/OCLC's are at the bottom in the reference section. The Rashtrakutas like all other large empires had many feudatories or subordinates who owed them nominal support in times of war, distress etc and frequently paid tribute. There is no surprise here.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK has not addressed the point. Are Rashtrakutas comparable to Alexander the great?! Alexander was one great warrior ('Rashtrakuta' the way it is described in the article is a conglomoration of some clans?? perhaps a confedaracy?)The claims in the article are way out of bound. It is one thing to say that they were a great power but to project them the way it is done in the article is pure exaggeration. I'll verify the statements in the book, but facts don't support the claims. Is there a single warrior in the Rashtrakuta line who is comparable to Alexander the great? I agree with the comment that Rashtrakuta is more like a commonwealth than a dynasty. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The History section clearly says that Govinda III is compared to Alexander the great and Arjuna.Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rashtrakutas empire now spread over the areas from Cape Comorin...numerous horseman... - there are plenty of malformed sentences like these.

Reply I have more than 3 books to prove this statement, covering roughly the same area.Dineshkannambadi 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -->This statement is cited. If you are claiming the sentnce is wrong, please find a citation as a counter argument to disprove it.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of the empire defintely seems to be over-blown. Let me check with some references and get back to you. From Cape Comorin ?!

Reply -->nothing is overblown. All citations are open to examination.Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a separate detailed economy section when there is a separate article on the subject.

Reply-->The economy section is a reduced version of the subarticle. The intention is to create subarticles that can later be enlarged if necessary. This is consistant with other India History related articles.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

land tax may have been as high as 20%...private mineral prospecting and the quarrying business may have been active...Amoghavarsha may have taken up Jainsim in his old age... - are samples of wild speculation and original research.

Reply-->Firstly I think the objections are vague and not clear what the reviewer wants clarified. These are citations from books by Reu, Kamath, Altekar etc. Statements coming from scholars are not speculative, especially when the matter appears in publised books and are generally accepted by historians. If you think these are speculative, please find other authors who call it speculative or argue against it.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all weasel statements. Just because it is said in a book one need not accept. They have to provide supportive material. History is not an exact sicence, but still some evidences will have to be provided for thos kinds of speculations. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History is certianly not an exact science. But then the same would hold good for all history articles. All statements from historians could be called Weasel statements though they come from examination of inscriptions and other epigraphal material. We have to believe our historians, or we have to believe none.Dineshkannambadi 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayalpattinam and Nagore did not come under the jurisdiction of Rashtrakuta dynasty. Earliest records of those towns date back to 16th century, not 9th century.

Reply-->The northern portion of Tamil Country was firmly under Rashtrakuta rule. Even the Pandyas of deep south and Kings of Ceylon paid tribute at times. I am only reporting what I read. If you dont like the statement, please find a counter citation that disproves it. Even if the recorded names of these towns are from 16th century, I am sure these towns had some name in the 9th century. The author may have been just using the most recent name. Again this is a cited sentence.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look into your citations, but many of them appear pretty far-fetched.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Society section wanders away fom the gist of the article and discusses about the the general situation prevailing in India then, rather than the peculiar customs of the Rashtrakuta lands.

Reply-->The society and customs in the Rashtrakuta kingdom in many ways was no different from its neighbours. There are bound to be overlaps in customs. No surprise here. Any historian with knowledge will attest to this. Again, I am reporting what I am reading. If you feel its incorrect, please find citations that disprove mine, then we can add it as counter arguement.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can sati be voluntary (!?) if arranged marriage system was strictly enforced at early age and remarriages being rare?

Reply-->again I am writing what I read. If you have a citation that says "Sati was not voluntary but forced" in the Rashtrakuta empire, bring it to the table and we can include it. Let us not be the ones to decide how sati was voluntary but not arranged marraige.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to imply Kannada was the official language of western India in 9th century. What happened to Marathi then? Incase you are unaware, Kannada is the daughter of Telugu and grand daughter of Tamil.

Reply Lets give an opportunity to the historians to decide which language is the grandmother, which is the mother and which is the daughter. They need to earn their living too, right? If you have a verifiable citation(s) to prove your claim, bring it to the table and we can examine it. If you can prove that Kannada was not their language of administration or literature, we can surely include it as a counter argument.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar, Kannada is not grand daughter of Tamil. Kannada is considered a branch of Tamil-Kannada, but unlike the understanding of my kannadiga friends, it is Kannada that sprung up or branched off from the presumed 'parent' tongue and not Tamil. Tamil is a much older langauge than Kannada, for sure. Perhaps because of this you say it is a grand daughter in the sense of age, but not in the genetic relations sense. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think both the question and answer are irrelevant in this topic.Dineshkannambadi 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article frequently states according to inscriptions... as proof. Were those inscriptions in Kannada or Sanskrit?

Reply Both. Please read the History section and Language section. Again I am reporting what I read. If you can prove with citations that Kannada was not their official language, bring it to the table and we can examine it.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inscriptions are not always reliable and there are instances where exactly contradictory claims are made. But we have to go by something and refine as we go along. So, it is fine to cite inscriptions. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We are not experts to decide which inscription is valid and which is not. Let us allow our historians to decide that. You have not indicated which claims are contradictory. please be more specific.Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose works in Sanskrit was prolific during this era as well... contradicts with ...This period effectively marked the end of the classical Prakrit and Sanskrit era... - Which is true?

Reply This is a relative statement. There is no black and white here. All trends wane away slowly. The Prakrit era was defnitely true, though Sanskrit epics tottered to a close during this time and perhaps a few centuries later. Again this statement comes with a citation.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a southern or northern kingdom? The article begins with the impression that you are going to read about a northern kingdom but by the time you complete reading, you are bombarded with so many details (without proof) about southern culture.

Good Question. I have explained very explicitly in the first few paragraphs of "History" and also in the subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty how the early medieval Rashtrakuta kingdoms prior to 8th century eventually resulted in the Rashtrakuta Empire from Manyakheta and then their northern Expansion in the 9th and 10th century creating more kingdoms there. The Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta were a Deccan Empire who brought together many facets of Southern and Northern regions and culture. This is exactly what the Deccan culture is, be it in architecture, literature, sculpture. I can suggest some books for more reading. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article desperately needs recomposition, expert attention and pass GA first after subject to rigorous peer review (with comments). I recommend immediate withdrawal from FAC.

Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Feel free to bring in more scrutiny. I have the books to prove myself though, if you are interested.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be made an FA, but it should be improved and in many places toned down. My first questions are about the nature of the 'dynasty' (whether it is one - or whether it is a commonwealth type of arrangement); the extent of the control.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have replied below in Aadal's comments and DK's replies

DK's Answers to Anwar's tags-->I have removed your tags for the following reasons. 1. citations should not be in the LEAD. 2. I have the citations for your tags. Please place them elsewhere in the article and I shall provide the citations.

[citation needed] regarding Hinduism and Jainism.-->Citations #88/89. I can provide more if you like.
[citation needed] regarding Earliest inscription-->Reu (1933), p47
[citation needed] regarding Dravidian (South Indian) architecture-->

  • The Kailasa temple in its general plan bears a certian resemblence to the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal.....The culmination of the rock cut architecture came in the monolithic temple of Kailasa which stands in a class by itself in which an entire structural temple is carved out of living rock. It is here that its designers rose to their greatest heights (Percy Brown in Sastri 1955, p409-411)
  • The rock cut Kailasanatha Temple, in the centre of the group, is a fine example of the south Indian architectural style promoted by the Rashtrakutas.(Takeyo Kamiya, Architecture of Indian Subcontinent,)[22]
  • This project was started by Krishna I (757- 773) of the Rashtrakuta dynasty. His rule had also spread to southern India, hence this temple was excavated in the prevailing style. Its builders modelled it on the lines of the Virupaksha Temple in Pattadakal. Being a south Indian style temple, it does not have a shikhara common to north Indian temples. [23]
  • I have provided a citation for the Elephanta cave monuments in the main article itself.Dineshkannambadi 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aadal's comments and DK's replies

edit

This article should be made an FA, but it should be improved and in many places toned down. My first questions are about the nature of the 'dynasty' (whether it is one - or whether it is a commonwealth type of arrangement); the extent of the control.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dk's reply

Regarding the map, There are two maps, one showing their core area (Kamath) and another their peak area (Keay). The map can be modified to better show Manyakheta, Kannauj. We can remove the Pala and Pratihara territory if its confusing. In fact I had requested the person who drew the map to do just that, except he drew it exactly the way it was in the book.

Done map is less confusing. Shows territories "conquered and held" by Rashtrakutas.Dineshkannambadi 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding span of the empire in territory, if it comes down to it, I am more than willing to scan or fax all info on the extent of the empire. Toning down is subject to examination of citations (with inscriptional evidence and literary evidence) and pages that are provided for the same.
Regarding a confedaration, I have not read such a word in my books, but anyone who knows history well understands that the larger the empire, the more de-centralised the government was. Again any modification of this content is subject to examination of citations and pages.Dineshkannambadi 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh citations

edit

I have added some 20 citations, mostly in the History section, to further strengthen the contents of this article. If anyone has any doubts about the citations or the claims made by historians, please feel free to accurately list the citations which are of concern (without combining multiple issues into one) with clarity and I shall make the page available for study by a neutral party(s). If not, please delete the objections so the FAC can proceed smoothly.Dineshkannambadi 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall a very well written article with an impressive research work from several sources. However, some quick comments.

  • I see the spellings Kannauj and Kanauj. Are both these correct? or is it a typo? Nevertheless, it would be good if the name is used consistently, through out the article.

Reply-->Done. Kannauj is the spelling in wiki. So I made it consistant.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty lengthy sentence. A copyedit would help re-writing this.

Reply-->Done. chopped it into three sentence for easy reading.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • contemporaneous Kannada literature such as Kavirajamarga

Would be more appropriate to link Kannada literature as it exists.

Done linked to Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • One linking, for the first time in the section, is generally recommended. Some of the commonly used words seem to have been linked repeatedly.

For example, in History section words such as Karnataka, Maharashtra are linked more than once. Some other common words to be looked into are, Kannada, Sanskrit, Manyakheta.

DoneDineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it Amravathi District or Amaravathi District, in Maharashtra?

corrected. Its spelled Amravati district in Maharashtra. There are multiple districts in India with that name but slightly different spelling.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two his referring to two different persons? Flow doesn't seem proper. Also, since this sentence being the first in the paragraph, the first "His" should be replaced with the proper noun, that is, the name.

Done corrected sentence begining.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inscriptions and other records show the Rashtrakutas selected the crown prince based on heredity.

What are the other records? If it can be mentioned in the article its fine, even otherwise it is fine by me. But I'm just curious. Could be Coins? or some other form of literature?

Done-->Literary documentsDineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • both of which are UNSECO World Heritage sites.

Should be UNESCO, and probably linked to UNESCO. - KNM Talk 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I dont see the phrase in italics anywhere. Also linked UNESCO.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is present in Rashtrakuta_Dynasty#Architecture section. I see that, it has been corrected now and linked. Thanks. - KNM Talk 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit
  • Strong Support - All the issues I had seen have been addressed. The article is very well-sourced and well structured. Impressive coverage of the information on Rashtrakutas. Would make a great FA. Thanks - KNM Talk 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Well written and detailed article. Great job as usual by Dinesh(and Matisse). Sarvagnya 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article, especially "History", needs some reduction in size. Giving some examples —

Reply Reduced by atleast 6-8 lines overall in the History section, especially in the first 5 paras for clarity.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The third paragraph of History (in this version) is almost totally unnecessary. The equal importance of Sanskrit and Kannada, the style of architecture have again been discussed in relevant sections (Language, Literature, Architecture etc). So why again in History repeating the same stuff? It's tiresome to read.

Reply I have removed the architecture part. Let me justify why I have maintained the language/literature part and hopefully you wont mind. The earlier statement says that the early Rashtrakutas may have belonged to one of several ethnic groups (Rajput, Kannadiga, Reddi...). When an impatient reader sees this (and does not see the succeeding para explaining that the 8th-10th century kings gave importance to Kannada and Sanskrit), the first question that would come to his mind when he gets to the literature and Language section is "who can believe that Rajputs or Marathas or Reddies or Punjabis would give importance to Kannada/Sanskrit literature. This is incorrect info". He/She may simply not have the patience to understand that irrespective of what the kings spoke or gave importance to in the 6th century, they could change to other languages in the 8-10th century. Most readers who read Indian history, see history from todays point of view. Even this morning, after your comment, a vandal created a "single use account" and tagged the language section as "advertisement" and added the word "Marathi" in choice places to his convinience with scant regard for the historical information and citations. He also tried to disrupt this FAC by using abuse (which was later deleted by another user). This is why I request that these few lines on language and literature be maintained to give continuity.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The origin of Rashtrakuta dynasty has been a controversial topic with some unresolved issues"— Well, the last 4 words are not needed. Controversial implies presence of unresolved issues.

Reply-->done

  • "The dynasty's history has been studied through the examination of numerous sources, including..."—Can be changed to "Sources for Rashtrakuta history include...".

Reply_->done and reduced.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Samangadh copper plate grant (753) confirms that the feudatory king Dantidurga, with a small army, defeated the Vallabha Kirtivarman II of Badami in 753, humbling the great Karnatik army (referring to the army of the Badami Chalukyas) which had earlier won victories over the kings of Kanchi, Kerela, Chola, Pandya, as well as King Harsha of Kannauj and Vajrata. As a Chalukya feudatory, Dantidurga had possibly ruled from his seat of power in modern Elichpur (ancient Achalapura in Berar), Amravati district in modern Maharashtra.[26] With his family based in modern Gulbarga, Dantidurga took control of the northern areas of the Chalukya empire ..." — Can be shortened to exclude details. For example, "...confirms that the feudatory king Dantidurga, who probably ruled from modern Elichpur (ancient Achalapura in Berar), Amravati district in modern Maharashtra, defeated the great Karnatic army (referring to the army of the Badami Chalukyas) of Vallabha Kirtivarman II of Badami in 753, and took control of..."

Reply-->done and reducedDineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this examples may seem nitpicking. However, this would probably make the article easier to read. In fact, most of the article is easier to read than the previous few Indian history FAs. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I deeply appreciate your keen interest in these articles.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comment "The most important position under the king was the Chief Minister (Mahasandhivigrahi) whose position came with an insignia commensurate with his position namely, a flag, a conch, a fan, a white umbrella, a large drum and five musical instruments called Panchamahashabdas"—Could not understand. Did "position" of Chief Minister vary? I mean, one Chief Minister might have a conch as an insignia, while another a large drum?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply corrected meaning.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->I will take a close look at these issue tonight.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Well sourced and well written article - Naveen (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Very nice job at tackling a challenging project. I particularly like how the early origin parts is written. Thumbs up. --Blacksun 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support- Excellent article, with all the issues addressed this should become a FA. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets criteria. Issues raised were satisfactorily addressed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. - Well written article with lot of information. Gnanapiti 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

edit

The origin of Rastrakutas is debatable. This is clearly written in second para of history section. I quote

Scholars debate over which of the many ethnic groups the early Rashtrakutas belonged, the Rajputs,[8] the Kannadiga,[9][10][11] Reddi,[12][13] the Maratha,[14][15] or the Punjabi.[16]

But this information is changed in third para to assert that Rastrakutas are 'Kannadigas' (Kannads). I quote

Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas,[23][24][4] they were conversant in a northern Deccan language as well.[25]

Could anybody explain this? thanks Praveen 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were three lineages(so to speak) which called themselves Rashtrakutas(or some variant of that which some historians have loosely interpreted as Rashtrakutas). One dates back to the days of Ashoka. The others are scattered across India in the pre-R of Manyakheta days. The third is the R of Manyakheta, the imperial dynasty. Of the three, it is the R of M that is meant when the word Rashtrakuta is used(unless specified otherwise). Even this article deals mainly with the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta who were Kannadigas. The origins of the other two and their relationship to the R of Manyakheta and between themselves is what is debated. The other two are mentioned only for completeness and encyclopedic sake. That R of M were Kannadigas is well attested. Hope Dinesh can add more or correct any chinks in my reply. Sarvagnya 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK's reply to Praveen

Please take time to read about Origin of Rashtrakutas article which is attached because this will help a lot. Let me give a brief idea what the debate is all about.

1. A few historians (like Hultsczh, Fleet) propose some tribes (it is not clear whether they were aryan or non-aryan and this is specified) were the ancestors of the medieval Rashtrakutas (6th-7th century). These are only theories based on a few words in inscriptions (such as Rathika, Ristika (Rashtrika) or Lathika) from Emperor Ashoka's time (2nd century BC). Most modern books dont bother to discuss this as the theory drags the history back to a very early period with no clarity. It was added for historical completion.

2. The history of the medieval Rashtrakutas becomes more clear from 6th-7th century, when they ruled as minor kingdoms with the availability of a few inscriptions. The Elichpur family (Berar) was a feudatory to the Badami Chalukyas (Kamath, Altekar, Reu....). This is attested to by inscriptions. It is not clear if the Manpur family and Kannauj family were feudatories too or not. The relationship between these medieval Rashtrakuta families and whether they were natives of central India or arrived there from the north or south is debated. Consequently Scholars have also debated whether their ancestors were originally Rajputs, Marathas, Reddies, Kannadigas or residents of Punjab region going back several centuries. However some scholars (Altekar, Karmakar, Kamath, Desai etc) claim the Elichpur family were Kannadigas and not natives of Central India (Berar) or north India, but natives of Karnataka region as mentioned in the Origin... article. This is because right from the begining of their independent rule (after overthrowing the Chalukyas in 753) they encouraged Kannada in administration, literature. Also, many of their inscriptions in central India are signed in Kannada even as far as Gujarat. So it is claimed that Kannada speaking commanders were despatched to rule the far corners of the Chalukya empire and later overcame their own overlords in Badami. Similarly, It is also known that the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi were from the Badami family.

3. Irrespective of who the early Rashtrakutas were or where they came from, Dantidurga's family from Elichpur (who became the Manyakheta family of the 8-10th centuries) were ardent supporters of Kannada language. There is not a single scholar that I know of who denies this. So irrespective of their early lineage (which has been added for historical completeness), the Manyakheta family encouraged Kannada. In fact Altekar (who is a Maharashtrian) claims there is proof that the locality where the Elichpur family lived in the 6-7th century was a Kannada speaking locality based on inscriptions. He is one of the ardent supporters of their Kannadiga origin. Karmarkar further claims they were Dravidian Kannadigas originally.

I am not surprised that this question came up. Generally we tend to see history from todays point of view. We see Kannada spoken in Karnataka, Marathi spoken in Maharashtra and so on. But these linguistic boundaries are present day boundaries. Language distributions were quite different in the medieval times and have been constantly changing and will continue to change. Even if the early Rashtrakutas were not Kannadigas in the 6-7th century time frame (no scholar that I know of has claimed they were not Kannadigas), it does not mean they cannot become Kannadigas in the later centuries by migration and settlement. The citations are from historians who claim they were originally Kannadigas.

I have included all these three tiers of their history for completeness and historical fairness. If the article were titled Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta, I would not have bothered to write about the early medieval Rashtrakutas or the earliest "proposed" ancestors. But when you say Rashtrakutas, one normally means Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta as they are the most famous. I have not come across any books written specifically about their direct ancestors and other Rashtrakuta minor familes as they were petty kingdoms.

I hope this answers your question.Dineshkannambadi 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Good thing that you have written such a long reply. But, I feel you have not answered the question. Rastrakutas supporting Kannada does not mean they are Kannads. Or does it? I agree that Rastrakutas might most probably be Kannads. But there is uncertainty about that as shown by the 2nd para. You are claiming that Rastrakutas can become Kannads by migration & settlement. After 200 years, an Indian family settled in US does not become ethnic Americans. My proposal would be alter the sentence to "Even though Rastrakutas (of manyaketa) supported Kannada, Rastrakutas were also conversant in a northern Deccan language". But if you insist on the later Rastrakuta theory, at least make it clear (I can help) between 2nd & 3rd paras.
And yes I agree with you fully that people tend to see long standing issues in today's perspective and get confused by today's boundaries (an apt example for this would be if some morons believe that a river originating from certain region (in present day boundaries) belong only to people from that region. What about the right of people in downstream who used it for thousands of years?)

Praveen, I have provided 3 citations from historians to attest the Rashtrakutas were originally Kannadigas. I am not sure why it has to be reworded to an ambiguous "support". In history, we its important not to "split hairs". Even People who support Kannada to such a large extent (literature/administration) are Kannadigas. Your comment "After 200 years, an Indian family settled in US does not become ethnic Americans" is passing your own view. We should leave it to the concerned family to decide that. As another example, today you are Tamil and I a Kannadiga. What conclusive evidence can we give that our own ancestors were Tamils and Kannadigas respectively 200 years back? Yet you consider yourself a Tamilian and I a Kannadiga. Even the word "ethnic" is flexible in Indian history. What surety can a historian give that the Cholas were Tamils in 300BC? Maybe they were aryans who took up Tamil?. This is the reason I have not tried to emphasise (on the main article) what language the Rashtrakutas spoke prior to the 8th century, just to be fair. This is the reason I have specifically written "Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas"(with citations). I have tried not to inflict myself on other earlier Rashtrakutas for fairness. There is no barrier as to when someone becomes a Kannadiga and upto when one remains outside its realm. Hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording to match your web page citation exactly. However, one needs to understand the content in context of Geography. The sentence "They spoke Kannada but also knew the northern Deccan language" in the web page indicates the nature of the culture in the transition zone between Dravidian and Aryan languages. Knowing a northern deccan language does not make them any less Kannadiga.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh, please dont feed trolls. Sarvagnya 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its amazing how some trolls do not know that they are the actual trolls. Praveen 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK, I am wondering why you need to say "conversant in a northern Deccan language". What is that northern Deccan language? And how do we know thta they were conversant in that language? I remember to have read somewhere in K.V. Ramesh's book, that Amogavarsha had some marital relations with Western Gangas who was a descendant of Chola princess. Finally what does Kamath's 'dravidian kannadiga' mean? --Aadal 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the "northern deccan language" is. That citation was brought in by your friend Praveen. please ask him. Marital relations have existed between Southern, Deccan and Northern families for a long time. I dont know about Amoghavarsha's marital relations with Western Gangas, though I am aware that Amoghavarsha's daughter married Pallava Narasimhavarman and their son also called Nrupatunga succeeded his father and became a Pallava king. Ofcourse I have citations for all this. Regarding "dravidian Kannadiga" I am not sure, though I think the author whose name you got wrong may have meant speakers of dravidian language Kannada, but feel free to research it.Dineshkannambadi 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I started editing, the "northern Deccan language" sentence was there already, albeit in a misleading manner [24]. The citation states that the Rastrakutas spoke Kannada & north Deccan language. But the editor (whoever written that sentence) misleadingly wrote that the Rastrakutas were Kannadigas. I modified the sentence to reflect the citation & brought the web citation (Encyclopedia Brittanica) in place of book citation since the web citation is easy to access and verify. Praveen 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the reference to the northern deccan language can be removed unless we can find a source which can detail it in unambiguous terms. Just because a reliable source is ambiguous shouldnt be any reason why we should be reproducing the ambiguity on wikipedia. Especially given how well sourced this article is, I dont think there is any dearth of reliable sources. Sarvagnya 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rastrakutas spoke Kannada & North Deccan language. This statement is in agreement with the ambiguity in Rastrakutas' origin as recorded in 2nd para. Praveen 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen, the ambiguity in para 2 has little to do with your web citation. Its the Geography. Since Manyakheta is generally at the transition zone of Aryan and Dravidian languages, they were conversant with another language in addition to their native tongue Kannada, Just like todays people in Karnataka bordering Tamil Nadu call Kannada their native language, but may also be conversant in Tamil. web citation or not, their historical patronage for Kannada language and literature cant be altered. This is what the world sees at large.Dineshkannambadi 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the web page may not say Kannadiga (just spoke Kannada) but my three authors do. Its a waste of time fishing around.Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Joseph Francis Shea

edit

A NASA engineer and manager who played an important role in the success of the Apollo program. This article made GA some time ago, and since then has been through a Biography peer review. I believe that it is worthy of FA status. MLilburne 09:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. I should be able to spell "Ph.D." given that I'm getting one myself! MLilburne 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Gillingham F.C.

edit

Self-nomination. I've been working hard on this article for the last couple of weeks now, in tandem with some invaluable copy-editing assistance from KevinMcE and The Rambling Man, turning an article which was OK but not great into something I considered worthy of FA nomination. It now, as far as I can see, represents a thorough and comprehensive overview of the subject. I've referenced everything in the article (prior to my "drive" there were no refs at all) and worked hard at the prose and section editing so that I think it flows as it should, including a concise and informative lead. I've removed non-encyclopedic semi-nonsense like "list of famous fans" and converted bullet-point lists in prose, as well as "spinning off" some sections into sub-articles so as not to overload the main article. As far as I can see after a hundred little tweaks and a million re-readings it now seems to meet the criteria, so here it is, please let me know what you think ChrisTheDude 07:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Norwich City F.C.

edit

This article has undergone around five hundred edits in the past month or so removing all POV (one of the primary editors is an Ipswich supporter!) and adding citations to all claims. A number of images have been added and overall the page has been enhanced to a point where it has now become suitable as a candidate for featured article. It has also undergone a successful peer review.

This is a semi-self-nom, along with User:Dweller. The Rambling Man 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the photographer of the photo you've highlighted, may I thank you for your kind words! MLS - Mls11 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso's comment

edit
  • Comment These points are too minor for an oppose, but could do with seeing to:
  • "it was referred to as 'The eighth wonder of the world'" By whom?
  • The Stadia section has a bit of a jump from 1935 to the present day, it could be worth adding more meat by using material from Carrow Road.
  • Yes, sorry. It's not easy getting this right. "Norwich" is plural, "Norwich City F.C." is singular and "the club" is singular. I'm looking through the article for this. Please let me know if there are inconsistencies to this that I've not yet spotted. --Dweller 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's oppose support

edit
  • Fixes needed before I can lend my support. This is close, but still needs work:
    • Lead does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD. Some things that need to be mentioned in the lead: Which level does the club play in now? When were they relegated to that level? What players are the all-time club leaders in goals, assists, games played? Any particularly notable managers?
    We've followed the pattern established by similar FA articles, Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C.. The Lead guidlines don't really allow for a much longer article and details of individuals in the Lead for an article about the club seems inappropriate. However, I'll certainly add the level the club is playing at - I thought it was there already! --Dweller 10:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Confused. Level is there. --Dweller 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable players is inadequate. While not every player needs be listed here, what about the club's best players from history? Surely the top scorers or capped players bears some mention here?
    As above, this follows the pattern of the other FA articles -we're avoiding POV, pointing to main articles which cover the issue better. --Dweller 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a couple more could be added to Statistics and records - the all time record scorer and most capped international perhaps. A list of all capped players might be rather long if all nations were included. Oldelpaso 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing...Nice ideas. --Dweller 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     DoneNow done... I'll ask my favourite gnome to fix the ref. --Dweller 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Norwich City In Pop Cult. section is inadequate. Generally, Pop Culture sections are deprecated, though its existance is not really the problem. Its existance as a single sentance section is. If this can't be expanded, can we find a way to fold this into another section?
     Done Commented out, pending further additions or merging into another section. --Dweller 10:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider a separate sources/further reading section for the general sources (those listed under references but not specifically footnoted).
     Done Nice idea. --Dweller 11:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will lend my support if the above fixes can be made.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber's comments

edit
  • CommentSupport - nearly theregood enough for me. A couple of things. The lead comes across as, well, spartan- with prose more perfunctory rather than brilliant. Surely there are a couple of details that can add a teensy bit of colour?

cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bryant's support

edit
  • Support, everything seems to be in order. One thing, though - the Friendship Trophy section is very bare. Is it annual, or do SAFC and NCFC play each other twice a year? If they meet in the FA Cup etc. (in addition than the Championship), do they play for the Friendship Trophy, or is only Championship fixtures? What's the current Win/Draw/Loss record since the Cup was created? Is there actually a cup (the sentence reads "an honour dating back to a comaraderie forged between fans of the two club during the 1980s and early 90s", which doesn't exactly clarify whether they're playing for a metaphorical or literal piece of silverwear)? If it's real, when was the first time they actually played for it? Otherwise, a very good article. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for that. I've made a small amend to clarify that it's an actual trophy (shown in the reference). I'm concerned about expanding this too much, as it's a very minor honour (as can be guessed by the fact that only 2 clubs can ever win it!) and am therefore reluctant to add a full statistical record. The article is specific and accurate that it's contested whenever the clubs meet - the teams don't meet in order to play for the Trophy. I've clarified the first meeting. I hope that does the trick. --Dweller 08:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

History of biology

edit

The editors on this article have been improving it gradually over several months, with a recent burst of improvements. It was peer reviewed formally by Awadewit: Wikipedia:Peer review/History of biology/archive1, and improved substantially based on that feedback plus the comments of a number of biologically and historically savvy editors.--ragesoss 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had the pleasure of GA reviewing this arrticle and it was a joy to read. As I stated when the review was over I can't find anything wrong with it as far as formatting or MoS issues. It's well written and has also been looked over by several biologists, so I fully support it. Quadzilla99 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary suggestions Congratulations to the authors who have developed this fine article, which covers an ocean of literature. For want of time, I've only given it a quick read, but I'll return later to give it more time and thought. Here are some preliminary suggestions for making it an even better article:
  • The division of all biology into molecular and organismal seems to miss out on the field of cellular biology, such as the structure of cells and their organelles, the evolutionary origins of the organelles (e.g., the mitochondrion and chloroplast), the chemical compositions of its various parts (e.g., lipid rafts), the various mechanisms for intracellular trafficking (e.g., microtubules), the various ways cells secrete or absorb (e.g., endocytosis or type II secretion).
  • One big problem is that there isn't much good history of cell biology (not much historical work at all really). For example, none of these topics you list is represented in the most recent general history of biology overview, Lois N. Magner A History of the Life Sciences (3rd ed., 2003)... although it's a pretty deficient text in many respects, but in this case I think it reflects an actual lack of secondary sources. I'll mention endosymbiosis briefly in the evolution section. As for the division of biology, this is how been treated by historians (though only a few, since it deals with large-scale issues and a recent timescale). I've now made it explicit that cell biology is contiguous with molecular biology (now "cellular and molecular biology"); there was previously a list of the main disciplines that fall under each side, but they were trimmed out to condense the lead some and to avoid link overload.--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The development of the cell theory seems important enough to warrant its mention in the lead.
  • I've tried for a double, by mentioning microscopy (in the first paragraph) as laying the groundwork for cell theory (which would otherwise appear in the second paragraph).--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also include something about microscopy in the lead, since so many developments followed from it. More generally, I would give greater weight to describing how the development of new technologies led to new insights, and how scientists are continuing to develop new technologies for observing/measuring different biological processes, e.g., observing subcellular localization through GFP-tagged proteins and fluorescence microscopy. Also worth mentioning is the critical role played by techniques for isolating and recognizing what you want to study, ranging from purifying molecules (in biochemistry and molecular biology) to culturing different types of cells/organisms to developing pure strains.
  • It emphasizes technology quite a bit, in both general terms and with examples. I've now mentioned microscopy in the lead. As for the newer stuff, again, this was intentionally left out because of the problem of sources and historical distance.--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along those lines, one has not finished cataloging all of life; taxonomy is still a work in progress, and was not concluded in the 19th century. There are a lot of species hitherto uncharacterized, unnamed and unstudied, ranging from bacteria to plants to birds. You might also want to mention some of the hypotheses concerning the origin of life, such as the RNA world hypothesis.
  • I hope that this is not opening a can of worms, but please do not say that Watson and Crick "discovered" the double helix structure of DNA. "...proposed..." or "...hypothesized..." would be better, since the gentlemen did not take any data to test their model.
  • The history of evolution section seems to suggest that the concept of natural selection began with Darwin. Some brief mention of his antecedents might be appropriate. More generally, the 18th century gets short shrift; how about Maupertuis' work, Venus Physique?
  • It's really a question of significance and balance; a number of things could be pointed to as antecedents, Maupertuis' work among them, but some nuance has to be glossed over in such a sprawling topic. However, your comment (I assume you meant the 18th century) draws my attention to one naturalist who definitely should be mentioned (a more significant evolution antecedent, though he drew on Maupertuis): Buffon. Don't know how I managed to leave that out, when he's staring me in the face from the intro.--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of enzymology is slightly incorrect. The kinetics were not worked out by the end of the 19th century; even the basic Michaelis-Menten equation was not proposed until 1913. More sophisticated kinetics were developed in the 20th century, and enzymatic mechanisms are still being studied actively.
  • Yes, that was very unclear, since chemical kinetics (the basics of which were in place by 1900) was not meant to imply enzyme kinetics (which you rightly place in early 20th century). Fixed.--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does at least allude to structural biology in the molecular biology sections, but I'll try to flesh it out a tiny bit more. As for functional genomics and a number of other cutting-edge problems, we've intentionally removed everything that's too cutting edge to be represented in the historical literature. Otherwise, it begins to cross the border from history to journalism (and probably original research).--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not that alien from one another; microbiology (and its precursors of bacteriology and virology) are generally a key part of most "origins of molecular biology" narratives. I've added a small bit more on virology.--ragesoss 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I still see them as different. To be sure, molecular biologists have gleaned a lot of useful reagents and protocols from microorganisms and microbes make excellent model systems. But microbiology per se seems much more organism-centric than molecule-centric, studying higher-level topics such as quorum sensing, host-pathogen interactions and how the microbe coordinates its various metabolisms to survive various challenges over its life-cycle. Willow 11:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the exact edits that this may be about, but if the question is whether microbiology is micro-biology or the biology of microbes, it is actually the latter, as Willow correctly points out. Molecular biology deals with all organisms, and therefore has strong links with physiology, as well as botany; arguably the demonstration of plant cell shape by squeezing a bunch of peas was the first cellular experiment. I don't have time to check if that's mentioned, but it's quite a clever and prescient experiment. If any corners need to be cut, I'd rather lump molecular and cellular than molecular and micro. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck and bon courage with this article! Willow 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if some of these topics might not be more appropriate to the biology page itself in some sort of section like "Current research in Biology" (they have a similar section on the physics page and I thought that was a really cool idea)? Awadewit 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift replies and thought-provoking clarifications! :) I think I might better understand your perspective, along with the scope of the article. You'd like to cover biology topics that have been covered by historians of science, for which sufficient historical distance has been reached — is that right? Does it follow that biology topics that have not been covered significantly by historians lie outside the scope of the article? I'm concerned that good topics may be missed, like Cyclol. Unfortunately, not all scientific topics will be equally interesting to a historian's readership; some worthy but boring topics might be passed over for publication.

The article's present organization is chronological, which seems great. However, you might want to begin with a topical outline, to offer the reader threads to follow through the chronology. Some core questions of biology haven't changed since Aristotle's categories: What is biological matter made of? How are its components created and destroyed; how do they change over their lifetime? Where are the parts arranged within the whole and how do they interact? How are all these processes regulated? If such questions represent the historical tides of biological research, it might not be so bad to describe how modern approaches — even if not yet treated by historians — answer age-old questions. For example, you treat DNA sequencing, for which insufficient historical distance has elapsed, I imagine, but which is clearly significant for giving the DNA composition of a cell. Would the same rationale apply to, say, proteomics and mass spectrometry, which measure the protein composition of a cell? Trying to think this through, sorry for being slow, Willow 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your comments are really helpful. I'm going to think about this more, and do some more source work, but I have two quick replies. First, I think what have historians have tried to do is, because there is just so much of 20th century biology, focus on the things that have had the broadest impact across biology. The disinction between microbiology and cell biology is important, and microbiology doesn't fit as comfortably with the molecular/organismal divide as most things (and it was a somewhat fuzzy overall trend, not a hard and fast separation, anyhow). I've made the story of molecular biology central to the 20th century, but it shouldn't come off like all these other things that tie in to that story are simply part of molecular biology. As for instruments, I think your feeling here is probably right, that the article would benefit from still more emphasis on tools, techniques, and technologies. Broad histories of 20th century biology could be written as a history of model organisms, a history of laboratory instruments, or a history of experimental methods.--ragesoss 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I really, really like this article, but there is an issue with layout. There are a lot of images near the top of the article, and relatively few in the bottom half or more of prose. If you took out the Roman emperor and added just one image near the bottom of the article (do we have a colourful illustration of recombinant DNA? colour is also sorely lacking at the bottom...), the problem would be fixed. Alternatively, you could add more copy near the top. And maybe someone should give that thermal cycler image a bit of post-production love. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Allow me to interject.] I've change up the images some, including a pretty featured picture near the bottom. I think it's much closer to a pleasing layout now, though it's still not perfect.--ragesoss 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded and inserted a brightened version of the thermal cycler. It could be brightened further if needed. Quadzilla99 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really feel that this is a reason to outright oppose this article? I might agree with you if this were an article about art or something that required illustration to properly understand its topic, but the illustrations here, in my opinion, are really just nice additions that we are lucky to be able to have. It seems to me that you could have commented first and asked the editors to improve this minor issue. Awadewit 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to hazard a guess that I've been participating in this process a fair bit longer than you. The way it works is, if you have some meat that needs to be sorted out, you oppose. When the meat is fully cooked, you change to support. And I'd strongly advise you not to go around questioning everything that everybody does, because things get very, very nasty after a while. Not a way to make friends for sure. And we have enough of it at RfA. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And all of those editors at the credentialling debate a couple of months ago were worried that we academics were going to throw our weight around ("I'm a PhD, so you should listen to me"). It seems to me, in my admittedly brief six-month stint at wikipedia, that wikipedia users who have "been around" are far more likely to use that argument ("I've been here longer, so you should listen to me"). I have actually spent a fair amount of my time here at wikipedia at FAC (both reviewing and submitting articles) and I've noticed that many people use comments, rather than the more aggressive oppose, to urge editors to improve their articles (per the instructions listed above - "To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write Comment followed by your advice.") It seemed to me, anyway, that you really were trying to provide "constructive input," but perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. And I don't "go around questioning everything that everybody does;" I question what I feel are inappropriate actions or statements. There is no reason why I should not; in fact, to not do so would be an abdication of my duties as a wiki-citizen. I'm sorry that you personally feel overwhelmed at RfA, but that is not my problem and is irrelevant to this debate. Finally, I am not on wikipedia to make friends per se, although I seem to have formed excellent working relationships with any number of users and for that I am grateful; I participate in wikiepdia to disseminate accurate knowledge. Awadewit 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't worth wasting keystrokes over; Samsara has a valid point whether he frames it as oppose or comment, and I know he has the article's best interest in mind.--ragesoss 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer-reviewed this article as an educated lay reader; I am also an avid reader of popular science books. I tried to imagine non-scientists and college students reading these articles. I feel that this article, while it does get a little jargon-heavy at the end, is an excellent introduction to the history of biology (if you make it all the way to the end, I am guessing you are really interested, so I'll let that go). This article is well-written, comprehensive as I far as I can tell from my one little undergraduate history of biology class and well-sourced. Another nice article from the history and philosophy of science crowd (is it a crowd?).
I do have just remaining question. You write in the article that Darwin's theory of evolution was accepted because of the tone of his book and his overwhelming evidence, all arguments I have heard before. But I have also read/heard that Darwin and Wallace had a mechanism (natural selection) whereas other proponents of evolution did not. Is that not correct? That you do not emphasize. Awadewit 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lamarckian mechanism was in other evolutionary theories, and the mechanism was the least well-received aspect of Darwin's (at least in the 19th century), which is partly why he gradually shifted toward more and more Larmarckism in later edition of Origin. Even Darwin's Bulldog T. H. Huxley didn't think natural selection was a viable mechanism. It seemed incompatible with what was known of heredity (in particular, the observed phenomenon of Regression toward the mean with various biological traits like height made it seem like there were random variations about a fixed mean, so that selection for slight variations would not result in heritable changes).--ragesoss 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And natural selection had been proposed as a mechanism by at least two people before Darwin/Wallace, although probably not by that name. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find this all very fascinating. I took it upon myself to read some of the material mentioned in your notes (whoever does that?). I don't have the Bowler you mentioned, but I do have his Evolution: The History of an Idea and Secord's Victorian Sensations. It would appear that, indeed, according to Bowler, natural selection was not widely accepted. But, Bowler does emphasize that the search for "precursors" does violence to the historical record: "There have been many efforts to undermine his [Darwin's] originality by claiming that the selection theory had been developed by earlier writers, including Edward Blyth, Patrick Matthew, and William Charles Wells . . . Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest the basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emrgence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution." (158) Also, I wonder if this history is not favoring one historical method over another. The editors seem to be citing books that focus on a cultural history of science rather than the "great man" theory of history or a paradigm-shift theory of history. While I tend to agree more with the first theory myself, I wonder if relying so heavily on one methodology might be considered POV. (By the way, if you had included page numbers in your footnote for Victorian Sensations, my life would have been made so much easier!) Awadewit 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If histories of science are going with the great man theory or (with a few exceptions) the paradigm shift theory, that's probably an indication that they are out of date. As with most history fields, there are major historiographical issues at stake in the history of biology, but I've done my best to be neutral when it comes to those. The ways in which the article does have possible bias issues relate to the overall focus, on intellectual developments. But my intention was that more social and cultural approaches could be treated in parallel articles some time in the future, like cultural history of biology and institutional history of biology. Regarding the Darwin story (at least in as basic a form as described here), there is pretty much consensus among practicing historians. (At least with a well-defined topic like "Darwin", historians seem to agree that intellectual and cultural history aren't incompatible, it just takes a lot of work; hence Janet Browne's succes). The main exception to the Darwin consensus is actually probably Victorian Sensation; one way of reading Secord's argument is that (despite hardly mentioning him until the end) it was really about Darwin all along, that Darwin reaped what Vestiges sowed (you probably don't need me to tell you this, but others may find it helpful). Obviously that's a different kind of argument than the one Bowler is dismissing in the quote you give, but it's also not an argument that sits comfortably with many Darwin scholars. This article only gives a brief nod in that direction, in mentioning what Darwin had going for him that Vestiges didn't.--ragesoss 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally broken down and bought Browne's biography of Darwin. This debate has now cost me $32. :) Awadewit 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this article does a pretty good job of compromising between the old fashioned (even Whiggish to use a dirty word in modern history of science) style of focusing on people, dates, and ideas, and the more currently in vogue approach of looking at science as a cultural product. Incidentally I do think a little such Whiggishness is appropriate in an encyclopedia article, which should convey basic facts such as who, what, and when as well as more scholarly conclusions about how and why. As to the issue of natural selection and its role in the acceptance of Origin, it is true that even in Darwin's life time only a minority of scientists (perhaps only Wallace and even he had reservations when it came to the human mind) believed that natural selection was sufficent alone to explain most of evolution, but it did provide a purely mechanistic non teological mechanism for evolution. Although most people think of the inheritance of acquired characteristics when they think of Lamarkian evolution, Lamarck only attributed relatively minor adaptive details to that process. His idea for the main driving force for the transmutation of species was an inate teological drive pushing creatures up the great chain of being from simple to complex. Vestiges had the same teological orientation with a strong implication of a divine plan for progress. This made the Origin inherently more attractive to someone like Huxley who badly wanted to free science from the influence of natural theology. It might be reasonable to mention this in history of biology, but where it really needs to be discussed is history of evolutionary thought, an article which in my opinion needs a lot of work. Rusty Cashman 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does. I went over there for information, but it was useless. Crediting Lord Monboddo (whose works I have actually read) with coming up with a theory of natural selection seems a bit far-fetched to me. The page is just a list of contributions in parts - not a historical "narrative," if you get my drift. Awadewit 04:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all of the same reasons cited above. This is a very good article, but the omissions noted by Willow are needing to be fixed. I also have some items missing.
    • The development of the scientific method in the 17th century is missing entirely; the process is so vital to all experimental sciences that I find its omission here glaring. A passing mention would suffice, and this article has NO mention of it.
      • Developing methods of doing life science are mentioned throughout the article, and the 16th and 17th centuries particularly dwell on the growth in experimental and quantitative approaches. There is more or less no such thing as the development of the scientific method, in the 17th or any other century.--ragesoss 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Also, no treatment of non-western traditions is really given. Did not the Chinese and Arabs have their own contributions to the eventual development of Biology? Ernst Mayr's quote aside, the article seems to be missing any mention of non-western traditions in medicine and natural sciences. Again, I would not want to see the entire article overtaken by minutae, but to lack any significant mention of non-western traditions, especially in the Ancient and Medieval Knowledge section, seems a problem. Again, this article is VERY GOOD, but I am not sure it is featurable yet.

      • The Mayr quote is not a unique statement, historiographically speaking; most histories of biology simply say the same thing by failing to mention any significant contributions to the history of biology from non-western cultures (unlike with history of medicine or the history of astronomy, for example) . I included the quote for some explicit justification of not having anything else, but I don't know what could be put in without going out of the way just to find something, without regard to broader significance.--ragesoss 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's a brave step to try to cover so much in one article, but it's crucial that Wikipedia's "meta" articles be of a high quality. There is some ongoing discussion about the relative weighting of several subject areas, including currently ecological niche theory and species concepts, and I expect some of this discussion will continue for some time. That said, it is an even braver step for the editor to nominate this article for FA - expect there to be more discussion still if and when it goes on the front page! I know you'll be able to deal well with the many opinions that will be inflicted on you via the talk page. It may turn out to be one of the few articles that are actually further improved by the process. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and query. What do the editors think about establishing a cut-off date for this page and creating a separate "history of modern biology" page? Just to be difficult. Awadewit 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving wall, not cut-off date. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm missing something. Awadewit 04:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure you mean a subpage right? If the article is still called history of biology it will have to include all history. Quadzilla99 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant an entirely new page (I'm not sure what subpages are). But there is no such thing as "ongoing history" really. That is why I was thinking that a "history of modern biology," which could have all of the up to the minute reporting on it might be a good idea. That way this page wouldn't rely on journalism but that one could have a mix of journalism and history. (I was thinking about this because someone I was talking to said "they can't really write a history of biology past DNA, can they?") Now, I don't know at what point the history would stop, but there is a point in that. At some point, there is not enough distance to establish the influence of a discovery. Stem-cell research is probably a good example of that. That is why I was thinking that relegating all of those emerging fields and recent discoveries whose place has not yet been completely established to a "history of modern biology" page might be a good idea. In twenty or forty years, we can move them over (I'm sure we will all still be editing then). Awadewit 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe a "Recent developments in biology" section in Biology (right after that "History of biology" section that duplicates this article's lead) which could break off into its own article if it gets too big. Which reminds me, the history section of Biology needs to be updated. It looks like this has now been promoted (thank you all so much for the quality comments and criticisms); while I can't say I'm disappointed, I was hoping for more voices to weigh in before the nomination closed.--ragesoss 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That sounds like a good idea. The physics page has something similar. I hope against hope that someone will read it and go "cool, I want to solve that problem" and go into physics. The whole point being - we need more good scientists. Add it in, I say. Intrigue people. I think that it's good for non-scientists, too. That way they understand why science needs to be funded and what we are still learning through science. Off soap box now. (And I'm a humanities person!) Awadewit 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Winter service vehicle

edit

This article reached GA status very quickly (even before it got onto DYK!), and I've been working hard on it since then to expand it considerably, including replacing any dodgy refs with far more reliable sources (books, government agencies, universities and companies in this area) and finding more free images to illustrate the topic. Laïka 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good. A few suggestions: 1. The article is biased towards NA, Europe. What about Asian and Australasian countries? 2. The image captions could do with the names of the countries that they are depicting. 3. Remove low value blue links of common nouns. 4. Some of the sections start odd. "Sometimes..."; "Common at airports" 5. =Safety concerns= is not needed (single section withing a larger section) Merge with parent. 6. It would be interesting to know how these vehicles are used in high altitude places such as the Himalayas. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I was worried about international bias; I can't find many sources outside US, Canada and Europe. I've found a research paper which describes snow removal in New Zealand and in mountainous regions Japan, so I'll try to work some reference to them into the article. Laïka 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've integrated your suggestions. I think it's really helped the article. Thanks! Laïka 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. One of the most important areas of snow removal are from border areas. Militaries of many countries use these vehicles to effectively man their borders. This aspect should be covered too, since the current text is mostly civilian/commercial? 2. Oregon uses --> "The US-state of Oregon...". I'll support once the low value blue links are removed (yellow, amber, lane, salt etc.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the idea; I've added a bit about military snowploughs/snowcats (irritatingly, trying to find any info on military snowploughs just turns up pages and pages about an "Operation Snowplow"). Laïka 07:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed this article for GA a while back. It's come a long way since, and I dare say it's only improved. The prose is good, it is well-illustrated, and very well-referenced for such an "unorthodox" topic (OK, that may just be due to the fact I'm in a tropical country :). As a minor nitpick, I'd like to see all instances of "US" changed to "U.S." as per WP:MOS. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't you think having all the images on one side makes the article off-balance layout-wise? Talking about images, some of them could be a bit larger for easier viewing without much problems. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets the criteria. Interesting article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Earth

edit
archive1, archive2

This summary-style article has undergone significant revisions since the prior FAC go-arounds, and I believe it's FA-worthy. Opinions will vary, of course, so I'll try to address specific concerns. The page underwent a PR in March. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments please check all sources vis-a-vis WP:RS, and fill in publisher information. For example, this looks like the personal, self-published website of a student. Miles, Hilma (October 27, 2003). The Theory of Plate Tectonics. Retrieved on March 2, 2007. An article about such a well-covered topic should be able to rely on superior sources. Non-technical readers might not recognize about/approximately here (and throughout)—might be better to spell it out: (~12,600 km or ~7,800 mi) The final image (red Supergiant) isn't loading on my browser ? Per WP:GTL, see also templates belong at the tops of sections (several are at the bottom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's too bad you didn't like the web site; that was about the best summary of plate velocities I've been able to dig up. There are plenty of scientific references for relative velocities of individual plates, but few that cover the topic as a whole. I'll see what else I can dig up. I think I've addressed your other concerns. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While not grounds to oppose in itself this artilce renders very poorly at full screen on any sort of decent resolution in both IE7 and Mozilla. Tables cascading with images to leave gaps in the text are the biggest problem but I think the overall placment and arrangment of tables and images coudl use some work as well. This is non-trival to do using wiki-markup (and even using some raw HTML) for an article as rich in auxillary info, so that it renders acceptably at many resolutions and sizes. However, I think someone shoudl give it a go. I have a little expirence with this and may have event reid to sort this article out last year I can't remember but I am sure someone else is better at this than I. Dalf | Talk 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page has already undergone a lot of massaging to try and avoid this, but it appears unavoidable. Either there are collisions—which people complain about—or there are long stretches of blank page—which other people complain about. The only fix, it appears, is to chop out half the images. — RJH (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are only two places wher eI ahve any problems and I have had some luck in the past with getting the text to flow around images and tables. Though it is much easier when they are al the same width so you can put them inside a table. If I can get somethign that looks decent on both browsers I have avalible I will make the change then check back here and on the talk page. As I said probably not a good enough reason for an oppose but I think the formatting and visual orginazation of complex articles is one area where wikipedia is lagging behind the professional refrence works and this one seems like it could really look nice if we could jsut figure it out. Dalf | Talk 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I've done what I could with it, but I only have so much control over the layout. I'm always going to expect that professional reference works have a better format; that's not a problem I'm going to be able to solve. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: looks pretty good, I'd be very glad to support once some minor things have been taken care of. The things I can remark right now is that there is only one real photograph of Earth in the article (the Blue Marble, showing only one continent) and that some subsections are a bit short. There's also some casual wording here and there. I'd be happy to help, but right now I'm a bit busy since I just nominated Moon (another one in the Solar System series). Nick Mks 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's up to 88Kb, so the article is summary style. Perhaps you want some consolidation of sections? I count 7 images of the Earth, as well as various data plots. Some images have had to be pulled to reduce the layout problems mentioned above. Anyway it looks like this article won't be getting the support it needs; so be it. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I peer-reviewed this article back in March and it has improved since then, but I still have some tiny concerns. I think that the article can reach FA, but there are a few small issues that need to be addressed. I will add more comments later when I have time to give the article a second reading.
  • The lead seems a little technical to me. I would think that this page would receive a lot of hits from non-experts and the lead, in particular, should be accessible to them. Along those same lines, I would suggest briefly explaining some of the concepts you have wikilinked; no one wants to click endlessly. I think that the Pluto page does this well.
Could you clarify? For example, the Pluto lead uses barycenter, eccentric orbit, trans-Neptunian object and AU without further explanation. I'm not clear what you consider too technical. Note that there is a "simple english" version of the Earth article.
I will give details on the lead below and some examples from the article. My overall impression from the Pluto article was that although they used technical terms at times, I understood the information they were trying to communicate and I believe that other people would as well.
Quick question: who do you think should be able to read the lead and the rest of the article? Who is your audience here?
I suppose I had thought the target audience was people who wanted to learn a thing or two about the Earth, rather than people who just wanted a reiteration of the facts they already knew. So that might involve some new terminology for a few readers. Is that unreasonable? I mean I understood all of the terminology in the lead section early in high school, if not before, and I expect many others did as well. But then I was quite into astronomy. *shrug* — RJH (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are assuming a casual reader, not a careful reader (which means that "difficult" or "new" concepts must often be explained thoroughly - often a single sentence will not do). You also seem to be assuming a reader who does not already have a grasp of astronomy. I would assume that as well (although I think that you must have been an advanced high school student to know all of the terms in the lead since most of my freshmen certainly wouldn't know them). If the reader doesn't have a grasp of astronomy, it is probably best to introduce "new" terms slowly throughout the article, don't you think? Awadewit 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not assuming the reader has a specific knowledge of astronomy. — RJH (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick suggestion: Have you read the NSF scientific literacy study? It surveys American scientific literacy every two years or so. Yes, it is biased towards Americans who probably have a lower scientific literacy than other English speakers, but it is something to start with. A significant number of the respondants could not produce the information that the earth went around the sun once every year. Obviously you don't want to shoot for the lowest common denominator with your article, but it's a good idea to know what it is so that you guage everything accordingly.
  • I would take out "sidereal year" and leave that for the article.
  • I would leave the actual tilt measurement out of the lead.
  • I would say what tectonic plates are in the lead.
  • I would replace "geologic time spans" with an approximate figure in the lead.
  • I would replace the word "convecting" with something more familiar in the lead.
  • For clarity's sake, I would replace "the space environment" with "space" in the lead.
  • In the "History" section, why can't you give a few words of description of the "solar nebula" that are then linked to it?
  • The development of photosynthesis allowed the sun's energy to be harvested directly by life forms; the resultant oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and gave rise to the ozone layer. The incorporation of smaller cells within larger ones resulted in the development of complex cells called eukaryotes.[6] True multicellular organisms formed as cells within colonies became increasingly specialized. Aided by the absorption of harmful ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, life colonized the surface of Earth. - explaining the ozone layer might be helpful; I'm not sure why you don't define eukaryotes more specifically here
  • The axial tilt of the Earth causes the seasons. By astronomical convention, the four seasons are determined by the solstices—the point in the orbit of maximum axial tilt toward or away from the Sun—and the equinoxes, when the tilt is minimized. Winter solstice occurs on about 21 December, summer solstice is near 21 June, spring equinox is around 20 March and autumnal equinox is about 23 September. In an inertial reference frame, the Earth's axis undergoes a slow precession with a period of some 25,800 years, as well as a nutation with a main period of 18.6 years. These motions are caused by the differential attraction of Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge because of its oblateness. In a reference frame attached to the solid body of the Earth, its rotation is also slightly irregular from polar motion. The polar motion is quasi-periodic, containing an annual component and a component with a 14-month period called the Chandler wobble. In addition, the rotational velocity varies, in a phenomenon known as length of day variation. - not explicitly clear how the tilt causes the seasons (I'm imagining my freshmen going, "huh?"); what is "precession" and "nutation"? what does "quasi-periodic" mean? please explain the "Chandler wobble" briefly. Awadewit 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to address these concerns. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to go through a quick copyedit. I saw a few grammatical mistakes and fixed them myself, but I didn't comb through very carefully. Also, I saw some mixing of American English and British English. Pick a dialect.
Sorry, it gets difficult to clearly spot such issues after I've been munging on a page for a while. If by mixing of American English and British English you mean specifically the spelling of units in the SI, I believe that metre is the international standard. — RJH (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I saw some other BE/AE issues besides "metre" (I did not know that metre was the standard), but I still think that the article should be copyedited. There are some typos, comma issues, etc. Awadewit 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the SI page - it does mention "metre" as the international standard as well as "meter" as the American spelling, so I thought that the page would follow the American standard. Also, the National Institute of Standards and Technology uses "meter" as opposed to "metre". See [25] claiming that they are conforming to American English. It doesn't really matter to me which way it goes, I just thought the whole thing was interesting (ah, the politics of units) - there is even a little paragraph in the document I linked to explaining their rationale for the spelling. Awadewit 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the SI seems to be a religious issue to some people; I usually just try to stay out of the debate by sticking to the standard. — RJH (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Best not to get involved in those wars. Awadewit 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes should all be formatted the same way. Why do some "unauthored" texts say "anonymous" and some do not? Why do some begin with the author's last name and some with the first name? Easy to fix. Awadewit 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the citations cleaned up; I decided to use "Staff" rather than "Anonymous" in the cases of institutions. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about 61 and 90? Awadewit 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fixed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is well-written, well-sourced and appears to me, anyway, to be comprehensive (but I'm no expert). I am happy to see that we will finally have an excellent article on our own planet! Awadewit 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I did find on case of weird text wrapping, so I fixed it.
  2. As for complaints of an overly long and technical intro, I think someone fixed the technical aspect.
    1. I don't really like the length, but I do not know how to change it so it gives enough info and doesn't leave too much out. Because this article is so long, it may not be a bad thing to have an intro that kind of presents the article in a nutshell.
This article is written very clearly, is close to as concise as is feasible for an article of its scope, and, quite frankly, was an enjoyable read. I cannot say enough in favor of this article. The writers did a phenomonal job and I honestly have not come across an article on Wikipedia that is more well-written than this one.J.delanoy 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Reign in Blood

edit

This article is on an album, completely re-written by myself with useful feedback back provided on the two peer-reviews. It once looked like this and was promoted to GA a few months ago, over the last two days i made some minor tweaks like copyediting, formatting, pictures etc. I did my best copy editing the article using Tony's guides and help from Ceoil awhile back. If you have any objections i will be happy to fix them asap, thanks :). M3tal H3ad 09:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support- The article seems overall good it's well referenced and it's quite informative; images need to be tweaked to avoid them taking space of more than one section and some tweaks are needed with the with the writting. -凶 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What specific images? M3tal H3ad 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your resolution?, I'll change it to yours so i can see it and fix it, thanks. M3tal H3ad 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think our best solution to this would be getting rid of the image. As the article doesn't discuss his appearance in the music video but just that it led the band to meet Glen E. Friedman, it's not worthy of a fair use claim. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slayer met Friedman because of his appearance in the video, Friedman introduced them to Rick Rubin, one three second appearance led them to meet their producer for the next 20 years "in which Araya had a made a guest appearance in the music video for the album's single "Institutionalized", pushing Suicidal Tendencies's vocalist Mike Muir. Around this time Rubin asked Friedman if he knew Slayer." it does dicuss it but briefly. M3tal H3ad 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only discusses how it led them to meet Friedman, not the music video's content itself. This might be relevant in the single's article, but here it's used merely for decoration. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 12:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support. Still needs copyediting. Comments:
  • The song was also featured... - The article just discussed "Angel of Death", not "Raining Blood".
  • The band decided they... - Did they decide it when it was originally suggested by the booking agency? Reword to The band ultimately decided they....
  • ...who along with photographer Glen E. Friedman, agreed to attend one of the band's concerts - unnecessary comma.
  • Q magazine ranked Reign in Blood among their list of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time",[13] and was ranked #67 on Spin Magazine's "100 Greatest Albums, 1985-2005." - Reword either part of the sentence.
  • Image captions containing complete sentences should end with a period.
  • The album became Slayer's first to enter the Billboard 200, were it peaked at number 94, and attained gold certification in 1992. - "where".
  • ...under the same name > ...with the same name.
  • Describing the album in their "The Greatest Metal Bands Of All Time" poll, MTV wrote Slayer's... - "Describing the album" redundant.
Most of the things you mentioned were a result of the copy edit by myself and Ceoil yesterday, but they're fixed and I'll give it another read. M3tal H3ad 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i gave it a copyedit [28] I'll take another look in the morning. M3tal H3ad 13:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still some issues. I'd copyedit it myself. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :), with images do you believe Image:Slayer - south of heaven back.jpg would be fair use here? which is covered in this paragraph - "Following the agreement, Friedman brought the band members to Seattle for two days of publicity shots, possible record shots, and photos for a tour book; Rubin felt no good photos of the band have been taken before that point. One of the photos was used on the back cover of the band's 1988 release South of Heaven." M3tal H3ad 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't fit as well due to the exact same reasons. Fair use criteria are getting stricter, and we should only use copyrighted image when they are highly significant to the article. I think not having an image there would be fine. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I moved the image it looks well in my resolution how is it in yours? as a side note perhaps the caption can be shortened by adding some of the text to the article. -凶 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very informative and well written. Cricket02 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Disclaimer as a Slayer project member); but am satisfied that this the article meets each criteria. Great work, again, M3tal H3ad. Ceoil 14:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Slayer Project member. I think the article is real informative and accessible also. LuciferMorgan 09:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "live performances" section is slightly confusing. "King later said that while the idea was suggested prior to the DVD by their booking agency, it was met with little support. The band ultimately decided they needed to add more excitement to their live shows, and to avoid repetition incorporated the ideas" This is referring the fake falling blood, right? If so, the first sentence of the paragraph should be modified so that it is clear. WesleyDodds 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was referring to playing the album in its entirety, clarified it now - thanks :) M3tal H3ad 10:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it meant to the blood effects. I originally wrote that section. Michaelas10 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hanneman came up with the idea to use the blood, not the booking agency [29] M3tal H3ad 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor nitpick: When asked about using fake blood in future performances, King remarked he "Would imagine we did it and it's time to move on, but never say never. This sentence is somewhat awkward. I recommend removing the beginning of the quote ("Would imagine we did it"); it seems unnecessary. WesleyDodds 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. M3tal H3ad 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

George V of the United Kingdom

edit

Support. Self nominated. Peer-reviewed good article. DrKiernan 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first glance it promises to be an interesting read. Looks well-referenced, image licenses are okay (maybe you could alternate between putting the images along the left and right margins, although it's purely a personal preference). For now, I've just read the lead (could you find a reference to the dull life?), which seems okay (maybe it could do with a little expansion - like listing some other highlights of his reign, apart from forming the House of Windsor, if any), although I'd put the birth name in bold also. Oh, why are the image descriptions throughout the article centered under the images rather than left-justified? This seems uncommon to me. I'll be hoping to read the article in whole in the next days. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the count that all seems to be well, thanks for the adjustments. Just one minor thing that bothered me somewhat (although it's not at all important), in the Duke of York section, fourth paragraph, the first sentence has claimed that George twice close to each other, could this be modified? Overall, an excellent article, well done! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things:
  • If you have a source that says they look alike, but not one that says they had distinct facial features, you have to say they look alike and leave it at that. Doesn't matter how obvious it is—it's OR if you don't have a source. --Spangineerws (háblame) 11:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see an explanation, I just see "George had never liked May's habit of signing official documents and letters as "Victoria Mary" and insisted she drop one of the names. Neither thought she should be called Queen Victoria, and so she became Queen Mary." Why did May sign official documents as Victoria Mary in the first place? If May was a just a nickname (as suggested in the "Marriage" section), why even refer to her that way? Just mention the nickname and call her Mary for the rest of the article, if that's her name. --Spangineerws (háblame) 11:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer-reviewed this article a while ago; it was good back then and it is even better now. It is well-written, well-sourced, and as far as I can tell, comprehensive (though I am no expert). Nice job on creating this set of biographies! Perhaps you should think about creating a featured topic out of these articles that you are writing. Awadewit 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Shuttle-Mir Program

edit

Self-nomination An article which has undergone extensive expansion recently, passing through the Good Article criteria and Peer Review with several comments being made and acted upon. Extensive coverage of the topic, good prose (even if I say so myself :-D) a nice number of images and seems to comply with the manual of style. If any more changes need to be made, i'm more than happy to make them. Colds7ream 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- The article does a good job describing how the Shuttle-Mir Program marks a major turning point in space exploration history. (Before Shuttle-Mir there was mostly competiton between countries; since Shuttle-Mir there has been the cooperation that led to the International Space Station.) The article is well-written, reasonably comprehensive, and written without apparent POV bias. Sdsds 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I agree with Sdsds's comments about the article, adding that all my comments were taken care of by Colds7ream in the peer review. Happy editing, [sd] 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, comprehensive, compelling, even "brilliant" + a great topic, Colds7ream, nice work. Good luck with the Nomination, Max 05:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article needs extensive cleanup and copyediting by a new set of eyes. I just did a bit of work, but there were WP:MSH problems, there are lots of WP:DASH problems, the footnote formatting needs work (either wikilink the dates so they will show in reader preferences, or use one consistent format); some partial dates that shouldn't be linked are and others that should be linked aren't (see WP:MOSNUM), and there are prose issues. For example, "To date, the International Space Station consists of six pressurised modules, ... " To date ? As of ? Please correct the WP:MOS issues and get a fresh, uninvolved set of eyes to run through the article for inconsistencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, I forgot. Organizing History by year doesn't strike me as "compelling" or "brilliant", since history rarely conforms to the arbitrary cutoffs of January 1 and December 31. Can the article be organized around significant eras in the History? And, the lead needs work per WP:LEAD, and the gallery extends off of my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - i've had a run through the article properly formatting the reference dates, have renamed & reorganised the section headings (although the reorganisation was minimal, as the program really was pretty much divided up by year - 1994 was a warm-up, 1995 the first introduction missions, 1996 the start of continuous occupation, 1997 the accidents, and 1998 the wind-down) and reworded the ISS sentence pointed out. Thanks very much for doing the hashes for me, and i'd appreciate some ideas as to how I can improve the lead section. However, without wishing to sound rude or ungrateful, the Peer Review didn't point out any 'inconsistencies' and there's not really very much I can do to sort the gallery until the code behind it is redone - I understand work is underway to make it wrap. Plus, with respect, exactly how small is your monitor? Thanks, Colds7ream 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still dash problems in your section headings (date ranges are separated by ndash, not hyphens); there's a "the" in a section heading (see WP:MSH); the lead needs to be a stand-alone summary hitting all key points of the article (read WP:LEAD); I can't help it if peer review isn't thorough (they do a good job, though); the gallery shows fine on my laptop, but wraps on my large and ultra-large screens, so I don't think that explains it. Your footnotes are still incomplete; all websources need a last access date, author and date when avaiable (for example, your very first footnote should have *all* of those, since the website does provide them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphens replaced by endashes, 'the' removed from heading, gallery IS beyond my control with regards to wrapping; see Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Photo_gallery, footnotes named & dates where information is available. I have read through to check for inconsistencies and can't seem to find any at the moment, but if you can find any i'd love to hear from you, and I will do some work on the introduction later on tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again, Colds7ream 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting better. Structural things have been addressed; attention to a prose copyedit and the lead remains. Here's another example of a sentence which indicates the need for tightening up the prose:
The ISS is already the largest spacecraft assembled in history, and upon its completion — marking the end of Phase Two and the start of Phase Three — will consist of five laboratories, be able to support six crew members in over 1000 cubic metres of pressurised volume, and will have a mass of 400,000 kilograms — almost twice the size of the combined Shuttle-Mir spacecraft.
The sentence seems to go on and on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is extremely well written, verifiable, neutral and covers everything I can think of on the topic. I've copyedited some minor things. Great job Colds7ream! Aalox 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Surfer Rosa

edit

The Pixies' 1988 album, written mostly by Black Francis. I've worked on this article since mid-March, and I feel it's comprehensive, well-written, has images with suitable rationale, and worth of featured status. CloudNine 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there a way to replace citations 17 and 18? It seems it is an unreliable personal fan site. Plus when I click on the links, a blank page opens, so I have to scroll down to see the content of the page. That's unprofessional.--Crzycheetah 07:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment the volume on those music samples are a bit wayward again, CloudNine. Some are much louder than others. (update) On second hear they are not so bad, but "Gigantic" still seems very quiet compared to the other two.-- Zleitzen(talk) 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Apart from "Bam Thwok", I've not had this problem before. Thanks for pointing it out again though; working on it. CloudNine 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've definitely increased the volume of "Gigantic", although I've not heard much difference in the player. Could you take another look? CloudNine 10:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more even now.-- Zleitzen(talk) 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible to do some different captions for the samples? More like the ones in 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), where it gives some description of the song itself so that users know what to listen for. It also helps us make a stronger fair use argument since illustrating, for example, the use of a sample is more important than illustrating what the third verse of the seventh track sounds like. ShadowHalo 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning the dynamic change (the quiet to-loud template that later bands picked up from them) on the "Gigantic" soundclip. WesleyDodds 12:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A couple minor things to consider. The release dates in the infobox have "United States" and "United Kingdom", but the labels are listed as "UK" or "U.S." Either way, these should probably be consistent. Also, in the quote "like that Obsession ad, you know?", consider linking Obsession to Obsession (perfume) or if you don't think an article should be created for that, then link it to Calvin Klein. It look me a couple seconds to figure out what he was talking about, so a link would help provide some context. ShadowHalo 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what I meant is that either the abbreviation or the full word should probably be used for both. U.S. and UK are actually the correct abbreviations, as opposed to US or U.K. (see WP:ABB). ShadowHalo 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Josquin des Prez

edit

(note: not a self-nom. my edits are limited to minor copyediting.)

This is easily the best composer bio I've yet encountered on WP. It's exhaustively sourced, and covers the (somewhat murky) known biography well, while providing an exemplary exegesis of the actual music, something lacking in many current composer articles. It also incorporates images nicely, including musical examples. I think it should stand as a model for other articles in the field, and definitely deserves featured status. —Turangalila talk 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically because I haven't written them yet. They're all on my to-do list, and I'm working my way down. The redlinked pieces are ones with a decent amount of information in the books listed under "references". If the redlinks bug you we can take them out, but in general I like redlinks to tempt someone else with some knowledge of early music to try editing. Antandrus (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastic support very well written article on an important composer. It is accurate and is clear where ambiguity lies (an important aspect of accuracy in this case). It is definitely neutral and stable. I believe it is comprehensive, like Turangalila I appreciate the excellent discussion of Josquin's music. I don't think the lede is too long for such a long and deep article, although I may work on streamlining it later, but I'm not sure how. Good (free!) illustrations and music. Antandrus has done an excellent job of staying focused on the topic and maintaining interest without going off on the many intriguing tangents which he could have (and I probably would have without a strong reign :) The only possible issue could be the infobox, which it seems that the relevant WikiProject is rejecting. But I don't want to make this FAC about infoboxes. Mak (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the lead (lede), it did occur to me that perhaps some bits could be cut-&-pasted down into the article--either to a sort of sub-lede under "Life" or to the "Overview" section under "Music"? —Turangalila talk 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can do that, especially since it is rather long. I still have to go through the works list for accuracy (one of us pillaged it from another Wikipedia--French or Dutch or German, I think), and I've already found mistakes. If anyone thinks the works list should stay in-article please speak up.  :) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if no one objects I'll create a separate article for it, especially as its accuracy may be questionable - can't trust these darned foreigners :) Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, let's not be xenophobic. Anyway, I always like a list of "most important" works to be included in an article, even if the full works list is broken out. Perhaps the works which already have articles and those which Antandrus has redlinked would be a good guideline for those which should be in a pared-down works section? Mak (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough. Given my Polish surname, I really should keep the xenophobia to myself :) Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the basis for the new "Greatist Hits" list left in the main article could be just those pieces mentioned in the inline text; or alternately all the wikified ones on the longer list (which I think would end up about the same). I think it's worth having, though some might see it as akin to making a "See also" section for stuff already linked in the text...—Turangalila talk 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me to do it that way. I think each category of works (masses, motets, etc.) should give a number prior to the "greatest hits" list (e.g. "16 masses are considered to be reliably attributed to Josquin, and an additional 4 are sometimes attributed but questioned by one or more scholars. [cite]. The masses include: ....) For what it's worth, the works lists in the online Grove are always a separate mouse-click away (unless the list is short, and the composer's bio is also short). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

edit

Humbly I propose the article about Baden-Powell, who both had a outstanding career in the British Army for 30 years, and then founded Scouting and made him even more famous than he already was. The article well covers all details of his life and achievement, and as I see it complies with all requirements of a Featured Article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support per nom. Andy Mabbett 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor fixes needed before full support. Looks great, though I am wondering about a few things that could be cleared up for clarity:
    • History: Wouldn't it be better titled "Personal life"?
    • Founder of Scouting: Why not just "Scouting"?
    • Prolific artist and writer Prolific? Is such a peacock term needed. Why not title it "Writings". There is no evidence of art here anyways. Oh, and a redlink to "ripping yarns"? Do we need an article about this? Why link it at all?
    • Sexual Orientation Why is this separate from the other aspects of his personal life? Seems to violate basic organization principles.
    • Do we need lat/long for every location listed? Isn't it enough to wikilink to the location's article, and have the lat/long listed there?
  • As a whole, this is really close, but I think it needs the above fixes to be truly "brilliant."--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jayron, for pointing out these clear opportunities for improvement. All first three recommendations are implemented. The reason for keeping B-P's sexual orientation in a separate paragraph is that this particular subject is considered controversial, and has lead to high discussion. By keeping the subjective information contained in this one paragraph, the subject won't get an overbearing in the article. In my perception, we've therefore done your minor points. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Just to be complete in my answer, I also removed the first of the coordinates from the article, where wikilinking provides better points of reference. I retained the cemetery reference: it's listed nowhere else.. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Looks much better. I still disagree that the section on Sexual Orientation should be separate from Personal History, but I will not hold up my support on that one issue. As a whole, the article looks great now. Full Support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The contention that "he was subsequently transferred to the British secret service" is weak, given that the article on the BSS states it was founded in 1909, well after his intelligence work. The statement "a not uncommon age difference in that time" requires referencing. The claim "By 1922 there were more than a million Scouts in 32 countries; by 1939 the number of Scouts was in excess of 3.3 million." needs referencing. What about "Baden-Powell believed strongly in the harmful effects of masturbation — a view not shared by all educators of his time"? Are you sure? I thought it was frowned upon by the Victorians? Quite a number of the images have copyright problems. The photos don't have sources, and the watercolor says it is painted by someone who died over 70 years ago, which is clearly wrong as Baden-Powell died in 1941. DrKiernan 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The secret service quote was indeed wrong. I have copy-edited the text so that it gives correct information, and added due referencing.
  • 'uncommon age difference' is now referenced, although I couldn't do better than an appropriate wikilink
  • numbers in 1922 and 1939: reference added
  • The Victorians (and very relevantly the later Edwardians too) where more and more free in their sexual moralities. Baden-Powell's view should definitely be regarded as very early Victorian here.
  • I found only the watercolour to have a copyright problem, only due to the wrong Public Domain tag having been used. Corrected now. I can't see anything really wrong with the photographs. Missing sources are merely suboptimal, not really wrong, are they?
  • Thanks for pointing out these issues. I hope to have taken care of all, to your satisfaction now. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Adore (album)

edit
It's not WP:POINT as I've objected per the 1. a. criterion actually, so don't hesitate to forget that. Furthermore, if I objected at your FAC ShadowHalo but not here (as they have the same issues) then that would mean I'm picking and choosing which I object to which would be biased wouldn't it? LuciferMorgan 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the table is redundant. You have a "Reception and Aftermath" section already so are duplicating info - if you wish to keep the table info you could integrate the info into that section. LuciferMorgan 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but the Reception and aftermath section is more general in its description of sales - e.g., it shows how many copies were sold total and other broad information. The charts section is more specialized in that it shows how well the album and singles did on specific charts, in a manner that is easy to read. Prose version of chart performance can be, despite their benefits, difficult to read and tedious to write. Besides, even if the entire chart performance was typed out in prose, a table still wouldn't be redundant, because it just presents the same information in an alternative method. --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with tables to text. Ceoil 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, objecting to 1(a) is not WP:POINT. And neither is objecting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. But once you have brought it up there and at Wikipedia talk:Record charts and the consensus from every user (aside from yourself) who has voiced an opinion is that the tables of chart positions should be kept, then continuing to make these objections at other articles is becoming pointy. If you disagree with the MoS, the answer is to generate discussion at the appropriate talk page(s), not to disrupt the FAC process with tangential discussions of the guideline in question. ShadowHalo 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. It's very good, but needs some work and a thorough copy edit:
  • "It seemed that these comments were unfounded, however, a year later in June 1997 when the Pumpkins released their first single since their last album, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, "The End is the Beginning is the End" for the Batman and Robin soundtrack." - Badly ordered snake sentence. Loose "It seemed", and cut in two.
  • "In August 1997, the three remaining band members entered" - remaining? Statment has not been qualified.
  • "and they instead recruited previous producer Flood to serve as engineer" - awkward phrasing.
  • "Listening carefully, one can hear the original "Lost Highway" recording in the bridge of the song." - WP:NOR.
  • "Its instrumentation is similar to that in "Eye"." - needs to be cited; rephrase as "to that of Eye".
  • "Adore is drastically different in approach and style from previous Pumpkins albums, and distorted guitars were notably absent from the album." - "drastically" in paticular needs to be cited.
  • "The use of electronic instruments and drum machines gives the album an ambiance not heard before in the Pumpkins' music" - cite.
  • The "Outtakes" section, to me at least, is low value info and borderline trivia - my preference would be to remove.
Overall a strong article, and I look forward to registering a support. Ceoil 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I've fiddled with the problems you've mentioned and I hope that the article is now satisfactory. The one thing that I'm still reluctant to do is to remove the Outtakes section; However, if a considerable amount of other people complain about it then I will remove it. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of the Outtakes section, but overall: nice work, have switched to support. Ceoil 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose - There are a few things that I believed should be fixed/added before this article becomes an FA:
    • The lead should be expanded a little, can actual sales figures be included (rather then just saying there were less sales then Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie?).
    • Please reference the following statements:
      • "In January 1996 The Smashing Pumpkins released "1979", the band's most successful single and their first foray into electronic music." - mainly ref it being their most successful single.
      • "Melvoin died of an overdose, and Chamberlin was arrested and charged for possession."
      • "The song incorporated electronic elements, yet retained the hard rock edge of the band's previous material, making much of the Pumpkins' earlier statements of a change in style seemed unfounded." - without a ref this seems like OR.
      • "Corgan later remarked that the recording of the song and the experience with Rubin was unsuccessful, and it was not included on the album." -where did he remark this?! Needs a ref.
      • "Adore is drastically different in approach and style from previous Pumpkins albums, and distorted guitars were notably absent from the album."
      • The Music section has only two references. Much of it could be viewed as either POV or OR without adequate references. I'm not going to list every individual statement that needs refs here. But it is a lot.
      • "These odd venues were usually shortened sets, however, and full shows were played in more traditional venues."
      • "The Pumpkins hired a much larger number of musicians for this tour than they ever had previously."
      • "The line-up for the tour, excluding the core band members, included Kenny Aronoff on drums, Mike Garson on piano and keyboards, Stephen Hodges and Dan Morris on percussion, and Lisa Germano on violin."
      • "This large line-up enabled the band to put together new arrangements of their new songs, leaving most of them to sound quite different from their album versions; for example, the quiet acoustic song "To Sheila" was turned into a lengthy, powerful song with a full band, and the electronically driven single "Ava Adore" was turned into a distorted short rock song."
      • "It finished with merely 2 singles - a third, "Crestfallen", was planned but never released."
    • Wiki-link "July 11"
    • They donated money to charity, which charity (or charities)?
Anyway I do think those references should be added. Thanks. - Shudda talk 23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that I want to note is that this reference covers the entire paragraph involving Chamberlin and Melvoin overdosing. I'll either find citations for or remove the other statements, but that was the first thing that I wanted to say. -Brandt Luke Zorn 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reader wouldn't necessarily know that. To quote a ref multiple times use <ref name="name"/>. - Shudda talk 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the information has either been removed or cited, and I used the <ref name="blah" /> thing for the "Chamberlin gets the boot" paragraph. If you see anything else that seems odd, feel free to bring it up. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reading through have found some other things, please comment:
  • "Adore is drastically different in approach and style from previous Pumpkins albums"
  • "Piano is dominant in most songs"
  • "Apart from being the first album without Jimmy Chamberlin, Adore was the first album to not include writing contributions from Iha"
Things that I havn't struck havn't been addressed. Was also wondering, I heard, I believe it was on the documentary the band released when they disbanded D'arcy say something along the lines of "We were planning on spending 8 hours a day 5 days a week in the studio recording Adore - yeah right". She was basically complaining they spent huge hours recording, as in previous albums, when they had originally decided not to work so insanely hard on this album. Seems rather important not to be included, can someone look into this? - Shudda talk 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the documentary you've mentioned, and imdb doesn't turn up any results for a documentary. Was the documentary part you saw part of another smashing pumpkins film? I have fixed, removed, rephrased, or removed everything you've listed. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was supposed to be an Adore documentary, but it was never released. They may have shown parts of it on MTV around the time the album came out. WesleyDodds 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can find a copy of this or otherwise cite it from a reliable source, that's fine. But I don't think that it needs to be a priority to feature it, especially if we can't even confirm that any released copy of it exists right now. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's this documentary "Full circle". I can't be sure until I've seen the documentaries though, I'm looking up on youtube but may not have any luck. - Shudda talk 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On YouTube, the part of the documentary covering Adore ([30]) doesn't have any input from D'arcy at all. I may add something from the video as a reference, but it doesn't look like that's the source you were referring to. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well it's something that would well be worth finding and adding. If I do find out where it is from I will post on the articles' talk page. - Shudda talk 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A well-written article. There's not much about the lyrical themes of the album however. Did the album have a lasting legacy? CloudNine 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section on lyrics to the "Reception and aftermath" section, and there already is a section on the album's legacy in the "Reception and aftermath" section. If either needs editing, just ask. --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Those were the only things that I felt should be in the article. Changed my vote to support. CloudNine 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Lochry's Defeat

edit

Here's a battle so obscure only Ohio Valley history buffs have heard of it—and now, you have too. WikiProject Military history peer review here. Self-nom, hope you like it. —Kevin 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

What You Waiting For?

edit

The article was just at peer review, where the only comment was that the article was ready for FAC. ShadowHalo 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...2004 (see 2004 in music) - Just link it in "2004".
  • ...and topped the singles charts - Single charts.
  • ...in the United States and in Australia - Second "in" redundant.
  • "What You Waiting For?" was the first song - No need repeating the title.
  • The song discusses Stefani's lack of inspiration, fear of producing the album, and pressure from her record label. Its lyrics also introduced the... - Slight contradiction between the words "discusses" and "lyrics" — change former sentence or remove "also".
I've revised the lead. I might tweak it some more, but I think it's improved. WesleyDodds 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overall, the article is really "quoty"... Entire paragraphs of it read "XXXX mag says "Yada yada yada"". "YYYY mag says "Blah blah blah"". "ZZZZ website says "huminah huminhah huminah". If all of the quotes are removed, we are left with very little original text.
Personally I've fine with the quotes, given they are critical comments cited mainly for the opinions they express. Unless you can make general statements like "This reviewed the song badly," or "The song received four stars" (which I feel are workmanlike yet illuminate little), I feel it's best to rely on direct quotes when citing reviews because the intention of the review can be lost or corrupted in the translation to unquoted prose. WesleyDodds 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Language throughout seems informal for an encyclopedia. It needs some general help. Maybe WP:LOCE.
    • References and Original Research:
      • Full bibliographic information needed. Sheet music is published by someone. Also, if this is ONLY referenced to the sheet music, then it is Original Research, since the article provides interpretation of the music, and thus must be referenced to a reliable source that contains that interpretation, not the music itself.
happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see about taking care of the first three points, but I'm not sure what you mean about the sheet music. The sheet music was published in 2004 by Famous Music, as included in the reference. I can assure you that none of the interpretation in there comes from the sheet music. If there's something there that strikes you as OR, I can tell you where it comes from. For example, the part about the piano solo being emotional could appear OR, but the sheet music specifically states "with feeling". I'm also not sure what you mean by original text for the Chart performance section. Adding any decent amount of original text would just mean that the ends up being OR. ShadowHalo 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. It looks like all interpretation of the sheet music (rather than reporting what it plainly says) is referenced to reliable secondary sources besides the sheet music itself. But the rest of the stuff needs fixing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 04:13, April 17, 2007 (UTC).
I've put in a request at WP:LOCE, but my last request (Love. Angel. Music. Baby.) never got looked at and just got moved to a longer line once the FAC was closed, so I've asked WesleyDodds if he'd be willing to help out since I saw his good work on Smells Like Teen Spirit. ShadowHalo 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like any other cleanup project at WikiPedia, the backlog there is more than the active editors can handle. The members of that project are usually VERY good, and I find their work most beneficial, when they get to it. This is nothing to disparage the wonderful work they do, but there are only so many good copyeditors around, and they do a very thorough job, so it does take time to clear the backlog. Contacting individual editors is good too. I am eager to see this article improved. Yes, the Smells Like Teen Spirit article is one that you could do no worse than modelling... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some editing; I'll do some more tomorrow. If there's any particularly vexing items of text besides the lead, please quote the troublesome prose here and I'll take a crack at it. WesleyDodds 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article needs much copyediting. I've read it again just to make sure, and found it to be quite at the level of Smells Like Teen Spirit and Christ Illusion. Jayron, in case you're certain the article doesn't meet the current "compelling or brilliant" standards 1a requires, I urge you to provide examples taken from a random paragraph. Contacting a person unfamiliar with the text might help but isn't necessary at this point. Michaelas10 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following bits all need some copyediting to bring them up to "brilliant" standard:
  • "The song is influenced by electro and New Wave music and also introduced the Harajuku Girls, Stefani's four back-up dancers, who became a major theme throughout the album." run on sentance. These are two unrelated clauses. Split them up.
  • Soon after Stefani finished the Rock Steady Tour with her band No Doubt, she received a call from her label while asleep that Perry was in a studio ready to work with her because Perry "only [had] five days out of the whole year to work with [her]." - run on sentance.
  • Stefani later stated that she was frustrated with not being able to see her husband, Bush singer Gavin Rossdale, and felt burned out from having just finished touring, so she broke down and laid in bed crying How does this relate to the song in question? Unclear importance.
  • She decided to mention them in the line "Harajuku girls, you got the wicked style," and the concept grew into a running theme on Love. Angel. Music. Baby., which went as far as to feature one song named after and dedicated to them run on sentance.
  • In the Critical reception section, there needs to be some reworking of the organization. This is the "quotiest" part of the article. Perhaps not every single review ever done needs be quoted here. The first paragraph is positive reviewes, and the second paragraph has some positive and some negative reviews. It needs to be reorganized so that there is a logical paragraph break.
  • In February 2005, the song was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America,[28] and the song was nominated for best Best Female Pop Vocal Performance at the 2005 Grammy Awards but lost to Norah Jones' "Sunrise". run on sentance.
  • Hope that helps some. Happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure what do you mean by "run on sentence". Do you mean that there is a need in commas? If so, where exactly?
  • No, I mean it should be broken into separate sentances. Where a sentance is composed of multiple clauses, the clauses should be related. Where multiple, unrelated clauses are strung together with commas and conjunctions, it is called a "run on sentance". It hasn't anything to do with length. For example, the first one I cited could read: "The song is influenced by electro and new wave music. It also introduced the Harajuku Girls, Stefani's four back-up dancers, who became a major theme throughout the album." See, the stuff about the influences on the song is entirely unrelated to the Harajuku Girls. Thus, there is no reason that the two ideas be crammed into one sentance. That is what makes it a run on sentance. In other places where I noted run on sentances, the same problem exists.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been reverted back to its previous form with grammatical fixes, fixing your first issue.
  • The sentence in regards to Stefani's personal life is a very important background information which had influenced the writing of the song, and I strongly disagree it should excluded.
  • I do not doubt that it is related. I am unsure HOW it is related. The idea is hanging out there, unconnected to the rest of the article. We have a cause (her personal life) and an effect (the creation of the song). What we lack is a mechanism (HOW these facts of her personal life effected the creation of the song). The section needs expansion, not necessarily removal--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical reception" is heavily based on most of the featured film and album articles. Attempting to reword in encyclopedic terms one quote or another is likely to result in point of view as opposed to reader's own understanding of the review. Michaelas10 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple notes. "Stefani later stated that she was frustrated with not being able to see her husband, Bush singer Gavin Rossdale, and felt burned out from having just finished touring, so she broke down and laid in bed crying" has been changed so that it now explains the relevance to the song, mainly that Stefani didn't want to work with Perry since Perry's mainly a rock musician and not a dance musician. Also, the organization of the Critical reception section is implied by the lead sentences for the paragraphs. The first paragraph is general reviews about the songs and different publication's views; the second is about reviews that "highlighted the track as a highlight of Love. Angel. Music. Baby.", which are generally ones that gave the album a poor review but not the song (since a significant number of the reviews referred to it as the best or one of the best on the album, it seems a logical division). ShadowHalo 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language is STILL unclear here, see my notes above on mechanism. HOW did these events influence the song. I see this sentance: "Stefani later stated that she was frustrated with not being able to see her husband, Bush singer Gavin Rossdale; was scared of collaborating with new artists, especially Perry who she did not feel would be qualified to write dance music; and felt burned out from having just finished touring.[3][4] Stefani had an emotional breakdown and laid in bed crying.[3]". How does her missing Rossdale influence the song (its creation, inspiration, organization, music, etc.)? How does her tension with working with Perry influence the the song? How does her being burned out influence the song? How does her emotional breakdown influence the song? I am not saying these factors did NOT influence the song, I am saying I don't see HOW they influenced it. And on the second point, the second paragraph needs some cleanup for language and clarity. It is unclear that this (its position as the best song on the album) is the thesis of the paragraph in question, and needs to be cleaned up so it is more clear. Also, "highlighted the track as a highlight" Really? Mr. Roget may have a better way to say that... That isn't exactly brilliant prose.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a look at some other featured articles about songs/albums to see how they deal with critical reception, and from what I can tell, What You Waiting For? handles the section at least as well as they. Christ Illusion uses a very similar summary style to this one, and All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) seems far more dependent on quotes, with large sections coming from long, several-sentence excerpts. Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) and Smells Like Teen Spirit both also rely just as much on quotes; they do have more text about awards such as "top x albums" by various publications, but this is because these works have been around for fifteen years and have an additional historical context/impact. I could be off after having written most of the article, but I'd say that this article does a better job at handling quotations in the sense that its sentence structure is much more varied than many of these articles. ShadowHalo 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I am not so much having a problem with the quotes the more I read it. I guess it is more the muddy, confusing language that makes it hard to understand the whole organization of the Critical Reception section. This part really needs some copyediting (see what I said above). Even if not a single quote is removed, this section really needs some work. If the paragraph started something like "Though many reviews of the album were negative in tone, many of these same reviewers found this song to be the highlight of the album. For example, though XXXX from Slate.com said "This album sucks" they also said "The song rocks". XXXX, writing in Rolling Stone, noted that "I wouldn't wipe my ass with the liner notes of the album", but then went on to say "I still can't stop listening to this one song; if only the rest of the album was as good". Musicritic.com rated the album as a C-, but gave the song an A+. The thesis sentance of the paragraph can go a long way to framing the rest of it for clarity.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Around 4:00 UTC on Wednesday, I had a kidneystone, so I haven't been able to do work on Wikipedia and probably won't be around until this weekend at the earliest. I noticed that WesleyDodds has continued making some improvements to the article, so if he wants to keep the FAC open, it's up to him. ShadowHalo 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given the main objection held by other editors (and myself, once I started editing) has been addressed, I'm now going to vote to promote this well-referenced, comprehensive article. Great job, and take care, ShadowHalo. WesleyDodds 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The language has tightened up quite a bit. The two big issues, the critical reception section and the background and writing section have eliminated run-on sentances, and are also clearer on their thesis. All objections met. Full support now! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Smells Like Teen Spirit

edit

Self-nomination A thorough and exhaustively referenced GA on the most important rock song of the 1990s. Just finished a very helpful peer review complete with commentary by individuals responsible for several GA and FA-level song articles. The best possible sources have been used (ranging from magazines and documentaries to respected mainstream media and books on music history and theory), the text has been revised numerous times in order to create effective, engaging, and efficient prose, and all fair use media have rationales. I've worked thoroughly to make this the best possible song article, and I hope I have achieved that goal. WesleyDodds 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be two paragraphs (split at "Cobain disliked . . .") but I thought the second paragraph was too insubstantial, and it felt like too much an extension of the previous paragraph to leave alone. WesleyDodds 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Wow. This is really an outstanding article. Very comprehensive, thoroughly sourced, and absolutely compelling to read. And I consider myself not easy to please. This is great work. Mangojuicetalk 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- all the points from the peer review have been implemented and I feel this article now meets the FA criteria. Well done! Thunderwing 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Meets all FA criteria, well written, comprehensive, well referenced. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I listed some stuff at the peer review, and it's all been addressed. Overall a well-written, comprehensive article. ShadowHalo 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing...: in the section titled "Live Performance" in the first paragraph is a direct quote from an alternative performance of the song that is unreferenced. This needs fixing. Its a minor thing, but it should be fixed if this is really featureable. The unreferenced quote says there are notable differences between it and the final version. For example, the first performance started with "Come out and play, make up the rules" instead of the eventual opening of "Load up on guns, bring your friends". I do not doubt the validity of this, but when making direct quotes like this, it should be referenced... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is the performance on the With the Lights Out DVD. It's mentioned in the preceeding sentence that that's where it's featured, so an inline citation seemed unnecessary. WesleyDodds
Well, maybe the ref could be moved to the end of the paragraph since that way it is more clear it is referencing the entire paragraph, and not just the sentance it follows?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the paragraph again, the source(s) of the live performance is/are mentioned both before and after that sentence. I don't know, I think it's pretty clear in the text that there are multiple releases that contain the performance and thus verify the different lyrics, but if anyone else thinks an inline citation is needed then we can put one in. WesleyDodds 04:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "Teen Spirit" as an alternative name at the beginning of the article in order to avoid confusion. I also don't see why either name is used randomly throughout the article.
  • In the years since Nirvana's breakup, listeners and critics have continued to praise "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as one of the greatest rock songs ever - Remove "listeners" as likely original research.
  • ...would become a much-emulated template in alternative rock because of "Teen Spirit" - "Would become" > "became". Replace "Teen Spirit" with "the song" here due to the paragraph's first sentence.
  • The single was also successful in other countries around the world - "Around the world" redundant.
  • Germany's Atari Teenage Riot sampled "Smells Like Teen Spirit" in their song "Atari Teenage Riot," from their 1997 album Burn, Berlin, Burn! - Change first "their" to "the".
  • ...for the "Teen Spirit" single - "the single" redundant.
  • Avoid inserting the website name inside the external links. Michaelas10 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The occasional use of "Teen Spirit" was suggested by Ceoil in order to make some of the text flow better. It's a short-hand version of the title used often in sources; I don't think we need to necessarily single it out as an alternate name in the lead because it isn't one. It's like how we don't use Kurt Cobain's full name throughout; it just reads better.
    • Polls of the public are among those listed in the acclaim section, so yes it is accurate.
    • Fixed
    • Rephrased
    • Fixed
    • Fixed
    • I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you clarify? WesleyDodds 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest that it should clarify this name because it can be easily confuzed with the deodorant. If its not an official alternative name, you can add "also shortened to "Teen Spirit"" in the lead's first sentence. Note that this name should be used throughout the entire article, rather than shortened only at random instances. My final suggestion meant that the words "the" and "single" of the sentence are unnecessary. Michaelas10 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the point below it, about the external links. WesleyDodds 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, now that the link issue is fixed, back to the "Teen Spirit" suggestion. I'm adverse to listing an alternate title in the lead because it isn't one; it's just shorthand that many writers (and even bandmembers) have used merely for the sake of readability. Apt examples are the Star Wars prequel films; the films have very long titles, but are often shortened to Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith throughout the prose. I don't anticipate confusion with the deodorant since it's only mentioned in one paragraph in the article. A possible source of confusion (quotation marks on the product name when they don't belong; quotes should only be on a song name) has been fixed. WesleyDodds 11:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak OpposeSupport—1a. Nice work, but the article still needs a runthrough by one or two copy-editors to weed out lingering issues. Most of these might be subjective (hence the weak oppose), but they will help improve the prose to an even higher professional standard. Examples from the lead and first section:
    • "...the song is based upon a verse-chorus form where the main four-chord riff is used during the intro and chorus to create an alternating loud and quiet dynamic." Try using "on" instead of "upon", which can be considered misplaced formality.
    • Watch out for redundant use of "also".
    • "Teen Spirit" was Nirvana's first and biggest hit..." Instead of an abbreviated version of the title, you can just say "The song was..."
    • Instead of using rare words like "plaudits", try using more accessable words like "acclaim" and "praised". This will not diminish the wording. On the contrary; it will help a wider audience understand the idea.
    • "In a January 1994 Rolling Stone interview, Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain revealed that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was an attempt to write a song in the style of the Pixies; a band he greatly admired." Semicolon does not belong here; use a regular comma instead.
    • "Cobain did not begin to write "Smells Like Teen Spirit" until a few weeks before recording was due to start on their second album, Nevermind, in 1991". Awkward sentence. "Was due to start"?
    • The "Wait" in the quotation "Wait a minute..." should be lowercase. Check for similar issues throughout the article.
    • "As a result all three band members are credited as songwriters." Personally, prefer commas after "as a result", but that's just me.
    • "Prior to the start of the Nevermind recording sessions..." Try "before" instead of "prior to" — I've often been slammed for using "prior to" on Wikipedia, and I can undestand why: "Before" is straightforward and just as good.
    • "Vig suggested some minor arrangement changes to the song..." The word "some" is redundant.
  • Again, nice work; it just needs tweaking by someone unfamiliar with the text. These examples are from the lead and first section only. I'd normally help with the copy-edit, but I've been slammed with end-of-semester work. — Deckiller 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the points you listed, among others. I constantly attempt to improve the article several times a day, so I pick up on the grammar issues myself sooner or later. I'll comb through the article further soon. There are a few points that I feel aren't problems, mainly the word usage. Sometimes "the song" is used instead of the full song name, but "Teen Spirit" is useful in order to reduce the feeling of redundancy when reading several paragraphs. Using "the song" repeatedly becomes boring fast and can give the prose a stilted quality. As for "also", it's used to create a flow through the prose, connecting the previous sentence to the current one and thus (attempting) to make the reader feel like the prose has a forward momentum. Basically, it's to enhance readability and get the reader engaged in the prose. WesleyDodds 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to realize that use of additive terms is fine to a degree, but is often overdone (every sentence is in addition to the previous sentence). However, I don't see it being overused in this article; it was merely a point that I've had drilled in my head by several copy-editors. As for the first point, I agree that other variations of "the song" should be used, and I see you implemented that change in the next sentence instead. I changed "utilize" to "use"; many copy-editors dislike that word (myself included), and prefer to say "use" instead. — Deckiller 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, if you disagree with the word usage suggestions, then I won't call you out on that; they're mostly opinions, and not true issues. Anyway, what's your opinion on those latin words (prior, etc) and their relationship to formality? — Deckiller 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that one. I'm rather indifferent on that. I've never seen "prior" as a problem; it seems like a pretty natural word. I've never thought of it as "Latin". But if you really feel I should change it, I can rewrite the sentence. WesleyDodds 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

edit
Peer review

Self nomination: I have been working on this article for nearly a year now; although there have been many contributors most of the text is my own. The early versions were a bit rough, but I think that it has scrubbed up rather nicely. This is my first FAC, I will try to address any reservations as promptly as possible. This is a topic with many interesting facets which I believe will be of interest to the general reader. Gaius Cornelius 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems awkward; wondering if Kirill has suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent, a topic so specific is going to have a peculiar title; we could play around with the prepositions (e.g. "British anti-invasion preparations during World War II" or the placement "Anti-invasion preparations in Britain during World War II"), but I don't really think it makes a substantial difference. Kirill Lokshin 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do. To me, the "of" in "British anti-invasion preparations of World War II" reads oddly and awkwardly. Either of your suggested alternative is preferable IMO, though I tend to prefer the first as it starts with the key word "British". Matt 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment That lead needs to firmly establish the subject of the article from the start. At present it begins by providing the background to events. I think the lead should be more like: British anti-invasion preparations of World War II entailed a large scale programme of military and civilian mobilisation... etc/or something similar.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed: Point taken. I have updated the lead. Gaius Cornelius 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article and a pleasure to read.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well researched, well written, comprehensive and extremely well illustrated article. --Nick Dowling 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed: Reference replaced with an alternative, albeit less attractive, website. Gaius Cornelius 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a comprehensively well-written article about an interestingly quirky topic. njan 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well written and constructed article on a fascinating subject. Palmiped 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I say, this was an excellent read. You, sir, are to be commended for your work on the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I said in the GA review, a really excellent article - both interesting and informative. Bob talk 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although I'm unsure of why to place my vote given the two sub-topics. Alientraveller 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just a stylistical suggestion:"the German army would not have penetrated further than GHQ Line and would ultimately have been defeated.[124][125][126][127]" In another case there are 3 citations in a row. I think this is not nice. There are ways to combine these citations in one, in order to avoid these annoying (at least for me!) series of references.--Yannismarou 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: In the particular instance you give, the statement is likely to be seen as quite contentious and I think it is only proper that it is backed up by multiple citations. Aside from any other issue, this does have the advantage that a reader who has no intention of taking the trouble to look at the footnotes will have confidence that a possibly surprising assertion is well backed up. In this case certainly, and probably in other cases that you will find, it would not really make sense to put multiple footnotes anywhere other than together. It would be possible to combine several citations into a single footnote, but this is not standard wikipedia practice - I cannot recall seeing any example of this being done. It is to be regretted that you find the format annoying, but I think it best to leave things as they are. Gaius Cornelius 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree; I think most of the instances of multiple references (aside possibly from one I introduced!) are warranted, and I think the way this article's referenced is one of its particular strong points. njan 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having made some edits to this article in the past, I found this to be an extremely interesting read, along with its sister article on hardened defences. I agree with the above, just a couple of times facts appear to be overcited - though could you find a cite or two for the last two paragraphs in Would the preparations have been effective? Also, I think this would make an excellent overview of remaining defences? Excellent job though. RHB Talk - Edits 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have addressed the issue of multiple footnotes above and I just want to add that not all footnotes are citations. For example, some footnotes direct the reader to pictures that cannot, for one reason or another, be reproduced directly - your suggestion of the DOB database map being a case in point. I have added a reference to the map to the section Hardened field defences. Gaius Cornelius 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good article... I'm going to use it as a reference for a major history project! Booksworm Talk to me! 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Just a nit-pick, but this struck me as potentially misleading: "...similar preparations in Belgium had been easily overrun by the well-equipped German Panzer divisions in the early weeks of 1940..." My understanding was that the prepared defenses along the Meuse were overrun with the help of airborne forces, rather than Panzers. See Fort Eben-Emael. — RJH (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sorry, I don't have my books to hand, but, as I recall the spectacular German success at Fort Eben-Emael was matched by an almost equally spectacular failure trying to take airfields around The Hague, all this happening in the first 48 hours or so of the invasion. The Belgians did have a series of fortified lines where as the Dutch relied more on the defensive advantages of their canals etc. The Germans managed to caputure a significant number of Dutch bridges and overrunning the Belgian lines one after another. Meanwhile, the French and British were drawn north into Belgium in order to help, but in so doing abandoned their own prepared positions. Gaius Cornelius 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The potential use of piers

edit

Thank you for the invitation to comment.

The article is a good treatment of an important and interesting subject. The impression of a list, which has been mentioned on the article's discussion page, arises from the references and notes, which is a good fault.

The use of the term World War II still seems to me a flippant and rather derisive way of designating a serious subject but I know that others are now accustomed to it.

Subject to the following I support the nomination.

There is one gap in the article's coverage. Between 1945 and 1950, obstructions were removed from roads, bushes grew round the more out of the way works, the ironwork was removed from places like Pegwell Bay but in the late 1940s radar station towers remained and seaside piers still had gaps in them. These reflected the piers' important potential as landing places for materiel once a beachhead had been achieved.

I think that brief mention of the use of radar as defensive equipment and a link to fuller coverage of the subject would help complete this article's coverage. Similarly, the piers' significance in the question of building up support for an invading force once it had a beachhead should be covered. Those gaps were a very noticeable feature of the seaside scene so will be remembered by many. The piers, added to the list of things already mentioned by the article, draw attention to how much there was to think about in June 1940 and to how notable an achievement was the charting of a path between despair and panic.

These public realtions considerations vis à vis the British public but also in obtaining backing from potential allies and in sending messages to enemies are touched upon (in the last case more fully) but their significance is not fully drawn to readers' attention.

The article has to be long because the subject is very complex. It has been dealt with well. (RJP 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Done and done, although others may want to review and refine what I've added - it's a start at least. I've added references both to the disabling of british piers, and the Chain Home radar system (and radar in genreal) and the impact it had upon the battle of britain. njan 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of an impression of a list belongs to a much earlier incarnation of this article. I suspect that the "list" mentioned referred to the portion that has been split of into a separate article: British hardened field defences of World War II.
Thanks for the pier review, you are quite right to bring that up.
I am less sure of the value of mentioning the radar stations as there were really a part of Britain's air defences, although if that is the consensus view I will go along with it. Although all things relating to the Battle of Britain did, of course, have a vital bearing on the prospect of an invasion it has been the usual practice to treat the air and ground battles as quite separate - in all the books I have read I cannot think of a single exception. This wikipedia article simply continues continues that publishing tradition. In an article such as this one, knowing what to leave out is a serious problem - there is almost no limit to the sub-topics that one could make a case for including.
The issue of public and foreign relations is an interesting and complex one. I have my own opinions and could probably construct an argument to support them. However, that would not be encyclopdic. I have not found any suitable references for this topic.
Gaius Cornelius 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For my 2c, my initial impression is that as something that is in no small part responsible for the Invasion Preparations never having to be used in anger, the radar system is worth at least a small mention. Contextually, it seems quite important for this reason.. obviously anything more than a summary probably deserves its own article!
While I'm here, I added some information on coastal and island defences around the Firth of Forth. Wasn't sure whether I was getting too specific or not since it's local to me, but the bridge & the dockyards were vulnerable & of strategic importance. Thoughts? njan 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field forces weaknesses

edit

There's an important area mostly missing from the article about the forces the British Army would have had to defend the UK- the weak forces brought back from Dunkirk, shortages of equipment (especially artillery and tanks), weak reforming divisions etc. I inserted something about VII Corps some time ago but there's very little more. Buckshot06 07:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Thomas Crisp

edit

A British First World War VC recipient. I put in a lot of work on this a couple of months ago and since then it has passed GA and successfully gone through the Military History Wikiproject Peer Review and A-Class Review. --Jackyd101 18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for your help on this earlier. Nice work on Farrow, I saw that obit in the Telegraph too.--Jackyd101 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Holden VE Commodore

edit

former fac

After extensive editing, tweaking and inclusion of additional information I have decided to re-nominate this article for FAC. This current GA article follows all the FA criteria and I feel that the article is worthy of that status. OSX 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little cleanup on the article already (gratuitous over-linking of years, odd missing nbsp;'s, etc).
Other reviewers please note: The article is written in Australian English.
My remaining concerns are:
  • The first thing that strikes me upon reading this article is that it is unnecessarily wordy. For example, in the intro: Considerable concern and question has also been put forward regarding the absence of air conditioning on the base model. This coupled with the inclusion of a space-saver spare tyre has seen the car criticised over its effectiveness in remote outback regions. - this could mose succinctly say There has been criticism over the base model's lack of air conditioning and (in outback regions) over the use of a space saver tyre....OK my version could use some improvement too - I'm no English major. But in general, try to follow the advice in User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating redundancy and definitely do the exercises in here and apply what you learn to every sentence of the article.
  • Someone is going to criticise you on the number of 'fair use' images (there are four in the article right now) - so I guess that might as well be me. I can see that they have been carefully justified and such - but it is a lot for an FA. Could you really not get a closeup of the car's badge as a free image? Does a CAD diagram of the functional interior really do something that a photo of the actual interior could not achieve? When you look at each of these four photos with that critical eye, I think some of them could easily be replaced. The picture of the artist's rendering and the guy working on the clay model are great though so please don't read my comments as "you must get rid of all fair use images" - that is most definitely not what I'm saying.
  • Translation of units into imperial units starts out OK at the top of the article - but fatigue evidently settled in later on so things like the fuel economy figures are only in metric units. American readers have no feel at all for liters-per-100km numbers - they need to see miles-per-US-gallon. Yes, it's a pain - but for an FA, it's a "must have" thing. So go through and provide conversions of ALL of your units.
  • The density of wikilinks drops as you go down the article - and I start finding more and more unlinked terms as you read through the article. If nobody else gets there first, I'll try and fix some of them when I have time.
  • I would have liked to see some books in the list of references. I understand that this is a fairly recent car and it's quite possible that no books have been written that say much about it yet - but an over-reliance on web-site references is often considered a 'red flag' by FAC reviewers.
SteveBaker 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I have gone over the whole article and removed any cases of redundancy words that I could find, as well as rewording several sentences throughout the article. I have also removed the fair-use image of the transmission CAD rendering, but I feel that the image of the V-Series logo can remain as it is classified under the logo tag. Unit conversions have also been included, although at the expense of style.
One of the most difficult tasks I found was the inclusion of more wikilinks. I am not overly keen on over-linking, nor I am a fan of linking terms multiple times. I have included many more links throughout the article, but I don't see the need for any more. Finally in response to your concern over the lack of book references, I am not aware of any book(s) published about the car. Instead a journal dealing exclusively with the car is cited throughout heavily throughout the article. The journal was also used as the basis for much of the article's content, with other sources being used to back up claims and to provide further information. OSX 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed three of my complaints (see strikeouts above) - but there are still fair use images that don't need to be there - and the article is still unnecessarily wordy - so I won't switch to a 'support' right now. Sorry. SteveBaker 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The references now include information regarding the author and publication date. Although a small number of the references did not contain this information, the majority did. OSX 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeReluctant neutral - 1a. There's a certain looseness of expression that detracts from the authority our readers expect in FAs. A cursory look at just the lead yielded a density of problems that suggests that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required:
    • "With Opel deciding to discontinue the Opel Omega in 2003, Holden had no choice but to go with a clean-sheet approach." The first clause is ungrammatical. Try "Because Opel had decided ..."; "to go with" is too informal for this register. What is a "clean-sheet approach"? We're not writing to experts.
  • "Engines and transmissions are for the most part carry-overs from the previous VZ model, with the exception of a new 6-speed automatic transmission offered as an option on selected trim levels." Single-sentence paragraph is a little disjointed in the lead. Would be nice to orient us properly at the start: "The engines and transmissions of the VE are, for the most part, carry-overs ...". Consider spelling out "six", since it's a single-digit number.
  • "Prior to the release ..." - won't plain "Before" do?
  • "Holden will instead manufacture two generations of Commodores alongside one another" - wouldn't it be less clumsy to say: "Holden will instead manufacture two parallel generations of Commodores"? Tony 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Your suggested changes to the article have now been implemented, as well as a couple of others that I spotted. I will do my best over the coming days to find more examples. OSX 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can see a few errors that need sorted:

  • "Fuel economy figures for the base 180 kilowatt (241 hp) variants show a rather small 0.1 L/100 km (2352 mpg U.S.) decrease over the previous generation of Alloytec engines". (!)
  • "Build quality and refinement played a substantial role in the development of the VE model. The interior quality, when compared to previous generations has benefited dramatically from this additional emphasis." Given the current FAC fashion for demanding citations for everything, I'd imagine a claim like this, one of the "most contentious" in the article (i.e. Holden haters will deny it's true), should be referenced. A couple of reviews from major magazines which mention the improvement is all that's needed.
  • "Smaller panel gaps are just some of the ways that Holden have developed the VE to pitch it against the European competitors." Smaller panel gaps are just one of the ways.
  • "Bosch Electronic Stability Program (ESP®) 8.0 system" Argh. Kill that little registered trademark sign please, as per WP:MOSTM. --DeLarge 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not done. The most important point is the first one, where there's a blatant arithmetic error of gigantic proportions. I presume you used some kind of automated script to do the calculation and didn't copyedit afterwards? I've put it in bold text.
Looking more closely at the article (last night's comments were after a cursory look), I can see other issues, mostly to do with criteria 1...
  • "History of development" starts with the laying down of a clean sheet design, and in the first paragraph repeats what the lead has mentioned, that the car is Holden's first "all-new" Commodore. So far so good. But then the second paragraph suddenly switches back to before the decision. Should they develop a new car or use an existing GM platform? We already know, you just told us what they decided.
  • The last paragraph of this section, which started in 2000, describes how by 2003 Holden were working on quality issues like panel gaps. But then we go to "Design", which jumps back to 1999, and again brings up the "are we doing an all-new car" dilemma for a third time. And then in the next section, "Innovations", we're back to describing the panel gaps all over again. i think these two sections need rewritten, and possibly re-ordered.
  • The description of the car as "all-new", which is a common theme in the article, conflicts with the lead's comment that the engines/transmissions (which aren't even of Australian origin) are carryovers. This might be a language issue, though; I don't know what "all-new" means down under.
  • "The baseline Omega is priced from AU$34,490, a mere AU$800 over its predecessor’s entry-level equivalent." $800 is a 2.3% increase, more than the Australian inflation rate. I've seen cars introduced which were cheaper than their predecessors (e.g. the latest Honda Civic, in the UK at least), so "mere" seems a bit of a subjective call. --DeLarge 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a thorough copyedit of the entire article fixing up the errors you have pointed out. Firstly some of the unit conversion websites say that 0.1 L/100 km ≈ 2352 mpg, while other say that it ≈ 23.52 mpg. I still have my doubts over the accuracy of this, but of the five different conversion methods used; all gave one of those two results. So if someone else could help me out in that regard that would be great.
I have also reorganised the structure of the History of development, Design and Innovations sections so the contents appear in chronological order. There is one exception to this being under the Design heading where it jumps back to 1999, but the content clearly belongs under that section rather than History of development.
The term all-new has appeared in many publications regarding the vehicle, despite the fact that the engines/transmissions are mainly carryovers. I have removed the word in one two situations in the article but I am unsure about the two remaining occurrences. This may be just a language issue.
The section regarding the Commodore Omega has also been combined into one, and at the same time eliminating the price of the vehicle. Since starting price for the car is already mentioned in the begging of the article I decided that there is no need to repeat it twice. OSX 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the History of development section has yet another copyedit, this time ALL of the contents appear in chronological order. This involved a major re-write of the vast majority of the article, and has extended far enough to apply to virtually the entire article. OSX 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to put these big green ticks and "Done" all over the place, but I still find the prose subprofessional in most places, whereas you've just treated the specific instances I raised above. Here are problems from a sample paragraph I've taken at random from the middle of the article:
    • "... limit the room needed to absorb the energy in the event of an accident. Negotiation between the departments eventually resulted in moving some of the engine components, such as the battery into the boot freeing up valuable front-end space."—spot the triple redunancy. Which "departments" are these? (No prior mention.) The phrasal structure is awkward and needs, at the least, more commas; perhaps "resulted in the moving of some of the engine components—such as the battery—into the boot, thus freeing up valuable front-end space." You can probably remove "eventually".
    • " but the decision to introduce the engine earlier gave Holden a chance to iron out any faults and issues that may arise with the new engine"—Isn't this in the past? "may have arisen"? "Resolve" more fitting than "iron out" in this register. Remove "any".
    • "This decision proved successful, with the new Commodore receiving an updated version of the engine giving 5–7 kilowatts (7–9 hp) more power,...". A successful decision is not quite idiomatic/logical. The decision led to success; perhaps the decision was wise or fortuitious or correct. "With" is a poor connector and involves poor grammar here (strictly, "the new Commodore's receiving", which is a little outdated, so reword the whole clause). Comma after "giving" would ease the readers' task.
    • Here's a "with" connector again: "Another issue of contention was engine packaging, with Holden's designers wanting the engine positioned well behind the front axle to create short overhangs and an overall sportier appearance." Why not simplify: "Another contentious issue was engine packaging: Holden's designers wanted the engine positioned well behind the front axle to create short overhangs and an overall sportier appearance....".

If all other issues have been resolved, you might tackle 1a by asking the League of Copyeditors to run over the whole text. It's not there yet, and unfamiliar, fresh eyes are needed. Tony 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment—"the prose is brilliant", says the previous reviewer. Please be careful bandying about such extravagent praise. Why can my eyes randomly fall on problems in the prose if it's "brilliant"? For example:
    • "The Omega comes standard with the entry-level V6 engine and persists with the venerable four-speed automatic transmission."—Persists (which carries a pejorative sense) is decidely odd. Do you mean "retains"?
    • "The dual-fuel option is available on the Commodore Omega, Berlina and the VZ Executive station wagon while it is still available." Hello?
    • "inches" without metric equivalent. Surely it's metric by now, after 35 years? Why cite US measurements at all?
    • An awful lot of "with"s used as lazy connectives, like "than the one used in the outgoing VZ Commodore, with engine noise reduced via fitment of new timing chains among other modifications." What is "fitment". A comma would be nice (although not mandatory) after "chains".

Everywhere I look, things need to be done. Sorry to harp on. Tony 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the entire prose of the article has been thoroughly revisited, hopefully reducing the number of issues you have with it. Although I must object to your issues regarding inches without metric equivalents, as the only cases where this is evident is in parts regarding the diameter of the wheels (i.e. 16 inch wheels). It would sound quite odd in my opinion if it was said that the car came with 40.5 centimetre diameter wheels. In any Australian, British or any other motoring magazine in fact, wheels are always measured in inches – enough said./ Cheers OSX 10:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The metric/non-metric issue isn't really a matter of debate - it's what we do. People in some parts of the world have no 'feel' for how big an inch is - it's a matter of courtesy to provide metric equivalents...and it's a n absolute requirement for an FA quality article. If you don't fix it - you won't make FA - period. SteveBaker 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think having the metric equivalents next to "x-inch" wheel diameter looks a bit odd. The FA-status Mini article uses inches without metric equivalents when referring to wheel diameter. It's just a commonly accepted measurement standard for cars around the world. It's used in a range of car advertisements so I'm sure the general public is familiar with the terms. Besides, it is more commonly used for comparative purposes rather than to give an idea of how large the wheel actually is (i.e: this 17-inch alloy wheel fitted to car X is larger than this 16-inch wheel fitted to car Y). But if the metric equivalents have to be included, then so be it I guess. VectorD 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Battleship

edit

Self-nomination. A group of editors, myself included, have worked this article into a thorough, precise and informative account of one of the most important weapons of all time. The article has recently passed a thorough A-class review from WP:MILHIST, as well as detailed feedback from its Good Article nomination. It is a fairly long article with a prose length of 67k, but I think this is justifiable given that it covers hundreds of years of history and every major seafaring nation. The Land 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Overwhelming ToC -- needs to be compacted
  1. Pro western biased, modern-day biased -- battleships of the ancient world ignored/not mentioned
  2. 67k not justified. Has immense scope for precis writing
    • The article has already been split twice during the recent development, with a great deal of material moved to ship of the line and ironclad warship. The most recent discussion about further splitting was at the A-class review: you will see there is no consensus to further split the article (there is also no consensus to split aircraft carrier, an article where the same sort of considerations apply). Many sections are already precis. 67k is long, but the scope of the article justifies it. The Land 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. USA --> United States
  4. Parts of a battleship?
    • Most other articles about types of ship don't go into details about their naval architecture. I think the article covers the important bits of battleship in the discussion of their development and I'm concerned that a 'parts of the battleship' section might be duplicative or, given the changes over time, confusing. The Land 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Types of battleships?
  6. The Falklands War, a major recent war seems to be missed
  7. ancient and modern day naval powers missing
  8. Why are the Iowa class ships given so much prominence?
  9. Battleship strategies (subs vs aircraft carriers vs battleship) hardly mentioned.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Oxford English Dictionary says the word 'battleship' derives from 1794. What battleships of the ancient world are you thinking of? Furthermore, the use of battleships by Japan, Turkey and Russia is well covered and the A-class reviewers commented positively on the global outlook of the article.
  • Types of battleship: the article goes into some detail about the evolution of battleships: pre-Dreadnought, Dreadnought, more modern types. We have covered most sub-descriptions of 'battleship', of which there are not many. What in particular do you mean?
  • No battleships were involved in the Falklands War.
  • I believe the article mentions every nation which has owned a battleship. Which do you think are missing?
  • Iowa class ships were the only type of battleship in use for roughly 50 years. This inevitably means that they will crop up a fair amount.
  • There is a section on strategy, and a continuous theme of the article is the tension between battleships and submarines and aircraft. Please be more specific. The Land 09:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battleships are very large, heavily-armored warships with a main battery consisting of the largest caliber of guns. -- can this definition not be applied to the Turtle ships? which had cannons, were heavily amoured, and supposedly iron-clad?
  • It would be OR to describe them as 'battleships'. This article is about ships which have been classified or described as battleships. Turtle ships never have been. The lead section does not describe every attribute of battleships - nor should it try to - but turtle ships are a) totally unrelated to battleships in terms of their evolution and b) markedly different in terms of their attributes, lacking iron/steel construction, engines, propellors. They have no place whatsoever in this article. Their place has extensively been discussed at Talk:Ironclad warship where there is currently something like a consensus. The Land 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opening definition is indeed misleading. Pre-dreadnought battleships were NOT larger than ocean cruisers of that time. Dreadnoughts were smaller than battlecruisers (within the same generation). BTW, the "15000-17000 tons" for pre-dreadnoughts needs more specification. Standard displacement of typical 1st class Brit is less than 15000 (Canopus 13200, Majestic 14600 etc). NVO 23:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence will necessarily be an abstraction. The first sentence claims battleships were 'very large' not 'the largest', and while one can find exceptions it is true to a first approximation. However, I take on board your point and will clear that up in the pre-Dreadnought section. The 15,000 to 17,000 figure is Stoll's and not mine - sadly he doesn't make it clear that it is laden displacement, though Sondhaus accords with your figures. Not sure what to do about that. The Land 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would one differentiate a battleship from a cruiser/destroyer and other types of warships? Needs to be mentioned. For example this suggests that the INS '"Rajput is a battleship, but then again the WP article INS Rajput (D51) mentions it as a destroyer

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rajput is not a battleship because she lacks armour or large gun armament. I am not sure there is a better way of putting it. The distinction between battleship and cruiser/destroyer on this basis is very clear at any point in time. The Land 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INS Rajput is clearly a guided missile destroyer. I think the problem here is a confusion with the terminology. Instead of 'warship', 'battleship' has been used. This was explained quite good in the trivia section that was removed earlier. Especially how media sometimes confuses terminology and how some sci-fi series has added to this confusion by claiming all ships being 'battleships'.--MoRsE 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment
  • Length: this can be summarised further: eg:The first example of the power of naval aviation was the British air attack on the Italian naval base at Taranto that took place on the night of November 11 — November 12, 1940. The Royal Navy launched the first all-aircraft naval attack in history, flying a small number of aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea and attacking the Italian fleet at Taranto. -- nothing to do with the core topic
Changed that and did some other trimming. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to units and metric equivalents, I am working on this but where a measurement repeats in a section might only give the full unit and equivalent measure the first time a value occurs. Where "12 in gun" occurs ever sentence, expanding it to "12 inch (305 millimetre gun" as MoS suggests woudl very much hinder readability! The Land 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first instance was what I was looking for. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • =Battleships in strategy and doctrine= -- no citations
There are now. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The USMC?
  • 2nd level sections needs to go. 4.2.x. 8.1 is also bad style.
  • =Dreadnoughts in the rest of the world= -- rest of the world is POV suggest it be changed to "...other countries"
Done. The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is dreadnought in bold? so too Italy, Argentina and Chile?
Dreadnought in bold where? Re the countries: I have just deleted section headings for most of these countries, which served to emphasise them, so I wanted another way to emphasise them. While italics are normal for emphasis this article has a lot of ship names, which are all italicised. Using italics to emphasise the country names would run the risk of confusing people who assume the countries are ships. The Land 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re to Turtle ships: Turtle ships are not battleships, but the history section needs to mention how similar ships (by defination) were in existence. Just like Columbus 'discovered' America, it does not mean that America was uninhabited or undiscovered by humans at that time.
I strongly disagree. There are no sources to suggest the turtle ship is anything to do with the battleship. To say it is is original research. The Land 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weasel terms: A far-sighted yet combative man, it is often held -- according to who?
Am sure a source could be found but it's somewhat off-topic so I've snipped it... didn't like that paragraph anyway tbh. The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More review later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment
  • Support I support this with qualification:
its a staggeringly large topic and I am not sure that ship of the line shouldn't be a very short paragraph with the link to a expanded article as it is now. The ships of the line gave nothing but the concept of a large battleline to be transfered over to a battleship.
Inline citation should be improved entire sections are devoid of such.

Other than that I find it a smooth read (something we overlook too often here) well thought out and binds well together into an overall subject. Tirronan 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've cut down the section on ships of the line. And there are now more inline cites in the strategy & doctrine section. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I could do with a few more citations for the article, but overall it looks good and it read well. My only major gripe was the small picture size; having to zoom every picture up to see the guns and such is really annoying. On a more humous note, it would seem that battleship's FAC nom and my FARC request for Iowa class battleship were requested at almost the exact same time. Hows that for odd? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the citations aren't properly formatted. You should use the cite web or cite news template instead of just listing a web address. I'm slowly going through the article, but it seems decent.-BillDeanCarter 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think they all now have author/publisher information and retrieval dates. The Land
  • Comments as I go... whew this is obviously a long and complicated article.
    • Is there any reason for using long dashes twice in the opening paragraphs? This seemed really awkward to me... wouldn't normal hyphens do, or no hyphens at all? Sorry if this has already been belabored over.
No, I think I just got overthusiastic about replacing hyphens with longer dashes.... think I've sorted it out now. The Land 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro is excellent otherwise. Perhaps a model intro, even. This awkward first paragraph though... it took my attention away from the content and made me think about the style too much.
    • "the first screw battleship ever" What is a screw battleship? Important in context but unfamiliar to many readers, should have a very brief definition, especially as there's no article to read to easily find out what the term means. "capital ship" is another term used several times in important context but never defined. But the meaning is more obvious with that one.
Thanks for that. That section has recently been trimmed and the context was, in the previous version, clear. I've removed the screw point because we're now not dealing with that particular subtelty in this article. (If you're interested, the relevant material is now at ship of the line and ironclad warship.). The Land 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "out to be one of the most unusual, if not outright bad, designs ever built" I assume the source means "bad battleship designs", not just bad designs in general? Should be clarified though.
    • Again with the hyphens and dashes... why is it "all-big-gun" one paragraph and 'all–big–gun" the next? Then it becomes "'ll–big–gun concept" a paragraph later.
Same as above. The Land 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "if no negotiated solution could be found" kind of comes out of the blue, showing a lack of political context in this article with respect to the pre-WW1 arms race. Thus far the article had successfully avoided having to cover any of the political conflicts that lead to the development of battleships, but the language here kind of begs the question of what is meant by a "negotiated solution" and what conflict was it in response to anyway? Is there any easy way to address this? Even a mention of the applicable article on the early 1900s arms race would be good. There's something about covering the arms race in such detail without even hinting at why there was one rubs me the wrong way. Granted this is an article on battleships, but they were built for reasons much more intricate than countries wanting big ships, and these reasons are important to mention. This is a complicated request, I'm not asking people to bend over backwards here... just wondering what people think. It eventually does cover this a bit better, so I suspect only a moderate tweak is needed earlier on, such as a sentence that begins, "An arms race began because of..." The rest of the article does what looks to be a fine job of covering political concerns without lingering on them.
Hope I've addressed this with this edit. The Land 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Land reverted my addition of the years for the Age of Sail, but I just copied the years given in the WP article. Some years for this time frame should be given in the battleship article.
I was pondering this. I can see why you added the years, but the age of sail] article gives little support to them and they're basically arbitrary; furthermore the ship-of-the-line wasn't the dominant ship for the whole period specified (line of battle not invented until 1640s). So arguably we shouldn't use 'age of sail' at all. I was just stuck for an alternative. The Land 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't "Jeune Ecole school of thought" redundant? Ecole is french for school.
Oui, mais c'est le Wikipedia anglais. Les rosbifs ne comprend tout les mots francais. The Land 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last two paragraphs under "Value for Money" are almost totally uncited. These are important, interpretative paragraphs, and I don't doubt they're backed up by sources though.
    • I will probably give a weak support if my above concerns are addressed or at least replied to. My main concern after them is that there are too many short, 2-3 sentence paragraphs, particularly early on... giving the body of this article a choppy feel to it. E.g. sections like "The Pre-Dreadnought" Some sections are brilliant, but the article as a whole is still a bit uneven. --W.marsh 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the photos of Jackie Fisher and Vittorio Cuniberti are far too large. — BillC talk 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no size defined for them (any more): this accords with the Manual of Style, but does mean that if you have your image width preference set to 300px or so that portrait photos display very large. Can't see a way round it, as redefining them with fixed width would violate the MoS (and result in other people complaining ;-) ). The Land 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks better now, except the lack of citations under the second half of "Value for Money". It would be nice to know where these arguments are from, for further reading if nothing else. It's pedantic though, so count me as a support. --W.marsh 01:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll be glad to support this concise and well-balanced presentation of a huge amount of information, once some details have been taken care of:
  1. Please don't leave the delimitation of the subject uncertain. Above, Nichalp quotes the opening sentence: "Battleships are very large, heavily-armored warships with a main battery consisting of the largest caliber of guns," and proposes that the Turtle ships fit it. It seems to me a lapse of logic to protest that yes, they may fit it, but the article is about "ships which have been classified or described as battleships". See, that wasn't clear from reading the article. If that's the definition of the subject, then the reader should be told so, immediately, rather than be confusingly told that the definition of the subject is a matter of size, armor, and guns.
    I think this is quite a difficult point. A moon is like a planet, but isn't. There is a clear definition of what a planet is laid down by an authoritative body. By contrast there is no clear definition of what a battleship is. One cannot list all the planets in existence because we have no knowledge of many places that there might be planets. By contrast, one can list all the battleships that have ever been in existence, as defined (for instance) by the attitudes of particular navies or authoritative reference works. It is these ships that the article is about.
    We cannot include the turtle ship because calling it a 'battleship' is OR. There is an argument, though not a settled one, that in a coincidental but nonetheless important manner it shared characteristics of the ironclad warship, so it may deserve a mention in that article.
    Given the vast range of vessels which the term describes according to its OED definition, it is very difficult to pick a succint one-line definition (or, far more accurately, description). As NVO points out above, anyone who relies on the first sentence as a comprehensive definition of a battleship will find it includes battlecruisers (from 1907 to the 1940s) and first-class armoured cruisers (in the late 19h century). Read in a technical sense it also excludes all ships-of-the-line (no armour), broadside ironclad frigates (no main battery), and indeed previous generations of modern battleships (if a battleship has 16in guns and someone builds one with 18in guns it no longer carries 'the largest calibre'). To incorporate all of this subtlety into one short sentence is asking too much of the English language.
    Exactly how we resolve this I don't know. Once one regards the opening sentence as a description not a definition, and reads it in conjunction with the following paragraph, the problem goes away. Surely that is enough? The Land 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are far too many very short paragraphs and also short sections. Or there were, I've done a merge operation, but please check if you think it appropriate. You may want to do it differently, or at least want to re-cast some "topic sentences" (=first sentence of a paragraph), as some of them now no longer refer to all of the content of the paragraph. I do think a good deal of merging was necessary, but I was too ignorant to fix the consequences in some cases. (In other words, The Land, please fix the mess I've made... sorry.) Also I had to give up on simply merging pargraphs in the "dreadnoughts in other countries" section; it needs som more radical reconstructuring to make shorter 'graphs possible, I think.
  3. POV alert: the narrative comes from a certain point of view in the World War II section. This is sometimes subtle—a general impression that the narrator is speaking from British or American soil—but sometimes obvious, as in the use of praisewords like "gamely" or "brave". (Guess which nationalities are capable of such qualities and attitudes? The Japanese? Wrong.) Finns seem like nicer people than Germans, too.
    I've rephrased the most egregious paragraph here- am just about to have a read for subtle pro-English bias. Bit surprised that no-one has pointed out that the page plays Rule Britannia if you read it for long enough ;) The Land 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Minor detail: I've done some copyediting and proofreading (and restored many hyphens...) but I wasn't able to supply the missing Japanese ship here: "including HMS Victory, Warrior, the Japanese the Swedish Vasa..." What ship was this? Bishonen | talk 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This was the Mikasa - I added it. --MoRsE 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no as the USS Constitution is a frigate, i.e. neither a ship-of-the-line, nor a battleship.--MoRsE 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you may want to make a note of that in the notes section; if the thoughts occured to me, it has probably occured to others as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although my views can be considered somewhat biased due to my involvement in the rewriting of the article I must say that I am very pleased with the current version. Most of the concerns that have been raised above have been addressed and it feels like that it is mostly the fine-tuning (minor spelling errors, minor rewording etc) that is left. I personally took care of the two last red links that I found there. --MoRsE 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 60KB of readable prose surpasses WP:LENGTH; summary style should be employed to bring the prose to within guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back for a second look; continued oppose, mostly 1c, uncited, and 2—new list:
      • Multiple instances of failure to conform with WP:MSH—pls fix section headings.
      • Extensive uncited text; in the absence of citations, sections like "Value for money" and "Tactics" appear as opinion or original research.
Yep, some paragraphs lack inline citation, largely because they draw together material that has already been presented and where the same or a very similar statement has already been cited. The uncited paragraph in tactics basically repeats material from the section on WWI. I can whack in a few more 'ref = Kennedy' and 'ref = Keegan' if you want but not for a while. The Land 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed The Land 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it that the featured article B movie gets a pass on this criteria? B movie comes in at 95 kilobytes long and Battleship comes in at a not that much smaller 86 kilobytes long. What are the strategies for fixing the Battleship article without losing the information? Obviously move the information to other articles, but how do you organize those other articles so that the information on battleships is at your fingertips?-BillDeanCarter 00:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly didn't get a pass from me, nor quite a few others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying 60k 'surpasses' WP:LENGTH is untrue. The precise words are: "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". I think this is such a broad topic. The guideline also says: "Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.". This article has already twice forked material away (to ship of the line and ironclad warship and there is no consensus for further splits. Regards, The Land 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that a large part of this comes from the extensive notes and references section (almost 10 kilobytes)--MoRsE 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B Movie recently underwent Featured article review due to its size, and Sandy said 60KB of readable prose (not including references). M3tal H3ad 11:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, B Movie remains an FA at 67k of readable prose.Indo-Greek Kingdom is 91k of readable prose and is featured. There is no guideline that says "an article cannot be featured if it is above X length" and there is no problem giving large subjects large articles. The Land 12:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the B Movie FA Review is actually quite instructive. It's clear that SandyGeorgia has a fairly narrow interpretation of the article length guideline, but it's equally clear that the consensus is not to prevent something being an FA on this basis alone. The Land 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think, in the light of Sandy's comment, that the size should be reduced - probably by at least 10 Kb. This should be done by weeding out redundant wording and by rationalising larger portions of text. In particular, there are problems in the prose. Here are random examples from the lead that indicate the need for a thorough run-through by a copy-editor who's relatively unfamiliar with the text. Don't just fix these examples.
Well, let's hope there's such a copy-editor who's going to come along and do so (and for all the other FAs where a near-identical comment has been left by this user). The Land 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "better-armed and better-armored than cruisers and destroyers" - make it "better armed and armored than cruisers and destroyers".
    • "Battleships have evolved a great deal over time" - spot the two redundant words.
    • "to describe a developed type of ironclad warship" - Unsure why "developed" is included.
    • "and by the 1890s design had become relatively standard on what is now known as the pre–Dreadnought battleship." Clumsy clause; I'd be expecting something like "and by the 1890s, the design of ... had been standardised ...".
    • "In 1905 HMS Dreadnought heralded a revolution in battleship design, and for many years modern battleships were referred to as dreadnoughts." You need to add "since that time,".
    • "In 1905 HMS Dreadnought heralded a revolution in battleship design, and for many years modern battleships were referred to as dreadnoughts." But they no longer do? This brings up a larger problem in the lead: it appears to be a potted history, whereas many readers will expect more prominent reference to battleships as they are now.
Battleships 'as they are now' means trivia about museum ships. The article treats battleships as history, because they are history. The Land 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The global arms race in battleship construction in the early 1900s was a significant factor in the origins of the First World War, which saw a clash of huge battlefleets at the Battle of Jutland." Only in the origins of the war, and not its conduct/outcome?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) Bishonen | talk 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is an arguable point - one could write a Ph.D. on whether battleships were more important in causing WWI or concluding it. The Land 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Halo 2

edit

Didn't get a thorough consensus last time I nominated it; I addressed people's concerns, but they didn't return and pass judgement... previous FAC below. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→previous FAC here.
  • Support - looks nice, lots of work done. SamBrozden 12:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article is out of date, especially the legacy section (Which is a misnomer anyway). It needs to be updated to include the PC version. 05 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll look. Unfortunately those all come from compressed cinematics from hbo, I had to clean it up some but the black shows most artifacts. I'll see if there's another one, unfortunately thats the only time you see the two together. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this means... what? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dåvid Fuchs's reply was in response to History Fan's original comment, "Too many video games." There are several printed sources — for example, the game manuals, which could be considered printed, and GamePro, a magazine. S.D. 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Regardless, it's not an actionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a great article - but the subject matter is tired. Theres a huge amount of video-game articles out there. Wow, YAVGA (Yet Another Video Game Article). How about putting all that work into a subject of importance? Nice article, too bad it had to be about a video game. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can't seriously see how you can possibly justify opposing a well-written article just because its about a subject you don't find interesting... so much for 'don't be a dick'... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start name calling. I'm trying to give you an objective opinion of the article. It's well done, except for the subject matter (it also has no printed citations, but there's no need to get into that) The subject matter is very important. You could write the best Article in the world about pocket lint, with great formatting and lot's of pictures, and it's still just an article about pocket lint. I mean no offense. It's a great article, but so are a bazillion others about video games.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This opposition, as with the one above, are not legitimate complaints and are therefore unactionable. Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one. Qjuad 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unactionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I still oppose on the grounds that there is not even a single printed citation or source. It's all websites, not a single ISBN in the bunch. Websites are at best secondary sources, and at worse not to be counted as sources at all. Almost everything is from a single website (bungie.net). The dates are a mess too. A lot of dates are missing. Also, in many spots the dialogue shifts from present tense to past tense uneccessarily, and that makes it difficult to read. Plus, it's full of DEAD LINKS! Fix that stuff, and I'll change my vote. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source is not necessarily inferior. It is simply a source that is based on primary or other secondary sources. And I fail to see how the official website of the company that made the game fails to qualify as a primary source, given their closeness to the subject at hand.--Rmky87 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Websites are treated as sources on almost every single featured Wikipedia article. There is nothing anything inherently inferior about reliable online material compared against printed material; featured video game articles such as Half-Life 2 also have only two, maybe three printed sources. The same also goes for many featured articles in the media/computer/video game categories where the most abundant sources of information will be found online. Qjuad 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bungie.net is the official website of the company who makes Halo 2. It is not an indenpendent source of information, so you should be careful what you reference from them. Awadewit 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with using only web-sources, easiest to obtain and you can verify what is cited by looking at the source... M3tal H3ad 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — issue over print citations is obsolete. Refs formatting and copy-edit are needed, however. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great article — as igordebraga said, it's as good as, if not better than, Halo: Combat Evolved. One comment: I suggest finding a source for the following line, "The game's Campaign mode has received some criticism, from the lack of Earth-based missions, to dissatisfaction with the abrupt, cliffhanger ending that sets up the sequel, Halo 3." May I remind History Fan and Sue Rangell that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." Cheers, S.D. 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-written, informative, thorough, and sourced. Please fix the citation needed tag under "Reception" though. Thanks. -Bluedog423Talk 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citation has been added. Cheers, S.D. 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose right now. A few things that need checked out:
  • Image:Halo02.jpg looks like it should be fair use, not CC.
  • Dates are needed for many of the references (for example, the GameSpot review ref should have a date parameter in the form of date=[[YEAR-MM-DD]])
  • The article still has some {{fact}} tags.
  • Should "superbouncing" and "superjumping" be capitalized? I don't think so...
  • The "Xbox Live updates" section needs wikified and more inline citations. --- RockMFR 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed the new image added, and I'm in the process of adding dates when they actually give them to me. Fixed the fact thing, I swear I must have had that sourced before, it got moved or something... capitalizations has been fixed, and I'll see about adding more inline citations to that section later. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to fix — the paragraph beginning with "In June 2006, an additional online matchmaking..." is rather poorly written — I can't really even understand what it is trying to say. --- RockMFR 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fixed. Since no one outside of Halo 2 multi knows what those playlists mean, I just folded the lead sentence into the last paragraph, reworded it, and deleted the rest. Now, for those inline citations... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Xbox Live updates section has been improved with cleanup and more citations and links. Cheers, S.D. 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't anymore. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose — several issues:
  • References — need proper formatting. For example, the game manuals do not had ID numbers and so on. See Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy VIII for manual citations. Try to fill out what you can on Template:Cite web.
  • Prose — needs a copy-edit. Someone mentioned tense problems above, and I see a few bulleted lists that need proper formatting or conversion to paragraph form. Other examples:
"Halo 2 features over 14 different human and alien weapons, many new to the series." — redundant word (different), "over" should be "more than", etc
"A common complaint regarding Halo 2's online play has been the widespread cheating, which began occurringstarted almost immediately after the game's release."
Captions have excessive periods.
Otherwise, it looks good. — Deckiller 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Support[reply]
Can you point me to the manual citing? I looked through their citations, and I can't find for the life of me where the manuals are cited. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example: (1999) in Square Electronic Arts: Final Fantasy VIII North American instruction manual (in English). Square Electronic Arts, 20, 24, 36. SLUS-00892GH. — Deckiller 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I filled it in for both manuals... I'll check and make sure I've got cite web format for everything (thought I did, but whatever...) Fixed your obvious suggestions, I'll do a thorough check asap. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. For references, most need author and date and perhaps publisher, and they should be all set. — Deckiller 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After fixing references, dates, and copyediting, I suggest submitting Halo 2 to the requests for FAC and FAR for a new set of eyes to look at. Happy editing, S.D. 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak oppose The only problem I currently see with the article is the lack of information in the Web Citations. While some of the misc. information might not be necessary, the date of publication and the author of the article should be included for context. If this problem were corrected I would change my opinion to a firm Support. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Citation 2 should go from this:
{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}
to this:
{{cite web|last = Gibson |first = Ellie|date = 2006-11/20|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}
That will leave the output as ^ Gibson, Ellie (2006-11/20). Gears of War ousts Halo. Gamesindustry.biz. Retrieved on 2006-12-22, which is generally nicer overall. I'd fix these myself but can't access the Wayback Machine or some game sites from this computer. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (See below)[reply]
I've added the following (Citation number: What I've added):
This is all the information I found — however, I might have easily overlooked something. Hopefully this will take care of comments about formatting references/web citations. Happy editing, S.D. 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little more to the few refs that S.D. missed- at this point I believe we have essentially all the info we can get on these. Some have no post dates or authors, or some (like all the bungie.net links) are screwed up due to a site redesign: while I can promise I will go back and fix each and every one of these, right now they are all 404 errors until Bungie migrates all their old stuff to the new design. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Needs copy editing ("one which the humans have been nominally losing" -- is it called the "War of Humans losing to Covenant"?) for verb tense, grammar, punctuation; lack of formal tone ("The Master Chief manages to stow away") and other fancruft style issues (When writing about a game's story elements be sure to keep a out-of-universe perspective. Or simply put, do not describe fiction as fact.), shouldn't there be "spoiler" tags for plot synposis?, most of the "Development" section should be merged with "Reception," and break Reception into popular and critical. Obviously a lot of good work though. Madcoverboy 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not to be nitpicky with your suggestions, especially as grammar,etc is certainly valid, but a couple points: one: spoiler tags are generally not needed for a clearly labeled 'plot synopsis' section. Secondly, reception doesn't have to be broken up into more headings. After all, its roughly divided that way anyhow. I don't see why we should merge Dev with Reception, as they are two very different things. I'll check again for oou stuff. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops — I went ahead and added spoiler tags and headers; feel free to take them off for the time being. In my opinion, development doesn't need to merged since the section "takes place" until before the game was released and reception takes it from there: after the game was released. Cheers, S.D. 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Development doesn't need to be compressed into Reception. Development is about how the game was created and the steps the company took to hype the game before release, and reception deals with how it was received after release. Also, splitting reception into popular and criticial is basically just overemphasizing the paragraph breaks, so I don't think that's necessary, unless the WikiProject has it in their formatting guide. — Deckiller 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps make subsections under Development for Audio and Video (or Havok engine or...)? The section reads like a stub and isn't well integrated with the other information around it.Madcoverboy
I agree about audio; it's only one paragraph, so it can probably be integrated into Development. — Deckiller 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Audio" has been expanded, the section "Development" could be renamed to something such as "Prerelease events" or just "Prerelease." Cheers, S.D. 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The PC computer game is scheduled for release on May 8, and though it may be common practice for Wikipedia feature ads to run in support of product releases, the featured article criteria (1e) say the content of an article is not supposed to change from day to day, as it surely will in the wake of the release and publicity. Furthermore, the article contains statements such as "Bungie has stated that the issue has been fixed ... for the Windows Vista port", for which so far as I know only the manufacturer has been permitted to form an opinion as of this time. I do not believe that the manufacturer's opinion of an upcoming product release is a neutral point of view. Mike Serfas 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The game has been out for 2 1/2 years now. The fact that it's now being ported to another platform isn't going to change the content of the article significantly (in other words, it will not destabilize the article, as you allude). Raul654 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the obvious qualifier that the article will need to be updated when the PC game drops. It meets my definition of stable (in that the content itself is not going through changes) and it violates no FA requirements that I see. To quote the assessment scale... "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light" fits this article pretty well. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have put in a request with the League of Copyeditors to run through this article and fix any grammatical/prose worries. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nearly all of the bungie.net references are dead links. Most of these seem to still be accessible through archive.org. These will need to be fixed up (use the archivedate and archiveurl parameters of {{cite web}}). --- RockMFR 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted bungie, and they assured me that eventually the links would be restored, within the next two weeks, s it would be painful to change them then switch them back. If they don't migrate everything by then, then I guess I'll have to trudge through it. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is heavily based on that source, my oppose will stand until the references can be verified. --- RockMFR 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More stuff I noticed:
  • "Bungie was notoriously secretive and occupied with security; large pains were taken to make sure development builds were not leaked when used for marketing purposes" — source?
  • Ref #14 points to Halo: First Strike, an unreferenced article. Is this supposed to be a source?
  • Am I assuming correctly that the "Characters" section is built from in-game quotes? If so, would it be possible to actually cite these quotes? Not necessary, but it would be nice.
  • The bit about "I Love Bees" needs to be sourced (this should be easy) and probably could be expanded a bit, based on how much attention it got. --- RockMFR 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sourcing, added a bit to the ilovebees (I'll format the links properly soon, i promise!) and I added a specific page citations for Halo: First Strike as its in poor shape. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The lead shows a density of issues with the prose that indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit throughout. Please don't just fix these examples.
    • "critically-acclaimed"—No hyphens after "-ly".
    • "On 20 June 2006, more than 500 million games of Halo 2 have been played and a total of over 710 million hours have been spent playing with it over Xbox Live since its debut,[3] and by 30 October 2006, this number was raised to four billion.[4]". Better to start with "By"? "Had" is used elsewhere, so perhaps here too. Why is one count alone highlighted with "a total of"? Is it more important? "Playing with it over Xbox Live"—Playing with? Elsewhere, it's just "playing/ed". "Its" could refer to Xbox Live or to Halo 2. "Was raised to" is awkward here; why not just "rose to"?
    • "genocidal collective of alien races"—more comfortable as "collective of genocidal alien races", I think.
    • "As of 9 November 2005, over seven million units of the game have been sold worldwide, making it the best selling game for the Xbox." Same problem with tense: use "had", since the date is in the past. Best-selling requires a hyphen.
    • "many new to the series"—The ellipsis is too much here; insert "of which are". Tony 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other issues with prose — although I changed to a support, I agree with Tony that more touching up is needed. Other examples:
    • "Halo 2 takes place in the same science fiction universe created by Bungie Studios for Halo." Is there a need to mention Bungie Studios here?
    • "The main player characters are..." "playable" characters may sound better. Let's face it, the geeks who invented some of these RPing terms weren't word nerds.
    • "The player assumes the dual roles of Master Chief and the Arbiter," "dual" might be redundant here, especially with the word "and".
    • "The game comes to a close with the Arbiter's mission to stop the firing of Halo, aided by fellow Elites as well as surviving members of In Amber Clad's' crew." can be trimmed to: "The game concludes with the Arbiter's mission to stop the firing of Halo...."

— Deckiller 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These have been fixed, but here are some more examples:
"As of November 9, 2005, over seven million units of the game have been sold worldwide, making it the best selling game for the Xbox." Over should be "more than"
"...and a bonus cinematic called "Another Day on the Beach", amongst other features." "amongst" should be "among".
I have some time right now, so I'll see if I can give you a hand. — Deckiller 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Covers everything well. Enjoyable read. Buc 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is quite the article and the immense copyediting that can be seen throughout the course of this FAC has rendered it close to flawless. Nice job. I don't see the rationale behind "Oh no, not another video game article" that I believe Sue brought up. What if someone created an article about pocket lint, as you mentioned, and it was so well-written and well-referenced that most people online went to Wikipedia for good information on it. That article would really deserve FA status. The specific notability of the article, in my opinion, is a totally invalid argument. We want people to bring every article to FA status, not just the exciting ones. Some people like video games, and I don't think it's remotely sensible to oppose an article just because you think that person's time could be better spent writing an article about who knows what else. Anyway, I'm off to play a video game and enjoy myself. JHMM13 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - anything else, then? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice. 6 fair use images in an FA article doesn't usually sit well with me, but they are used here well, so I won't complain. However (and I know this is super fine tooth comb), but you might consider changing "Screenshot of a Halo 2 game in progress." to "Screenshot of a Halo 2 multiplayer game in progress." It was a little misleading until I really looked at the picture, since you labeled the other multiplayer picture as one.--Clyde (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bugger... stupid bungie web guys went back on their word... hopefully by the end of this weekend I'll have time to convert all these. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article did a phenomonal job of explaining this game to a total moron (a.k.a. me) who had never played it before. I think that this article is definately good enough for featured article status.J.delanoy 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Shahbag

edit

Shahbag is a major historic neighbourhood in Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh. Situated at the heart of the city, the area and its surroundings have seen many historic events, including the Language Movement, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's historic 7th March,1971 speech.

The article has been improved greatly by User:Aditya Kabir in the recent months. It is well referenced, has many GFDL/CC licensed photos, and adequately referenced with properly formatted citations. It is well written, factual, comprehensive, neutral, and stable. The article has also gone through an extensive peer review, where most of the major points have been addressed by now. I believe this article fulfills the featured article criteria, and therefore, I nominate this article for FAC. --Ragib 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few more suggestions: If buses/taxis/autos/trains service the suburb. One or two lines should suffice since I see a picture of a bus there. 2. altitude, population, area needs to be mentioned in the text somewhere. Does it come under any district? Is there a head officer for the thana? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have completed a copy-edit and partial re-write. There are still some unresolved issues though:
    • The references need to be in alphabetical order and in the format: last name, first name. year of publication. name of book/journal article. name of book publisher/journal. page number(s).
    • The map needs to have some more street names, at least enough to clarify the first paragraph here, e.g. Elephant Road, Supreme Court (likely the High Court?), Diabetic Hospital.
    • There are some other problems (logical flow and accuracy issues, like the one mentioned by Dwaipayanc). I am making a list of them in the Questions section in the article talk page. Could the people in the know, please answer there and I will incorporate them into the text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Institute of Arts and Crafts", as mentioned in this page, where is it? I mean it does not get mentioned in the article, unless it's been mentioned in some other name.
  • Institute of Cost & Management Accountants and IBA needs proper wikilinking. The former leads to another entity, while the later is a disambiguation page.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology. Sorry for being somewhat away. Between a business pitch for GrameenPhone and preparations for Pohela Baishakh, I got a bit tied up. The map issues will be solved in a couple of days, as soon as the Sorry for uploading a partial map (as stated in the caption) and creating confusions. Trying to create a more complete map in the proper format (*.svg), at least with the bounderies and major features including road names. Aditya Kabir 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help needed: Got the map corrected - street names, southern boundary, scale - all incorporated. But, can't get it in *.svg format. Can anyone from the community help with the format? I got the *.ai file ready, and, I guess, I also am ready to upload a *.png file. The same goes for the map locator. Some biblio formatting was done, too. Aditya Kabir 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check, please. Here are the links the two new map files I uploaded. Check if they are showing right on your windows. User:Planemad is helping me to solve the problem, but it's still not over. The links follow. Aditya Kabir 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map issues solved, hopefully. I have uploaded maps in svg format (one with street names, measurement scale and the southern boundary; the other a map locator showing Shhabag is respect of old and new parts of Dhaka). I guess, this is what we were looking for. Aditya Kabir 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead looks long-ish. - SpLoT // 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The leader is indeed a wee bit longish, but not inappropriately so, I think. It is well within the guideline (3-4 paragraphs, less than 30,000 characters) and is perfectly in synch with the Wikipedia 1.0 plan that requires that leaders become well rounded enough to serve as stand alone artciles. Aditya Kabir 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Support I think the lead is the right size, nontheless I think the article is well constructed. Since I shared by thoughts about a week ago on the writers talk page, I have not much to say. Albeit, the lenghts of the sections, especiaaly the lead and the History section could be shorter or broken or integrated into smaller sections as with the rest of the article. But thst is not substantial in such an enjoyable article. Should pass in my opinion. If you want me to copyedit as other reviewers suggested, I could help to win their favor?Showmanship is the key 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (assuming the latest suggestions by Nichalp will be acted upon). Very nice work. Improved A LOT during the peer review and FAC. The article will act as a guide for other similar city neighbourhoods/suburbs articles, especially for South Asian localities. Congrats to the editors and copyeditors. Cheers!--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Some Thoughts Concerning Education

edit

Self-nomination I am nominating this article on John Locke's educational treatise, Some Thoughts Concerning Education. It is a little bit short, but there is surprisingly little written on this work (I was concerned about original research issues if I just started quoting extensively from Locke himself). I believe that the page is well-written, comprehensively summarized and well-sourced. It is currently GA and has had a peer-review. Awadewit 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is not short at all, the also-nominated Iridion 3D is something around half its size. It definitely will be an interesting read, right now I've just taken a quick look - references abound - I'll read it in whole later. A good candidate. Here's its peer review, if anyone's interested, a link for your convenience. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, the size is just fine (and everything else looks to be in good order, too). What are we coming to when a nominator has to apologize for an encyclopedically-sized article, after the bloated tomes that come through here? I'll read the article tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more willing to support 25k on Locke than 50k on Pokemons or video games. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Read it over breakfast - concise, to the point, nothing superfluous I'd say, an excellent article. Things I have noticed: In the lead, first paragraph, one might want to substitute the word many with a (even rough) number of languages, and in the second one perhaps it would be useful to add that the mind of a child or new-born is a tabula rasa (rather the mind of an adult), although I cannot tell whether Locke had pointed that out in his work. Further, in the first sentence of the 'Class' section, addressing and addresses appear practically back to back, could either one of them be substituted with another verb? The last thing is the final section - both paragraphs start off with 'Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education was', I believe the second paragraph could begin with something along the lines of This publication or Locke's text, what do you think? It's just miscellanea, I know, but other than that you've got yourself a nice one here. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Sadly, an important article this one links to, on An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, is not as well-referenced (no inline references). --Ouro (blah blah) 07:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding might not be as well-referenced, but it is a good introduction to Locke's Essay. I haven't wanted to tackle that page myself because Locke's Essay is a very difficult work to explain in everyday language and the scholarship on it is enormous. I have only dipped my toe into it so far.
It is a good introduction, I definitely agree, it's just, you know, missing something. But I understand what you mean. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I chose to say "many languages" in the lead is because the best count of the editions comes from the 1960s (as far as I know). I was thinking that more editions might have popped up since then and that Axtell, who counted, simply might not have had access to every edition "way back then." I gave the figures in the "Reception" section so that they would be available, but they are rather old. Let me know if you think I should put them in the lead and a qualifier in a footnote.
I understand, but many might mean 10 to one person and 50 to another. That's why I suggested putting a rough number, something like around 10 or over 20, you know? I noticed the count in the other section, it's just that I was missing this in the lead. But if you're reluctant to change per your comment above, I understand. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed it to "ranslated into almost all of the major written European languages" as that is really the significant point. Awadewit 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "child's mind" - thank you for pointing out that implicit assumption in my writing - Locke himself did point that out - he was not so sloppy
  • Changed the second "address" to "appeal."
  • Varied the beginning of the paragraphs in the last section. Awadewit 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the three points above - okay, thanks, great! Good work, and good luck! --Ouro (blah blah) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oppose Really nice article - but there is a lot of the author coming through in the text, and I'm not sure these are written in an encyclopedic tone. They could also be termed original research. Here are some examples:

  • "it is perhaps unsurprising that he would begin Some Thoughts with a discussion of children's physical needs," Unsurprising to whom?
  • "While one can apply Locke's general principles of education to all children and contemporaries such as Coste certainly did so, Locke himself, despite statements that may imply the contrary" While one can? Who can?
  • "This passage suggests that, for Locke, education was fundamentally the same for men and women—there were only small, obvious differences for women. This interpretation." Suggests to whom?
  • "Although one could argue that Locke’s statement indicates that he places a greater value on female than male beauty." Who is doing the arguing?
  • "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence…." Again, who is arguing, who is acknowledging?-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These statements are all cited and I am following scholars here. Would you prefer that these interpretations be attributed to particular scholars? I would argue that such a style would misrepresent the scholarly literature. I tried to present the scholarly consensus and not many of these ideas "belong" to one particular scholar or another. For example, almost everything you read on Some Thoughts will say it is "unsurprising" that Locke began his treatise with comments on the body. Also, in the last example you cite, anyone in the eighteenth century would indeed have had to acknowledge Locke's influence. Do you want me to include in the text the names of the scholars who argue these points? I have done that at several points in the article (mentioning Axtell, for example). It is fairly common to write in an impersonal tone to suggest widespread agreement which is what I have done here. Awadewit 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Awadewit. Something like "Although one could argue that Locke’s statement indicates..." reads as though the writer of the article is making that argument. A better way to phrase it would be something like "Scholars have argued that Locke’s statement indicates...", Attributing the argument to an exterior party (with accompanying source). Likewise "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence…." could be something like "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether readers agreed with Locke's ideas or not, his influence had become widespread". I would be interested to hear other reviewers comments on this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the "one's" to "scholars" where appropriate. That is fine with me, but changing to "readers" seems superfluous. Besides, even if one wasn't a reader, one might acknowledge Locke's influence from word of mouth. Also, I just want to add that in my articles about A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Anna Laetitia Barbauld that I did cite scholars' names when I was discussing particular ideas that belonged to them and I also cited specific interpretations such as feminist scholarship when it was appropriate. Such an approach is less applicable to this article since the Locke scholarship on Some Thoughts is more unified than the scholarship for those two articles. Awadewit 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes that I hope will assuage your concerns. I did not change everything, but I changed what I thought could reasonably be claimed. Awadewit 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen, I wouldn't say that Awadewit's style made the author come through, as you said. I have read a fair share of scientific papers in my short lifespan and have also met here and there sentences formulated like the ones you pointed to. So I guess it's not a concern with me. However, the changes Awadewit implemented appeal to me. I'd say the tone is fine either way. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I still have a problem with the below sentence, which I think identifies the author and is telling rather than showing;

"By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence."

The "one" in this sentence applies to people in the eighteenth century; it does not stand in for the author. Also, this sentence is followed by ample quotations and examples which "show" the general idea of this sentence. This sentence introduces a general idea which the following sentences then explicate in more detail. Awadewit 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this sentence, which I feel is too "weaselly" (hate that expression);

"While it is possible to apply Locke's general principles of education to all children, and contemporaries such as Coste certainly did so, Locke himself, despite statements that may imply the contrary, probably only believed that Some Thoughts applied to the wealthy and the middle-class (or as they would have been referred to at the time, the "middling sorts")."

How about this; "While contemporaries such as Coste applied Locke's general principles of education to all children, consensus among scholars is that Locke intended Some Thoughts to apply only to the wealthy and the middle-class (or as they would have been referred to at the time, the "middling sorts"), despite his statements to the contrary."?-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that statement is slightly misleading. It would have to read "While some contemporaries . . . consensus among most scholars..." (I would never want to claim all). But of course, it is not just scholars who have said that Locke "intended" his work for aristocrats alone. Commentators in the eighteenth century said this as well; it is silly to start listing every group who has made this argument. To single out scholars makes it sound like they are the only ones who have thought of this idea, and they are not. I'm sorry to be so difficult, but I want to be as accurate as possible (as I know you do as well). Awadewit 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Awadewit. I'm torn because I think that its such a great article, and I would not like to see it devalued or impeded by my hamfisted attempts to find solutions to potential problem spots. But I hope you understand my concerns in terms of the positioning of the author, and the way that those highlighted sentences come across to me (at least). I have removed my oppose to allow other reviewers to pass judgment. Good luck.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments. I find all of this criticism kind of funny, because for this article I actually tried to write a true summary of the scholarship whereas in my other FAs I just quoted representative scholars by name. It's weird that I am having more trouble with an article that really is more encyclopedic, in that it leaves that kind of citation and explanation to the footnotes, than I did with articles that were less elegant. Oh, the irony. Awadewit 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is a cultural.language difference, but to me, "one" is both direct and indirect and often informally refers to "oneself". So if I were to write "one has to admit that this is a great article" - I am meaning that "I admit that this is a great article". Imagine Prince Charles saying that sentence if it helps.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a cultural difference. I agree with your interpretation of "one" in the example you gave, but interpretation often relies on context (as you are aware). In my sentence, "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence," it is clear from the context that the "ones" are people in the eighteenth century, not myself (the author). "One" and "a person" are synonymous here; "a person" just sounds clunkier. And wouldn't Charles say, "We have to admit that this is a great article"? :) Awadewit 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is always a pleasure to read one of Awadewit's articles; she is making an outstanding contribution to Wikipedia. I have bad memories of studying Locke both at school and university, because I never enjoyed reading the dreary old blighter; but this article is very readable and does a sprightly job of summing up Locke's ideas in a digestible form.

A few points and questions:

"It was the most important philosophical work on education in Britain for over a century."

  • I had to blink at that several times and scan for context to realise what it meant. Ambiguous, I feel.
Could you tell me what is ambiguous and why you got lost when you were reading so that I can fix it? I'm afraid I feel that it is fairly straightforward (but, of course, I wrote it and know what I want to say). Thanks. Awadewit 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't know whether it meant that it was the most important philosophical work on education in Britain for the century before it or for the century after it. qp10qp 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how could a book influence the century before it? This is the most common way of referring to a book's influence in general terms when you don't need to give the century or the actual number of years, but I'll see what I can come up with. Awadewit 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We might say that something was the most important thing of its type for over a century, meaning that nothing as important had been written, made, or whatever, for over a century. This isn't one of my quibbles: I genuinely misread the sentence at first. qp10qp 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean "in over a century." It's all in the preposition. :) Awadewit 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As England became increasingly mercantilist and secularist, the humanist educational values of the Renaissance, which had enshrined scholasticism, came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant."

  • Essential to say by whom. Even "by some" would do. The sentence otherwise makes a generalised statement about the views of an unspecified body of people at an unspecified time. And if this refers to Locke's age, we are talking about the age of Purcell, Hookes, and Dryden, all Renaissance men. You may reply that the view comes from a source; but that is only the threshold: generalisations should always be qualified, even when repeated from a source.
  • Here is what Axtell says (his discussion is one of the best of the cultural context of the book): "In the early sixteenth century the small but influential band of Renaissance humanist educators--only the most important being Erasumus and Colet--took their model of human excellence from a pristine early Christianity and from the classical period of Greece, when education was recognized for the first time in human history as the deliberate pursuit of a living ideal of human character. This early Tudor ideal was not founded upon a close or sophisticated analysis of the human understanding, for epistemology was still struggling to free itself from Master Aristotle, but it was grounded on a firm common-sense understanding of human nature and the various ways it develops from childhood. By the middle decades of the century this classically inspired and Christian-motivated model has quietly merged with a new set of values to produce a new educational goal, one that was to endure for more than two centuries. This was the hideal of the gentleman, a unique blend of the Greek philosopher-statesman, the Roman orator, and the Italian courtier, but with this difference: The English gentleman was dedicated to public service, not to courtly adornment or to personal perfection for its own sake. He was the Governour, the gentleman who protected English life and liberty, and guided the affairs of the nation. But as society changed and the sixteenth century blended into the seventeenth, the values and standards of English society changed while its predominant educational theory did not. A growing mercantile economy was making itself felt in all spheres of life, reinforcing the trend of secularism that was emerging at this time. Literacy, though it is difficult to be precise, was definitely rising among the lower and middle elements of society, and with it a demand for literature and education in the English vernacular. Trade, travel, and political relations with foreign nations required some skill in modern languages as well as useful knowledge of national customs, daily living habits, and plitical, religious and economic institutions and practices, all of which could be garnered from a bulging market of travel and geography books, modern histories, and guide books to practically everything. But habits of thought and practices established long in the past remained the guidelines of education; it therefore became inadequate to its taks. This occasioned the many voices of protest that resound throughout the seventeenth century, efforts to redress the balance between a society and its educational system, not the least of which was the Education." (59-60)
As you will note, this passage is extremely broad; I might be able to say "by all of the classes," but what does that really add? My sentence already suggests that it was a broad cultural phenomenon, which is what I take away from this passage. The problem is that the sources themselves have no real detail. If I start inserting details that I know, I will be violating the original research policy, I think. What do you think? Awadewit 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think I was thrown out by the word "Renaissance", which used the classics as a springboard to open up the sciences and arts rather than as a source of conservatism. I've just had a glance at the Wikipedia article on Renaissance Humanism (admittedly not inline sourced), which describes what I always think of as the Renaissance spirit: "Renaissance humanists believed that the liberal arts (art, music, grammar, rhetoric, oratory, history, poetry, using classical texts, and the studies of all of the above) should be practiced by all levels of "richness". They also approved of self, human worth and individual dignity." And I suppose that's why I baulked at the notion that all this was suddenly regarded as superfluous and irrelevant to education. To be fair to Axtell, I don't think he actually says as much in the extract. Clearly the key point is that the rise of the mercantile middle class created a need for a more pragmatic education than a narrow study of the classics would provide. I suspect that Locke was tilting at some kind of ossification which may have set in at Oxford and Cambridge by this time. qp10qp 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that part of the "Renaissance" was a resurgence of interest in classical models, but it is often good to keep in mind that the Renaissance began in Italy in the fourteenth century. By the end of the seventeenth century in England, what one might call "Renaissance ideals" had changed a great deal. Bacon, Descartes and Locke are part of a line of thinkers made possible by the Renaissance but they are actually rebelling against a key component of Renaissance thought - the superiority of the classics. During the eighteenth century, there was a dispute that came to be called the "ancients vs. the moderns" which ended this whole debate. Writers and thinkers took sides on whether or not modern art and philosophy could ever surpass the ancients (obviously the "moderns" won). One result of this dispute was the canonization of Shakespeare. Before the eighteenth century, no one in England (or anywhere else, for that matter) thought he was anything special. But during this debate, several people decided that he was an example of an "original genius" who rivalled the ancients. Pamphlet wars were fought over this topic. Footnote wars in eighteenth-century Shakespeare editions were waged. Jonathan Swift even made fun of these editors in a poem called the Dunciad. This debate was considered very serious (something akin to the culture wars now - the downfall of civilization and all of that). A second line of thinkers that descends from Bacon's rebellion against Aristotle and the classics are all of those scientific pioneers like Boyle and Newton. Finally, please note that Axtell mentions that these cultural changes affected the "lower and middle elements" who were gaining literacy, not a middle-class. It is actually very difficult to prove that there was a middle class which identified itself as such during the eighteenth century. There are reams of scholarship on this topic - was there or was there not a middle class during the eighteenth, does it matter if they self-identified and if there was a middle class, when did it develop? There is definitely no consensus on that topic. Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Boyle and Newton weren't rebelling against Renaissance science. They were developing it.
Of course I would say, they were inventing science. There was no science in the Renaissance. There was no recognizable accepted scientific method or scientific community. But that is a whole different debate, I think. Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell these guys there was no science in the Renaissance. The second part of what you say may be true, but the point I am getting at is that the Renaissance was a period of progress not rigid classicism. Rigid adherence to scholastic education may have been under attack in Locke's time, but not the whole Renaissance.qp10qp 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is, read more than just wikipedia on the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. Also, I would refrain from calling the Renaissance a period of uniform "progress" (think Spanish Inquisition). If you want to focus on Renaissance art, for example, it was indeed the return to classical ideals, that fueled what is often labeled the "brilliance" of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael. But it was not until people like Bacon helped overthrow the idea of the authority of the ancients that real science could be done, although it was the rediscovery of classical texts that had helped spark an interest in empirical research. Awadewit 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For various reasons, I have a copy of Vesalius open in front of me at all times.
And it would save me a lot of money if I only read Wikipedia. qp10qp 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But books are better (currently); I'm willing to go broke. Awadewit 03:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My original point was connected to whether one can without qualification make a sweeping statement merely because one or more scholars made it. Within Wikipedia policy you are entitled to place what statements you like in articles, provided you give a scholarly source. For me, this is a great weakness of Wikipedia, because it means that one or two sources can be used to make general statements. It doesn't prove the point; though it adheres to policy. Reading the extract you provide from Axtell, for example, I don't believe that the point "As England became increasingly mercantilist and secularist, the humanist educational values of the Renaissance, which had enshrined scholasticism, came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant" is proved by the source. The (doomed?) Attribution policy says: "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." Of course, I wouldn't have been able to say that if you hadn't typed the reference for me, but the statement is so generalised and extreme that I don't believe that without qualification it could be explicitly supported by any source. My own principle is to provide multiple sources for any extreme statement, or qualify it. qp10qp 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have major problems with WP:ATT as well for precisely the reasons you are stating (and more) but where else is one going to get sweeping statements from? For humanities articles, sweeping statements are actually good. No one wants to read a book who comes to this article and you should see the editing of "ambiguous" or "weaselly" statements that goes on. It is simply not possible to write a nuanced article; all the nuance gets erased by peer-reviewers and FAC reviewers. In a way, every statement in this article is sweeping. Also, I only typed in part of Axtell, but you are welcome to read the entire "Introduction," all of the other works in the bibliography and a selection of books on the history of education in Western culture (which I have done, by the way) and then let me know whether you think it is unsupportable. I used that source because it is the most relevant to Locke, but I feel that the statement as a whole is supportable from Axtell's work (and my own knowledge - God forbid). If you read more widely on the topic, you might feel that way as well. The problem with listing a couple of more general sources to go with Axtell is that then I would be accused of "original research" (see the overly stringent WP:OR). Your point about multiple sources is interesting - what would you do if there weren't multiple sources? I asked this question on the talk page of WP:NPOV because one of the pages I'm working on right now has that very problem, in a way - there is no scholarly consensus and to represent one person's article as a "school of thought" is ridiculous. What to do? No one responded to that question as far as I know. Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a crucial question, and it's a shame we're in different camps on it. By all means use sweeping statements, but make it clear that they come from a source or group of sources instead of wording it so that they sound like the article's own point of view. That's all. The reason I don't have to read the whole of western scholarship to know that the statement in question can't ever be directly and explicitly supported is because by its very nature it cannot be proved. "...came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant", unless we say by whom, is a valueless statement; and if we say by whom, it thereby becomes explicitly sourceable. And what are we sourcing? Not that a thing "came to be regarded", but that a scholar said that it came to be regarded. It is a precise distinction. When you say "you should see the editing of "ambiguous" or "weaselly" statements that goes on", you are misrepresenting the process. I can't speak for all such edits, but I have noticed editors adjusting your otherwise excellent articles to make sure that the style is more purely encyclopedic. qp10qp 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are in different camps, but on a different question than the sources. The article is going to have a "point of view" no matter what sources I provide. It is inevitable. I have provided a summary of the scholarship as I see it, but someone else writing the article would obviously write a different summary of the scholarship. As a historian, you must know that summarizing scholarship is never easy and that few people rarely agree on it. Moreover, my statement is one that applies to the culture at large during the eighteenth century and is obviously meant to be read as such; it is not "valuless" - it becomes extremely problematic when one starts to say that that middle class regarded the classics as irrelevant (which then implies that only they did and that there was a middle class - both highly disputable statements). Once you start listing groups, you leave others out by implication. Also, I do not want to attribute this idea to one particular scholar; it does not belong to anyone in particular - some ideas do and some do not (again, you must know this). Also, I am not misrepresenting the process of editing at wikipedia. You can review the discussion at the Mary Wollstonecraft article (I think it is in one of the archives) over her depression to see what I mean. That is just one example. Finally, "encyclopedic" is a nebulous term in terms of style. Awadewit 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I spoke of the article having a point of view, I didn't mean so much by the way it chooses and presents its sources, structure, etc. That's true as well. I was speaking about the writing itself. An article has a real author and an implied author. The implied author in this case is "Wikipedia", a big, sensible, objective, all-knowing, reliable voice. The real author is each editor, in our weakness. To write a good encyclopedia article we have to do all we can to prevent our own voice intruding on the implied author's; and we have to construct and protect that implied author's voice so that it does not go to the dark side. In other words, we must not abuse or ventriloquise this implied author's voice by making it say bad things, giving it its own point of view, allowing it generalities, vaguenesses, partiality, slanginess, nationalism, whatever. The policies, in their way, guide us on how to manage this. The English language doesn't help: if we write a sentence without an actor, the implied author becomes the actor by default. And the reader might slip into believing that Wikipedia has decided that "it is considered, legend states, it seems, widely, apparently, the truth is, is not, in fact, was possibly, most people believe, all people believe, it became rare, common, unknown, remarkable", etc. So I believe that encyclopedic style is the opposite of nebulous: it has to be pinned down hard, every sentence tacked in place, without a loose phrase. qp10qp 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you are preaching to the unconverted choir now. I am in literary studies and therefore I do not believe that we can prevent "our own voice from intruding" on the article. I would also dispute that the implied author is "wikipedia" since it is common knowledge that "anyone can edit" wikipedia. Many readers are aware that wikipedia is not a monolithic voice like Britannica (even though that really isn't either, many readers are less aware of it). Also, the news coverage of wikipedia's failings has made people aware of its lack of objectivity as do the tags on its pages. Furthermore, there is no way to avoid making wikipedia say "bad things" because we are often unaware of our own biases, not only on a personal level, but also on a larger cultural level. Reading reference works from hundreds of years ago often puts this in perspective. Take a stroll through Samuel Johnson's Dictionary or the first Britannica. Awadewit 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC) - By the way, see tiny revisions to the article.[reply]
Crumbs! 42!! qp10qp 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking of the implied voice from a structural point of view. In fact there are probably four or five voices and four or five "readers". And, sure, we will never get it right. I enjoy the challenge myself. As a scholar, you may think of this "encylopedic style" as inferior; I don't blame you, but I've started to find some beauty in it, I must say. It stretches me. And I think nuances are possible within that style and can be smuggled through FAC. qp10qp 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are an infinite number of actual readers. :) Stanley Fish talks about communities of readers; who knows how many of those there are. Actually, precisely because I am a scholar, I try not to think of any one style as "better" or "worse" than another. I tend to think of them in terms of their characteristics and functions. The problem I have with the word "encyclopedic" is that it gets thrown around here a lot and there is no real consensus on its meaning (not surprising - the same is true of "essay style" - as if there is one "essay style"!), so everyone just sort of does their own thing and then insists that others follow their idea of "encyclopedic." It is a bit of a problem. I think that wikipedia should try to define their ideal writing style a little more clearly. Right now, the MOS is a mess of pages that offers very little guidance; the citation pages particularly annoy me. Awadewit 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Following in the intellectual tradition of Francis Bacon, reformers such as Locke argued against Cambridge and Oxford's decree that “all Bachelaur and Undergraduats in their Disputations should lay aside their various Authors, such that caused many dissensions and strifes in the Schools, and only follow Aristotle and those that defend him, and take their Questions from him, and that they exclude from the Schools all steril and inane Questions, disagreeing from the antient and true Philosophy [sic].”[4] More families began to demand a practical education for their sons; by exposing them to the emerging sciences, mathematics, and the modern languages, these parents hoped to prepare their sons for the changing economy."

  • The gist here isn't clear to me. I am not sure what the intellectual tradition of Francis Bacon is in this context (I would have thought him a Renaissance man), and other readers might be in the same boat. Reformers "such as Locke"; and who else? Is the point that Locke opposed the universities' insistence on Aristotle? How does this link to the issue of families seeking an education for their children? (I can guess the connection, but I sense a missing link.) The quote may actually form an unnecessary blockage at this point.
Much better, I think. It helps the reader more. qp10qp 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The widespread popularity of Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education during the eighteenth century suggests that many of the views within it already pervaded European society. Rather than produce a wholly original philosophy of education, Locke, it seems, began by bringing together and popularizing several strands of seventeenth-century educational reform.."

  • I'm not sure that is clearly written enough. Does this mean that Locke was popular in the eighteenth century because such views were generally popular anyway (which would downplay Locke's influence)? Or does it mean that his views had built up such a reputation that they had a wide influence on eighteenth-century society? The next part seems to imply that Locke had picked up views already extant in the seventeenth century, so I don't see how it follows. If Locke began by popularizing, does this refer to his spreading of his ideas before he wrote the work? What form did this popularization take? How do you begin by popularizing something. Is this linked to the popularity mentioned at the beginning of the passage (in which case, might the two parts be reversed, so that the chicken comes before the egg?).
  • I've tried to revise. Locke's Some Thoughts popularized some curricular suggestions and child-rearing methods that had already been suggested, but he did contribute some important new ideas - his emphasis on virtue and reason is particularly "Lockean," for example. You have to decide for yourself, I think, if the fact that Locke's influence is lessened because his book was not totally original (no book is, of course). Since it was this book that made this set of ideas available to a huge number of people, I think a good argument can be made that it was indeed influential, even if Locke didn't originate each and every idea. Awadewit 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That part reads much better now, overall, I think. But I still don't believe that this sentence is clear: "The widespread popularity of Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education during the eighteenth century suggests that many of the views within it already pervaded European society." I still can't tell from that wording whether you mean Locke was popular because such ideas were already in the air, or that (since we are talking about the eighteenth century, and his book would have been widely circulated over time) Locke had helped popularize such views to the point where they had become pervasive. qp10qp 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how to make this sentence clearer; the grammar is explicit - "the popularity....suggests" - to me it is clear that it is the fact that the book permeated the culture that indicates Locke was repeating some ideas that already had wide acceptance, not that Locke's book was doing was the popularizing of other ideas (although, of course, he did that as well, as I say in a different sentence). The other key phrase is "already pervaded" - it is in the past tense. Awadewit 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the conundrum. The book was written in the seventeenth century and we are talking of ideas that already pervaded the eighteenth century. In other words, those pervasive ideas might have stemmed back to Locke. I know now that that is not what you meant, but, once again, I am only informing you of a sentence I had to stop and reread several times.
What if I take out "eighteenth century"? Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny points:

"Locke was convinced that children could reason early in life and that parents should address them as reasoning beings."

"In the Second Treatise on Government (1689), he contends that it is the parents' duty to educate their children and to act for them because children are irrational when young, that is, they have not yet acquired the ability to consistently act rationally; but it is also the parents' obligation to teach their children to become rational adults so that they will not always be fettered by parental ties."

  • Even though the overall point is clear enough, I noticed a clash between "children could reason early in life" and "children are irrational when young".
Children can reason, they just have to be taught to do it and they cannot do it consistently. Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See if you think the revision is better. Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sorts it out. qp10qp 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"According to James Secord, an 18th-century scholar, Newbery included Locke's educational advice to legitimize the new genre of children's literature. Locke's imprimatur would ensure the genre's success."

  • Not clear to me there whether the "would" refers to Newbery's intention or to what subsequently actually happened.
Both, hence the word. Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696) and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, Locke’s educational theory appears to have a liberating potential for women."

  • The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696) perhaps needs a phrase introducing or describing it. It's not within my terms of reference as a random reader, though the fault could be mine.
See if you think the teensy bit I added is enough. I don't think it's worth a big thing - it's a minor example. Unfortunately there is no page to wikilink to and I don't want to bother creating one right now (I'm not fan of creating one-sentence pages). Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the book is sometimes abbreviated and sometimes not. Should the style be consistent?
I tried to use the full title at the beginning of sections and paragraphs and to shorten it in the middle of paragraphs. It seemed clunky to repeat the full title, since it is rather long, all of the time. This is a common practice in the scholarly literature. Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find "posit" an encyclopedic word. Possibly just a matter of taste.
Hardly a slang word; why isn't it encyclopedic? Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jargonish. IMO. qp10qp 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what discipline? Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that is" works after the dash, in my opinion, but not following a comma, as in two cases in the article. Once again, could just be personal taste.
For me, "that is" would NEVER go after a dash! Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never say NEVER. ("In his Essay Locke posits an “empty” mind—a tabula rasa—that is “filled” by experience.")
(Only joking.)

qp10qp 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Not an appositive phrase, though! Awadewit 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crumbs. It looks like I've become more language-nitpicky than Tony. What's the world coming to? qp10qp 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it must be an excellent article, if I am reduced to such quibbles. Many congratulations. qp10qp 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mention your other concerns so that I can attempt to address them? Thanks. Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't being clear: I see no other issues, but I haven't looked for them—just examined the prose in a few places. I still support. Tony 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am close to Support, after review of a few minor issues. (I read the article last Wednesday, and am only now finding time to type up my comments from my hard copy, so some of this may have been attended to in the interim.)
    • WP:MSH issues—There is a section heading called "The Body" (use of The) and another called "Summary" (not very encyclopedic). In the lead, I found content that might help make the section headings more consistent, more encyclopedic, and more conforming to MSH (bolding mine).
      • Some Thoughts Concerning Education explains how to educate that mind using three distinct methods: the development of a healthy body; the formation of a virtuous character; and the choice of an appropriate academic curriculum.
    • Can the section headings be changed to:
      • Methods of education
        • Healthy body
        • Virtuous character
        • Academic curriculum ?

Let's not be too pedantic. See what you think of the new headings (also since the "summary" is a summary, that is what I called it - why is that unencylopedic?). Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:WTA—I saw several occurrences of the word "claim"; can each of them be reviewed per "words to avoid"?

I am using this definition of "claim" from the Oxford English Dictionary: "‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’." Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Axtell is listed several times in Notes, but not included in Bibliography.

Yes he is - "Locke, John. The Educational Writings of John Locke. Ed. James L. Axtell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968." Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bibliography shouldn't be double-spaced.

I find it easier to read, but I'll remove the spaces for you. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:GTL recommends See also at the end of the article, above notes, refs, and links. GTL allows leeway, but the aim is to have Wikified content ahead of non-Wiki content. Since it's only one article, can See also be moved up to conform to WP:GTL ?

Done. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • More importantly, along the lines of some other issues mentioned above, I got really tangled up in trying to determine what you (Awadewit) said, what a referenced article said, and what a referenced article quoted another author as saying, particularly in the sections, "Gender" and "Reception and legacy". Most of this confusion could be cleared up without having to change your article text; rather, by adding some quotes from the sources to the footnotes, which will make it more clear to the reader exactly what the source says. Can direct quotes from the sources be added to the three Axtell footnotes in the "Gender" section and the first Ezell footnote in the "Reception and legacy" section? I can't always tell if you're making statements about Locke's legacy and Locke's views on gender, the authors you cite are making those statements, or the authors you cite are quoting others.

What I have quoted from Axtell in the "Gender" section are actually quotations from Locke; as I say in the text, the quotations are from letters he wrote. I have now changed the footnote to "Qtd. in" although perhaps it would be better to do "Locke, John. "Letter..., etc?" Ezell does not quote Leibniz, she just relays the information that I have given; she also does not give a citation for it. I would not cite someone citing someone else without acknowledging it, I can assure you. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you need an en-dash on this date range, but I got into trouble changing your dashes once :-) Writers as politically dissimilar as Sarah Trimmer, in her periodical The Guardian of Education (1802-6), and Maria Edgeworth, in the educational treatise she penned with her father, ...

I changed it, but it looked the same when I changed it. Let me know. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where do we find refs for James Whitchurch and Sarah Trimmer in Reception and legacy?

The James Whitchurch quotation comes from Pickering - note that it says in the footnote "Qtd. in Pickering." I have added a note for Trimmer.

  • Overall, very nice work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's definitely an en-dash now; WP:MSH solved; still concerned about the word "claim". This is what Wiki says about using the word "claim"; perhaps the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't consulted when that was written, but it's our guideline, understandably, as it conveys a POV. Also, I wasn't confused only by the direct quotes being handled differently in different citations; my confusion is also text that is not directly quoted. Unattributed examples are:
      • This passage suggests that, for Locke, education was fundamentally the same for men and women—there were only small, obvious differences for women. (What does ref 37 say?)
      • Although Locke’s statement indicates that he places a greater value on female than male beauty, the fact that these opinions were never published allowed contemporary readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the “different treatments” required for girls and boys, if any.[39] (Does ref 39 say he places a greater value ... ?)
      • Who says this? Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as best-selling conduct book The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696), the female companion to The Whole Duty of Man (1657), and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, Locke’s educational theory appears to have a liberating potential for women. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the "claim" issue. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the dictionary used for the wikipedia policy, "claim" means "To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain" (this is the definition mentioned on the policy page). This is the whole point, really, for Locke - these points are open to question. In the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke famously wrote in the "Epistle to the reader" that "I shall always have the satisfaction to have aimed sincerely at truth and usefulness, though in one of the meanest ways. The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity: but every one must not hope to be a Boyle or a Sydenham; and in an age that produces such masters as the great Huygenius and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with some others of that strain, it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge;--which certainly had been very much more advanced in the world, if the endeavours of ingenious and industrious men had not been much cumbered with the learned but frivolous use of uncouth, affected, or unintelligible terms, introduced into the sciences, and there made an art of, to that degree that Philosophy, which is nothing but the true knowledge of things, was thought unfit or incapable to be brought into well-bred company and polite conversation. Vague and insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language, have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard and misapplied words, with little or no meaning, have, by prescription, such a right to be mistaken for deep learning and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance, and hindrance of true knowledge." - I think that it would be odd to claim that Locke thought he was writing the truth when he wrote he was "aiming" at it and that he was contributing towards finding it. He did not think himself infallible. Also, the entry on Locke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a site which is peer-reviewed by academics, uses "claim" multiple times precisely in the way that I do. (Finally, WP:WTA is guideline, not a policy, therefore it does not have to be blindly followed.) Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On footnote 37: I think this is perfectly clear. In the text I quote from a letter that Locke wrote. The footnote references the page in Axtell's edition of Locke's educational writings where one can find that letter. Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed these footnotes to read "Locke, John. "Letter to Mrs. Clarke..." I hope that this makes the source more clear. Awadewit 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find my copy of the Leites article at this moment, but I assume that it discusses Locke and gender issues on those pages, yes. Do you have some reason to doubt that it doesn't? Why do you want this source quoted for you and not every single secondary source on the page? I don't really understand. Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After searching for an hour, I have found the Leites article. Those two pages discuss gender in very broad terms. The sentence I wrote is a combination of a restatement of Locke's quotation and Leites' broader arguement. I will offer some quotes:
  • "I would nonetheless argue that Locke believes his method of moral education is fit for all. Locke's statements concerning the purpose of his book are made with reference to the whole book; but it does not mean he believes that only gentlemen would benefit from the methods described; some are particularly suited to gentlemen (or their betters), but the fundamental elements of moral training have wider application. . . . All of these things should be taught [to] those who will be gentlemen; but the chief object education, the creation of a virtuous character, which must include moral self-reliance, is not reserved for gentlemen, noblemen, or princes. This is an object that should guide the education of anyone, high or low, male or female. . . . Women deserve no less. He writes that 'the principal aim of his . . . Discourse is, how a young Gentleman should be brought up from his Infancy, which, in all things will not so perfectly suit the Education of Daughters; though where the Difference of Sex requires different Treatment 'twill be no hard Matter to distinguish' (Thoughts, §6). It does not affect Locke's methods of moral education." (69-70) Leites goes on to quote Locke's letter to Mrs. Clarke as well. Would your prefer that since there is so little written on Locke's views on female education, that I just paste in Locke's entire letter to Mrs. Clarke and leave it at that? Awadewit 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Emile and The Whole Duty of Woman as a comparison to give some context to the gender section. Since both texts suggest radically different curricula for women meant to isolate them to the domestic sphere, the statement is indisputable. Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I came into this discussion prepared to support pending resolution of a few items, but after resolving the trivial matters, we seem to be stalled on the more important ones. Yes, the word "claim" is only a guideline, but it's one I take seriously. Claim introduces POV; do you consider the statements "open to question" or do reliable sources? Unless a reliable source does, or we have good reason to question the statements, Wiki reports what the author says or states, not what he "claims".
Here are the sentences. And, by the way, it is Locke who considered the statements "open to question," as I demonstrated with the quotation from the Essay. Also, "claim" does not mean just one thing; it does not have just one connotation.
  • "Of Locke’s major claims in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Some Thoughts Concerning Education, two played a defining role in eighteenth-century educational theory." - These are claims for Locke in that they are open to question for Locke.
  • "The first is that education makes the man; as Locke writes at the opening of his treatise, "I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education."[8] In making this claim, Locke" - This is a claim for Locke, not a mere statement.
  • "Most of Locke's recommendations are based on a similar principle of utility.[26] So, for example, he claims that children should be taught to draw because it would be useful to them on their foreign travels (for recording the sites they visit), but poetry and music, he says, are a waste of time." - This is a claim for Locke as well.
  • "Even Rousseau, while disputing Locke's central claim that parents should treat their children as rational beings, acknowledged his debt to Locke." - Locke did not make a "central statement".
  • Here are some of the sentences from the Stanford Enyclopedia on Locke. These are written by a scholar and then peer-reviewed by a scholar. "Claim" is used in exactly the same way as I use it. It is not confusing and it is not POV. This is how academics (like myself) write about texts and ideas, particularly large philosophical claims. It is not right for wikipedia to rest its authority on the research of scholars but then to reject their language; it is, in fact, in the end, impossible.
  • "In Book II Locke claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience."
  • "In pursuing this enquiry, Locke rejects the claim that there are speculative innate principles (I. Chapter 2), practical innate moral principles (I. Chapter 3) or that we have innate ideas of God, identity or impossibility (I. Chapter 4). "
  • "For example Locke considers the claim that innate propositions are discovered and assented to when people "come to the use of Reason. (I. 2. 6., p. 51)"
  • "And while Locke claims our ideas of primary qualities resemble the primary qualities in objects, while the ideas of secondary qualities do not resemble their causes in the object, what does ‘resemble’ mean in this context?"
  • "Locke claims that the real essences of material things are quite unknown to us."
  • There is a clear connection between Book II and III in that Locke claims that words stand for ideas." Awadewit 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sourcing on some statements in the last two sections: I have the same concerns mentioned by several other reviewers (above). I'm having a hard time sorting out what is your writing from Locke's and other sources. For example, to whom can we attribute, "This passage suggests that, for Locke, education was fundamentally the same for men and women—there were only small, obvious differences for women." The quote you cite in the next sentence doesn't fully back that so, without a citation, it looks like original research or synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Locke quotation: This education “will not so perfectly suit the education of daughters; though where the difference of sex requires different treatment, it will be no hard matter to distinguish" (Locke's emphasis)". There is no need to cite that sentence since it is basically a restatement of the passage in modern English. Awadewit 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Liberal Movement

edit

The Liberal Movement (usually referred to as the LM) was a minor Australian political party that flourished in the 1970s. Stemming from discontent within the ranks of the Liberal and Country League, it was first formed by former South Australian Premier Steele Hall as an internal group in 1972 in response to a lack of reform within its parent. A year later, when tensions heightened between the LCL's conservative wing and the LM, it was established on its own in as a progressive liberal party. When still part of the league, it had eleven representatives; on its own, it initially had three.

This is a delightful piece of South Australian political history that I've been working on for a while now. It's thorough, well referenced, and has been subject to some helpful advice from fellow Wikipedians.

Comments and advice will be responded to promptly. Thank you! michael talk 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but a final copy-edit by someone who's unfamiliar with the text would be good; why stop at 95% quality? Here are random examples I picked up at the top.
    • "propeitary"
    • "Don Dunstan-led Labor Government"—identify cumbersome nominal groups like this; easy to reword: "Labor government led by Don Dunstan".
    • "led to it being absorbed back into the LCL"—This is ungrammatical ("its" is required, which may be a little old-fashioned now). Try "let to its reabsorption into the LCL".
    • Pick up ungainly ordering of phrases and clauses: "The non-Labor forces succeeded, after an initial loss in 1977, in ascending to office in the 1979 election." Try "After an initial loss in 1977, the non-Labor forces succeeded in gaining office in the 1979 election." "Ascending to" sounded biblical; heck, they're only politicians.
    • Word order: "who would have normally been attracted to the LCL"—try "have" after "normally".
    • "Labor's leader, Don Dunstan, also introduced a bill ..." What does "also" refer back to? Remove it, particularly as this starts a new para?
    • "property based qualifications"—Hyphen essential, even in AmEng.
    • "sought to retain their influence"—I think they did retain their influence.
    • It would be wise to provide just a passing, general idea of the left/right positioning of these parties. The term "Liberal", and "small-l Liberal", will be a problem for some English speakers, particularly in North America. In Canada, the Liberals are vaguely centrist/leftish in Ottawa, but are the conservative party in British Columbia; go figure. In the US, "liberal" means kind-of centrist, as opposed to the Republican right. In the UK, the Liberal Party is something different again. In Australia, "Liberal" = conservative. Surely some initial glossing of the parties and the way Australians understand these terms would be a good idea. Tony 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I don't think the prose is "brilliant" as would be required for a FA - definitely not as good as the other Featured Articles from South Australia. Besides a copyedit, I think it could be rewritten to be a bit clearer and more interesting. Can we also have some more varied pictures? Three pictures are all of different parts of Parliament House - I'd prefer some things more associated with the party— leaders, campaign materials, a party meeting or rally, etc. perhaps? If these things are fixed up I would be happy to change to support. JRG 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to both comments. Obviously the main problem arises from the prose. I'll give it a run through, would appreciate some feedback, and if it is still not up to standard I'll put in a request for someone else to have a go. As for pictures? All of the ones from the time are copyrighted and owned by Newscorp. None available. michael talk 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Ebionites

edit

Self-nominantion. I nominate this well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article (which has been peer-reviewed and received good article status) on a subject related to the origins of Christianity that deserves more attention in light of the pseudo-history, promoted by books like the The Da Vinci Code, that is quite popular these days. --Loremaster 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was being subjected to periodic vandalism by anonymous IPs. Ovadyah 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article will probably be subjected to intense vandalism by religious bigots from a variety of perspective if and when it becomes a Featured Article. --Loremaster 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an actionable objection. The article is not excessively long, and the alternative "summary style" would be to put that excellent collection of historical source quotes into a separate article, which would be a small and pointless subdivision. 204.186.14.201 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is actionable. We have Wikisource for primary sources, or at the very least I am opposing suggesting that the sources section should be shortened. How is that not actionable? Batmanand | Talk 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the primary sources section. --Loremaster 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the lead and dumbed down some sentences in it and in the rest of the article. --Loremaster 19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please complete your footnotes so we can see what kinds of sources you're using. All sources should include publisher, author and date when avaialable, and websources should include last access date. For example, your last source is ^ Messianic Seal. Who's the publisher, when was it accessed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different types of sources have different types of citations. That being said, I've removed the last source since it was redundant. --Loremaster 02:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Devil May Cry

edit

Admittedly, it still needs work. I'm sure there will be issues which need to be resolved before it can be promoted to FA-class. However, the article as it currently stands is in better shape than when Devil May Cry 2 was nominated for Good Article class, so I'm confident about the quality.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review and voice their concerns. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have done my share of work in the article and I can assure anyone with any concern about the article, that they will be attended to ASAP. -凶17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — references need to be expanded. All sources should have a publisher (the website or company that published the article or website), and references 23 and 24 are incomplete. If I have time, I'll see if I can find any other things that should be fixed. — Deckiller 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The prose needs serious work. For example:
"The game is currently the second game in the Devil May Cry series to take place chronologically." --Is it the second game with a chronological order, or the second game in a chronological order? It implies the former.
"The game itself consists of missions with specific goals in the player influenced area of the game itself." --"the game itself" twice in the same sentence? Plus, "player influenced area"? Needs clarification.
"The game features puzzle-solving and exploration elements that involve the player examining their surroundings to find items and orbs, though these are downplayed from the game's Resident Evil roots." --I'm just going to let this one speak for itself, but I will point out that the last part is original research.
  • Simply put, the article could use a heavy copy edit. Also, on a less serious note, I was under the impression that Devil May Cry was the first game in its genre (which now contains such games as God of War). A mention of this, with sourcing, would be nice. If I'm wrong, then sorry for bringing it up. Finally, I could see the Reception section getting some expansion. Using only 3 reviews is incomplete work for a game this well-received, and there are no negative comments. It would be nice to see some Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer and Edge in there, but the choice of sources is up to you. If these issues can be cleaned up, I'll support. JimmyBlackwing 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking the same thing; the reception section can probably be doubled in size. As for the prose, I might have time to copy-edit, but my favors for people are starting to accumulate, so no promises :) — Deckiller 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added references to Game Informer, Edge and Electronic Gaming Monthly I clarified some ref but there are some taken from a script and only Lankybugger can fix them since he is the only one with the info; I will deal with those sentences now, I won't add references to the God of War thing yet but I will look for them. ---凶 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More critical commentary doesn't just mean list the score from the Edge db. We can use Gamerankings and Metacritic for that kind of thing. It actually means quoting choice parts from the text. The user rated EGM score is not a very good source. - hahnchen 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about now, I added ref links and quoted their reviewers. User rated sites are still important it shows the customer's reception. -凶 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is NOT a comprehensive article. The Reception section is underdeveloped, I would like a Japanese perspective there, as well as more in depth critical commentary. Its success obviously spawned further games in the franchise, the games legacy should be mentioned in the article (possibly in the reception section).
  • Nothing is made of the Soundtrack, it's not always an important facet of computer games, but given that a separate release was made - Devil May Cry soundtracks, then it should feature.
  • And as a minor point, please clean up all the references, so they display an author, access date, publisher etc. - hahnchen 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I added a link to the soundtracts page and mentioned the release date of the soundtrack I don't think a more extensive mention is needed since there is a link for that there, I can't find any reference to Devil May Cry being the first 3rd-person action genre or of his influence in the gaming industry and believe me I looked all over the web, so please help me on this one I won't add a section without references. -凶 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dug around on the Internet a bit, myself, and came up short. A few critics ([32], [33]) say that it was the first 3d action game to capture the gameplay of a 2d action game, but that isn't exactly what we were looking for. However, the book 21st Century Game Design talks about how Devil May Cry was the "nucleating game" of the "extreme action" genre. I will try to get my hands on this book again, and get you a few excerpts. This could go in a "legacy" section, along with discussion of the game's sequels. It should go somewhere, in any case. JimmyBlackwing 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support As noted above, there are some problems with the writing, but it's nothing that can't be overcome. I do think reception can be fleshed out, it would be nice to find some references to the game's influence on the action genre, as it's now a benchmark frequently mentioned in articles about similar games. Perhaps an "influence" section could be added. I think some of the info about the lead character could be cribbed from the Dante (Devil May Cry) regarding how the character and the game seeks to subvert the normal survival horror formula. --Boradis 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've cobbled together a "Legacy" portion for Reception, and I believe others have taken care of all of the other actionable objections thus far. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not a fan of the prose in the Reception section, it doesn't, flow, at, all. It's just a string of unconnected quotes, each sentence is a different publication and there's no interlinking dialogue. Maybe if you started off talking about the graphics, and then the gameplay etc. It needs reworking. And I'd still like to see a Famitsu score up there. - hahnchen 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, it looks pretty good, and I think all my initial concerns have been dealt with. I have one consideration, though: The 'Development' starts off sounding like its all about Resident Evil. While it obviously spiraled off, it seems kind of sudden when it starts talking about Devil May Cry. I'm probably not being very articulate... :( Could you take a look and see if you could twist it around so its more in the context of DMC? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've removed the bits about Resident Evil: Code Veronica and RE3. It flows a little better now, and I think I'm going to reorganize it so it begins from a more Devil May Cry-centric position. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Overall, this is very good. However, it needs a longer section (at least one individual paragraph) designated to negative reviews, or even parts of positive reviews that criticized the game. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would posit that the reception section should match the actual reception in the media and amongst the userbase. It wouldn't make sense to present an equal showing of positive and negative criticism for a game which, by all accounts, received an overwhelmingly positive response. I'll try to dig up some more criticism, but the only real item which comes up is the difficulty which is adequately covered by the Next Generation Magazine review mentioned. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent. There doesn't necessarily have to be equal showing of positive and negative, but the negative should be shown in one concentrated section. One more thing I'd recommend would be a thorough spellcheck, but the writing's all there. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (weakening) - This article's text is not ready for FA. As a great many editors point to FA articles as a guideline to for what a perfect article is, we can't support something that still needs lots of work with the prose and flow of the text. Arcayne 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning - Grammatical issues and word choices show marked improvement, but I still don't think we're there as of yet. Here are a few examples:
1. In the opening Plot paragraph, the main character is "violently attacked". Not to be glib, but most attacks are not feather-gentle.
2. Also in the first paragraph, "Trish abruptly vanishes over a high wall". This is unclear to me, not having played the game. Does she leap ovre the wall and vanish, or does she >bamf!< away via teleportation?
3. In the last paragraph, Dante "leaves the amulet and sword with Trish's body before departing". When someone is referred to in terms of their body, it usually means they are no longer using it (ie, dead). However, we discover that Trish is alive and well, and co-piloting to good ship DNC. Its confusing
Granted, these things (from just the Plot, though the same issues are in the other sections) may seem like nit-picking, especially when the structure of the article is superb (aside from the repetitions of the phrase at the beginning of the the Lead and the first sentence in the Gameplay section). However, we are talking aboutan FA article, to be read the world over. It has to be as good as it can be, to my reckoning. I would suggest that you get someone who has never seen the game before (if you can find someone who doesn't play that many, even better - good luck with that) to copyedit this for clarity and logic points. If points like the ones I noteed were addressed, I think it be just dandy. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article speaks with a sound neutral tone, and is quite informative. I think the wording could be a little bit better but thats my only complaint. --ÄtΘmicR€£igionesїgñ
  • Comment - I've struck my above oppose. I feel that the prose could still do with some work, and would like an extra sentence or so about the soundtrack, but it's pretty much there. - hahnchen 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The prose has greatly improved, and while I think it could still use some fine-tuning in places, it's good enough for my support. Good work! JimmyBlackwing 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now; not bad, but still needs work on the prose.
    • Please weed out the redundant "also"s, such as here: "The player character also has the ability to ..." (especially as this is at the start of a para). In a narrative-dominated account, you could insert "also" into every sentence, but that would be tedious and unnecessary. Mostly, it's stronger without. Careful of overusing time-based tags, such as "then", "finally", "eventually", etc. They can weaken the prose.
    • "in hopes of finding the ones who took his mother and brother"—"In hopes", not the most logical construction, is some kind of loose regional expression. "In the hope of", please.
    • "whom Dante holds responsible for the deaths of his family, is planning a return"—Nowadays, you could use "who", especially as the referent is the subject of the larger sentence.
    • "The scene then jumps to them arriving at an immense castle,"—strictly speaking, "them arriving" is ungrammatical (should be their arriving). "jumps to their arrival at" would be so much nicer.
  • "Dante's brother, Vergil. After Vergil's final defeat, his amulet joins with Dante's, and Dante's default sword, called "Force Edge" (which belonged to Dante's" "Dante's" x 4.
  • "in the English-speaking video game media,"—"English-language" would be better.

Plus more. Fresh eyes required for a quick run-through to polish. Tony 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree with every one of Tony's points above, and only differ on one point made by Arcayne in that I think (as Dante obviously did!) that Trish was in fact stone dead. This being gothic fiction, her being a demon, and Dante leaving powerful magic items with her makes it completely feasible she resurrected. It's at least open to interpretation on that point, and saying "body" is as neutral as that description can get. --Boradis 03:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Tony is correct regarding "in hopes of" but "to accomplish his ultimate goal of" is excessively wordy. A shorter way of saying that would be "in order to", but both phrases imply a guaranteed outcome which Dante admits he doesn't have. I do laundry in order to have clean clothes, (A) guarantees (B). Perhaps "in pursuit of those who took his mother and brother", as that implies a lack of a guarantee, and that he's hunting them. Thoughts? --Boradis 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it be OK to change the sentence on Trish being dead or unconscious to something non-specific? As I pointed out above, Dante clearly thought she was dead, and it's perfectly possible she was. The truth is we don't know, the game doesn't say, and having the article come down on either side is speculation at best, and OR at worst. How about calling her "immobile", or "apparently dead"? --Boradis 21:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Moon

edit

It was only very recently that I came across this article and that I noticed that it is very close to, if not at FA level. I haven't made any considerable edits myself yet, but I'm convinced that both the subject and the article deserve to be FA. Therefore, I'm committed to personally take care of any comments to ensure the necessary improvements. Nick Mks 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. "Moon rocks", "Magnetic field", and "Gravity field" sections are all without citations. I'll check back in in a day or two and see if that gets addressed. I didn't bother to look further because of that. Quadzilla99 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more comments, keep in mind some of these may be in the text due to things I do not understand:
"The gravitational field of the Moon has been determined by the tracking of radio signals emitted by orbiting spacecraft." Has been is a little confusing, since these numbers presumably change over time shouldn't it be is? Do they no longer determine it this way?
"The Moon has only a very weak external magnetic field in comparison to the Earth." See this section of the MoS should probably have some sort of numbers in this section also.
Why are there several words bolded in the formation section? None of these redirects to the Moon article. Quadzilla99 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to take care of those. One thing I don't quite get though, concerning the gravitational field. I do believe that they had to do that only once, yes. Presumably the field indeed varies (very little) in time, but I don't think they measure it all the time. Nick Mks 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay as I said I may not understand some of the aspects, I wasn't aware if it was something they measured on more than one occasion. I changed to neutral I'll look it over tomorrow. The sentence regarding the weaknesses comparing the two should just say the moon has 100 and the earth has 200 or something like that, "relatively weak compared to" doesn't express things in any precise manner. So it still needs work see the link above to the section of the MoS I referred to, in general any section that says a property of the moon is weak or relatively compared to the earth, without mentioning numbers should probably replaced with "The Moon has less that 2% of the Earth's..." to make things definite and precise. Quadzilla99 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For instance this:"The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla, very weak in comparison to the Earth's." Could be this:"The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla, approximately 2% that of Earth's." or "The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla, while the Earth has one of (x) to a hundred nanotesla." Quadzilla99 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pending nitpicks Quite thorough, I assume you'll be able to fix the follosing few nitpicks:
  • "Its symbol is a crescent (☽)" - er - in what system? Surely not astrology?
Yes, I do believe that it is also the astrological symbol. I don't know how many lunar astronomers actually use it, I do know that us astrophysicists use the dotted circle (which also is astrological) for the Sun. Can anybody see the inline crescent by the way (it just gives a "box" in my case)? Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the inline crescent. I'm on an OSX Mac. Kaldari 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you have to explain what an astrological symbol or astronomical symbol is. Hey, we have an article on that! Link to it, and I'll be happy. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 384,403 kilometres (238,857 miles), - link both units or neither (both is better)
  • 5,000–year-old - pick one kind of dash?
Nope. I specifically changed it that way per WP:DASH. That's my interpretation. I'm not a linguist. :-) Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, the arguments about that are pretty arcane, I don't claim to understand them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - Sandy thinks she does! (Below.)--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the normally occluded Far side of the Moon - lower case F
  • In fact, do a thorough check of the usage of cases in wikilinks throughout. For example: "Main articles: Solar eclipse and lunar eclipse" but "See also: Lunar phase, Earthshine, and Observing the Moon" - make up your mind how you're going to capitalize these kinds of "see also" links outside sentences, and stick to it.
  • impact feature - wikilink uncommon term (perhaps to impact crater)?
I presume you mean "impact basin"? I can't find "feature". Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, I could have sworn that was in the header. I guess I was hallucinating. Put it down to bad cheese. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links - can you explain each one more? For example, what kind site is each one going to take us to - Govt, scientific, commercial, hobbyist? Name each site. Consider using the Template:cite web.
This one I don't quite get. I do use "cite web". Which parameter do you want me to include? Nick Mks 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, one is called "Current Moon Phase" - it's not obvious that clicking there takes you to some commercial site which displays unrelated ads, and links to NASA. Another is called "Assembled Panoramas from the Apollo Missions" and should probably say that they were assembled by Mike Constantine. Another is called "Moon Orbit Simulation" which could mean a simulation of the moon orbiting around earth, to something orbiting around the moon, but is actually an interactive Javascript simulation/game where you throw marbles around a gravity well. It also needs to say who made it. Where possible, a link should say what site it is from, if it is dated material, a date, and if there is a specific person who wrote or owns it, that person's name. You know, attribution. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I thought you meant the references. I'll take care of those. Nick Mks 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, to my best ability. Nick Mks 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, I'll tweak a bit myself. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'll have another look at them too. They are right that I missed some. Nick Mks 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great article Nick, thank you for the work.
The diameter of the moon is described as one quarter of earth in one place towards the end and as one third in second paragraph.
Is the height of the moon in the sky at highest in winter in Northern Hemisphere? see under observations "The highest altitude of the Moon on a day varies and has nearly the same limits as the Sun. It also depends on season and lunar phase with the full moon being highest in winter." If so this is written with assumption reader is not from the Southern Hemisphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrison Roo (talk • contribs)
The diameter ratio is 0.27, so indeed slightly over a quarter. As far as the full moon is higher in winter statement, this is correct for both hemispheres, see talk. Nick Mks 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: "Legal status" is currently unreferenced; if the section is going to be there at all, it needs a little more context as well ("No nation currently claims ownership..."). And the "Human understanding" section is woefully short; it needs more information about the storied place the moon has played in human mythology beyond a couple of sentences and a link to a poor article (No Artemis? No astrology? And no, I'm not biased because of my name :)) Otherwise, a great article. The "general references" are especially nice. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be expanding those things a bit, but don't expect too much. I'm not an astrologer or historian. Feel free to add stuff you deem appropriate. Nick Mks 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I didn't get to do much about human understanding than add a link to Artemis. I'm actually happy with the section as a summary of the subject. I agree that there should be a link to a relevant main article in stead of the stubs it links to now, but creating that is not our task here. Nick Mks 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly on presentation issues
  • Thumb images so that they take on the default resolution specified by the user preferences
All images (except in the infobox) are already thumbed? Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean setting a pixel value. WP:MoS =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've already done so in the meantime then, per another comment that was more specific. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nearside and far side needs to be presented as a gallery for (a) comparison and (b) prevention of the squeezing of text between the infobox
I could do that, but I'm not sure whether it is procedure for an inline picture. There is no text between pictures in any of my browsrers by the way. Any views on this anyone? Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not standard procedure. This is done because 1. the user is asked to compare two images, and 2. squashing of text between images and infobox. See Flag of Portugal for gallery images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has apparently been done as well by a good Samaritan. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left-aligned images at the beginning of a section make the text harder to read. Please right-align
Same remark. I've seen loads of FAs with left algined pics. Comments? Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against left-aligned images per se, but those at the start of a section, and those that push the section heading to the right. See WP:MoS =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Will do. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earth-Moon2.jpg -- the width specified is too high. It should be less than 600 px to prevent a scrollbar from appearing at standard resolution (800x600)
Done, while I believe standard resolution nowadays is 1024x768. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, 800x600 is still standard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do so, but I don't see why or per what this is resuired. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question see: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Reason It contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or more accurately in the SVG format. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My request has been carried out in the meantime. It even got colors. Nick Mks 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • =Exploration= & ==Human understanding= has too many images. Remove, or find another appropriate section.
I've removed one, I think that's enough, if anyone would want more let me know. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also should come at the end of the section
Done. Nick Mks 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know once done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the image changes. Just convert the gif file to png, and I'll be happy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has been requested. Nick Mks 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on intro: I dislike that the entire first paragraph is tied up with etymology. Shuffle this to the end of the intro or, if it's long enough, give it a small section. Marskell 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Taking care of it. Nick Mks 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment I didn't read past the TOC, since it starts off with two WP:MSH exceptions ("The"). Pls review the entire article for WP:MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. Now that I've looked at the bottom of the article, Oppose for now. Incomplete blue-link references, no publishers, dates of last access, etcetera. We need to know what your sources are and whether they are reliable. You can see WP:CITE/ES for examples of how to format references, or use the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) More: WP:DASH corrections are needed throughout to sort out the difference between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes. En dashes (which are used for date and number ranges) are used as hyphens; there may be other differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the external links are still under construction, see above. Could you however elaborate on what the specific dash problems are? I already tried to conform it with WP:DASH, and I was convinced I had succeeded... Nick Mks 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the refs, to my best ability. Nick Mks 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention External links; it's the footnotes that are incomplete. You've used en dashes in several places that should be hyphens. Why does Earth–Mooon have an en-dash, for example? I made two sample edits for you. I guess some people have a hard time seeing the difference between a - and a – but it's clear to me. If you can get everything else in order (footnotes, for example), I'll find time to fix the dashes for you. External links may need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another go at the refs then... I however contest the need for a last access date. Isn't that meant to mark the last date that the link was still existent and accurate? Shouldn't it be absolutely necessary in an FA to be so at all times, and therefore the last access date should be updated daily? As far as the dashes are concerned, I couldn't be more confused. I wrote Earth–Mooon due to the analogy with New York–London flight, mentioned in WP:DASH. The same for 5,000–year-old as inspired by the rule for compund adjectives. Could you mention the external links you find inappropriate? Nick Mks 10:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry on the en-dash; you are correct (can be used in place of the word "to" for indicating ranges). Shall I re-review and correct or will you? No, last access date indicates the date that you last verified the information cited; it helps us locate it in the internet archive if the site ever goes down. External links, I'd prefer that the editor who knows the topic best (you :-) reviews them per WP:EL, WP:NOT. Full dates (month-day-year) should be wikilinked so that reader's date preferences work; I saw several that aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem about the dashes, I don't claim to have them all right, I did what I could (I didn't know the rules before either). As for the last access date, that's exactly what I mean. In a FA, if a site goes down it should immediately be replaced with another one. What should I do then? Add today's date to all refs? I'll have a look at the external links, but I'm not really an expert (I'm just an astrophysicist, big difference between the Moon and a star ;) ). I'll take care of the unwikified dates. Thanks for the help. Nick Mks 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The section 'Origin and geologic evolution' has a main article called 'geology of the moon' - that's kind of confusing - which is it geology or evolution - or geology and evolution? A main article should cover all the topic. sbandrews (t) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was already mentioned as a main article anyway. Nick Mks 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, yes so I see - now I was hoping to avoid having to say this, but it's unavoidable - the *content* of the article is great, the structure is terrible! How was it possible for geology of the moon to be the main article for two different sections? Realy it needs restrucuring. sbandrews (t) 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the regolith and lunar rocks section clearly belong together, and yet they are half an article apart sbandrews (t) 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is not mine, I do not totally agree. However, I'm open to any proposal concerning a new TOC. Nick Mks 13:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't agree? You now have 'geology of the moon' as the main article for the lunar surface section, which is a mix of geology and geography, while the 'geology of the moon' article contains details about lunar rocks and origin which are handled later in the article... regards sbandrews (t) 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way to do it. The alternative is to concentrate the three first chapters under the heading Geology, and in that case we are reproducing the other article. I don't see what's wrong with referring to one main article more than once actually, but if you don't want that, you're gonna have to live with the fact that not every subject which also appears in the other article has a link. What do the others think about all this? Nick Mks 13:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the alternative. Maybe it's not that bad, I could live with it if you think it's better. Nick Mks 13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Support. Random stuff:
  • Don't specify image sizes. They'll resize per user preferences.
  • In contrast to the Earth, no major lunar mountains are believed to have formed as a result of tectonic events - Needs reference.
I'll work on that later. Nick Mks 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many online references lack the date they where accessed. This is especially important for the readers as online information can change and some may need to verify it using archival websites. If you're unsure when they have been accessed, just check the information again and write today as the access date.
  • Image captions containing full sentences require periods.
  • Remove "The Moon Society" from the external links per WP:EL. Neither informative nor reliable.
  • Avoid linking sole year per WP:DATE (2012). Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about this one. Above I was asked to link more dates and on WP:DATE I read there is no consensus on what to do. It will have to be consistent though. Nick Mks 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncommented remarks taken care of. Nick Mks 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

History of Sheffield

edit

self-nomination (I am a major contributor). Though it is not for me to comment on whether this is well written, I do think that it meets the FA criteria of being comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. —JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This poor nom has gone more than two days without comments. No support or oppose yet from me, because I haven't looked closely enough. The prose definitely needs auditing, judging from the lead. Comprehensiveness requirement seems to be satisfied, however. (Speaking of "however", avoid over-using it.) Refs seem to spell out attribution information properly. I'll try to edit the prose more myself, and get back to you with others concerns. Marskell 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a tentative support, pending more feedback from others, and specifically more prose work. A first full read-through is good. Marskell 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I like the changes that you made to the introduction (I am regularly guilty of overuse of however, although I am not the originator of the one that you removed). I am happy to try to address any further concerns that you might have. —JeremyA (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments keeping in mind that I know nothing whatsoever about the subject:
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the article. I will reply to each comment individually below. —JeremyA (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The etymology of the name is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon section, but it's not clear to me when the name was first applied to the area (between the 6th and 9th centuries?) That would also be a good thing to put in the lead. Along the same lines, is it known what the Romans called the area?
These are good questions, which would be great to answer—but they don't call them 'The Dark Ages' for nothing! The article is trying to balance two different, but very closely related histories: the history of the settlement called Sheffield, and the history of the entire area that is now within the boundaries of the City of Sheffield. So when I state at the end of the Romans section 'it is unlikely that the settlement that grew into Sheffield existed at this time' I am referring to the village that eventually grew and absorbed the surrounding villages/hamlets. Sheffield (along with slight variants in spelling) is the only known name of that core village. I have narrowed the date of the founding of that settlement as far as I can without going into the realm of original research—it is after the Anglo-Saxons (probably Angles) came into this area (likely the 6th century) but before the Danes arrived in the late 9th century. Whether or not any of those other villages/hamlets existed before the settlement called Sheffield was founded is unknown, and how soon after it was founded that settlement gained the name Sheffield is also unknown (I think that the Domesday Book is the earliest surviving printed use of the word).
So, to answer your specific questions, the lead gives 'the second half of the 1st millennium AD' as the founding of the settlement called Sheffield—this is my slightly less specific way of saying 6th–9th centuries because at that point we have not yet qualified the use of those dates. As for what the Romans called this area, I don't think that this is known... I don't think anyone even knows what the Roman fort at Templeborough was called (the best suggestion that I have read is Ad Fines).
    • The last sentence in the lead, maybe replace 'staff' with 'workers' or 'personnel' - I just don't normally think of steelworks as places that have 'staff'.
 Done — I changed staff to people
    • Could have more explanation of the reason and significance of the stone circles, as well as size estimates. ('Large and small' doesn't really give the reader any scale.)
I think that what we have is probably the best that we can do without going into the realm of original research. As I don't have access to any detailed research on the stone circles I can't further qualify 'large and small', so I have removed that wording.
    • '...the Pennine tribe called the Brigantes' - link or explain Pennine.
 Done
    • 'it is unlikely that the settlement that grew into Sheffield existed at this time.' - as in, it was not continuously populated?
see my answer to your first question above.
    • 'Addy (1888)[16]' - this is kind of awkward reference syntax. If there's a reason we should see Addy's name in the text (noted scholar studying the region?), then that should be explained; otherwise it can probably be left to the footnote, keeping only the year in the text.
 Done — I used Addy's name to avoid introducing any weasel-like terms. Addy is well known within the realm of Sheffield history, but I'm not sure how well known he is beyond that. I have changed the sentence to 'Sheffield historian S.O. Addy...'
    • 'a son, who died without issue.' - not sure what that means. Without an heir? In the same paragraph, who's Roger de Builli and is it important that William had his land as well as de Busli's? I feel like I'm missing an important fact here.
 Done I've been reading too many Victorian texts :-) It means childless, so 'without an heir' is probably a better wording. I think that the mention of 'Roger de Builli' is a mistake (Roger de Builli == Roger de Busli), so I have removed it.
    • 'In 1180 Beauchief Abbey was established 4 miles southwest of the town of Sheffield in Beauchief, which is now a suburb of the city.' - this sentence is just stuck in at the end of the Anglo-Saxon section rather contextlessly; it could use some fleshing out.
 Done — I moved this sentence here when I was trying to reorganise the article to make it flow more chronologically. I think that to flesh it out further would disrupt the flow too much at that point, so I have removed it and left a link to Beauchief Abbey in the 'See also' section.
    • In the medieval section we start calling this the 'manor of Hallamshire'; the preceding section made reference to the manor of Hallam, but also discussed works that referred to it in terms recognizable as related to 'Sheffield'. Do the two sets of terms refer to different things? Is 'Hallamshire' something like 'the greater Sheffield area'?
Nobody really knows what Hallamshire is/was. In the linked Hallamshire article I have tried to flesh out a little what is meant by the term. The Domesday Book refers to Hallam and Sheffield as different manors, but then adds that Sheffield had once been part of Hallam. I believe that the earliest surviving printed use of the word as Hallamshire may be the text referred to in reference #22. Possibly it would be a good idea to say that in the article. Whilst I think that it is important to mention Hallamshire in this article, I have tried to use the term as little as possible because it is so poorly defined. This becomes difficult in the 'Mediaeval' section because it almost seems like historians use Hallamshire and Sheffield interchangeably during this period; but because I am not sure whether that is really the case, I have used whatever word my source uses, which in that section happens to be Hunter who seems to have been very attached to the term Hallamshire.
    • There could be a bit more larger political background behind the queen's imprisonment, though maybe this is too long to get into very much.
Whilst the fact of her imprisonment in Sheffielders is of note, I think that the politics that put her there is better covered by other articles. We link to the Mary I of Scotland article, which gives a fairly in-depth account of her life, imprisonment, and death.
 Done I have expanded this section a little to read: In 1569 George Talbot, the sixth Earl of Shrewsbury, was given charge of Mary Queen of Scots. Mary was regarded as a threat by Elizabeth I, and had been held captive since her arrival in England in 1568.[26] Talbot brought Mary to Sheffield in 1570, and she spent most of the next 14 years imprisoned in Sheffield Castle and its dependent buildings.
    • ' replaced in some part by Georgian elegance, but also by Victorian squalor.' - likely true, but sounds a bit judgmental.
I'm not quite sure what to do about this. Whilst the editor that added this has maybe been a little effusive, it does provide a nice bridge between the mediaeval section and the industrial section so I don't want to lose it completely. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome
You could do something dull like 'much of the city was rebuilt during the Georgian and Victorian eras' and expand on it in the next section. Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — JeremyA (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The city's early success in steel production involved long working hours, in unpleasant conditions that offered little or no safety protection.' - needs a bit of rewording; cities aren't the sorts of things that work long hours or need safety protections.
 Done
    • 'Dr. W. H. Hatfield, is credited with the development...' - this is a very long, comma-filled, hard to parse (because of all the parentheses and appositives), sentence.
 Done — I have broken this up into smaller sentences and removed technical details that are not really necessary within this article.
    • 'The 1980s saw the worst of the run-down of Sheffield's industries (along with those of many other areas in the UK), culminating with the 1984/85 miners' strike.' - is there a word missing here? Or do you mean 'the collapse of Sheffield's industries...'?
 Done — I replaced 'run-down' with 'collapse'
    • '(the original tram system was closed in 1960)' - I don't think we know at this point that there was an original tram system.
 Done — I have changed this to 'an earlier tram system had closed in 1960'
    • 'highest ranking area outside London for overall wealth,' - so what are the major current industries or wealth-generating activities here, besides steel? The next sentence mentions office space, but what industries or companies are using it? Opabinia regalis 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is a relatively recent addition to the article. Personally I don't like these kind of claims in articles ('X city is the whatever-ist at this or that thing'), so I am quite happy to remove this paragraph completely.
I don't like those rankings either, especially since they change constantly depending on who did the study and what year it is, but some indication of the current major industries would be useful, I think. Now it seems strange to me that this place would have such a high level of wealth. Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- I have noted that over 80% of the city's workforce are in the public services and financial sector. —JeremyA (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose References should be formatted to a consistent bibiliographic style, including publisher for all sources, and author and publication date when available. For example (there are others), numerous news sources do not indicate the publication date. If you aren't familiar with a consistent bibliographic style, you can see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. You are correct that I should have checked that all citations use the cite family of templates. I have edited the article to correct this. —JeremyA (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I have now also found all original publishers of cited out-of-print books. —JeremyA (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, much better—although the cite templates aren't a panacea. I'm not sure you should have used the Work parameter instead of Publisher for websources (a difference in italics only). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 1a. It's much better than when I last reviewed it (was it a FAC or a FARC?), but you need to get an unfamiliar copy-editor onto the job.
    • "in what would become the City of Sheffield would not occur" - can you avoid the ungainly repetition?
    • "European "Common market" (now European Community)" - something's wrong here. At the very least, upper-case M is required and the quotes should be removed. Probably "the Common Market (now the EU)" is better.
    • "urban regeneration schemes aimed to fill the economic and geographic gaps left by the shut-down of the factories". So they aimed, but did they succeed? Begs the question. What are "geographic gaps"? "Closure" better than the informal "shut-down".
    • "Although Sheffield is producing more steel per year than at any other time in its history,[2] the industry is now less noticeable, as it has become highly automated and employs far fewer people than in the past." Remove "per year" and "in the past" as redundant. Can you find a better expression than "noticeable"? What exactly does it mean here? As you drive down the main street? As you look at the stats for the city's economy? Vague. Tony 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I hope that I have fixed the issues that you raise above:
      • "but significant growth in the number and size of settlements in what would become the City of Sheffield" -> "but significant growth in the settlements that are now incorporated into the city"
      • "European "Common market" (now European Community)" -> "European Economic Community" (I think that this was the correct official name for the organisation in the time-period that is being referred to.
      • I have completely rewritten the sentences that you critique in your final two comments. I decided to remove the claim of there being more steel production now than in the past because, although I have read this claim elsewhere, I have never seen it backed up by numbers leading me to suspect that it is a myth. My edit left me with "Starting in the late 1980s urban and economic regeneration schemes have transformed the city." —JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some substantial copy edits to the rest of the article, and I have also requested copy edits from a couple of sources. —JeremyA (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: defiantly the best "History of City" article I have read, puts History of Birmingham, History of Manchester and History of London to shame. It's comprehensive and well written without being just a collection of factoids. A couple of minor points you may want to look at:
    • Penultimate paragraph of Early History "... and by 51 the Brigantes had submitted to the clientship of Rome ...". Is clientship really the best expression for this?
    • The first paragraph of Mediaeval Sheffield would be improved if the sources for the facts were made explicit.
Note: I created this article in May 2005 by extracting text from an over long History section of the Sheffield page, and I've edited it occasionally since. Andreww 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pretty much all of the Mediaeval Sheffield section can be sourced to Hunter and Vickers—I have added some more references to make this clearer. —JeremyA (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deserves to be fixed up properly. I chose at random the first three paras of "Early history", and found lots to complain about with respect to the professional standard of writing that Criterion 1a insists on. For example:
    • "A map of Sheffield in 1736"—If this map was created in 1736, the caption should read "A 1736 map of Sheffield".
    • "hillfort"—not in my dictionary, and it's two words in the accompanying text.
    • "During the Bronze Age (about 1500 BC) tribes sometimes called the Urn people started to settle in the area. These people were armed warriors led by fierce chiefs, who subdued the earlier pastoral dwellers. They built numerous stone circles, examples of which can be found on Moscar Moor, Froggatt Edge and Hordron Edge. Two Early Bronze Age urns were found at Crookes in 1887,[4] and three Middle Bronze Age barrows found at Lodge Moor (both suburbs of the modern city)." So the Bronze Age lasted one year? As soon as you explicitly refer to "people" calling them the Urn people, we probably need a reference—otherwise reword, possibly in the passive voice; "sometimes" is ambiguous—so Prof X calls them Urns sometimes and another term at other times? Remove "started to"—there's too much of this starting thing in historical accounts in WP. "They" refers to the Urn people, the fierce chiefs, or the earlier pastoral dwellers? I think we need "were" again after "barrows".
    • "In the Iron Age"—I'm being picky: the previous paragraph starts "During the Bronze Age"; the text will be more cohesive if you re-use "During".
    • "It is this tribe who are thought to have constructed"—a thematic equative here is very marked and carries the emphatic point that this tribe, and no one else, is thought to have constructed. Do we need these additional layers here? "This tribe is thought to have constructed". I've changed "are" to "is".

Please don't just fix these issues; find someone else to go through the whole text. Tony 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - the article is nearly there, and the sections up to the end of the Mediaeval period, are excellent. I've also been through in an attempt to copyedit the article. The areas I still feel need more attention are:
  1. Industrial - the cutlery and metal working industries are rightly discussed in detail, but mining is entirely neglected. A couple of sentences would probably suffice.
  2. Post-Mediaeval era - the period to the mid-twentieth century is almost entirely covered in terms of its industry. This is a very important theme, but I would like to see a little more on other topics. Some of these are well covered in other articles, and could perhaps be skimmed over with a link to the main article on the topic:
  • the city's physical expansion - the laying out of new estates and construction of major buildings;
  • the city's political development;
  • the development of transportation in the city;
  • the development of major institutions, such as the universities;
  • the city's sporting heritage; in particular its important role in the nineteenth century development of football;
  • more briefly, the development of media and entertainment in the city
  • also briefly, immigration to the city
  • also briefly, religion in the city and the prominent role of dissent
  1. Finally, as with any history article on an entity which continues to exist, the conclusion is difficult to draw, but the detail on Sheffield's current economy at the end of the article seems a little superfluous.
Although this may seem rather a long list of objections, I am generally impressed by the article, and hope to help complete the effort required to change my object to a support and see it featured soon. Warofdreams talk 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I'll reluctantly withdraw my object, since it's much improved. But I'd still be uncomfortable without further polishing for your gold star. Why is it easy to find things like these at random?
    • "The Industrial Revolution brought large scale steel making to Sheffield in the 18th century. Much of the mediaeval town was gradually replaced by a mix of Georgian and Victorian buildings. Large areas of Sheffield's city centre have been rebuilt in recent years, but among the modern buildings, some old buildings have been retained." Hyphenate "large scale", since it's a double epithet. Should "steel making" be one word? Remove "among the modern buildings" as redundant.
    • Caption: "Graph showing the rapid increase in the population of Sheffield in the 19th century." We can see it's a graph, so remove the first two words. Full-stop not required, because it's not a proper sentence, but just a nominal group, like most captions.
    • Mid-eighteenth, but 1st and 6th elsewhere? Try the other way around: single digits spelt out; double digits numerals.
    • I think it's overlinked; why dilute your many high-value links with silly ones like "London" and "United States"? Tony 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

The Orb

edit

I've been working on this article for quite awhile now and I think its finally ready for FAC (self nom). Its very well referenced and contains multiple cool free images with a minimum of unfree media. I think it has a good balance of band history, production techniques, and themes/whatnot with some good quotes. I will respond quickly to any suggestions, so feel free to offer up any suggestions you think it needs before its an FA. Thanks! Wickethewok 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a most excellent piece of work. I'm still reading through your latest revision but I continue to be impressed at the work you've done here.
While [at EG Records], he met KLF member Jimmy Cauty
Hmm... presumably Jimmy wasn't a KLF member when he met Alex, so that should perhaps be "future KLF member" or even just "Jimmy Cauty"?
Also, I'm a little confused by the statement. Did Alex and Jimmy meet at EG Records, or just during that period of time? Perhaps that could be cleared up. If it's the former, what was Jimmy's connection to the label, if any?
One other small point, there seems to be a few too many links, links which are for consecutive words and things like post punk rock music where the former is a subdivision of the latter and the reader can eventually click through to rock music anyway. I fixed that one, but I think there are others.
Finally (for now, as I've not finished reading), I'm not sure about the footnotes in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body, so wouldn't it be best to cite everything except the potentially controversial in the body only? --kingboyk 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much thanks, Kingboyk. I added the word "future" in - I think this is better, as I think it makes it less confusing later on. I removed the EG Records thing, as I don't think its particular relevant to The Orb as much as it is just Paterson. I removed some of the excess wikilinks, most notably the publication wikilinks, of which there were several redundant ones. I've heard varying opinions on citations in the lead, ranging from everything should be cited to nothing should cited... so I'm not sure on that... I look forward to anymore suggestions you have. Much thanks! Wickethewok 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EG Records connection: some of Jimmy's old material was released on EG. (How should that article be named, anyway? EG? E.G.? E'G (as Discogs has it)?)
    • The book I have (Modulations) particularly plays up the EG connection, as they were milking the theme of Paterson as a sort of heir apparent to Eno. I have no idea how much of that's reality vs. just a romantic notion. –Unint 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that I've read just mention Paterson working there in passing and don't mention Cauty in relation to EG. Does Modulations mention if Paterson/Cauty met this way? Wickethewok 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing so specific at all; actually, they make a point about how little information there is. It was just "Alex and his gang" from some point onwards. –Unint 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally responsible for a small gaffe, I'm afraid: a while ago I edited the last sentence of the first paragraph of "History" to give attribution to where the "ambient house for the E generation" actually appeared. However, this forced a mention of the "A Huge Ever Growing Pulsating Brain..." single before its proper introduction. I'm not quite sure how to rearrange everything to get it to make sense. –Unint 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the source of the "E generation" should go in a footnote? Would that make more sense? But, yeah, introducing the name of the single before we get there is a little confusing. Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"History", section 2, last paragraph: why did FFWD lack direction as a result of the nature of the album? –Unint 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute "another acrimonious departure from The Orb"? Actually, I read that reference (#30) and was particularly struck by the way Paterson behaved. Was this an isolated incident? –Unint 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall structure: from 1995-2004 the history really paints a picture of overall negative critical responses. One paragraph after another takes the form of "many reviewers hated it, though this one publication had a positive quote". In addition, given that, saying that they then "began" to fall into "critical irrelevancy" by 2004 doesn't seem to gel with what's presented by the past several paragraphs. –Unint 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, well basically, according to some retrospectives I've read, it seems that most of the UK critics didn't much care for much Orb stuff from 94-97, though the US critics did. I tried to make this clear - do you have any suggestions on how to make this more clear? As for Cydonia, I think RollingStone was the only one who supported it (I don't think I cited any positive reviews on this one). Bicycles was a balance of good and bad reviews - I've tried to make that more apparent. I agree with your "began" comment, and hopefully I've fixed it. I eagerly await your additional feedback, much thanks for your time and effort! Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Orb were finished after UFOrb in the UK, quite frankly (and rightly so imho!). Yet again I wish I'd kept my old music papers! Maybe the Librarian of Mu could help? --kingboyk 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some touch-ups. I hope I've eliminated the boring sort of format that Unint described in the article. If you want, you can check out the diff. I tried to remove a little of the critic opinions and replace them with some of their more objective comments about the albums. I also did a touchup of the intro. I think I've addressed all the concerns listed explicitly above (except for maybe how Paterson/Cauty met, though I don't know if this information is available anywhere). Any additional general/specific/whatever needs for this to become FA? Wickethewok 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further comments. "Paterson vehemently denies any Pink Floyd influence in his work." Paterson appeared with David Gilmour on the cover of Melody Maker, 27 March 1993.[34] That's a feature you might want to track down; he must at least have acknowledged some connection to agree to the appearance?
  • He did acknowledge some vague connections, so I noted the Pink Floyd - Meddle album thing in the article. Here's a reprint of the article online: [35]. Maybe Paterson's opinions of Floyd changed over time? In many other articles I've read he's fairly dismissive of the comparison, but Paterson is a pretty crazy guy like that... Wickethewok 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't seem very dismissive there, on the contrary. It's not that important either; I'd consider removing ", though Paterson denies Pink Floyd as a major influence in his work" from the lead and give both sides of the story a mention in the body.
  • I'm finding the last paragraph of the lead very messy/jerky still. It doesn't seem to have any direction and is several poorly worded statements glued together.
  • Is Mika Nakashima "mainstream"? (In Japan perhaps; I don't know.) Do we know for sure that remixing "bolstered The Orb's popularity" or should we just say it gave them additional exposure?
  • I've re-done the third paragraph of the lead, lemme know what you think. Mika Nakashima is pretty mainstream in Japan I believe (she had a #1 album over there and seems to be a popular actress there, too. Wickethewok 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paterson and Cauty began DJ-ing in London and landed a deal for The Orb to play the chill out room at London nightclub Heaven. Resident DJ Paul Oakenfold brought in the duo specifically as ambient DJs for his "The Land of Oz" event at Heaven.[5] - Some redundancy here, could be merged into one sentence with a little rewording.
  • I've tweaked a few things in the 1st section, "1988–1990: Paterson & Cauty". Feel free to revert or further improve. I've also added a few {{fact}} tags; there's nothing there I believe to be untrue, rather you've slipped a little from your otherwise meticulous referencing.
  • "In 1991, Paterson invited studio engineer Kris "Thrash" Weston to join him in The Orb's live performances." Shortly after this, we find them in the studio. Shouldn't we just say he was invited to join "The Orb"? Or, can we explain a little more fully that Weston started as part of the live show only but then became a full member, if that's what happened?
  • "To promote the release of an edited single disc version for an American release, The Orb embarked on their first tour of the United States beginning in Phoenix, Arizona.[21][22]" First source isn't great (primary source). When was the tour exactly? If it was a little later I'd move this sentence as I feel the paragraph would be better if it ended with the sentence before.
  • "Despite its playing time of almost 40 minutes, "Blue Room" entered the UK charts at #12 and peaked at #8, making it the longest track to reach the UK singles chart". This ought to be cited, I think. I'd also add a note in the footnotes about the UK chart rules. At the time, 40:00 was the maximum (or was it under 40mins?). Blue Room clocked in at, what, 39:59? I believe the allowed running time was shortened since then so for now their record is safe. (BTW, that running time is longer than The Beatles' Revolver album!).
  • "Weston suddenly quit The Orb to pursue his own projects". I've put to "pursue his own projects" into quotes, as it sounds rather like "musical differences" to me. Is it a direct quote?
  • Important: In several places you mention critical reaction, whilst citing only one source. It would be better to cite several, even if they all say the same thing. Otherwise how does the reader know we're not cherry-picking? :)

--kingboyk 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC) More to come but you can reply now if you like.[reply]

  • I just want to point out that I will of course be supporting this nomination. So far I've found a readable, well researched, neutral article. All the above is nitpicking and minor. Will finish off my review tomorrow. --kingboyk 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment. The article is very good and very close. There are some prose issues, of which the following are examples only:
  • "his unauthorized use of other artist's work has led to disputes with other artists" - other artist repeated twice in single sentence.
  • "The Orb achieved most of their critical and commercial success in the UK in the early 1990s" - The Orb's critical and commercial success in the UK peaked in the early 1990s
  • In the 3rd lead para the word Orb appears six times (outside of album titles); can you alternate with either band, group, ot their.
  • "The Orb's albums of the mid-1990s" - mid-1990s albums
  • "Moving their new work to the record label Kompakt in 2002" - Awkwardly phrased.
  • "Though initially The Orb's Monday night performances had only several "hard-core" followers" - initally seems misplaced, initally had only?
  • "grew popular over the course of their six month stay at Heaven" - at Heaven is redundant.
  • "Paterson began working with Youth on the track "Little Fluffy Clouds". "Little Fluffy Clouds" featured samples from Steve Reich's Electric Counterpoint" - Little Fluffy Clouds is repeated in sucession.
  • "Retrospectively, Adventures is considered ground-breaking for the genres of ambient and dance music as well as changing the way musicians view sampling". - a little awkward; a ground-breaking release in the history of ambient ... as well as for'? Not too sure about this one.
  • "U.F.Orb reached #1 on the UK Albums Chart to the shock of critics, who were surprised that fans had embraced what journalists considered to be progressive rock" - While this is backed up by two citations, it should be clarified that most (including me) bought the record expecting more of the same ;).
  • "though having considered retiring The Orb" - could be better phrased.
  • "who had previously performed with The Orb's live show" - reword with.
I've focused on copy here; otherwise the article is well researched, sourced, and insightful. Ceoil 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—it's very good, and mostly well written (why can't all nominations in this genre be like this?). But I'm concerned about the use of five copyrighted audio excerpts under fair use. WP's practice has become much more restrictive in the past year (stricter than US fair-use common law, indeed). Three excerpts might be safer—you need expert opinion from Danny or someone else at the fair use page. The audio excerpts should be very difficult to "replace", which may well be case given the recency of the band's output. (1) "No free alternative is available which achieves the same effect.", as the file infos say, is weak when it comes to the crunch; and (2) "It illustrates the subject in question (The Orb, Orblivion) for educational purposes." is hard to justify when the surrounding text doesn't refer to specific features in the excerpt, although I must say that thought and skill has gone into the relationship between text and audio. Remember that WP is intended to be freely copied, which conflicts with the notion of fair use. Tony 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. The article is comprehensive, well referenced, neutral but not neutered, and certainly amongst Wikipedia's best work. I support only "weakly" at this stage because I continue to find redundancies in the text and occasional less than brilliant prose. That said, Tony has supported unconditionally and he's the copy expert not me. I'll likely change to full support once the text has had a final copyedit and the {{fact}} tags I've just added have been dealt with. Make no mistake though, this is a wonderful effort; I've watched the evolution of the article with interest and not only have you done a superb job I've learnt from it too. Thank you! (Also, it looks like this will be promoted; will that make Jimmy Cauty the first person to have 2 of his bands at FA?). --kingboyk 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is good advice. Tony 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tony, that's hugely gratifying coming from you. Anyway, I think Wickethewok has done all he can with the article; if you're happy with the prose then so I am. Changing to full support. --kingboyk 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Encyclopædia Britannica

edit

Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1

The family of Britannica articles has expanded significantly since its last FAC, as may be seen from the new category Category:Encyclopædia Britannica. New pages have been created on the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Propædia, Macropædia, Micropædia, Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Bicentennial of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Dobson's Encyclopædia as well as biographical articles for all major people in its history. The present article is stable, a good article, and has been through a recent peer review. Willow 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no slight intended, merely a difference in bibliographic custom. As I understand it, the italicized names are used for materials that have been published in a fixed form, whether paper or CD/DVD-ROM version. Wikipedia, as a whole, has not yet been published in that way, so I'd be inclined to keep its name in the Roman font. Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, regardless of its typeface. :) Willow 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the way I had understood it was that any substantial collection of documents, whether in online or offline form, was italicized. I don't know... it may be the way I learned it, and I don't have an MLA Style Manual with me right now. (But either way, that won't be an excuse next week, as WP:V0.5 is going to be released. Heh...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a website. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) there is no mention of websites. The talk page has a question from someone about it but not clear answer. IMO websites are not normally italicized - one solution is using the logic of exclusion: since websites are not listed in things to be italicized, it should not be. -- Stbalbach 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments :*"a 20-volume set with excellent, but primarily Scottish, contributors." I can't see why being Scottish is seen as a modifier of excellence. This could be better-phrased!

You're right, perhaps that's redundant. ;) The goal was to show that the EB grew from being a Scottish enterprise to having international scope; I'll work on the phrasing.
  • At the risk of being seen as a dour and humourless Scot, I don't think the "My Wife Knows Everything!" joke adds much to the article.
At the risk of being seen as a dour and humourless feminist, I was a little offended, too. But the article definitely needs a pithy anecdote illustrating the EB's popular reputation; that story is the "punchline" anecdote of Kogan's encyclopedic history, as told by one of the EB's longest editors-in-chief, Walter Yust. I'll try to find a better story, and would welcome suggestions from other readers.

:*"Dr. Sutton is exceptional in another way; traditionally, less than 10% of the Britannica's contributors are female." Is this really a tradition?

Perhaps "historically" would be better worded?

:*"Other cost-cutting measures have included mandates to use free photos." Was this a mandate or an instruction? "Mandate" has multiple meanings, another word might be better.

Great catch, thanks! (later) "Mandates" is the wording of the original source, which is indeed ambiguous; to me, it could mean "permission to use free photos" or "instructions to use free photos".
Well, if that's the source, you're stuck with somebody else's poor writing.

:*Reference 17 needs formatting.

  • Some other web refs need access dates. (Refs 18, 27, 29 and 34)

:*Further reading needs ISBN numbers

More great catches; I'm on it. Thanks very much for your comments! Willow 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tim, I may have addressed your concerns; please let me know if other suggestions occur to you. Thanks again! Willow 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also many many of the sentences of this article start with 'The'. If you can remove any of these like here, it would help make the flow seem less repetitive. JoeSmack Talk 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good suggestions, Joe! We definitely want the writing to be as good as it can be. I've fixed all the redundant instances of "however" and "over the years" (I think), and I'm beginning to work on the most awkward sentences. I have to admit, though, that I prefer a longer, 19th-century style, and would have real difficulties writing without dependent clauses; Ernest Hemingway, I'm not. ;) Willow 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sentences with no definite articles sound too telegraphic to my ears and, well, ungrammatical. Is there a guideline somewhere that says we should do that? Preferring Eliot to the more pithy Mr. Jingle, Willow 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a lot of the 'thes' are taken care of and a lot of the 'however's (although imho there are a couple more that could go, i might swipe at em later. I'm not sure i agree about the longer sentences though. There isn't a policy against it that i know of, but heaven sakes, just hit 'find' in firefox and then 'highlight all', and lordy lord are they a huge number in the lot of text. compare it to other FAs and tell me what you think - maybe you'll remain undeterred, maybe not but it feels very hard to commit to me to a sentence that never seems to stop. JoeSmack Talk 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope you got to work OK; I've got to go soon myself. ;) I'll try to find ways to shorten and simplify the sentences, but please be patient with me. Thanks! :) Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There still seemed to be a lot of commas to me (and I generally love commas!). Awadewit 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Very good; some comments on tightening the presentation (being picky, for obvious reasons ;)
This is a great critique; every FAC should be so lucky! :) Willow 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is very long. Nothing presents itself as an obvious candidate for removal, but it might be summarized further: eg, if it were on the main page, a summary of the summary would have to be created.
I've been bold and condensed the lead a bit, but couldn't deal with the citation needed tags since I'm not familiar with the topic. TimVickers 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not immediately clear why the thistle logo is related to the Scottish Enlightenment.
Tim should probably answer this, but I believe that the thistle is a symbol of Scotland itself, particularly the flower part that is the EB logo. Did this I'll try to track down when it became the "official" EB symbol. Having trouble; apparently not trademarked? see Talk page
  • Even with a citation, I don't know about 'dubious scholarship'; at minimum, it should read 'considered dubious'. The citation seems to be to Collier's Encyclopedia, with a text mention of the 'dubious' description, but I'm not sure another (competitor) encyclopedia is a good source for that characterization.
Collier's Encyclopedia expresses the idea most pithily, but several sources question the scholarship of the EB's early editions. There are several examples where the early EB editors either invented facts or rejected established science in favor of crackpot theories, e.g., Smellie's assertion that tobacco smoking will shrivel the brain to a dry husk, or Dr. Gleig's rejection of Newton's law of gravity (then well established) in favor of the theory that Heracleitian fire causes gravity?
Although this is an oversimplification, I wouldn't cite product A to support the claim that competing product B was once of low quality. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to trust an encyclopedia, especially if corroborated by other sources. But perhaps you're right, it might have the appearance of impropriety.
(later) fixed this; eliminated "dubious scholarship" altogether
  • In the history of editions, the eminence of the 11th isn't mentioned?
OK, did that.
  • 'The unfamiliar organization and the absence of an Index' - we run into the absence of an Index before learning that previous editions did have one (though it is mentioned in the lead). Also, no description of the differences, if any, between a Britannica Index and an ordinary index with a lower-case i.
There's no difference; it was for me a compromise between treating it like a noun (index) and treating like a fourth part of the EB (Index). I'll go with the former. The history of the EB index is a little complicated; it came into general use around (IIRC) the 7th ed. but, in even the 2nd ed., individual long articles had their own index. I'll try and clarify it all; thanks! OK, clarified this (I hope).
  • I'm the last to be playing footnote police, but 'universal critical condemnation' really should have a citation of some sort.
OK, Kister will do, since he provides all sorts of quotes. "Universal" is too strong, though. Did this
  • Why is the Sherlock Holmes mention so exceptionally notable that it alone merits inclusion in the article? Does the Britannica play a central role in the story? Sorry, I ought to know more than I do about Sherlock Holmes stories.
It's the key mechanism by which the mark, Jabez Wilson, is duped; to keep him out of his office, he's mysteriously hired by an eccentric American to copy out the EB longhand for a healthy salary. Holmes mocks his stupidity, but notes that he'll at least be better educated on subjects early in the alphabet. No change?
You might mention Britannica's central role in the plot, otherwise it sounds rather arbitrarily selected. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although it'd be better to assemble a larger collection of cool literature references. We need to give this section more weight, anyway.
OK, did that. Filled in the "popular reputation" section significantly. The details of the Holmes' story are maybe not pertinent, though? Interested readers can always follow the link. Willow 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description of the Micropedia articles could focus more on what they're meant to do (give a very brief intro to a topic, I assume, and point to appropriate Macropedia articles for more information) rather than what they don't do.
OK, did that.
  • Do they have an official standard on their 'hybrid' English spelling? Do they justify these choices anywhere?
I'll look for that. Having trouble; maybe there's no set policy?
  • 'the online version...is updated daily' - what's updated? The daily news-type features? This phrasing implies that some fraction of the core encyclopedic content is updated daily, which seems unlikely.
I need to check up on this as well. They do accept corrections at any time, I believe.
  • Along the same lines, I think more could be made of how radical a change the continuous revision policy was. I think most people today would read 'check twice every ten years' and think that was a ridiculously low rate.
OK. The prior policy was to not change the encyclopedia at all until the next edition was released, usually ~20-30 years later. Even then, many articles were carried over intact from the earlier edition, e.g., from the 7th to the 8th. Did this
  • Systemic bias section seems biased. One could make the plausible counterargument that the Britannica's main audience is Western, so it's unsurprising that it covers Western topics, which are more likely to interest its readers, in more detail. Particularly the article lists seem crufty to me (and, depending on how fast those revisions happen, might get out of date ;). Does Kister (the cited reference) explicitly make this argument that Britannica's coverage favors Western topics, but less so than competitors?
Kister states it more positively; he notes explicitly that it's not as biased as its competitors. I'll give a quote later today so that you can understand the context. included the following quote
  • Similar question with the '10% are female' statistic: I assume this is in the cited source (was it this article that at one point counted the number of female-sounding names, or am I thinking of something else?), but do they describe how they arrived at this figure? A much more useful comparison would be the percentage of female contributors in the 15th edition; obviously the percentage will sound low if you calculate it over the entire 300+ years of its existence.
The historical figures that are published are those of the 10th-11th editions, in which women represented 2% of the credited authors. According to the cited Gillian Thomas book, there were many parts written uncredited by the EB's largely female "secretarial" staff. No women were credited prior to the 10th edition. A calculation based on the published list of contributors, under the most generous assumptions (all androgynous names are female), yields a present-day figure of 9%. I realize that that can't be cited as WP:NOR, but it also seemed unfair to cite the 2% figure.
I'm loath to remove the sentence, but maybe it's better without it. Removed sentence
  • In the staff section, there should again be a note or reference of some sort for the statement that the editorial staff writes the Micropedia articles, particularly if you're giving such a very specific example. Mentioning again that these are anonymous is pertinent, but whether or not they provide references is irrelevant here.
The actual article says "Eds." at the bottom, which stands for the editorial staff. I can reference it. Did this
  • The large number of statistics on the ages and deaths of the editorial advisors does not seem relevant - there never seems to be a point made about them. I assume the idea is that they may be out of date and/or out of tune with their younger consumers, but that's never stated and probably shouldn't be unless there's a source for it.
The idea is that many readers may be people researching a paper or newspaper article. When writing about Wikipedia, such researchers often note the relative youth of its typical contributors, and I thought they might appreciate some data on the age of their EB counterparts.
The death dates are a measure of the time since some contributions have been updated in the EB.
OK, though I'm a bit resistant to including information in a particular article simply because people often mention the corresponding Wikipedia-related factoid. It's not clear reading this article in isolation why we need this list of facts - eg, a percentage of dead 'editorial advisors' doesn't have any implication for whether the content they oversaw has been updated or not, does it? (Unless the percentage is 100%, I suppose.) Also, if the Propedia contributor list has just been accreting new names over time, then there will be dead people on the list, but it would have been updated by the newcomers. (I'm not sure if it works this way, but it seems likely.) Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so fond of this, too; it seems relatively unimportant. I may just remove it or reword it. OK, fixed that.
  • Starting the corporate structure section with their registered trademarks seems odd; ideally move it down.
OK, did that.
  • 'Magisterial' is an odd adjective for an encyclopedia.
I was reaching for an adjective that sounded grand and authoritative, something that says, "this purports to be the definitive reference work", non plus ultra. Removed "magisterial" clause
  • I admit a bias here; corporate drone-speak makes me gag. But I don't see the relevance of this 'Porter 5 forces' stuff - what one particular business model suggests about Britannica seems quite tangential - and the application seems to be... well, maybe too trivial to be OR, but certainly 'novel synthesis' on some level.
Need to brood on this for a little while; maybe you're right. The conclusion seems pretty obvious, though, even without appealing the 5-forces analysis, so I wouldn't call it a novel synthesis. The only reason for citing the 5-forces analysis is to place the argument in the framework of accepted economic theory. (Ooops, is that drone-speak? Sorry, I'm too good of a parrot. ;)
(later) Removed references to Porter 5-forces analysis. did this
  • 'Dr. Kister' doesn't need an honorific.
Good catch, thanks! Did this
  • Whether Wikipedia is bigger than an ancient Chinese encyclopedia is also irrelevant in an article about neither. (I assume that's 'Yong-le', but I always want to read it 'Yon-gle'.)
OK, I can delete this. Did this
  • 'oriented towards omissions' - needs rewording - doesn't really make sense to be 'oriented' toward an omission.
I agree. Did this
  • Unless we get a link to information about Crotona/e, we have no way of evaluating that example. I think it's better to just say 'minor spelling variations' or somesuch.
OK. Did this
  • I'm not sold on comparing web traffic to Wikipedia vs Britannica: it's pretty obvious that most for-pay sites will get lower traffic on average than free ones, and some of the discrepancy is surely explained by the fact that people do think of Wikipedia when they want to know what movie this actor was in or what season of Futurama has the episode where Leela discovers that she's a mutant. (Hmm, guess what's on TV right now?) It's sort of like saying 'Google Scholar gets more web traffic than PubMed' - well, yes, but one is much more specialized. (Also, high probability that Wikipedia users are more likely to have the Alexa tool installed than Britannica users, who likely are concentrated in schools.) In short, there's enough caveats to the comparison that I'm not sure that stating it in an unqualified way is helpful.
I agree with your conclusion although, speaking for myself, I think that Futurama is just as valid a subject for curiosity as Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. I believe that the function of an encyclopedia is to inform on any subject of interest to its readers, not to pass judgment on the worthiness of those subjects. I love Homer and can recite hundreds of lines of his poetry, but to me, that shouldn't be more exalted than a fanboy reciting every line in Star Wars; both of us are equally in love. :) I remember Jorge Luis Borges saying that tango lyrics would someday be more highly esteemed and remembered in his native Argentina than all the then-current high-brow poetry; and he was right.
If we agree on that, then I think the 450-fold difference in web traffic does reflect a greater perceived value of Wikipedia over the Britannica, both for its content and for its accessibility. People are voting with their feet — or mice?
No change?
No, I'm not comfortable with that conclusion; it would only work if the two sites' content coverage were roughly the same, or there were some way of quantifying Wikipedia's traffic for content that overlaps with Britannica's coverage. People come to Wikipedia for a much broader scope of information - last time I looked, the 100 most-viewed articles were over-enriched in anime characters and body parts - so it's formally possible given this data that more people use Britannica for traditional encyclopedic topics, but Wikipedia gets more traffic from other coverage. I don't believe that's true at all, but it can't be excluded. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might understand the discrepancy; please let me know if I'm right! I'm assessing relative value by the question, "Does encyclopedia X or Y better provide what I want to know?" whereas I think you're assessing it with the question, "Given subject A covered by both encyclopedia X and Y, which encyclopedia would I prefer?" Your way separates the quality from the quantity, which seems good; but doesn't it add value to have something rather than nothing on a subject of curiosity?
Added proviso; OK?
  • I don't know if this is covered in the sources, but what's the rationale behind the edition numbering system? I saw the volumes column in the table jumping around from 28 to 3 and back, and wondered what happened, only to realize that the separately numbered '12th edition' is just a supplement to the 11th... and yet the addition of an index to the 15th didn't trigger a new number, and they've been on the same edition since the 70s. Given the continuous revision policy, what demarcates the recent editions? Marketing/corporate whim? Opabinia regalis 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no rationale except the marketing idea of the new American owners. The basic idea is that encyclopedias gradually get outdated and need new material; however, the cost of a whole new edition is exorbitant. The earlier additions to the 3rd and 5th editions were called "supplements". However, Messrs. Hooper et al. recognized the sales potential of adding a few volumes to the 9th and calling it the 10th; more than a few people in the early 20th century were outraged to discover that they had bought a 10th edition that was mostly composed of the 9th. They applied the same strategy to the 11th, adding three volumes to get the 12th and a different set of 3 to get the 13th.
You're always a gem, and I'd appreciate any more comments or sugggestions that you have. Thanks! Willow 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current version of the criticism section has a lot of unnecessary adjectives that add up to a slanted feel. James Joyce wasn't just omitted, but slighted, the editors weren't just wrong or out of date, but promoted charlatanry, its claims aren't just factually false, but intemperate, etc. The quote is a good one for illustrating the problem (what, people who don't know their own limits producing sub-par articles? A truly foreign thing for Wikipedia!), but it's just kind of stuck into the text with no explanatory transition (eg, it was evidently written after the American buyout, but we don't know when this was written without clicking the footnote). It also seems deeply peculiar to be citing Britannica articles in support of statements that contradict Britannica's own promotional claims. Lastly, the racism and sexism paragraph is troublesome, as it seems to be judging a 1911 work by modern standards, and cites examples that might have been just ordinary shoddy work. (eg, paraphrasing the KKK's description of itself is not necessarily the endorsement of these views, as the article's text implies.)
Huh, I'm keenly conscious of my own limits, and I still produce sub-par articles. ;) Great to have you back! :D
I agree with making it more neutral; Joyce is already gone, and others can be eliminated. However, there are genuine occasions when the Britannica is not merely limited by its era, but is actually behind the time. Mr. Fleming is not quoting others, but expressing his own "expert" opinion when he blithely explains how the KKK restored much-needed order to the post-Civil War South by terrorizing "superstitious" blacks and their supporters; to me at least, that seems pretty racist, even for 1911. I have to admit, I was offended by the "frequent rape" assertions as well. The sexism is perhaps the product of its time, even perhaps the suppression of the women typesetters, but one might expect better from a putatively civilized institution.
It seemed deeply appropriate to refute the EB promotional claims with quotes from its own materials. I guess that the claims were written by some non-expert advertising person and not really checked over, so they could well be removed or modified soon. I can't imagine why else they would make bogus claims of priority.
  • There is also one odd citation in the reputation section, reading '(source: interview in The New Yorker, March 3, 1938)' but without the footnote format the rest of the text uses, and without identifying the article. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one caught my eye as well; I still haven't tracked it down. Willow 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed that; it was in the 1934 New Yorker, not the 1938. Willow 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the article is very good but to reach featured I think some issues of POV balance need to be discussed. -- Stbalbach 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little critical discussion of EB. For example in Wikipedia, we have an entire article on Reliability of Wikipedia, and an entire article on Criticism of Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia attracts that type of attention, but the criticisms of EB are currently few and spread out in the article with qualifiers. The "Reputation" section is very rosy saying "the Britannica has enjoyed a reputation for general excellence." Maybe a "popular" reputation, but the 1911 edition had many criticism's published at the time, including a 200+ page book by Willard Huntington Wright called Misinforming a Nation (1917) - the 15th edition also had many criticisms. Given the more recent attention of WP vs EB, it has also attracted criticism. The Bias section could be expanded, some of the problems discussed in Wright's book are still around today. It also seems to downplay things by saying "albeit less so than several older encyclopedias" and following up the bias section with an "Awards" section.
More criticism should perhaps be included. I'll try to do that; the Ken Kister and Gillian Thomas references have some nice discussions, not to mention the fine book by Einbinder. However, the Misinforming a Nation book was discredited (even in its own time) as a mere polemic, not a fair critique. I'm willing to discuss it, but we should bear its negative example in mind in our writing here. OK, did that; what do you think of the new section?
I believe wholeheartedly in a fair and scrupulously complete presentation; but in cases of doubt, I believe we should treat the EB with gracious generosity and fellow feeling. We both share a common good purpose, to enlighten those who wish enlightenment and to transmit the hard-won culture and knowledge of previous eras to the next. It's easy to scorn them for their failings, but we have our share of those as well; and I think we do better to help them, to improve them gadfly-like, rather than to try to drag them into the mud. Indeed, I foresee that our article on them will improve their reputation and business, rather than detract from them; I couldn't be more delighted in the success of a noble pursuit. History teaches that making an encyclopedia is a labor of love, not of lucre; there are much easier ways of making a buck.
I think you did a good job on the criticisms section. there are much easier ways of making a buck.. lol, well, for most of us no bucks involved, it is a labor of love of knowledge, and with Wikipedia, democratic knowledge (if such a thing exists). -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • EB is a general purpose encyclopedia, compared to other more specialized encyclopedia's, it is not nearly as good. For example, just about any topic on the Middle Ages is going to be more reliable in Dictionary of the Middle Ages - the same could be said for Medical, regional, and other types of encyclopedias. There are thousands of dictionaries/encyclopedias today. The article doesn't really place EB into context, it speaks about Encyclopedia's as a whole, when it's really a sub-genre of Encyclopedia, the general purpose encyclopedia.
Agreed, I'll try to add that. Did this
Looks good. Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:LEAD section discusses a lot about the latest edition and its lower price point, but misses large parts of the rest of the article. The Lead section is a balanced summary of the article content, it should not say anything "new" that is not already said in more detail in the article body. It should be a mini stand-alone version of the article in summary format. See WP:LEAD for more.
You're right, I'll try to cover the rest without causing the lead to balloon uncontrollably. did this
OK, I tried to shorten the lead, but add in other parts covered in the main article. How does that look? Thanks for your other really nice comments, BTW! :) Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online should be made at least a stub, it's pretty bad right now. The Online Britannica is more than just a digital version of the paper edition, it contains a lot of unique material.
Would you be willing to tackle that? You're right, it's shamefully bad right now, almost an advertisement. However, that's another article and somewhat ancillary to this one's FAC. Thanks, Willow 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will keep it in mind as I find sources about it. One important thing to note in that article, for Wikipedia readers, is that EB articles are fully and freely available when linked to from outside sources (such as WP), no subscription needed. I've often seen editors delete external links to EBO because they think it is a pay-site (which it is, but not when linked to from Wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure of sections. Currently there are 4 main sections: History, Status 2007, Contributors/Staff, Competition. Would it make sense to have a 5th section called "Reception" into which these sub-sections be moved: Reputation, Criticisms, Awards, with a lead paragraph giving summary highlights from those three sections. I realize this puts the "criticisms" and "awards" right next to each other, but it makes logical sense. If not awards could be kept in the Status 2007 section. -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, and very apt. Did this. Do you like the current wording of the section title? There's no lead-in blurb, but maybe it's not needed? Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport—1a. Dense occurrence of problems in the lead; this indicates that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing. Please don't just fix these examples; search for other WPs to help. Here are examples of problems in the prose.
  • "continuously-published"—No hyphen after "-ly".
Fixed this
  • Inconsistent use of en dashes and hyphens for ranges (should all be en dashes).
Fixed this throughout article
  • Talk of attracting the North American market before announcing that it was a British innovation.
Not sure if I understand this? The beginning of the previous paragraph says that it was first published in Edinburgh in 1768, making it a Scottish innovation? If it would help, I could write "in Edinburgh, Scotland".
  • "The current 15th edition"—Comma is mandatory, unless you mean that there's a previous 15th edition.
Fixed this
There was a previous version of the 15th edition (1974–1985), as described in the article, but it too had a three-part structure.
  • "less than 750 words"—"fewer".
Fixed this
  • "2-310 pages" is a bit hard to read, and needs an en dash anyway. Try "from two to 310 pages".
Fixed this
  • "readers are advised to study the Propædia outline to understand a subject's context and find other, more detailed articles"—I think "to" is required before "find".
Fixed this
  • "over the last 70 years"—the last in 70 years in the century is OK, but here we need "past".
Fixed this
  • "with ca. 40 million words on ca. half a million topics"—No, spell out "about".
Fixed this
  • "the rise of electronic encyclopedias such as Encarta"—You might also mention Wikipedia.
I would, but I dread the edit-wars to follow. Not everyone is convinced that Wikipedia poses a notable challenge to the Britannica.
  • ";[8] To"?
Fixed this
  • "Certain earlier editions of the Britannica have been criticized at times for inaccuracies, biases and lack of authority"—Can we do without "Certain" (unsure, but would be nicer)? Remove "at times". Better singular: inaccuracy, bias and ...
Fixed this

Tony 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sharp eye for grammar and punctuation. Please let me know whether all of your concerns have been addressed. Thanks! Willow 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wrote: "this indicates that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing. Please don't just fix these examples". You've just fixed the examples. Tony 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I made changes throughout the text, such as converting the hyphens to en dashes. Am I correct in understanding that you want only copy editing, not wholesale changes in the exposition? It would be helpful if you could describe the types of errors that are repeated throughout the article. Willow 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from copy-editing. You need to say when Hugh Chisholm made that sexist remark, it would be notable in 1980, but normal in 1910. I guessed this was also in the 1910 edition. Correct this if it is wrong. Perhaps add a fair-use image of Christine Sutton, to counter in part the "Old-dead-white-male" impression of the section on contributors? TimVickers 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! I added a cheery picture of Dr. Sutton to the Contributors section. I'll track down the Chisholm reference later today. Thanks for all your help; the article is much better for your copy-editing! :) Willow 12:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced the Chisholm quote to its source, an article in The Daily Telegraph (14 December 1910), but upon further reflection, I decided to delete it. His remarks are not actually part of the Britannica itself, whatever they may tell of its then chief editor, so they're not pertinent. Thanks again for your help! :) Willow 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to work on this article quite a lot and since I first found it, it has been greatly improved. I'm glad to see that others have continued to work this article, and think it is worthy of being a featured article. NauticaShades 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have issues with 1: Over abundance of primary sources (we don't accept that many anywhere else) and 2: side claims such as Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever assembled are fully unreferenced. Sorry, but primary vs secondary sources is deemed a very significant issue at other articles. Having said that - my first review is it's quite a fine article, and I don't know enough about the FA process to comment further.Garrie 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Garrie, I removed the "largest", clause which is indeed verifiable but unnecessary for the article, as you point out. To my knowledge, the main reliable secondary sources for the Britannica have all been included; not many people devote their lives to researching encyclopedias! The primary sources here are mainly reference to facts, such as "the EB is dedicated to President Bush and Queen Elizabeth II.", "Lord Inglefield called attention to this Shelock Holmes story." or "The EB gave a 20-page rebuttal to the study by Nature." They're generally not used to support claims, although there are a few, such as it being the "oldest English-language encyclopedia still in print". My own feeling is that, for such claims as were cited, the EB is a reliable (tertiary) source. However, I could replace them with a secondary source, if there's enough doubt of the Britannica being a reliable source. Willow 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The policy states that "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." (WP:RS) the use of primary sources to reference simple facts about the Britannica is entirely acceptable. TimVickers 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- This has turned into a lovely article, and as someone noted it's on a subject (encyclopedias) that is near and dear to us :) It's well-written and well-referenced (I can confirm that there's not a whole lot that's been published about encyclopedias, compared to some other subjects); certainly worth of being a FAC. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone pointed out, this article will come under particular scrutiny (especially from Britannica), so let's be doubly sure that it is very thoroughly copy edited before calling it a Featured Article. I just took a very quick look and saw that the corporate name, "Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.", was missing the comma everywhere. I also have seen several instances of commas preceding the words "but" or "and" where the word begins a dependent clause, and those should be removed, since commas should only be placed before a conjunction that begins an independent clause or a parenthetical clause. I also see that you (Willow) are adding more semicolons, combining two sentences together. I think you should be more judicious in your use of semicolons, of which there are, IMO, too many in the article. Shorter sentences are easier to read, and, except for William Faulkner, writers should prefer simplicity. Nevertheless, it is a fine article, and these nits and picks are merely intended to assist you in making it even better. Over the weekend I'll try to take a closer look and help out. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ssilvers, for your kind attention to the article and also for your kind advice. I appreciate your time and effort and I'll make a greater effort to rein my rampant runaways. ;) For me, it's hard to keep two clauses separate if they're connected in thought.
For proofreaders, there's also a small matter that I should call your (plural) attention to. I tend to punctuate certain sentences thus
<Independent clause 1> <conjunction such as "and" or "but">, <parenthetical clause>, <independent clause 2>
as in "Her words were fair but, owing to his past experiences, he doubted her sincerity."
whereas other people insert an extra comma
<Independent clause 1>, <conjunction such as "and" or "but">, <parenthetical clause>, <independent clause 2>
as in "Her words were fair, but, owing to his past experiences, he doubted her sincerity."
Naturally, I like my way better, being more flowing and just as correct. However, I recognize that some may prefer the other or yet another formulation; I'll defer to the consensus in any case. Thanks again, Willow 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with "Her words were fair but owing to his past experiences he doubted her sincerity." - the but doing the job of the comma or semi-colon. I'm no English brain though. JoeSmack Talk 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disagree, but you do need the comma before a conjunction that is followed by an independent clause creating a compound sentence, thus: "Her words were fair, but he doubted her sincerity." Then, when you add the parenthetical in, you may (optionally) add the two extra commas. It looks like a lot of commas, but if you don't want so many commas, you can go with "Her words were fair, but owing to his past experiences he doubted her sincerity." But you may not omit the comma before the independent clause. Another way to do it (although I agree that, in this case, it is not warranted because the sentence is pretty short) is: "Her words were fair. Owing to his past experiences, however, he doubted her sincerity." This does illustrate, though, that even though I have broken the sentence in two, it is crystal clear from the second sentence that they are related. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, never be sorry to disagree! I like your 'don't want so many commas' version the best. JoeSmack Talk 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Overall an excellent article. However, I do have a question about the contributors section at Encyclopædia_Britannica#Contributors where it states "The 2007 print version of the Britannica boasts 4,411 contributors, many of whom are eminent in their fields such as Milton Friedman, Michael DeBakey and Carl Sagan." Of these three people, Friedman and Sagan are dead, with Sagan having been dead for over 10 years, while DeBakey is 99 years old. How can they be noted contributors to the 2007 edition. More likely, they contributed to earlier edition of the Encyclopedia. We should clarify this, perhaps by listing some living notable contributors. And yes, I realize that the rest of the subsection describes how up to a quarter of contributors are deceased, but the way the section reads it sounds like they contributed to the current edition. Please clarify.--Alabamaboy 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Support, Alabamaboy! I'll try to answer your question as best I can. As I understand it, even deceased people count as contributors to the 2007 version because their articles are still being used in that version, even though they were written some years ago. That's fair, I guess, because those articles are contributing to the quality of the Britannica, no? Presumably, some fields don't change quickly, and so an article written in 1987 (or 1947) can still be considered au courant. But perhaps we shouldn't say that they are eminent contributors?
The cheery picture of Christine Sutton was included to show a prolific living contributor, and (per Tim's suggestion above) to counter the perception that the Britannica's contributors are mostly dead, white males. I can track down a few more notable living people, though. Please let me know what you think, Willow 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until copyedit is done, and other minor points.
    • I found a faulty instance of WP:DASH; pls check throughout.
    • I didn't find any other examples, but others should proofread it as well.
    • I'm finding a *lot* of WP:MSH problems and fixing them as I go; pls review. But I can't fix this one: the section "Contributors, staff, and management" is followed by sub-sections of "Contributors" and "Staff", repeating headings. Can the main heading be changed to something like Personnel or something more generic?
    • Changed to "Personnel and management" to capture the business aspects.
    • "Summary table of the editions" isn't a good heading; can it be changed to something like "Edition summary"?
    • Took your suggestion — thanks! :)
Added tag for Commons materials; there are a lot of images there!
Images were still in See also; I moved them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Encyclopædia Britannica article about itself does not belong in Further reading, it's an External link—see WP:GTL.
    • Perfectly right, and it's been moved.
    • External link farm, needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT.
    • Pruned to a nice set, eliminated redundancies.
    • External jumps need to be eliminated by either adding them to external links, converting to a reference, or linking to their own article (Wikipedia receives roughly 450 times more traffic than does the online version of the Britannica (britannica.com), ... ) britannica.com here is an external jump. Another external jump which can be converted to a ref or it's own article, (Similar to the Britannica, Encarta is also available online by subscription, although some content may be accessed for free.) Another external jump (A somewhat more credible critic, Joseph McCabe, claimed that the Britannica was susceptible to editorial pressure from the Roman Catholic Church in his book, Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britannica.) Another (The Britannica has also been criticized unfairly. A well-known example is Willard Huntington Wright's book, Misinforming a Nation, ). Wiki is not a blog of links to external sites. Do we not have an article on Wright's book? Then it should be a red link, not an external jump.
    • Changed these external links to refs; I must've been being lazy not to make as proper reference.

Haven't look at sourcing yet; will do that next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your careful attention to detail! :) Willow 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • I changed a couple instances of cite journal to cite news, so they would return a correct ref.
Great, I followed your lead on the references that I added subsequently. Willow 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand these refs; they list EB as the publisher, but are on 1991encyclopedia.org—is the ref written correctly?
  • ^ Lang, Andrew. (1911). "Poltergeist". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
  • ^ Fleming, Walter Lynwood. (1911). "Lynch Law". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
  • ^ Fleming, Walter Lynwood. (1911). "Ku Klux Klan". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
The ref is correct, since those articles were published by the Britannica in its 11th edition. The url links to 1991encyclopedia.org are included merely for convenience, so that readers don't have to buy their own copy of the 11th, which is in the public domain.
  • Blue link ref, needs to be expanded, needs last access date: Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Shop - (SVOL_REF) 2003 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
  • No publisher: Encyclopaedia Britannica Selects AskMeNow to Launch Mobile Encylopedia (February 21, 2007). Retrieved on March 25, 2007.
Thanks, Fvasconcellos! :) Willow 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this seem to list publisher twice? "Biochemical Components of Organisms". Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. 14: 1007–1030. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. (double punc at end)
I fixed the double period; that's a foible of the template itself. In the apparent double listing, the first is to the encyclopedia itself, whereas the second is to the company that produces it. Willow 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this? The NPD Group/NPD Techworld, January 2000 – February 2006. Can't sort out title, author, publisher.
Gave slightly improved reference; I'm not sure whether it's a publicly available report, or whether you have to pay for it. Willow 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of that information, I've clarified this a bit further. After all, these are footnotes ;) Fvasconcellos 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, Buzzle.com ? Is this a reliable source? (note the author, please: Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. No. Better do some homework there on and off Wiki. This MUST be fixed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, most of those links were not added by me; admittedly, I hadn't checked them carefully. I'll look them over, although I'm getting sleepy tonight; no rest for the wicked! ;) Willow 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the dubious buzzle reference, and the attached sentence, which was pretty subjective, anyway. Willow 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Willow, thanks for addressing all of my concerns so quickly. I'm traveling, on a very slow connection, haven't viewed the article anew, but will re-check the article as soon as I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose, since these issues have been addressed. I need to thoroughly review again before I can support. For example, this kind of error can get us into trouble: [36] The way the article title was reported appeared to introduce bias; please go through and check *every* reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi Willow. I feel like playing devil's advocate tonight.
Does that make me the advocata angelarum? ;) I'll answer your critiques first, since they seem a little easier. Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The history of the Britannica can be divided into five main eras." I just bet that a strict reading of our original research policy would say that this is an original synthesis, unless it's attributed. I'm not asking you to change it, by any means, because I think that would be an example of putting policy before common sense.
I would be hard-pressed to find a source that states it verbatim, but that organization is present in most recountings of the EB's history. Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Did Willow write the preceding?) (I think so. O)[reply]
Umm, she did, but she was so sleepy that she forgot to sign — twice! Willow 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, what if you say "is" instead of "can be" and drop a footnote to a source that does it that way? --Ssilvers 05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My novel interpretation is this: you have organized your paragraphs by certain divisions of time. You have provided a topic sentence that prepares the reader for this organization. If paragraph organization is original research, we're in trubble. Case closed. –Outriggr § 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, Outriggr! Willow 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say the same for "Under the influence of Mortimer J. Adler, the Britannica sought not only to be a good reference work and educational tool, but also to systematize all of human knowledge, striving to fulfill the dream of the Elizabethan philosopher, Francis Bacon." Is the italicized portion attributable, or is it a nice aside of the type that aren't strictly allowed?
I think that I did read that somewhere, but I'm uncertain where; it would've been a few months ago, when I started researching the EB. The aside is not necessary, though, and we may appreciate it more than most; perhaps it should be deleted? Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for deleting it as sorta tangential. Hey, wait! I've decided to fulfill another dream of Bacon at breakfast tomorrow.  :-) -- Ssilvers 05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's not disturbing Bacon. –Outriggr § 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yum! :9 Willow 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Removed Bacon bits. ;) Willow 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You're very fair-spoken, for a demon. ;) Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's opposite day down below! –Outriggr § 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other comment I forgot involved the paragraph about American businessmen. When reading it I feel that there is a slight shift in point of view. In Europe the Britannica was managed by "publishing firms"; in the US it's managed by "American businessmen who introduced aggressive marketing". The difference is perhaps legitimate, but the paragraph also indicates that the 11th edition, overseen by Horace Hooper in the US, is highly praised. The topic sentence for the "now in the US" era could be more neutral, I think. –Outriggr § 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 11th has a rather tortuous history. The EB was bought by a partnership of four Americans, two of whom bailed early; the remaining two, Hooper and Jackson, quarreled vigorously and publicly. As I understand it, Hooper wanted to take the high road with the 11th, making it as perfect as possible, whereas Jackson didn't want to invest the time and effort. Both of them used nasty corporate shenanigans to oust the other, which were recounted with manifest gusto by the tabloids of the day. Eventually, Jackson lost and sought revenge by starting his own encyclopedia, the Book of Knowledge, which one still sees in used book stores. That's why it's hard for me to describe Hooper and Jackson as a united "firm"; by contrast, the brothers Adam and Charles Black seemed a model professional company.
Also, there's no denying that there was a mighty sea-change in marketing when the Americans took over the Britannica. There was much criticism of the EB's "popularization" and tidal-wave advertising, but it also seems likely that the new tactics saved the EB from bankruptcy as much as Hooper's devotion to producing a first-rate encyclopedia. Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support I have two nitpicks, which echo two of SandyGeorgia's comments:
    • Two external jumps under "Criticism", which could easily be turned into footnotes; I'd do it myself, but I don't want to step on any toes during FAC :)
    • I'd like to see a different heading for "Contributors, staff and management"; at present, it's redundant to the subsections. Also, "Digital encyclopedias on CD/DVD-ROM" could be changed to "Digital encyclopedias on optical media" or something of the sort, to avoid the slash.
    • In my humble opinion, this article is well-written and, perhaps most importantly, "fiercely" neutral; once the two very minor issues I mentioned above are addressed, I'll Support. Not that it has influenced my opinion, but I'd also love to see this on the Main Page :) Fvasconcellos 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your kind review! :) I think I've dealt with the two problems you mentioned, although personally I don't mind the slash; is it OK if we keep CD/DVD-ROM? "Optical media" seems not as direct, not as immediately recogizable, for the readers? I'll change it, though, if you insist. Thanks again, Willow 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. WP:MSH discourages the use of special characters; I'm unsure as to whether slashes are OK, but I see your point on "optical media" not being as instantly recognizable. Fvasconcellos 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fvasconcellos, you shouldn't worry about stepping on my toes. :) I'm sure that your taste is just as refined as mine, if not more so; Alison thinks you're amazing, and many of us share her opinion. :) Besides, I have cloven hooves. 3:) Willow 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not clear what "Editors" in the edition table means. The listed persons are obviously not the editors-in-chief. Benton was publisher, not much of an editor I think. Seems like an incoherent selection of persons prominently involved with the respective editions. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that, Bramlet, and for all your other improvements to the article. I've fixed the table so that that column includes only the chief editors of the various editions, and I've changed the column heading as well to clarify that. Willow 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Well written and well referenced. I don't see any issues that needs to be fixed, so I'll support. Actually, Image:Encarta visual browser.jpg, a copyrighted image used under fair use, has no fair use rationale. That needs to be fixed. CloudNine 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cloud, for that critical catch! I've added a fair-use justification to the Image page itself; is that the right place for it? I hope it's OK; I've never written a fair-use justification before. Willow 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive would be one way to put it, it took me 25+ minutes to read and I'm no slouch. Well written, and an improvement from the last FA nominated article. I worked on that one some and I can say this is FA material.
  • Is there a better way to present the 2nd sentence? It seems weird to me, but I can't figure out a better way to put it.
Maybe it's a little better now?
  • Which article is 310 pages in the macropedia?
That on the United States; they merged all the individual state articles and got a monster article.
  • "One young writer", Smellie, is said to be the writer of the 1st EB, but elsewhere (in WP and on britannica) he is called "editor" and "compiler". Did he actually do all the writing?
He did indeed do at least some of the writing, although it's been generally acknowledged that he plagiarized many writers of his time. (For example, see the bicentennial toasts.) The other two, Bell and Macfarquhar, didn't contribute to the writing, as far as anyone knows. In his later years, Smellie boasted of composing the Britannica with scissors and a pastepot. My kind of charming rogue :D
  • "Various editions from the 3rd to the 9th were pirated for sale in the United States,[4] beginning with Dobson's Encyclopædia.[19] " - Wouldn't "extensively plagiarized" be a better term than pirated? It sounds more like the material was copied and modified.
They were indeed pirated. Dobson's was slightly modified, but, by the 9th edition, others pioneered early Xerox technology (shipping photographs of the galley proofs) and employed spies in the printing shops to send them galleys by the swiftest means. Amazingly efficient, the pirates published their copies almost simultaneously with the official sets. The official sellers sold tens of thousands of sets in North America, whereas the pirates sold hundreds of thousands of sets. The protectionist U. S. copyright laws didn't help, either; court-throat competition! ;) That's one factor that helped Horace Everett Hooper (associated with one of the pirates) to take over the Britannica in 1901. But once there, he was one of its best benefactors, raising it to perhaps its highest height, the 11th.
  • Mention that editions before 11th are now public domain? (when will the 12th become?)
Being published in 1922, the three volumes of the 12th edition are already in the public domain. I'm not sure about the 13th, though, all of its authors would need to be dead for 75 years, I think. I'm not an expert, though.
  • Good luck keeping the article covered in EB but not in WP link red :)
I started helping to write it myself, but it's been stalled for a while now, I think. "Arts of Native American peoples" is the other Macropædia article that's missing. Of course, several others are stubs; check out Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles for a worklist.
  • Here are my copy edits, revert as you feel fit. [37]
Thanks very much! :)
  • Finally, I hope you get a full EB set for getting this to FA :)
By complete serendipity, I picked up a facsimile version of the 1st edition for a song at a used book store. That's how I was able to upload its Preface to Wikisource. It's a real pleasure to read, and I respect Smellie all the more for his wonderful flair for writing and his remarkable erudition. It must be a Scots thing. Quid distat inter sottum et Scotum? Mensa! ;)

-Ravedave 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Dave! Hoping that Greta is doing well, Willow 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. She is doing wonderfully, and this is all gone.
Yeay! :)
"the Britannica moved from being a three-volume set written by one young editor" So should this be changed to compiler since he didn't write the whole thing?
It's a little delicate, since I'd like to keep it both short and accurate. Maybe "compiled" is OK, although I'd like to also give him credit for his writing, which has a highly personal and enjoyable style.
Is this ok? "The 2007 Macropædia has 699 in-depth articles, ranging in length from 2 pages (many) to 310 pages (United States) and having references and named contributors. "
There aren't that many articles with only two pages, although there are several with fewer than five. I'll try to re-word appropriately.
Thanks for re-adding Scotland to Edinburgh, just to make it clear.
So skip the mention that volumes before 12 are public domain?
Not sure where you mean? Thanks again for the help and support! :) Willow 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Repeating this at the bottom so it won't get overlooked. This kind of error can get us into trouble: [38] The way the article title was reported appeared to introduce bias; please go through and check *every* reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do; I'm on it, chief. :) Willow 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They look OK to my eyes; I filled in those last two references from 1911 and 1912. Others should probably take a look, however. Willow 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it odd that this article does not mention the first and most famous of encyclopedias, Diderot's Encyclopédie - this encyclopedia is, in many ways, the one that started it all. It should be mentioned in the history. I will read the rest of the article later. Awadewit 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wonderfully infamous Encyclopédie is covered in the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article, along with many of the encyclopedias that preceded it. I can include a sentence about it here, but I'm worried about fact-creep, that is, the article gradually becoming over-burdened with tangential facts. I've added the sentence; please let me know whether it addresses your concerns — thanks! :) Willow 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem, but since the Encyclopédie was really the driving force behind all later encyclopedias, it seemed disingenuous to only mention the Scottish Enlightenment as the intellectual context for the Britannica's production. I think that the sentence you have added is just fine. Awadewit 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promised comments This is a good article. I have a few small issues that can be addressed and then I will support.
  • Earlier editions of the Britannica have been criticized for inaccuracy, bias and lack of authority - what does "lack of authority" mean here?
The contributors were criticized as lacking authority to write the articles they wrote. For example, the referenced quote about Mr. Philips states that he is not qualified to make sweeping statements about all of European history, as he did in the 11th edition. Clarified this.
"editors of dubious credibility"? Just a thought (I initially thought "unauthoritative" wasn't a word - but it is in the unabridged Merriam-Webster). Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dubious credibility" seems over-stated; it's not as though he was a charlatan or had written bad checks! ;) It's just that he was like many Wikipedians, reading up eagerly and distilling his reading into good prose. The reviewer faults him not for being wrong per se, but for having inadequate direct experience as a historian to make his pronouncements authoritative. If it's OK with you, I'd like to keep "unauthoritative", which has the advantage of precision. Willow 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Britannica has been issued in 15 official editions, with several supplements and re-organizations. - is a "re-organization" a thing that can be issued? I was confused by this.
This could be dropped. The whole 15th edition edition was drastically reorganized in 1985: large-scale mergers of articles, additions and (I assume) deletions. Dropped "re-organizations".
I get that. I was trying to point out that the phrasing and grammar don't quite work. How about "The Britannica has been reissued in 15 official editions, some of which have involved a substantial re-organization of the encyclopedia; supplements have also periodically been published." - or something like that Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into two paragraphs and explained more fully. Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • who oversaw the production of the famous 9th edition - why was the 9th edition famous?
It is widely famed for its scholarship; it is considered by many to be the most scholarly of all editions. Explained this more fully.
  • Powell aggressively developed new educational products that leveraged the Britannica's reputation. - this is an uncommon use of "leveraged" - you might consider changing it (I'm not insisting on it - just thinking of the average reader)
I'll think about it, but it's a technical term, I believe. One alternative, "exploited", sounds too crass to my ears. Chose "built upon" as a better alternative.
Or you could just link "leveraged" to wiktionary. I did this with "commensurate" in an article I edited. I should have suggested this before - sorry. We shouldn't dumb down too much, should we? (I don't like "exploit" either.) Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is a little obscure for me; how do you link directly to subentries? Anyway, I think it's be better to be more direct on such a minor point; is "built on" OK for now? Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. For future reference, here's how: leveraged.
  • In 1968, near the end of this era, the Britannica celebrated its bicentennial. - This sentence is oddly placed and does not add much to the paragraph.
I agree, but it helps to give a sense of the passage of time, and to direct the reader to another page describing the bicentennial celebration.
  • I wonder if in the "History" section you might say what defined each "era." Right now it is only implicit. I think this could be done simply by changing some language.
The eras are organized by the major sea-changes in its history, either changes in its ownership/management or organization.
Yes, I get that, but I meant to say was that your language doesn't necessarily convey that. For example, you write "During the second era (7th–9th editions, 1827–1901), the Britannica was managed by the Edinburgh publishing firm, A & C Black." - it is not necessarily clear that that sentence is supposed to mean "the second era was defined by the ownership of A & C Black" - it could be just a prelude to what defined the second era and you are telling us that during the second era, Britannica was owned by A & C Black. In fact, that is just how I read it the first time. All of the "era" sections begin in this manner. That is why I suggested you change the language to make it clear what is defining them. By the way, I noticed the point about original research above. If these eras are so obvious, someone must have done this division somewhere (not to insult your work!) - what prompted you to divide the eras like this? Even if it was someone else's chapter divisions in a book, I would cite that. Then you are not doing original research. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Britannica has a popular reputation for containing the sum of human culture. - "sum of human knowledge," perhaps?
OK! :) Changed this.
  • When Fath Ali became the Shah of Persia in 1797, he was given a complete set of the Britannica's 3rd edition, which he read completely; after this feat of scholarship - is this really a feat of scholarship? Scholarship usually involves original research and writing. How about just "feat"?
Sure! Changed this.
  • In the "Reputation" section, why not list the people who read the entire encyclopedia chronologically?
Made more chronological. Changed this.
I like this better. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Awards" section seems silly if you are only going to mention recent awards and digital awards.
I listed what I was able to find easily. It'd be great if you could find more. :) One might argue that, being current, they're more meaningful than an award given fifty years ago.
I get that, but it looks like have only won dinky little awards in the last few years. Why don't you email Britannica's PR people for a list of awards they have won? I'm sure they would gladly send it to you so that they would be fairly represented. You can then verify the awards with those groups. I won't hold out on this, but I would suggest trying to locate some more prominent awards. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SIIA might not enjoy having their awards called "dinky". ;) I'll see what I can drum up. Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps now, but Britannica is really known for their print encyclopedia. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • editorial mistakes were also criticized - what does this mean? typos?
Improper and inconsistent sorting of Japanese names, for example. Specified this.
Eek. I would definitely include that example. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK? Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it be ok? If you have a source, I would definitely include it. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other reviewers keep harping on me about this, so I thought I should mention it here. In the "Criticisms" section, there are a lot of sentences with this structure: Britannica has been criticized for a bourgeois and old-fashioned approach to art, literature and social sciences. - who is criticizing?
Moved reference up for clarity.
What I meant was actually including in the text the names of people and groups who have criticized Britannica. You have a lot of passive constructions in this section "has been criticized." Apparently this is frowned upon; we are supposed to say who is criticizing what exactly. You have said what is being criticized, but you have not said who is criticizing. Is there a way to characterize the criticizers easily, such as "reviewers," "scholars," "historians," "librarians" or some combination of those groups? or would that be too restrictive? Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. I've cited specific scholarly sources for each type of criticism, so the identities of the critics are given. Do you maybe mean that I should state what Gillian Thomas' and the others' professions are?
In a way, yes. Can you generalize where these criticisms are coming from? "Historians such as..." or "Scholars such as..."? Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A well-known example is the chief editor of the 3rd edition, George Gleig, who rejected the established scientific theory of Newtonian gravity and wrote that gravity was caused by the classical element of fire. - it might be good to mention the date on this
I don't have the exact date of its publication handy (since the 3rd edition of the Britannica was issued in parts) but it would've been in the years 1788-1797. Added edition dates; perhaps too awkward, though?
What about simply "late eighteeenth century"? Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the wording is OK as it is now? Willow 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past editions of the Britannica have been marred by racism and sexism - why is this the last criticism listed? it seems more important than that
It's also potentially the most inflammatory; it's now placed to give it a more scholarly context, where its content can be appreciated more impartially.
I'm not sure how last is more scholarly. I also don't think it is inflammatory if it is, in fact, true. I still think it should be moved up. I often think "what is most important for readers to know" and the later something is in article, the less likely they are to get to it. Again, I'm not going to refuse to support over this. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, race and gender can provoke strong emotions, no? I fear that placing this paragraph earlier would cause it to overshadow the more scholarly criticisms, such as being out-of-date or flubbing the sorting of articles. Hence it comes last, just as the envelopes that everyone waits for arrive at the end of the Oscars ceremony.
That's fine, but I don't think that criticism based on race or gender are "less scholarly" since there are whole fields of literary studies and history dedicated to just that sort of scholarship - it's sometimes called "identity politics" and consists of race studies, gender studies, queer studies, etc. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that the reference to a modern critical work (Thomas, 1992) and the direct links to articles in the 11th edition will convince you that the criticism is at least defensible. Truth is a little beyond our powers, since we can't read the feelings of the dead, only their words. My own impression is that the chief editor, Hugh Chisholm, was slightly ahead of his time on gender (thanks perhaps to his amazing sister, Grace) but slightly behind on race, kind of Kipling-esque. By contrast, the cited 11th edition author Fleming seems to me — benighted. Willow 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the criticism is defensible, by the way. I only wonder about your categorizing it as "behind" and "ahead." According to what? :) Just being difficult. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it also played a key role in denying women the right to better-paying work as typesetters for the 11th edition - could you explain a bit more, please?
It's very good that you suggested this, since the old version gave the wrong impression. Here's the story, and please let me know if the present text should be better worded or even eliminated.
The 11th edition was a huge boon for the printing houses in Edinburgh, but they faced stiff competition from printers in London, who had already largely changed over from hand-set type to machine-set type (Monotype). Therefore, the Edinburgh printers were under competitive pressure to use the machines. For an unexplained reason, women had learned to use the Monotype machines whereas men had not; according to the reference, there was only one man in Edinburgh who had learned it. Up to 1910, women had a good track record (>40 years) as typesetters, and were also cheaper; women and men were paid 14s and 32s, respectively, for the same work. Taken together, these factors gave a huge incentive for the Edinburgh printers to favor women typesetters over men. However, the male trade union called a strike and demanded
Despite appeals for fairness from the women, the men prevailed; no new women could be taken on and "the trade of compositor became a male monopoly until the Equal Opportunities legislation of the 1970s" (p.86 of S. Reynolds' book) Hence, women were barred from typesetting for over sixty years.
As you see, however, the Britannica itself played no significant role, except as the match that started the fire. I'd be fine with dropping the reference, if that's the consensus; it's a compelling story, but ultimately tangential.Removed female compositor story.
I agree that this is a compelling story, but I wonder if isn't more appropriate to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. article, since so much detail has to go into telling it? Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the scathing critique of Britannica's "English" bias, but doesn't it have a Western bias? Are there any sources on that?
In my opinion, it does, but that possibly inflammatory issue is rarely addressed in the published reviews. Many potential buyers may want a Western bias, being more interested in learning about Western topics; they might well wish more of the Britannica's limited space to be devoted to Christopher Columbus than, say, Avicenna or Du Fu.
That is sad. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Related printed material" section, it would probably be best to identify age ranges for the children rather than schools, since children attend schools at different ages in different English-speaking countries and some children are home-schooled and...
OK, I'll try to track these numbers down. Changed this.
  • "On-line subscription" - Australia? South Africa? New Zealand? Are subscriptions available there? Perhaps of instead of listing the price for every English-speaking country, you should average them all together or take the median.
Eliminated pricing for subscriptions: too complex and too easy to become dated. Changed this.
  • "Coverage of topics" - some of this information should go into the description of the encyclopedia itself and some should go into the criticism section, I think. It is oddly placed as it is. We have gone through CDs and mobile phones and NOW we get coverage? Also, I wish there were more on this topic - it is a very important one.
OK, maybe a re-ordering is in order. ;) Changed this.
  • however, there are 64 contributors of three articles, 23 contributors of four articles, 10 contributors of five articles, and 8 contributors of more than five articles - awkwardly worded
Speaking just for myself, I find the wording fine. What would you (or others) suggest instead?
maybe something like "64 contributors who wrote three articles, 23 contributors who wrote four articles..." Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! That's a much better wording; changed as you see.
  • I found the "staff" and "editorial advisers" paragraphs difficult to read - would these be better as lists? I know lists are frowned upon, but it was hard to see all the names and dates.
I would likewise frown on lists. Maybe I can liven that section up a bit, though.
I would say the biggest problem is that it is hard to extract the information, particularly in "editorial advisers." With all of the links, it is nearly unreadable. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated some superfluous links and arranged in a bullet-point list; it is easier to read this way. Willow 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get the author's first names in the "further reading"? and where is Oryx Press located?
OK, sure. Changed this. As stated in reference #1, Oryx Press was located in Phoenix, Arizona.
But now we are starting over in a bibliography, essentially. Everything must be restated. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; sorry, I missed that!
  • I wonder what you think of moving the "competition" section up? It has more "meaty" information in it and seems more important than the lists of names that come before it. Awadewit 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's safer where it is. We should be wary of people saying that we're just trying to attack the EB, instead of merely describe it. Besides, a meaty conclusion is good, no? Better than "ending with a whimper". ;) Willow 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what if readers get bored in the "Staff" section and never get here? I would seriously consider moving this up. I understand the rhetorical choice you are making, but that makes more sense in an essay, I think, than in a wikipedia article. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sense of the move, although I still dread unscholarly accusations. Moved up. Willow 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful review, Awadewit! This is how FA's should be made. Willow 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm so close to supporting. See my responses above. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comments. I support the article, and you may take these comments for what they're worth. :)
    • On earlier review I found that the article suffers somewhat from "example-itis", which is a really bad neologism. There are 13 instances of "example", and that's after I edited a number of them out. Many are valid; maybe some aren't. (Tony1 reminds us, in battling redundancy, that "everything is an example". No, I can't source that.) This also relates to my previously unexpressed agreement that the sentences about articles that Wikipedia has but EB doesn't, and vice versa, are not necessary (cf. talk page).
I'll see whether some examples might be trimmed, although I like illustrations, as you see. :) Removed/re-worded a peck of "examples"; the rest seem OK?
    • The phrase "The Britannica" refers to the publication, but is used in contexts where a business name would be more appropriate. Isn't the actor in the following sentence the company, not the publication, so italics are not needed? "The Britannica rebuttal went on to mention that some of the articles..." How about "Britannica's rebuttal went on to mention that some of the articles..." (If you change this, others will see inconsistency in italics, so you can't win.) I'm still not sure about "The Britannica", as it sounds like a ship to me. :)
Wouldn't that need an "H.M.S." in front, as in "Pinafore"? ;)
I agree, that thought was also lurking in my brain, that I was mistakenly conflating the encyclopedia with the company that managed it. While that might've been OK in the first era, it's clearly not true in the era of "Encyclopædia Britannica Holding Company SA". I'll try to fix the confusion throughout. Fixed a few instances.
Thank you very much, Outriggr, for this support and others.  :) Willow 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provided citations as needed; thank you for catching those!
  • In this sentence "Since 1936, the Britannica has been revised on a regular schedule, with at least 10% of its articles considered for revision each year." you might mention like you did above that the 15th edition took far longer than the regular '10 year' run of things. Upon further examination of this sentence too, it is kind of ambiguous - do you mean articles are regularly considered for revisions or do new editions come out regularly or what? I'm a bit confused here. JoeSmack Talk 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified meaning of sentence; another good catch!
I think it's still in the planning stages; do you know of something else that should go there?
The press release ref attached to it waxes on for a while, I was thinking just a sentence or so more about what the service provides. maybe the quote from Dan Smith the senior VP of EB - "People today want answers and information when they're on the go -- on the train, in a restaurant or just walking down the street talking to a friend". JoeSmack Talk 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this sentence grammatical? 'Each of these encyclopedias has qualities that make it outstanding, such as exceptionally clear writing or superb illustrations.' - i'm mostly wondering about the has/have it/them agreements. i'm not an English expert, but that sentence mixes me up! JoeSmack Talk 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "each" is singular, no? Willow 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure still, anyone know for sure out there? JoeSmack Talk 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This:...... 'The Internet has developed into a common source of information for many people, facilitated by the development of search engines. Online access to reliable original sources, information, and instruction has accelerated in recent years, thanks in part to initiatives such as Google Books, MIT's release of its educational materials and the open PubMed Central library of the National Library of Medicine. In general, the Internet tends to provide broader and more current coverage than does the Britannica, due to the ease with which material on the Internet can be updated.'....... smecks of a lot of OR. I'd step to the individual subjects' articles and get some better wording with references from there. Also try and date it or make it not temporal - in 5 years is this still going to be true? JoeSmack Talk 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't think this needs a reference.
Its the 'Online access to reliable original sources, information, and instruction has accelerated in recent years, thanks in part to initiatives such as Google Books, MIT's release of its educational materials and the open PubMed Central library of the National Library of Medicine.' is what irks me mostly. In 5 years it may not have been 'accelerated in recent years' due to Google Books/MIT/PubMed. Half of it is that, the temporally fuzzy aspect, and the other is the OR attributing it in part to specific sources like those three. Why did you choose those? What did you base that choice on? JoeSmack Talk 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref and reworded the second sentence to "In general, the Internet tends to provide more current coverage than print media, due to the ease with which material on the Internet can be updated." TimVickers 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh oh! Ref that one with a ref saying how awesomely Wikipedia updated current events like Katrina or Saddam's discovery execution or something like that! Not as a laud for Wikipedia (it wouldn't be mentioned in the sentence) but as a good example of this that should be out there reliable source wise. JoeSmack Talk 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you put in a ref. Durn. This could be a second one if you'd like though. JoeSmack Talk 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I chose those examples off the top of my head, from what I'd heard in the news or from my more clever friends. It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, nor did I mean to imply that those were the most significant initiatives for making reliable sources available. Although they do seem pretty important, at least from an outsider's perspective. Willow 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arg! Thats definitely OR then. We can't include off-of-the-top-of-the-head knowledge/smart friend talk, its not verifiable or reliable. If it was in the news does it have a source? JoeSmack Talk 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 refs and reworded this sentence to the innocuous "The internet provides easy access to reliable original sources and expert opinions, thanks in part to initiatives such as Google Books, MIT's release of its educational materials and the open PubMed Central library of the National Library of Medicine." TimVickers 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've replaced the reference to Category:Wikipedians with academic publications with a ref to a subsection of the Nature article which identifies Wikipedians with expertise in their fields, as this appeared to be a minor point of contention. Let's avoid references to ourselves (i.e. not do it)—unnecessarily begging for a challenge. Fvasconcellos 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This:..... 'The economic viability of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. in the Internet era rests on its brand equity and product differentiation—that is, the public perception that the Britannica is simply the best encyclopedia available at any price.' ..... is also OR. Do you have an authoritative reliable source speaking to this? I think it would have to be from an economist to demonstrate it. JoeSmack Talk 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.
  • 'Comparisons of the Encyclopædia Britannica with other print encyclopedias have been published.' sounds awkward, can you flip around the wording (i would do it but i want to make sure the clauses aree with each other and im not positive what you mean: comparisons of other print E's to britanica have been published and/or published by those other E's)? Also this sentence could use some refs - the next bit of info of this section dives into a well-known comparison, but you said comparisons, so throw some in as refs and leave the well-known one as a spelled out example. JoeSmack Talk 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call! reworded into active voice and provided references.
OK, I'll check it out; thanks! Willow 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final thoughts: Holy heeby jeebies! Sorry about all those ref tags, but we got to get all OR out of there. I'm also a stickler since AIDS went FA, and the 'oh crap that needs a ref' feeling didn't ever go away. ;) I can't believe the lengths you've been going for this FAC, this has got to be one of the most thorough run downs i've ever seen. This article is fantastic, indepth, and wonderfully laid out. After these OR issues/fact tags are fixed, you have my full support for FA status. JoeSmack Talk 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very kindly for your careful attention to such details! :) I miss a lot — as you see above — and I'm really grateful whenever anyone opens my eyes to whole new aspects of the article. I'll try to satisfy everyone as best as possible, but I think I will benefit the most. :) Thanks for your very kind words, Willow 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a deep tranquility coming over me; is that it? Have we reached parinirvana? Maybe it's just a hypoglycemic hallucination; yarn is so soft...zzzzz 3) Seriously, thank you everyone for all your help on my Wiki-birthday; I'm one year old today! :) Willow 23:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Japan

edit

previous FAC

After User:John Smith's asked me to reconsider the old nom, I've decided I might have been a bit too hasty in removing it, so I'm going to give it a fresh nom. Raul654 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen, during the previous FAC lack of citations was raised. The person that complained, SandyGeorgia, tagged everything she felt needed a citation. Furthermore there have been no complaints about this. So please add some citation tags where you think they are needed - thanks. John Smith's 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. I tagged samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, rather than comment on old discussions (his objections have now been dealt with), could you please address the action taken to resolve your objection? John Smith's 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, John, but I believe it was you who brought up an old discussion, inaccurately. I did not tag everything that needed citing in the article; I don't usually do that. I tag samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 13 paragraphs in the history section, seven of them go without citations. Going down the page, there are many more uncited paragraphs. To add citation tags to every piece of information that goes unsourced in these paragraphs would make a mess of the page. Here are examples of unsourced details from each section to give you an idea;
  • "The Nara period of the eighth century marked the first emergence of a strong central Japanese state, centered around an imperial court in the city of Heijō-kyō, or modern day Nara."
  • "There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices."
  • "Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration."
  • "The Ryūkyūan languages, also part of the Japonic language family to which Japanese belongs, are spoken in Okinawa, but few children learn these languages."
  • "Post-war Japan has been heavily influenced by American pop music, which has led to the evolution of popular band music called J-Pop. Modern Japanese music generally uses Western instruments, scales and style."
  • "Golf is popular in Japan, as is auto racing, the Super GT sports car series and Formula Nippon formula racing."
-- Zleitzen(talk) 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have been added since my concerns above. But there is still much uncited material on the page. Near the top of the history section it reads: "Despite early resistance, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance since the Asuka period." Without citation. Rather than me chase around picking individual examples, it might be better to give you some time to ensure that every claim is attributed to a source from "Unlike previous recovery trends, domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth." to "The fusion of traditional woodblock printing and Western art led to the creation of manga, a typically Japanese comic book format that is now popular within and outside Japan." -- Zleitzen(talk) 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More unsourced statements below:
  • "…with a secret ballot for all elective offices."
  • "The liberal conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power since 1955, except for a short-lived coalition government formed from opposition parties in 1993"
  • "The Prime Minister of Japan is the head of government. The literal translation of his Japanese title is "Prime Minister of the Cabinet". The position is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being designated by the Diet from among its members, and must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives to remain in office. The Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet and appoints and dismisses the Ministers of State, a majority of whom must be Diet members. Shinzo Abe currently serves as the Prime Minister of Japan."
  • "Japan's court system is divided into four basic tiers: the Supreme Court and three levels of lower courts. The main body of Japanese statutory law is a collection called the Six Codes."-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with those points. John Smith's 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More in the foreign policy and military section. These could really do with reference notes elaborating on the issues alongside simple source details.
  • "with the US-Japan security alliance serving as the cornerstone of its foreign policy."
  • "It is also one of the "G4 nations" seeking permanent membership in the Security Council."
  • "Japan contributed non-combatant troops to the Iraq War, but has subsequently withdrawn forces from the region."
*Territorial disputes paragraph - no citations
Citations added. I do not see a need for more references there - readers can follow the citations or the blue-links. John Smith's 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the last statements that I believe need citations:

  • powerful enterprise unions, the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories.
  • Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability.
  • Unlike previous recovery trends, domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth.
  • The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) conducts space and planetary research, aviation research, and development of rockets and satellites. It also built the Japanese Experiment Module, which is slated to be launched and added to the International Space Station during Space Shuttle assembly flights in 2007 and 2008.
  • Most public and private schools require students to take courses in both Japanese and English.
  • Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice.
  • The earliest works of Japanese literature include two history books the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, and the eighth century poetry book Man'yōshū, all written in Chinese characters.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. John Smith's 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citations have been very well provided, I have checked them all and they correctly ensure the verifiability of the statements. I would still like a citation for "powerful enterprise unions, the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories". Remember that references can be quite expansive and descriptive. If an issue is quite detailed such as the above, it may be appropriate to create a long reference note that combines a number of references. When that is verified satisfactorily I will remove my oppose.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last citation added - other text trimmed. John Smith's 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Help me out. I'm looking at India, a featured article. In the lead section there are three paragraphs; only one has a citation while the other two have no citations. In Etymology, one paragraph has citations; the other does not. History: five paragraphs, zero citations. Government: three with and two without. Politics: no citations in the two paragraphs. Military and Foreign Relations: one paragraph out of three has a citation. Geography: no citations in three paragraphs. Flora and Fauna: Here for the first time the cited paragraphs outnumber the uncited 2:1. Economy has a citation in each paragraph. So does Demographics. But Culture, six paragraphs long, has no citations, even though it makes clear claims. Here are some:

  1. India's culture is marked by a high degree of syncretism
  2. Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana. They often have a narrative form and are usually infused with devotional and spiritual elements.
  3. The Indian film industry is the world's most prolific
  4. India's national sport is field hockey, although cricket is the most popular sport in India.
  5. Chess, commonly held to have originated in India, is also gaining popularity with the rise of the number of recognised Indian grandmasters.
  6. Traditional Indian family values are highly respected, although urban families now prefer a nuclear family system due to the socio-economic constraints imposed by the traditional joint family system.
In this comparison, Japan fares very well. Fg2 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on this page previously, there is generally no requirement for citations in the lead, as the lead is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Raul654 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India passed FA in 2004. It wouldn't pass now due to lack of sources and will be added to Featured Article review. Standards have risen significantly, and it is imperative that every detail is sourced for the credibility of featured articles and wikipedia as a whole. If a major piece of information has absolutely no attribution - how are we meant to know it is reliable? We're not. Unreliable articles should not be evidence of wikipedia's best work. -- Zleitzen(talk) 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not imperative that every sentence be plastered with a footnote. Please stop picking out random fact statements to be cited and provide some valid arguments for your suspicions of factual inaccuracy. A citation doesn't make a statement true; good reviewing does, and what you're providing here is not a good review, just nitpicking. So put that footnote checklist away for a second and come up with some detailed criticism. "I didn't know that" or "someone might not know that" isn't a valid reason to demand a page number from a book you're not going to read anyway.
And before we descend into the murky depths of interpretation of verifiability policies, let's take look at two the of the examples given as "unreliable" statements:
  • There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices. – This is obviously a common knowledge and hardly something unique to Japan. Has anyone questioned it? Would anyone (not wearing a tin-foil hat) have reasons to question it?
  • Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration. – It's another way of saying "Japan has launched stuff in to space". It's like asking for a citation of "Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia".
The rest of the claims also appear to be mere random statements that all seem like common knowledge to anyone with a minimum of experience with Japan and Japanese culture. They're statements that don't really qualify as anything "likely to be challenged".
Peter Isotalo 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peter. Zleitzen, I think you are maybe being too strict. You cannot have a citation for everything - it is too much to expect and would look quite ridiculous. As far as I can see all the important points/paragraphs have citations. And as Peter said a citation doesn't make something true. I could add a citation for a book that existed, but if I gave a random page number that has nothing on that, how would you know? Apart from the unlikely circumstance someone had that book and decided to look it up, it would fly in under radar. So please be more reasonable in requests for citations. Generally the ones that are here support all the other points - it would be quite mad to have to repost them for every point made. John Smith's 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it common knowledge that "Japan has universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices"? that "domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth"? That "Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration"? That "Ryūkyūan languages, also part of the Japonic language family to which Japanese belongs, are spoken in Okinawa, but few children learn these languages"? I didn't know any of these pieces of common knowledge, and when I asked my children, who read wikipedia a lot, they didn't know either. If an article stated "Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia" you can bet that people would want a citation for that as well. And they'd be right. An article that represents the best of wikipedia would have these facts cited to verifiable sources. An article that doesn't verify these facts is not the best wikipedia can offer I'm afraid. Sorry.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that specifically the first statement does not need citations. Do we have a source to say that adults over specifically 20 years old can vote, and that it's done with a secret ballot? Look at Voting age, most countries seem to set the voting age to 18. If we are to make assumptions, we would assume that the voting age in Japan is also 18. Also, even in the US, it wasn't until 1971 that the voting age was lowered to 18. But I can't find that other statement about "headway" into space anymore. Maybe it's been revised since it was first mentioned. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out there is a citation for the voting age being 20. I removed the "headway" statement about aerospace because I wasn't sure - I changed it to focus on space exploration and gave a citation. There also citations for the Ryūkyūan languages bit. So all those points have been addressed. Guys, please always remember to look at the article when you talk about it - things change fast. John Smith's 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This recurring blank space in the history section does not happen with Mozilla 2.0. With IE6, this happens only when the browser is broad enough that the image Image:TodaijiDaibutsu0224.jpg comes just after the {{Infobox Country or territory}}. --Kusunose 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to bump my screen resolution down to 800x600 before the blank space will disappear when my browser is full-screen. Surely, we expect your average IE users to use better than 800x600 resolution by now? Aside from that, there are other WP:MOS problems, too. Some of the sections toward the bottom, the ones that often get ignored, are a bit short - for example, the Technology section, considering the impact that Japan has on the global consumer electronics market, the Technology section doesn't even mention consumer electronics. And there is still a lot of unnecessary use of parenthesis, especially when done in order to spam Japanese terms only to define them in parentheses. And I just noticed that some of the books used as references do not list their ISBN numbers, and a big chunk of the Climate section does not have any inline referencing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using 1024x768 - I haven't had any problems. John Smith's 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a high resolution computer screen so it's even worse for me. Aaron Bowen 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over it again, making a few changes - I can't see any gaps. Have you tried making adjustments yourself? John Smith's 09:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank spaces? BLANK SPACES??? How low can we go to oppose a FA candidacy because of blank spaces???? PS. How come I dont see any blank spaces on my comp? --WoodElf 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The blank space issue seems to be browser-based, and at the moment seems to be gone. This is a problem of image placement, and to note, I don't see the same blank spaces on any other FA class articles (not that I've looked at all FA class articles), so those articles must be doing something right as far as image placement is concerned. However, I still think there are some WP:MOS problems, the short lengths of the often-ignored sections in the bottom, especially that the Technology section doesn't even mention Japan's consumer electronics industry; some of the books in the references do not have ISBN; and there's some unnecessary usage of parenthesis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs are not that important - academically they are never required, so I don't see why an FA should fail on that basis. As to length of "often ignored sections" - remember that in the past the article was much longer. One of the largest complaints was it was too long. So they had to be cut down - the headings on top redirect people to the full article. The Japan page is to give people a summary of the country, not tell them everything there is to know. There is so much stuff the article could go into but really there is no space for all of it. John Smith's 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the Japan article is good, for me at least, and I think the editors have done really well. There's an exceptional amount of information in a very condensed format which is exactly what the article should convey. Regarding ISBNs, WP:CITE states that "The ISBN of a book is optional." However, If I were writing a featured article, I would opt into to adding them rather than opt out. Having the ISBN makes it a better article - which is the point of the exercise - its also really easy to copy and paste an ISBN into a google search and get exactly the book you were looking for.-- Zleitzen(talk) 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I do not have access to most of the books, so couldn't say what the ISBNs are - I would be guessing that I was putting in the one that points to the right edition. John Smith's 10:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Overall I was very impressed with this article. I have a few small niggles that I'df like to see either addressed or explained prior to support though
  • Archaeological research indicates that people were living on the islands of Japan as early as the upper paleolithic period. Upper Paleolithic should be in caps, no? As should by a mesolithic to neolithic
  • In 1639, the shogunate began the isolationist sakoku ("closed country") policy that spanned the two and a half centuries of tenuous political unity known as the Edo period. could be clearer as to what this means without having to follow the link (ie exclusion of Europeans and other foreigners). Isolationist is slightly less extreme than sakoku.
  • In 1937, Japan invaded other parts of China, precipitating the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), after which the United States placed an oil embargo on Japan. Single senetnce pargraph can be added to next paragraph perhaps?
  • Science and technology; The concentration on technology and electronics is kind of stereotyped perhaps? Jaspanese names always crop up when I do lit searches on marine biology, for example.
  • There doesn't seem to bea section or much mention of the Japanese environment, environmental law and protection, and foreign conflicts with reagrd to fishing, whaling and logging. Japan is rather idosyncratic in these fields (a great deal of teh countries forests are protected, yet it is responisble for a great deal of logging elsewhere) and it desreves a mention.

This article is almost there and I look forward to it being featured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm not sure there is room for expansion of content due to the long length of the article - the last two things you mentioned would be better added to the sub-pages. John Smith's 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, on the "alnaja" site, you're misunderstanding the point of it. It's not the site but the pdf file that is important, which is a copy of a league table produced by the Times. If you check the pdf file you'll be able to see its reliable.
  • As to the rest, I've replaced broken links, changed existing links, added new info as requested, etc. If you want to tag citations for review can you please mention the number of the citation - it's difficult to track them down as you've listed them. John Smith's 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improving. In addition to the "alnaja" site, you have a PDF copy of an article hosted at The Japan Forum. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Do these have copyright permission? I can't find an indication of permission to reprint; perhaps it's in Japanese. Also, I only provided samples from the bottom of the footnote list; there still seem to be some needing review at the top. As a sample, can you explain Imperial Japan from https://filebox.vt.edu/admin/ I can't verify authorship or reliability. There are others; these are samples only. It may be possible to find more durable, reliable hard print sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think copyright can apply when it is information published into the public domain - the Times league tables are supposed to be distributed amongst the public. John Smith's 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SandyGeorgia has not responded to my requests to further discuss her objections. Does this mean the FAC can proceed? It seems rather unfair to block it because someone will not review their objection. John Smith's 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. I have had another look, and made several edits as samples only of what I see as a pervasive problem on this article; the failure to use high-quality reliable sources (which are certainly available for this topic), failure to identify publishers (which are often personal websites), and possible copyright issues (for example, two different personal websites linking to a copy of a Discover magazine article). I really don't care for the argument that I'm the only one objecting, since most of the time, I'm also the only one looking closely at the sources. It is a disgrace that reviewers support articles for featured status without looking closely at 1c. If you need proof of how large this problem is at FAC, you can find it near the top of the FAC list today. I continue to oppose; Japan is not a Pokemon article or an article about some pop culture starlet; there is no reason that it can't rely on high quality sources. If I'm chasing windmills to try to get other reviewers to examine sources, so be it, until such time as I give up. I continue to oppose on the basis of 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) PS: last time I worked from the bottom of the footnote list for samples, while this time I started at the top. Rather working the top or the bottom, the density of problems found is the same. I have given samples only; addressing the examples and saying "problem solved" does not solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, please tone down your language - to say it is a "disgrace" is actually in some ways a personal attack on everyone who supports the article whether you mean it or not. You have one way of looking at the nomination requirements, but that does not mean everyone has to look at it in the way you do.
When I said you were the "only" person objecting, I meant that your objections were what I regarded as being the only meanginful ones - I was paying you a compliment.
Your objections are noted, and I'm sure everyone is doing their best to resolve problems as they are found. However I still disagree with your opposition, however justified you feel. John Smith's 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Leo Ornstein

edit

Self-nomination. Stable article on a virtually forgotten, but once renowned (and notorious) musical figure, correcting a number of errors prevalent online. I'll continue to propose him as The Sex Pistols or Eminem of 1914 until someone thinks of an even nicer analogy. Almost three-quarters of a century later, he became the oldest published composer ever to produce a substantial new work. Thanks to bcasterline for a terrifically productive peer review.—DCGeist 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment Really nice article. I'd just like to see a footnote covering "By the next year, he was the talk of the music scene in America as well for his performances of cutting-edge works by Schoenberg, Scriabin, Bartók, Debussy, Kodály, Ravel, and Stravinsky (many of them U.S. premieres), as well as his own, even more radical compositions." I'd also recommend a light copy edit of a few sentences including the above where "as well for his" doesn't quite flow. Here are some sentences I spotted.
  • "the pogroms fueled by the so-called Union of the Russian People". Can pograms be fueled, that sounds strange?
  • "He began imagining and then writing works with new sounds, dissonant and startling." Although it is sadly more workmanlike, "with new dissonant and startling sounds" is easier on the eye.
  • "he gave his first public performance of modernist, then known as "futurist," works in London." The "works" sticks out a bit due to the placement of the commas.
  • "From 1915 through the early 1920s" be aware that this sentence jars to the British English reader. I don't know what the guidelines say about parochial phrases such as "through the", but it might be wise to seek a more universal phrase.
  • "It appears that with this composition Ornstein became, by a couple years, the oldest published composer ever to produce a substantial new work". It appears? In the lead it is stated as fact.
  • Right. Wrote section text first. Hedged. Wanted to rigorously fact-check to satisfy point beyond any reasonable doubt. Checked. Satisified. Added to intro. Forgot to revise section text. Now done. Thanks.—DCGeist 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Zleitzen(talk) 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You might want to include a citation for the sentence about his death. Not to verify that he died and in what year, of course, but in reference to the location and circumstances. WesleyDodds 09:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: Its very stong, but needs a copy edit. Some first pass suggestions:
  • What does ca. signify in the opening sentence.
  • "he continued writing music for another half-century and beyond." - Why not just say eighty-seven (or whatever) years.
  • Necessary imprescision: because the reference point is his "last public concert"--a significant reference point, as almost every discussion of Ornstein mentions his withdrawal from public performing, but also an imprecise one, as existing sources do not establish definitively when his last public concert was (see article note 46).—DCGeist 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He began imagining and then writing works with new sounds, dissonant and startling" - dissonant and startling new sounds. Both 'startling' and 'new' need to be specifically cited. "He began imagining" is redundant, all composition begins with "imagining".
  • Of course, you're right that almost all compositions begin with imagining (there are exceptions, such as automatic writing and aleatoric methods such as John Cage's). In this case, Ornstein imagined his radical sounds for a while before daring to put them on the page--I'll provide the cites that cover both this fact and the description of "new sounds, dissonant and startling".—DCGeist 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
imagining is a very abstract and unmusical word; unless he used the term specifically, I'd recommend rephrasing as formulating. Ceoil 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing particularly unmusical about it. Many composers describe dreaming some of their best music; Ornstein apparently imagined it while awake. I've provided a cite now. To quote the authors (Broyles and Von Glahn) on this point: "[S]uddenly in 1913, Ornstein later recalled, he heard strange chords and then entire pieces in his head." Ornstein himself is quoted: "I still wonder at the age of eighty, why should I have thought of that?... Why sudddenly that thing came into my head." Following your advice below to lean toward narrative prose rather than quotation, that's clearly much closer to "imagining" than "formulating." If you can think of a synonym preferable to "imagining," I'm happy to use it, or if you think I should quote in this case, I could do that.—DCGeist 07:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, in that context the word is ok.
  • "His earliest such pieces unsettled Ornstein himself" - Sounds like it was written long, long ago (and I don't mean in 2003).
  • "he gave his first public performance of works then called "futurist," now known as modernist" - Is 'futurist' related to 'futurism', as that is very different to modernism; at least in a visual art context. Either way an inline cite is needed here, as many readers are likely to be confused.
Not clear what this cite should be to. His works were then widely called "futurist"; now they are widely referred to as "modernist." No, the 1910s use of "futurist" to describe avant-garde classical music had little to do with the Italian-rooted Futurist visual art movement.—DCGeist 07:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory note added.—DCGeist 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But the reaction was by no means universally negative" - I can't put my finger on it, but the words 'but' and 'universally' jar here. 'However', 'some positive'?
Edited.—DCGeist 07:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Musical Standard declared him " - to be.
Edited.—DCGeist 07:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sound files available for inclusion.
I'm half ways through the article, will repost later. Ceoil 01:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could be expanded, maybe a mention of his Ukrainian nationality, and his mid-1970s rediscovery.
Done.—DCGeist 07:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a last point, some of the quotations could be converted to narrative to help readability. As a suggestion, remarks such as
"[H]e had been radical modernism's poster boy throughout the 1910s, and when he abandoned that style for one more expressive the ultramoderns reacted as a lover scorned. Not even Cowell, known for his accepting temperament, could forgive Ornstein" should be easily convered to transitional prose. Ceoil 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responce, have switched to support. Ceoil 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Given his current obscurity relative to his once great importance, I do want to be careful to avoid any appearance of OR or inappropriate POV. At any rate, given your observation and Ceoil's above, I've just made a couple li'l changes, parapharasing quotes in order to switch them to narrative prose.—DCGeist 20:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Bam Thwok

edit

A song by the American alternative rock band Pixies. Recently promoted to good article status. I think it's worthy of featured status after looking over the featured article criteria, although it is a little on the short side. Note that I couldn't find any information about the song's producer; it was originally recorded as a demo for Dreamwork's Shrek 2. CloudNine 10:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that using the 'Play in browser' link? I'm experiencing the same problem with other samples, and I can't change the volume. However, I'll definitely look into it. CloudNine 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now definitely quieter (you were right about it peaking). However, the 'Play in browser' button still blasts the sample out. Perhaps that's why it's beta. CloudNine 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose - The article seems slight: in paticular the signifance of Deal contributing lead vocals, while Francis is regulated to backing, is not properly explained. Mention should be made of the reason the band spit up, and the irony of the reversal of fortunes that was their respective solo careers. There is not a lot of info in the body of the article that isn't in the lead, and while there's a good story here, it hasn't yet been drawn out. Ceoil 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I originally removed information about that, thinking it was a little off-topic. I'll definitely work on it. CloudNine 21:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what I feel is on-topic with regards to its significance; a paragraph about the respective successes of their solo careers might be heading off-topic, and wouldn't be directly related to their conflict or easily citeable. CloudNine 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair enough, the other additions you made are good improvements, and I've switched to support. Ceoil 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First, let me say that this is one of the worst songs ever recorded. I've always hated the Pixies, and this is their crappiest song. My best friend is a Pixies die-hard, and when he first played this song for me, he literally started banging his head against a desk as I made fun of him. Second, this is an excellent article. It is well-written and well-sourced, and covers all major aspects of the song. While I don't disagree with Ceoil's opposition, I simply think the above issues aren't such a big deal (or CNine has improved the article in the past couple of days). While the article is a bit short, length is not a FA requirement. Quality is, and this article is of extremely high quality. Great job. -- Kicking222 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support — quite good, but some minor issues. Several lines of content are repeated almost word for word in the lead and subsequent sections, as well as the first and last sections.

For example:

    • "Bam Thwok"'s major theme is goodwill; Deal later explained that the song is "about loving everyone" and "showing goodwill to everyone". and later, The theme of "Bam Thwok" is, according to Deal, "about loving everyone, showing goodwill to everyone". Perhaps simplify the lead to just mention goodwill and not the quote.
    • Also, a quick copy-edit by someone unfamilar with the text will help weed out any lingering deficiencies.

— Deckiller 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - it's well written, comprehensive, well referenced and has a good images as you can get for a song. One comment though.... is it necessary to enclose "Bam Thwok" in quotes each time it's mentioned ? I've had this song on a CD for a year now an never worked out the name...wikipedia helps again ! - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Thescelosaurus

edit

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs members have been very productive lately, with Featured Articles Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, and Iguanodon in the last few months, and now I present for your approval Thescelosaurus, the "wondrous lizard". Thescelosaurus, a well-known hypsilophodont (small bipedal herbivore), has been a pet project of mine for months. It is already a Good Article, and I think that it is comprehensive and thoroughly-referenced (42 referenced documents), with a good balance of information in different topics, useful images, and detailed coverage of the 2000-2001 "dinosaur heart" controversy. J. Spencer 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'm not able to judge the prose very well (is it clear to a novice what this all means? I cannot say after reading so much about dinosaurs), but Mr. Spencer, the major contributor to this article, has a Master's degree in Geology from the University of Colorado[40][41]. It's clear he knows his stuff, and I'm pretty confident he has included just about everything known about this genus. There are no "diet" or "habitat" sections in this article, which gave me some pause, because other FACs such as Compsognathus and Stegosaurus have had them, but the diet section appears to be covered in Thescelosaurus#Description and habitat is covered in Thescelosaurus#Temporal_and_geographic_range. Therefore, I feel this article is comprehensive. (For the record, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, so take my support with a grain of salt). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I pondered a separate diet part, but thought it would be redundant, as there is not as much that has been written about its feeding and diet as for other dinosaurs (and with good reason; no one has ever described a complete skull). There is now a habitat section, though. J. Spencer 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. It wasn't a deal-breaker anyway; I was just surprised when I didn't see the "standard" sections (or what have come to be the "standard" sections). But all the information is there, it was just presented with different headings. There honestly was no need to change it on account of my comments here, man. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am wikiproject dinosaurs coordinator currently and have contributed a bit to this article. I feel it fulfils all criteria. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent article on one of the lesser known dinosaurs written by the author of one of the most trusted dinosaur website. [42] Meets all criteria for FA status. ArthurWeasley 06:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I find the sentence The issue remains unresolved and many scientists are now doubtful of both the identification of the object and the implications of such an identification. horrible. If the find isn't verified then the implications obvioulsy are suspect, you don't need to state that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the first portion, so it now starts with "Many". How's it now? J. Spencer 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose for now→Changed to Support below↓ - Alas, I must oppose for now... My only concern is the prose. Just randomly selecting one short paragraph & you'll see what I mean - "They suggested that the heart had been saponified (turned to soap) under anaerobic burial conditions, and then permineralized by goethite, an iron mineral. The authors interpreted the structure of the heart as indicating an elevated metabolic rate for Thescelosaurus (i.e. greater than reptilian ectothermy)..." Quite a few high level words there. Overall, a previous discussion between members of Wikiproject Dinos said that we should try & keep articles at a highschool level. However in this paragraph you see stuff like "anaerobic", "permineralized" "elevated metabolic rate" & "reptilian ectothermy" either unexplained or have a link to anoter article. Generally per MOS, articles should ideally contain all the info you need to know & only rarely need a link to explain a subject such as the ones discussed above. Sure some of us may know what they mean, but others might not, as Firsfron suggested above with his concerns about prose. This is a brilliant article - it would be a shame to see it go to waste because of prose issues. I suggest either a non-paleo editor goes through & rewrites the problem areas or someone from the Project goes through & "dumbs down" the article a latch so it is easier to read. Other than that, my vote would be support, but not just yet until this is cleared. I'd do it myself, but this is a busy week (Birthday), & just so you know, if you feel you've completed the task & I haven't responded whether I approve/disapprove, take that as I haven't seen that & remove my vote, as I may not be able to respond before voting closes. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did find that section a bit odd. It doesn't really count as pop culture & doesn't really add anything to the article. It also has a very unusual section name too... Maybe it would be best to delete it & merge any relevant info into the article... Spawn Man 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both Spawn Man and Sandy have good text suggestions, but I probably won't be able to do anything about them until this evening. J. Spencer 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've attempted to rework the sentences Spawn Man discusses above, though I thought we weren't supposed to "dumb down" articles. I can see the benefit of keeping the text to simpler words when there are simpler words to use, but permineralization is a complex process not easily explained using a smaller word (or explanatory phrase). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - A agree that I am a little suspect of the dumbing down concept. I know the MOS likes the articles to be approchable when the topic is not so advanced that it woudl be impossible to cover without some specialized knoledge (which is the case here). Howevere, I did nto see anythign in the article that was that advanced. MOst hischool kids for example will know exactly what anaerobic is. Other than that I think wikilinking advanced terms is acceptable when the term is understandable immidatly in the openign paragraph or even by the redirect (as is the case with ectothermy), then again I have pop-ups enabled so hovering over a link gives me the opening paragraph of the article so maybe I am biased. Dalf | Talk 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for the assist, Firs! I reworked a few more obvious offenders. On the Miscellanea, what if the first paragraph became "in popular culture" (I realize it's a bit of a reach, but similar information has gone under a comparable heading in Triceratops and Compsognathus)? The other paragraph...well, I could take it or leave it. The modeling question is interesting in that it brings up a dinosaur that hasn't made the limelight outside of the heart, and that the wrong attribute is picked. Does anyone find that reference useful or interesting? J. Spencer 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2 paras in miscellanea. I'd work para 1 into the lead and para 2 under paleobiology. i'd do it now but wanted to see what you guys thought. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above comments - "Dumb down" was in quotation marks to show that it was only a common phrase used to make the text more accessable to younger readers, not how you took it, in its literal context. I've had this conversation before with Sheep81 & at the time, everyone on the Dino project agreed that writing level should be at a highschool grade. By "dumbing down" I didn't mean adding those annoying brackets everywhere like this (this is a word...). It gets quite annoying & I should've added to my request that some other solution to the prose problems should be used instead of bracketed terms. Not just the section which I highlighted at random, but all the article needs to be rewritten. If you start now, it can be done in a few hours. Most highschool students in New Zealand wouldn't know what the heck anaerobic means - we don't teach it & topics relating to this sort of thing until much later when specialized learning enters. This site isn't just for Americans or the British ya know, other countries don't teach advanced methods until a few years after US schools teach them - not saying we're dumb or anything, but we have a different learning pattern here. So my point is that not everyone knows what it means & I certainly would have to look it up in the dictionary if I was reading it in a book somewhere lol... As for pop culture, as I said above, the sections do not add much if anything to the article & are certainly not pop culture - the best solution would be to delete the whole section, as it adds nothing. -- Spawn Man 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the idea you are putting forward here but I think the bar shoudl be a little lower on understandability than you. I think it should be approachable by a majority of global higschool students if you include the lead section of all linked terms. With tabbed browsing (and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups) this is not a burden at all and is the mode in which I (and many others) read wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone believes New Zealand high school students are less educated than American high school students (quite the opposite, in fact). Whenever possible, Wikipedia should strive to present articles which are understandable to a general audience; considering the type of vandalism which occurs to Wikipedia's dinosaur articles, I have a suspicion that many readers of our dinosaur articles are in fact very young children. Still, Wikipedia has a Simple English edition for our youngest readers. The high school cut off point used by user:Sheep81 has been my guideline, too.
I took a look at the Thescelosaurus article, and there are around 40 words which are likely university-level, beyond most high schoolers' understanding. However, these terms are wikilinked in all but one instance, and in many cases, the explanation is already in the text itself. Cursorial is defined as "built for running" in the text itself. Premaxilla is defined in the text as "the upper beak". The text discusses "rod-like bones called palpebrals", the "femur or upper leg", and "the tibia or shin". "Anaerobic" is now replaced with "airless". "Paraphyletic assemblage" has been changed to "unnatural family". "Saponified" is defined as "turned to adipocere, or grave wax". "Polyphyly" has been replaced with "not a natural group".
Many of the remaining terminology relates to different groups of dinosaurs (ceratopsids, hadrosaurids, ankylosaurid, pachycephalosaurians, theropod, hypsilophodont, ornithopod), each of which is wikilinked to the appropriate article where it can be covered at length. Anyone can click on the term if they don't understand it, and these aren't terms which can be altered.
The remaining terms are all wikilinked to their appropriate articles in the text: genus/genera, Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, scutes, ossified, pathology, carbonized, epidermis, clade, basal, derived, beds (in the sense of strata), monograph, iridium, nonavian, angiosperm, capybara, tapirs, aorta, adipocere, goethite, metabolic rate, concretion, and individual formations and faunal stages.
The only term which doesn't wikilink to an article which explains the term in depth is permineralized. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the perverse criterion of "understandability" is not actionable. The video game ads we see running every other day don't even have to explain what "power-ups" and "health" and "hitpoints" are. Meanwhile the Democrats in spirit on this forum are busy cutting each other off at the knees with hand-wringing over whether "metabolism" is too frightening a word to have in an encyclopedia. Enough of this nonsense! Either we unrepentently brandish dinosaur articles at the masses, or else for God's sake let's cancel this "feature article" debacle and replace it with pay-for-play ads. That way at least Wikipedia gets some money for its shame!204.186.14.201 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annoyed reply - I pretty annoyed at the moment! On the compy FAC, someone opposes because the captions have full stops & you guys run around like blue assed flies placating him. However, when I come along with an oppose which is both actionable & has been used at least a gazillion (large number) times on other FACs, you all gang up on me saying it's not actionable, not rational, & completely wrong. Well I've had enough! This is the 2nd time this has happened to me on a dino FAC. During my FACs I don't defend, I do. Not only am I not going to remove my oppose vote, as my requests haven't been fully met (as any oter knowledgable FAC goer will tell you, linking is not always the best way to explain things - I can provide links & diffs if you so wish) but this will be the last time you will have my support at any dinosaur FAC as I will not be partaking in anymore. I don't have to stand here & have some IP criticize my perfectly good oppose. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my bias is not pro-dinosaur but anti-ad. I think that Wikipedia had guidelines that were not intended to explicitly favor advertisements over all other featured articles, but an uneven and unfair review process has made it that way. I picked this article for that response simply because it has the major advantage of being relevant, scientific, interesting - it has Wikilinks pointing out to something that doesn't fit in a small glossy box on a store shelf; it teaches. That should be a point in its favor, not against it.204.186.19.10 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh & incase you think I'm wrong, I have a page to back me up - Wikipedia:The perfect articleThe article is "...is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles..." If what Firsfron says is true, that over 40 universoty level words are wikilinked, then does that count as "significant reading of other articles" to find out what they mean? The answer is yes - just linking them is not a solution & is why my vote will remain oppose until you all get a change of attitude with some action rather than defending... Why can't you just say instead of (eg - feline (cat)) say (eg - [[feline|cat]])? -- Spawn Man 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Spawn Man, thanks for your note. Everyone's been working to correct the problems you and others have pointed out over the past few days. There has been action, though clearly not enough to satisfy you. Perhaps, given time, you will come to support, but no one wants to push you into supporting something which you feel is not ready. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn, (and anyone else feeling the same way) the same page and the same line on Wikipedia:The perfect article also states "is nearly self-contained;" . Note the word, nearly. Also, the next line states "branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject." . We are trying hard to facilitate the accessability of the article to all readers however, the degree of technical terms and variance in the vocabulary of all readers means some wikilinking of some terms is clearly necessary. Nevertheless we recognise that some can be expressed in plainer English and are goingthrough the article. Furthermore it is alot easier and quicker to stick in a few full stops than sit and figure out a balance between plain english, jargon, exact meaning and accessability. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spawnman, I just wanted to say that before you hole anythign against the guys doing (amazing) work on dino projects I just wanted to say that I am not actually a member of that wikiproject and was only disagreeing with you on the idea that some of the terms you used as examples are not highschool level terms. Your criticism was in itself valid and I think several people have been working on it I was only disagreeing in a matter of degrees. Though I do think there are some topics which simply cannot meet the FA critera for completness and accuracy and be written on a hischool level, dino articles are probably not in this group. Dalf | Talk 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am one of the "guys doing amazing work on the dino projects"! You'd think they'd at least take me as seriously as someone who complains about dots in captions. But no. I have no further wish to continue this discussion with you guys before I say something I regret. Spawn Man 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example integument - this could be replaced by plainer english as it is not in common usage, but what? Any expression I can think of sounds cumbersome and vague and I feel detracts from the flow of the article (hence the beauty of the wikilink)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though I would like to see one of those size compairson charts with a human outlint next to the dino loutlint that some of the other articles have (if such is avalible or can be made). I think these images give a unifying feel to the dino articles. Dalf | Talk 03:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thanks to Dropzink. ArthurWeasley 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a copy-edit throughout to weed out redundant wording.
    • "The good preservation and completeness"—"Good" is weak; just remove it.
    • "There was much subsequent discussion over whether the remains were actually of a heart or not." There could hardly have been prior discussion, so remove "subsequent". Remove "or not".
    • "Many scientists are now doubtful of both the identification of the object and the implications of such an identification." Verbose; try "Many scientists now doubt ...". Tony 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Did someone just say weed? Anyway I agree with Tony, it could use a bit copyediting throughout, but otherwise it's a very good article. Random suggestions:
  • Split the references to two, or even three columns.
  • Charles Gilmore described patches of carbonized material near the shoulders as possible epidermis, with a "punctured" texture but no regular pattern,[7] but no further reports of scalation or skin have been published. William J. Morris suggested that armor was present, in the form of small scutes present at least along the midline of the neck,[13] but no additional reports have surfaced - Sounds a bit strange considering the two sentences basicly end with the same commentary which only differs by its wording. Shall I suggest adding "as well" in the end of the second sentence?
  • Many scientists now doubt both the identification of the object and the implications of such an identification - "both" redundant.
  • ...including skeletal restorations,[7][4][14] and models - Unecessary comma.
  • nonavian > non-avian. Maybe replace "avian" with "bird".
  • Books since the publication of "Willo" - Isn't "Willo" a skeleton?
  • "Miscellanea" as a section name is commonly trivial, which we attempt to avoid. I advice renaming it to "In popular culture". Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got these ones :) J. Spencer 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Puerto Ricans in World War II

edit

This is a Self-Nom. To my surprise, I discovered that history books have omitted the contributions made by Puerto Ricans during World War II. I wanted to correct this injustice by writing an artcle on the subject because I believe that this is a story that needs to be told. With the help of other editors we have what has resulted in "Puerto Ricans in World War II". The article has passed GA and the FAC peer review. Tony the Marine 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! You are right. There really isn't a need for a "See also" section because all of these links were already worked in to the article. Tony the Marine 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- The quality of the article has been improved since I approved it for Good Article and the tag in the image that I pointed at has been fixed. -凶 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I didn't take a whole look at the article, but I made some tweaks to the lead. I also added some inline queries. Please enlist two or three copy-editors to help brush up any lingering deficiencies. — Deckiller 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the "tweaks", I've had some people look into any lingering deficiencies. Tony the Marine 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too have seen a couple of areas where a copy edit would be needed, however these are minor issues which will be sorted out very shortly I am sure. The content is well researched and covers many aspects of the topic. Notes and references are all well done (though the first one of the "further reading" section has the year at the beginning and the rest do not? this ought to be standardised). Perhaps tinkering with organisation, moving "women in WWII" up to it follows on from the main section, rather than having discrimination in between then, and perhaps making a couple of the images larger, but on the whole a great article that will certainly have its few bugs ironed out quickly. SGGH 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - shouldn't it be titled 'Military history of Puerto Rico during World War II'? -Phoenix 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I believe the title of the article is appropriate for the subject. The article is about Puerto Rican men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces, and not about Puerto Rico engaged in WWII as a country. (See for example Military history of Canada during the Second World War, an article about an independent country fighting in the war, and not about its citizens fighting within the U.S. armed forces). - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Funny, because that's the article to which I was going to refer you for an example of what I feel is a good title for these sort of article. I see the difference now. -Phoenix 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. The prose throughout needs cleaning up, preferably by a copy-editor who's new to the article. Yes, it's a story that should be told—I agree entirely with the previous reviewers on that count; but I find "there wasn't much to fix" to be wrong-headed. It's particularly important that the stories of minority groups, particularly of non-native speakers in a sea of anglophones, be expressed in the very best English. Their history needs to gain the authority and respect that comes from linguistic precision. It's kind of unfair, but we can't escape that fact. Search edit-history pages of related articles for good copy-editors. Start with the FAs.
    • We're told twice in the lead that PRs "participated in combat in the European theater".-Done'
    • "For the first time, Puerto Rican women were permitted to join the military"—when? Better start "In WW II, Puerto Rican women were first permitted to join the military". But this statement begs questions such as whether this was in parallel with the participation of other US women in the military; or were PR women admitted at a different time. Unclear.-Done
    • "It may have also been the first time that some of the island's men would play active roles"—This is a WPian disease called "woulditis"; just "men played".-Done
    • "the total amount of Hispanics"—Nope, "number".-Done
    • "Armed Forces"—why caps if generic? Only use caps for official titles.-Done
    • "the military of the United States"—By this stage, we know which military you're talking about; remove the last four words.-Done Tony 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Domenico Selvo

edit

About two months ago I decided to make this article, my first FAC, about a random, obscure person who is not often written about. After digging through more Venetian history books than I'm willing to count, I wrote this entire article. I refuse to comment on my own writing style, so you can read for yourself if you think it is well-written ;-). This article has undergone an extensive peer review where four very kind users spent a lot of time weeding this thing out to bring you what you see today. The maps are courtesy of User:MapMaster who kindly made the after map (1084 CE) at my request. I hope you all think this article is worthy of FA status and I will address any concerns you might have here. Thanks a lot, JHMM13 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent article, overall; a few minor quibbles, though:
    • The "See also" section should be eliminated.
    • "References and notes" should be changed to "Notes" and "Bibliography" to "References" (or "Further reading", if those works weren't consulted, but I'm assuming that they were).
      Before I change anything here regardng the see also and the references, could you please consult the discussion about this in the peer review? This is something I've been a bit confused about. I think it is important to have a "List of Doges" link, but I can't think of where to put it in the article. There's a mini discussion about the names of the sections. I initially had it as "Notes" and "References," but a question regarding the fact that there are notes mixed in with the citations was brought up and this is sort of what we agreed on. I'd love to hear your opinion on it.
      The standard usage I've seen in most FAs (and the one recommended by WP:CITE) is to use "Notes" for all footnotes, regardless of whether they're citations or discursive notes. If there's no other listing of references, this can be changed to "Notes and references"; otherwise, the (auxiliary, typically alphabetical) listing of references is under a separate "References" section. (There are some variations on this, of course.) The main thing is to avoid having a "Bibliography" section, since it's ambiguous as to whether the works listed in it were actually used as sources for the article, or are merely further reading material that may not have been consulted.
      Got it. I agree with you, and I've changed it.
      As far as linking the list of Doges: why not just add it to {{VeniceDogeSuccession}}? That would seem a more natural place for a purely navigational link of that sort; explicit "See also" sections tend to look like afterthoughts, and tend to be avoided in FAs. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Done and done. Someone else suggested this to me before in the peer review, but it must have slipped my mind. Thanks! JHMM13 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, support from me, then. (You might want to double-check the punctuation in the footnotes, incidentally; I would have expected a comma rather than a period after the author's name. It may just be a style I'm not familiar with, of course.) Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dates in the section headings would be neater if parenthesized, I think; i.e. "Peace and prosperity (1071-1080)" instead of "1071 - 1080: Peace and prosperity". Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Done...good idea! Thank you for the "excellent article" comment :-D. JHMM13 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my concerns were addressed at the peer review. There is some room for improvement in the illustration but realistically, this is probably as good as it can be. Mangojuicetalk 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work on an obscure subject. A very fine article. -- Pastordavid 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -- 1. doge is not a very common word, so could the meaning be stated in the lead itself instead of forcing a user to click on the link? 2. His birth early life (ie not much is known) needs to be mentioned in the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a few words detailing what a Doge is. Do you not think the words in the section "Life before Dogeship" are good enough? It mentions that not much is known about his early life. Thanks for your comment, JHMM13 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very fitting expansion on a topic which didn't even have its own article only some six months ago. Very appropriate length, plenty of sources and clever use of illustrations for a relatively obscure topic. Peter Isotalo 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peter. —Randy Johnston (‽) 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a; will change when work is done. There's much good in this nomination, but the whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it. Here are a few random examples of problems in the writing. (Please don’t just fix these examples.)
    • It is very difficult to work with a broad suggestion like this one. I've had, at the very minimum, four users thoroughly copyedit this article, one of whom had never even heard the word Doge before. I think the combined efforts of these four reviewers/voters and myself is worthy enough of counting as having found someone else who has carefully copyedited this article. At this point, the only truly useful thing to me is specific examples. Opposing it by suggesting you do not think it is "well-written" because it is not copyedited enough is not helping me very much. All I can do is fix these specific examples if they are in fact worth fixing.
Well, I can't change my Oppose, then. You need to network on WP to locate other contributors who are interested in this general area and who are good at copy-editing. It's basic to the process of preparing a FAC. What is here is not at the required "professional" standard. Tony 03:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The structure of the opening two sentences has been compromised by additional information: "Domenico Selvo[1] (died 1087) was the Doge of Venice from 1071 to 1084. Selvo's election as Doge, a dialectical Italian term for leader, in 1071 was the first in history to have been recorded by a witness, thus providing a valuable resource for historians." Is there a reference for this recording? Who was the witness?
      Did you read any of the "Election as Doge" section? This was a very crucial point in that section and is referenced well to multiple sources, including a secondary source with the exact text (in Latin) of the original primary source.
      OK.
      • I removed that tidbit from the lead; it doesn't seem like a defining aspect of Selvo's period as Doge, although it might well have been presented that way in sources if they did not cover Selvo's reign in depth. Also, I removed the definition of Doge: sorry to Nichalp, but it's quite clear from context that a Doge is a kind of leader, and there's a bluelink to Doge for further explanation of the title... and the definition was cumbersome. Mangojuicetalk
        That's fine, but I would just have to remind you that this was an historically significant event, and an event that marks him as unique as a Doge, apart from the others. The election of a Doge was a very famous process that went on for centuries. I think it is significant, which is why I wrote a large section on it, so please reconsider taking that sentence out. It's up to you.JHMM13 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there's a way to integrate it better, I wouldn't mind it being there. But there's much more to say about Selvo's reign than that, and featuring that fact so prominently and separately from context makes it seem like a very strong judgement about its importance. The article already highlights the fact, it doesn't have to be in the lead as well... but it could be, if it didn't stick out the way it did. Maybe it could be integrated into the second paragraph of the lead? (Come to think of it, the first sentence of the second paragraph also sticks out: do we need to know, right up front, about Selvo's involvement in the building of St. Mark's?) Mangojuicetalk 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He successfully avoided conflicts with the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church at a time in European history when struggles for power threatened to upset the balance thereof. At the same time, he forged new agreements with ..."—Remove "successfully" as redundant. "Thereof" is over the top; reword. Remove "At the same time" as redundant.
      Successfully is redundant and I will remove it. What do you mean by "over the top?" Is it too difficult for some people to understand? Is it improper English in some dialects? I personally think "At the same time" is important to the flow of that paragraph. It might be "redundant," but at the same time, it helps avoid the sound of two similar sentences in succession. Leaving it out, in my opinion, would make it sound too much like a list.
      "Thereof" is nowadays hardly ever used, except by lawyers who should know better. It's arcane language, especially planting it right at the end of the sentence. It needs to be reworded.
      I'll see if I can reword it. JHMM13 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"At the same time": it doesn't add anything; I think it should be removed.
      • Thereof had already been removed. The sentence now reads "He successfully avoided confrontations with the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church at a time in European history when conflict threatened to upset the balance of power." (Thereof showed up when I objected in peer review to the use of "power" twice in the same sentence.) I agree that "At the same time" can be removed; will do momentarily. Mangojuicetalk 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Within the city of Venice,"—We've just had three instances of "Venice"; remove "of Venice", or the whole phrase.
      I agree. That might have been the result of a late addition somewhere. Reworded the last two instances of Venice referencing the city and then the republic.
    • "Beginning with the reign of Pietro II Candiano in 932 Venice saw a string of inept leaders such as Pietro III Candiano, Pietro IV Candiano, and Tribuno Memmo, whose reputed arrogance and ambition caused the deterioration of their relationship with the Holy Roman Empire in the west, the stagnancy of their relationship with the Byzantine Empire in the east, and discord at home in the Republic.[2] "—Getting rather long; consider splitting.
      I personally disagree with you, but I often tend to err on the side of a slightly longer, and in my opinion, more elegant sentence. This is probably unencyclopedic to some extent, so I'll make the change here.
Long sentences are questionable in any register nowadays.
      • I actually like that sentence as written, but there were a few that I broke up as overly long.
    • "a rather unpopular figure"—"Rather" is unencyclopedic.
      Perhaps it is, but what might fit better? There is not just popular or unpopular, there are shades of grey to which I feel I must allude in this situation to adequately paint the picture. Maybe "somewhat?"
No, just remove it altogether.
  • Response to Tony: If your objection is only on the basis that too few editors have been involved, I have to strenuously object to that. This is an obscure subject of interest to few editors. JHMM13 has been the main writer, sure, but what about the peer review? You can't expect dozens of people to work on an article like this. 6 editors have been involved, which is 5 more than necessary for featured status. As for your specific comments, I made changes that addressed your complaints, and without you being more specific than "needs copy-editing" I'm not sure what else to look for that you might object to. Can you at least be more specific about the type of writing issue you see? I find the text holds together very nicely. Mangojuicetalk 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Knights Templar

edit

Self-nom. This is an article about a major subject, the medieval order of the Knights Templar. The article went up once for FA back in 2004, and has been substantially expanded since then, with a MilHist peer review, and is currently at Good article status. The article still gets occasional POV wars, primarily because there's a lot of misinformation about the Templars out on the web, and there are also modern groups which claim to be the current incarnation of the medieval organization. But wherever possible we've stuck with high quality references which have been extensively double- and triple-checked, and done our best to make this article a hub which spokes the majority of the more speculative stuff out to other articles which we're working on separately. Assuming that featured status is approved, I'd like to see the article featured on October 13th of this year if possible. That will be the 700-year anniversary of the famous events on Friday, October 13, 1307, when King Philip IV of France had many Templars simultaneously arrested, charged with heresy, and eventually burned at the stake. I hope you'll find the article both informative, and interesting. :) --Elonka 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about GA (shame on me) and would gladly support if the wikignomes visit at midnight and remove a few weeds from this lovely garden. DurovaCharge! 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tightened up the writing a bit, let me know if you have any other specific concerns? --Elonka 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many FACs are initially opposed because of 1a; several (note the plural) copy-editors give the article a runthrough, and the oppose is withdrawn. It is not a situation that requires withdrawal and another peer review. I'll see if I can find time to give it a look; I do agree that the prose is a little flowery in some areas. — Deckiller 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It does look good. (aside, to Durova, it has gone through WP:GA. Cary Bass demandez 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the prose needs some work, but a couple of good pass-throughs could probably fix that. The bigger issue for me is length: I don't know that this article is written in a good summary style. In particular, given that there is a main article (History of the Knights Templar), I wonder why the history section is 3,000 words -- it seems a bit much if there is another complete article on the section. Further, given the traffic this article probably receives - and the edit wars noted above, I wonder how stable the article is. On the plus side - great work with citations and pictures. -- Pastordavid 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stability seems to be good right now. The main instigator in the most recent edit war, along with sockpuppets, has been blocked, and I haven't seen any problems re-emerge since protection was lifted. --Elonka 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. -- I think it's in good shape. I'll keep my eye on proceedings here, and am expecting to voice support once concerns about prose have been addressed. There's some mixing of American and Commonwealth spelling: 'Rumors', but 'organisation', for example, which should be sorted. — BillC talk 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. It's a great article, and very thorough. I learned a lot. I don't find the prose over-elaborate, but to be engaging. — BillC talk 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the reference formatting.  :) As for the about.com reference, though there is indeed unreliable information at other locations on about.com, I would argue that the particular article being referenced here,[44] meets the standard of reliability because of how well-sourced it is. --Elonka 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with listing primary sources in this case, is that I feel that that strays too far into the realm of original research. The statement that we're trying to reference in the Wikipedia article, is that the date of Friday, October 13, 1307, is incorrectly associated with the legend of Friday the 13th. But going deeper on sourcing here, would involve referencing books from the 19th century that don't include the phrase.[45][46] Which is why I feel that it's better to reference the about.com article. It's well-written, directly relevant, has a clearly-listed author, cites its sources, and, most importantly in my mind, is not contradicted by any other reliable published source. As such, I think it's appropriate. --Elonka 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Quite well-written, but many things need fixing, such as these issues that I found easily at random. Please find a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text.
    • "With little financial resources at the time,"—"few". Remove "at the time"?
    • "Poverty did not last long though."—Uncomfortable "though", especially as a back-reference at the start of a paragraph.
    • "Declared ... to be not subject to local laws"—Better way of saying this?
    • "Heavily-armed"—NO hyphen after "-ly".
    • "innovated ways of generating letters of credit for pilgrims"—Fist word inelegant.
    • "This may have been the first form of checking put into use"—Your piped link "checking" (US spelling, I guess) is confusing. Remove last three words.
    • "After several disastrous battles including the pivotal Battle of the Horns of Hattin," Comma after "battles" for nested phrase. Tony 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query This bit from the Organisation section needs revising:
the knights, wearing white mantles and equipped as heavy cavalry; the sergeants, drawn from lower social strata than the knights and equipped as light cavalry
The "mantles" bit--covered very clearly elsewhere in the section--should be replaced with a phrase summarizing the social strata from which the knights were drawn in order to parallel and clarify the description of the sergeants. Were the knights all of noble birth? Mostly nobles, along with some rich members of the mercantile class? Or what?—DCGeist 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Elonka 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Doolittle (album)

edit

An album by the alternative rock band Pixies. The article recently achieved GA status, and I think it meets the FA criteria. A self-nomination. CloudNine 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Remove the "initial reception" and "retrospect" subheadings; the change of subject is properly conveyed by the start of each paragraph. Combine the "end-of-year" paragraph with the preceeding paragraphs. There's some prose issues with the article as a whole that I'll get back to soon enough, but then again it's really just some awkward phrasing I can probably fix myself. WesleyDodds 09:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've only read a little bit so far and I'll come back to the article; but a few questions:

The album itself reached #8 in the United Kingdom, a unheralded chart position for the band. Songs such as "Debaser", "Wave of Mutilation" and "Hey" were highly critically regarded, and Doolittle, along with Surfer Rosa, is seen as the band's best work by critics.

  • Why the hash before the 8?
    • It's similar to other featured album articles, which designate a chart position by a hash before the number. See Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) for typical usage.
Not required in my opinion. No need for impenetrable signs when we have words like "chart" available. qp10qp 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's to signify 'number'; but it's not crucial anyway, so I've removed them. CloudNine 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. qp10qp 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the pound signs. They are necessary in this context. Remember that the Pixies are an American band and so American English is used in the article. Andrew Levine 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "unheralded" mean in this context? In my opinion, some DJs had already heralded the band. Quite a fuss had been made about them in indy circles, for sure.
    • The chart position they achieved in the UK was far above their previous releases - such a placing could not have been and was not predicted, so it was unheralded.
I don't agree. The album was played and trumpeted on the radio in advance. Advance orders were high, including mine. "Unheralded" doesn't mean the same as "highest by far". You herald the record itself, not its chart position. qp10qp 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to 'unexpected success'. The impression that I get from reading through sources is that the record label and the band thought it would be more popular than Surfer Rosa, but not as popular as it was (in the UK anyway). CloudNine 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. qp10qp 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no references for this, but I distinctly recall Doolittle being attacked by critics as a comedown from Surfer Rosa, which had been praised as a breath of fresh air for its short sharp songs. I can't remember where I read that response, but I would have been reading Melody Maker, NME, The Guardian and The Independent at the time. Note: I now see that you acknowledge this later in the article. I think this possibility is probably covered.qp10qp 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenses: "were critically regarded"/"is seen". Need to be very careful about tenses because it seems to me that though the Pixies are now canonical, it is forgotten that the three famous albums after Surfer Rosa were increasingly hammered by certain critics at the time, often in the most derogatory terms. This didn't bother the fans, though, who treasured all the albums. NME reader polls often departed from the views of its critics, who tended to be snarky. qp10qp 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find some of the reviews online, but they are from pre-internet days and are elusive. As you know, what happens is that most bands are forgotten—including many that were flavour of the month at the time—but those that are remembered become increasingly sanctified. Books, articles, and advertising materials about them quote selectively from reviews until the past is rewritten. I think this is because once a band reaches legendary status with the fans, the critics feel obliged to catch up and talk as if, for example, the Pixies phenomenon was inevitable in retrospect. Anyway, I still haven't read the whole article, and I will probably come back to bug you some more. (No need to answer this unactionable rambling.) qp10qp 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely good point. I feel the article isn't very well sourced anyway (in terms of variety of sources), and they could certainly do with getting their hands on some NMEs, MMs etc from the time. Can anyone help? --kingboyk 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually spent another session looking, and I have to admit that the balance in the article is probably correct. I did find a contemporary NME review, I think on the Alec Eiffel site, and it was full of praise, though such fan sites aren't going to put up much negative stuff (there's a very negative concert review there, mind). The present article does show that not all reviews were positive: it mentions Time Out, and I realise that I used to read that, which is maybe where I remember the criticism from. I would say that the article could be more precise in distinguishing contemporaneous appraisal from later appraisal. Clearly the album has risen from being fourth in the NME for that year to second of all time now (so even when the album was praised in 1989, it was not effused over in the iconic terms that it is now). Another point to remember about sources is that feature articles and interviews, as today, tend to be sycophantic (or they wouldn't get the co-operation) and reviews more critical. In particular, I don't necessarily think the reference to this page [47] rates as a reliable source, since the website owner admits at the top that he has cobbled it together from various sources and added his own input (that site is good, but clearly its POV is fandom). qp10qp 01:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed source. It didn't really say anything that wasn't already cited.
  • Support. This is an excellent encyclopedia article, just the right length for its subject. It strikes a balance between facts and figures, anecdote, and critical appraisal. The prose is of a clean quality and largely avoids the music-journalese of its sources. As a Pixies fan, I'm pleased that we now have such a comprehensive article on this album. Are you up for a Kim Deal article, then, CloudNine? (No shortage of material, one suspects.)
    • Yeah, definitely collecting sources for that one. I'm also looking to improve Surfer Rosa in the near future.
A few small points:
  • 4AD, a small British independent record label, owned the worldwide rights to the Pixies, but had no distribution outside of the United Kingdom; the band had to import its previous records.' Not clear what the last part of that refers to, since we have just been told that they were signed to Elektra, which I thought was an American label (so import to where, if they were signed to labels in both countries?). What was Elektra's relation to the independent 4AD, if any?
    • According to my sources, the band signed to Elektra, but Elektra didn't acquire distribution rights for their next album until two weeks before Doolittle was released. I've clarified the sentences in question.
  • A lack of distinction between Simon Larbalestier and a chap you call Oliver (a check of my copy tells me that Simon Larbalestier was the photographer and Vaughan Oliver ("Vaughan Oliver/v23" is what it says in the booklet, for some reason) the art designer and director.
Doolittle was the first album where Simon Larbalestier, the Pixies' cover artist, had access to the lyrics.
During the recording sessions, Whore was discarded as a potential album title, after album artist Oliver changed the cover artwork idea to a monkey and halo cover.
    • I've clarified that point. Fool the World talks about Larbalestier and how he came up with surrealist material - Oliver isn't mentioned much. However, they both worked on it, so I've modified the first sentence of the section.
  • ...was released to radio stations for rotation. I'm not familiar with that term.
    • Replaced with "inclusion on playlists".
  • After "Monkey Gone to Heaven", 4AD released "Here Comes Your Man", the second and last single to be taken directly from the album, in June 1989...It was not the last single from the album; in 1997, "Debaser" was released as a single to promote the Death to the Pixies compilation. A contradiction there, even if "Debaser" was not released till many years later.
    • The key word here is "directly". However, I'm not too happy with the phrasing myself. Could you take a look at it?
qp10qp 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! My comments are above. CloudNine 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the first para is a summary of the section, and the mention of the songs later down covers them in more detail; so, essentially, they must be mentioned twice. (Same with surrealism/"Debaser", and enviromentalism/"Monkey Gone to Heaven"). CloudNine 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially Shadow, you mean that you have agreed to do this with Stefani related articles. Wikipedia talk:Record charts means nothing whatsoever, as my objection is based on the FA criteria - take your complaint up with the FA criteria page if you dislike my objection and ask for 1a to be more specific. Until then, I'm fully, 110% entitled to my intepretation of 1a. LuciferMorgan 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. Have read half the article so far, but very good as usual, thus far. Q's:
  • "in similar circumstances to "the Purple Tape". - Similar how? Similarly improvised, or similarly fracticious?
  • More that the band were quietly recording new songs in a small studio.
  • "Francis had no preference, although Ivo Watts-Russell, head of the band's label 4AD, was keen on Norton recording the Pixies' next album" - I remember reading somewhere, but can't think where, that hiring Norton was a calculated move away from Albini's sound, and an attempt, at least on 4ADs behalf, to capitalise on the band's huge European popularity at the time. True, or am I just getting old?
  • My Doolittle 33 1/3 reference say this: "Watts-Russell was keen on Norton, and everybody else liked him too, so that was that".
  • "This was a modest sum for a 1980s major label album" - 4AD are not a major label; was it financed by Elektra?
  • 4AD alone financed the record. They signed a distribution deal with Elektra just as the record was about to be released.
  • "The master-tapes were then sent for final post-production later that month" - To which studio? Curious.
  • I can't find anything in my references that indicates a particular studio.
  • "Norton recruited Steve Haigler as mixing engineer, whom he had worked with at Fort Apache Studios" - During which recording? Curious.
  • I think it was as a general mixing engineer, for every band that had record at the studio. I can't find anything that says he worked on a previous Pixies record (i.e. Purple Tape).
  • "this record is him trying to make us, shall I say, commercial, and us trying to remain somewhat grungy" - Maybe incorporate Albini's famous openion on Pixies here.
  • Indeed, the trouble is that Albini made his quote in 1991, so it may jar by darting foward to 1991 and back again.
Very good work to here, however. Ceoil 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and copyedit. My comments are above. CloudNine 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications, have finished reading the article, and switched to support. As a small point you could rename the "Further reading" section as "Sources" as both texts are used in the notes. Ceoil 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. CloudNine 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think you've really got the hang of writing Featured Articles. I just took care of some minor punctuation fixes (American subject--->American grammar and all that). Good job. WesleyDodds 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support—mostly well written, and it's good to see some depth in the account of the music/style. There are, however, a few things to fix in the prose; a quick spruce up by someone who's unfamiliar with the text would make all the difference. Just as examples:
    • "Francis gave the demo tape and upcoming album the provisional title of Whore, though he later claimed his natural father had originally suggested the name. Francis has clarified that was thinking of the word "in the more traditional sense"—Do you need to insert "this" after "that" to clarify the wording?
      • Clarified wording.
    • "was keen on Norton recording"—loose and, strictly speaking, ungrammatical. What about "was keen that Norton record"?
      • Fixed.
    • "in order to"—Please, just "to".
      • Done. Thanks, good tip.
    • "Carriage House Studios —a residential studio in Stamford, Connecticut— to oversee"—Odd use of one-sided spacing for dashes; try no spacing or both sides. This needs to be fixed throughout.Tony 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not my doing, but I changed the dashes (mostly) to commas.
    • "the band' forthcoming album"?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Battle of Shiloh

edit

I believe this article represents some of the best of what wiki is about. I find the style tight and communicative as well as being well footnoted and sourced. Tirronan 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The claim in the article that "this total of 23,741 men represented more than the American casualties of the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War combined" is certainly false. Casualties from those three wars, which are not precisely known, probably exceeded an estimated 90,000 men, mostly from disease (see United States casualties of war). Probably what was intended was a comparison of battle casualties rather than total casualties. —Kevin 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am just a little bit concerned about the sources used in this article. I am not quite sure why Time-Life Books are being used, for example. Larry Daniel's book received excellent reviews in both The Journal of Southern History and The Journal of American History in 1998, so I am happy to see it being used. But why is James McDonough's encyclopedia entry being used rather than his book Shiloh: In Hell Before Night (1977), apparently a classic in the field, according to one of the reviews of Daniel's book that I read? Awadewit 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer While I am not the author of this article I can answer that most books fall into 2 catagories, the overview and the detailed play by play. Writing articles for Wikipedia requires a bit of both. I know that for me when I write a article on a battle there are times that I require the 40,000 ft view of the battle and times when I have to know that Mr. Smith's brigade was at xyz location at 0000 CST and engaged abc's brigade using efg tactics. I am sure this is why the editors used the wide ranging types for referrence. I will note that some 11 books were used in this writing and surely the exclusion of 1 book, however worthy, should not affect this article. Tirronan 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But there are scholarly books that cover both categories. One does not need to stoop to Time-Life books in order to garner either perspective, is my point. Also, one should not use an encyclopedia article to write another encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are summaries of information, therefore one should turn to sources with more information and then decide what is important to include in an encyclopedia article (which is why encyclopedia articles are inherently POV, by the way, but that is an entirely different point). I did not think that wikipedia was simply trying to copy other encyclopedias, so one should not use them as sources. One should use more detailed, specific scholarly works. And since this is supposed to be featured article, one of wikipedia's best, after all, shouldn't it reflect the best research practices? Awadewit 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the author of the article, but not the person who requested this review, let me point out that the objective of footnoting in Wikipedia is to provide verifiability. If I can do that with the books available in my library, I will do so. It should not matter whether facts and opinions of historians have been extracted from popular books for the general public (although I believe that if you take a close look at the Time-Life series and ignore the abundance of photographs and paintings, you will find that they are very well written and comprehensive, and usually have a distinguished set of prominent Civil War historians as consultants) or from other encyclopediae. (As to the concept of "copying from an encyclopedia," I find that interesting because many people in this community cite the need for making something "encyclopedic" without really knowing what that means. I would suggest that if information is summarized in a professional encyclopedia, it is by its very nature "encyclopedic" and is direct evidence that the information is being presented at an appropriate level for another encyclopedia article.) Furthermore, the more scholarly a particular reference is, the more unlikely that the average reader will be able to access that book or article if he or she is really concerned about the verifiability. (There are some Wikipedia authors who prefer online sources so that readers can merely click to verify the information, although I generally avoid those because they often do not cite their sources and almost never footnote them.) When I write a Wikipedia article that is fully footnoted, my technique is to use the more scholarly sources for analysis and for the very specific, detailed level facts of a battle. However, there are many paragraphs in most articles that are presented as background or aftermath and I think that it is perfectly reasonable that their verifiability derives from broader, more popular sources. Hal Jespersen 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cite WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication." The most reliable sources on the civil war are publications by civil war historians from university presses. Manuscripts that go to university presses are peer-reviewed by other scholars in the field before they are published. Most are rejected, therefore the few that are published are known to be good.
  • You have missed my point entirely about enyclopedias. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to copy other encyclopedia articles. Even copying the structure and gist of another enyclopedia's article (without copying their wording) is plagiarism. The person who wrote that article decided what information to include and what information to exclude. That decision and his or her decision on how to structure the article and his or her words are all owned. Moreover, to write an encyclopedia article one must know more than is contained in other encyclopedia articles. One cannot write a summary after only reading a summary. But my earlier point was that McDonough has written an important book on this topic, therefore it is his book which the editors should have read, not his encyclopedia article.
  • It is the job of the editors and the writers to present the scholarly material in an accessible way. Don't sidestep the issue.
  • The wikipedia authors who prefer online sources are wrong. Online sources change; one cannot be sure if the information one referenced is there from day to day. Print sources remain stable. Also, very few scholarly sources are available online for free, so I am not sure what kinds of sources they would be advocating for.
  • Scholars also write "background" material and discuss the "aftermath" of battles; do not pretend that such information is not available. Such posturing does not lend credibility to your arguments. Awadewit 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems overzealous for a mere encyclopedic article. We're not an academic forum. Are there any specific problems with reliability in the sources used or are you just demanding more detail?
Peter Isotalo 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may not be an academic forum, but we are supposed to be using academic sources. Would you read an article on string theory that had been written entirely on the basis of popular science books? No, you would not. Why? Because popular books are forced to simplify their discussions of topics to reach a larger audience. (Note that in the string theory article, in the "Further Reading" section, the popular books are separated from the scholarly books and only the scholarly works are used as references.) The same problems of popularization are true in history (though maybe to a lesser degree). In history, some of the bigger problems tend to be sensationalization and distortion. I have not yet tried to find reviews for every source here, but I did notice right off that only one source from a university press, and that source, McPhersons's one-volume history of the Civil War was specifically written for a lay audience. I have already objected to the Time-Life books (a money-making enterprise, not a scholarly enterprise) and the enyclopedia entry (the historian who wrote that has a far better book and encyclopedia entries should not rely on other encyclopedia entries when there are other sources). FAs are supposed to be wikipedia's best, as I said before, so they should also reflect the best in research. If I were a historian coming to this page to evaluate it and I saw those sources, I would be skeptical. Awadewit 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That any work of non-fiction that isn't written for academics should be disqualified as a source for FAs is unrealistic and extremely elitist. It would cause a huge problem for editors who don't have access to (or experience with) academia and would make it extremely difficult for the readers the articles are actually intended for to verify anything. And excluding any work that has "encyclopedia" in the title is just pretentious. Avoiding general encyclopedias like EB and Encarta is advisable, but not ones about specific topics. That a book intended for laypersons might not be as detailed and up-to-date as those intended for academics doesn't mean that it's unreliable and unfit for referencing encyclopedic articles.
I'm sure the article can be improved if new research comes to light, but it seems almost paranoid
Peter Isotalo 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not elitist. I am asking the editors of wikipedia to have high standards for the FAs. Editors and readers have access to libraries, by the way. I am not going to reiterate my point about encyclopedias because if you don't understand it, you don't understand it. I have explained it twice now. If you are content with using less reliable, less accurate information, that's your perogative, but I would not make the argument that wikipedia's FAs should rely on such sources. Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a pretty basic historical topic. It does require some thorough research to be verifiable, but not bleeding edge academia. We're talking pretty straightforward synthesis of history writing, not convoluted or very obscure theories. Seriously, Awadewit, you're overshooting the intent of our verifiability policies by miles. What you're suggesting seems to be that we should be a... no, wait... the Shining Beacon of Ultimate and Final Attestability. It's not just high standards; it's impossibly, disproportionately and unnecessarily high standards.
And you still fail to produce any detailed criticism of facts; just a lot of prejudice about literature you don't appear to have read yourself.
Peter Isotalo 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments I think that this article has the potential to reach FA status, it just needs some work on its sources (see above and below) and a few other things.

  • Could the editors add some political context at the beginning of the article like that they have included the end?
  • His encampment at Pittsburg Landing displayed his most consequential lack of such concern—his army was spread out in bivouac style, many around the small log church named Shiloh (the Hebrew word that means "place of peace"),[5] spending time waiting for Buell with drills for his many raw troops, without entrenchments or other awareness of defensive measures. - convoluted sentence
  • Fix red-links or de-link.
  • He was concerned that the sounds of marching and the Confederate soldiers test-firing their rifles after two days of rain cost them the element of surprise. - "would cost"?
  • In fact, the army had spent the entire night bivouacking undetected in order of battle just two miles (3 km) away from the Union camps. - I don't understand how the "in fact" follows from the previous sentence
  • Grant telegraphed to Halleck on the night of 5 April, "I have scarcely the faintest idea of an attack (general one) being made upon us, but will be prepared should such a thing take place." - uncited quotation
  • The confusing alignment of the Confederate troops helped to reduce the effectiveness of the attack. Johnston and Beauregard had no unified battle plan. - why was it "confusing"? Although this becomes clearer later in the paragraph, this opening sentence is jarring.
  • Johnston had telegraphed Confederate President Jefferson Davis that the attack would proceed as: "Polk the left, Bragg the center, Hardee the right, Breckinridge in reserve." - uncited quotation
  • The article is undercited in general. Adding citations from scholarly sources would fix this problem.
  • Ex: The assault was nevertheless ferocious, and some of the many inexperienced Union soldiers of Grant's new army fled for safety to the Tennessee River. Others fought well but were forced to withdraw under strong pressure and attempted to form new defensive lines. Many regiments fragmented entirely; the companies and sections that remained on the field attached themselves to other commands. During this period, Sherman, who had been so negligent in preparation for the battle, became one of its most important elements, appearing everywhere along his lines and inspiring his raw recruits to resist the initial assaults, despite staggering losses on both sides.
  • The "Wallace's lost division" section has only one reference - which parts are from Daniel and which from Smith? not helpful to the curious reader or the reader looking to verify
  • "Hornet's nest" section has only citation as well. I won't keep listing them all.
  • rolling up Union positions one by one - "rolling up" is a little colloquial
  • What about photographs? I know there were photographs taken after the battle (I was once a Civil War buff myself). I know there is one of the sunken road, in particular, that is good. Are these not fair use? Awadewit 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Most of this I can agree with, as a ex military type I am not sure that rolling up is all that colloquial as it is a action taken after a successful flanking attack and is used often. Most the more exacting military terminology might bring more problems (explaining to the expected public ear) than it is worth and very 20th century. As for the rest, this seems to be rather easy to accomplish. Though committing to purchase a particular book is out... dangerous precedent there. Tirronan 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about defining "rolling up," then? And, there are libraries, you know. Awadewit 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Concise, yet thorough, and overall a well-written article, but I have a few concerns that I would like to see taken care of:
    • The galleries of portraits don't seem terribly relevant to the article. All the commanders have their own article and anyone curious about what they look like can check the links for their faces.
    • The lengthy footnote about the history of Shiloh Church is not relevant to the battle nor is it military history. I think it should be removed, or at least limited to a much shorter pointer about the Hebew origins of the name.
    • What exactly does "bivouac style" mean? Is it just military lingo for "not ready for battle"? Why not just use the more recognizable "encamp(ing)" instead of "bivouac(king)?"
    • The account of Forrest's cavalry charge and his dramatic (and ruthless) escape makes one curious if he actually survived such a serious wound. Just a sub-clause whether he survived or not would be enough.
All that said, I am not in the least fond of footnote orgies unless there are very good reasons for them. Providing hyper-detailed directions for editors who want to be able to pick out completely random facts and demand that they be pointed to a specific page (preferably in three separate sources) is not what I call a valid reason; we have talk pages for that kind of minutiae. As long as there are good, general citations and a fair amount of general sources, the footnote counters should be the ones to provide valid reasons to demand more references. And I need to be absolutely clear about this: I am not supporting the article if it turns into something that looks like this.
Peter Isotalo 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that Peter should refuse to support an article because he feels it is overcited. He should also note that the sources at Roman-Spartan War come from academic presses. At this point in wikipedia's history, wikipedia needs to bolster its legitimacy. Citation is one way to do that. And to be clear, I am neither demanding that the editors cite "completely random facts" nor demanding "three separate sources" for everything. That is an exaggeration as anyone who has read my posts can see. If wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a reference source, its own references have to be serious. I am asking, are there better sources out there that will make this article more accurate and appear more reliable to the world? The answer to that question is: yes.
  • Peter also accuses me of "counting sources" but that is not what I am doing. For the first paragraph of the "Hornet's Nest" section, the footnote reads" Nevin, pp. 121-29, 136-39; Esposito, map 36; Daniel, pp. 207-14; Woodworth, pp. 179-85; Eicher, p. 227." Now, how is the reader supposed to know what information the editors got from where? Such a footnote is disingenuous. No one can really use it verify the editors' work which is part of what having the footnotes is for. Also, scholars work long and hard to come up with ideas and now their ideas have been so jumbled together that you don't know whose idea is whose. If any of the ideas in this paragraph are unique to a particular scholar, that must be recognized (scholars don't get books published unless they are writing something new). Awadewit 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being quite paranoid about the use of sources. I mean, you don't actually have concrete complaints about any fact statements, just a general distrust of non-academia.
I don't have a distrust of non-academia. Popular history and science books are written by academics. They are just written in a way that often distorts reality in order to sell books. Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the multiple-source footnotes, one is very tempted to point out that the reader should actually look those sources up before complaining about them. :-p But if the problem is too many sources in one footnote, then I suggest cutting down on the amount of citations rather than upping the amount of footnotes. I mean, the sources are still there, and every single fact statement doesn't need to have it's own separate page citation to be verifiable.
Peter Isotalo 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said that the Daniel book is good, it received good reviews from scholars. I have already made my point about the Time-Life books and the enyclopedia entry.
  • The Longest Night - for "nonscholars" according to Publisher's Weekly on amazon.com; the book received no scholarly reviews at all (searched JSTOR), which means it is hard to know how good it is
  • West Point Atlas of American Wars - link is broken; reviewed well (as the only thing available) by scholars in 1959-60; Military Affairs 23.4 (1959) and The American Historical Review 65.4 (1960); there might be better things available now, who knows?
  • Ripples of Battle - no scholarly reviews (see JSTOR); according to his webpage, the author is a classics professor, so that would be his area of expertise, not the US Civil War
  • Nothing but Victor - no scholarly reviews (see JSTOR)

Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I was away for most of the weekend and returned to see this amazing display of time consumption. If you folks would like to clarify the article's language, increase the number of footnotes (versus the generally one-per-paragraph style I used, as do many historians, BTW), or improve the quality of the sources used, please be my guest, as with any article in Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the ironies of this situation is that I belong to a listserv of eighteenth-century academics. They are currently discussing footnoting. The very issue I complained about here, that paragraphs use numerous citations in one note so that it is impossible to tell what information comes from where has already been complained about on that listserv. I don't think I can quote the person from the listserv since they did not intend their words to be broadcast to the web (if I can, please let me know). Such a complaint is not irrational since other academics believe that it hinders the verification process as well. Awadewit 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok most of this I can support however I can't condone being forced to use a source by another editor to get an ok. If you find there are sections of this article are not to standard due to lack of completeness of the information that is one thing. Being held to another's standard on sources is a bit much. I believe that I have read most if not every source Hal has used and there wasn't much contention to be had (as opposed to Waterloo where 1/3 of the authors seem to have a slant and national honor stands to be slighted). If I find that source I will be happy to read it and the article again to ensure there are no revelations to be had might even cite and source it, but I do not wish to be in a academic argument as to what is scholarly or not. I don't have a way to evaluate sources by that status and I am not an academic publishing a concise and complete work to a specialized audience with those types of resources available to me. I feel like I am being held to a standard that I have little hope to have enough information on to properly evaluate. I think I missed something in the FA status guidelines. Tirronan 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found a few books on Shiloh and Shiloh: In Hell Before Night (1977), was there at a dirt cheap price so its been ordered along with a few others. It will be here the 19th I'll read it and source/cite accordingly. Hopefully that will end any controversy Tirronan 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After talking with Hal and the fact that we have gotten 2 votes in 10 days I think that the article should be pulled from consideration for FAC due to lack of interest. Tirronan 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should pull it, I think you should respond to the comments above (I made more than those about sources). Also, sometimes it takes awhile; there are a lot of articles here. I would be willing to support the article if my concerns were addressed in good faith. There are a lot of good aspects to this article. I think two votes is technically a consensus and, apparently, the nominators can also voice their support (although I think that is rather unethical, it is generally accepted here). Awadewit 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on the prose.
    • "While Beauregard's concern was well-founded, it proved not to be a factor; Union forces had not detected the advancing Confederates." I don't see the logic in the first two clauses. Change semicolon to colon.
    • Needs redundant wording weeded out throughout; for example "In fact, the army had spent the entire night bivouacking undetected in order of battle just two miles (3 km) away from the Union camps." Remove first two words and "away".
    • "The attack turned into a simple but massive frontal assault" - why "but"?

It's good, and thus worth fixing throughout. Tony 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • replies on the prose
    • General PTG Beauregard was concerned that the troops test firing rifles had given away the suprise. Brutal as it may sound, tactically it was a blunder of the 1st order for a commander to be as unaware as Grant was on an Confederate army camped on his army's doorstep. If the Federals had sent out patrols and deployed outposts correctly then the CSA Army would have been detected and would have marched straight into prepared earthworks. At that point you have a Battle of Franklin all over again. General Beauregard had every reason to be concerned that his unit was walking straight into an abbator. Perhaps that entire section should be rewriten.
    • "The attack turned into a simple but massive frontal assault" that turn of phrase has always bothered me. Again it should be reworked.Tirronan 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

edit

This is a self-nomination. I starting to edit this article (on a Chinese romanization system due to the linguist Yuen Ren Chao) in January, & since then have largely rewritten it. Several editors, particularly User:Ikiroid, have helped by putting in a great deal of work suggesting & implementing improvements.

The article was passed as GA on 19 March. We have followed User:Peripitus' suggestion to reduce the length of the article by moving the detailed description of the system's spelling and tonal rules to a new article, Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. The essentials of this new article are now summarized in the Description section of the main article.

The article has had a peer review. We've followed the reviewer's useful suggestion about the structure of the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well a good rule of thumb is one citation per paragraph, which the paragraph in question lacks. As to each sentence...
  • "Lin Yutang's Chinese-English dictionary (1972) incorporated a number of innovative features, one of which was a simplified version of GR." Needs a citation about the features, and that one of them was simplified GR.
  • "Lin eliminated most of the spelling rules requiring substitution of vowels, as can be seen from his spelling Guoryuu Romatzyh, in which the regular -r is used for T2 and a doubled vowel for T3." How do I know this is how he spelled it? Also, using an uncitied "example" seems to bring OR to mind.--Clyde (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also found that in Description , under Basic forms (Tone 1), the first paragraph is void of a single citation. It is introducing the forms of the language, and there's a lot that could be citied in there.--Clyde (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Is it really necessary to duplicate the citations given in the main article, Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh? A clear reference to that article is given at the beginning of the Description section. If you think it's essential to duplicate the refs, I can of course do so! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it just to be safe. I did it somewhat when I cited IPA...pretend the reader is only looking at the article Gwoyeu Romatzyh, not the spelling page. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I checked out both pages and neither appears to have inline citations in the sections describing tone spelling changes. It shouldn't be too hard to cite, since it's from the books by Chao inter alia that you've already referenced. However, I don't have any of those books, so you'll have to do that (unless I can utilize something from the article's internet resources). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's no more difficult to follow a link to the spelling page than it would be to look up a reference to Chao et al! Having gone to the trouble of preparing detailed colour-coded tables (now in the new article) making everything perfectly clear, what purpose would be served by sending the reader back to Chao? The new Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Description is supposed to be a summary, isn't it? If we start duplicating all the citations in the summary, eventually we'll end up with a carbon copy of the details we wanted to get rid of in the first place.
Or so it seems to me. It's getting late, & I may be getting a bit tired ...
BTW It's simply not true that Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Tonal rules has no inline citations. It has one, referring to 2 books by Chao & 1 by Simon. Given the subject-matter, that's more than enough! Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Tonal modifications refers to the other article: if you prefer, we could replace this with a copy of the footnote from the other article.
Actually, this whole discussion raises an interesting point of principle. By presenting a summary of the Description we're in effect making the main GR article self-contained. The next question is: Where does the interested reader who wants to learn more about spelling & tones etc go to get further information? If we only give direct references to Chao, Simon et al., the reader may never get to see all our useful work in Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh at all! To prevent that, we say "Main article: Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh" at the top of the section. If, having read our attempt to explain everything there, he or she wants to check our sources, all the citations are given in that second article. That to me seems sufficient. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! The description section was great as it was. I don't want you to go about expanding it or cutting it apart. Keep the description page as a summary of Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. Just simply add a few citations from the books. We can keep the citations that refer the reader to the spelling article too, it's just that we want these facts individually sourced. It is a bit redundant to cite both articles on the same fact with the same source, but that is the preferred method. Look! I've already added a citation, which was in Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. You simply need to just put a few more of these in the section. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think I've now achieved a judicious balance of external citations & links to the GR Spelling article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. See above.--Clyde (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That colored text is the most jarring thing I've seen in an FAC since the weird formatting problem at the bottom of Hippocrates. If we don't have something in the MOS about colored text, we should. Also, references/footnotes aren't fully formatted; we need to know publisher (and publication date and author if available) on all sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it's exceedingly difficult to explain the material in simple bold and italics. The colored letters work quite well in describing the four different tones. What would you suggest we should do instead for marking spelling differences? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a simple matter to remove all the colours if necessary; but I think we should wait to hear objections to the existing colouring scheme from more reviewers before doing so. The MOS says:
Using color alone to convey information (color coding) should not be done ... It is certainly desirable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it.
Well, in this case the colour is not being used alone (there is plenty of text explaining how the tones are encoded): it's being used as an additional aid to convey a complex point. In the Example text, in particular, the colours merely highlight what the reader can derive from the Tonal spelling rules given elsewhere in the article.
As for the references and footnotes, I'm a bit puzzled by your comment. What exactly is wrong with the formatting? The only omission I could detect was the publisher of Karlgren's The Romanization of Chinese. For some reason the publisher is given in almost none of the references I consulted; but I did finally trace it in a HK library catologue. The paper was printed by The China Society, London—a fact now duly incorporated in the References. Please let me know of any other omissions you spotted.
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completed two refs as a sample of info that still needs to be filled in. Perhaps the color-coding issue could be reviewed with Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went there to post a request, but saw that you'd already done so! Thank you. I've also posted a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems.
As for the refs, I'll go through the article more thoroughly now that I understand what you were getting at. Thanks for making a start on the work. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Web citations are now properly formatted. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But what about filling in the wider political/cultural issues. Was it a force for centralising language during the 20th century (and thus power)? Has the same thing been attempted for other Chinese languages, such as Cantonese? Why not explain to non-experts what the tones are, in phonological and semantic terms. In English, tones are grammatical; perhaps you could point out this distinction to engage a wider audience. Tony 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post nomination (edit conflicted) comment: Your points are well-taken. As you can gather from the latter half of the history section and the thrid paragraph of the introduction, the GR movement unfortunately died out before it could play its intended role as the main romanization system of Mandarin. However, Y.R. Chao, the linguist who conceived the system, played a major role in pushing for a Latin alphabet in Chinese and also supported the movement to make vernacular Mandarin the official dialect of Chinese. Insofar as mainstream romanization systems, the GR style of spelling has not been replicated in any form Chinese. Your note about tones is duly noted and I have added a note about tones in Chinese per your suggestion. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426
  2. ^ Modern Morkhandi in Bidar district (Kamath 2001, p76)
  3. ^ modern Morkhand in Maharashtra (Reu 1933, p65)
  4. ^ Sooloobunjun near Ellora (Couseris in Altekar 1934, p48). Perhaps Elichpur remained capital until Amoghavarsha I built Manyakheta[citation needed]. From the Wani-Dmdori, Radhanpur and Kadba plates plates, Morkhand in Maharashtra was only a military encampment, from the Dhulia and Pimpen plates it seems Nasik was only a seat of a viceroy, neither Latur nor Paithan was the early capital from Paithan plates of Govinda III (Altekar, 1934, pp47-48)
  5. ^ Reu (1933), pp1-5
  6. ^ Altekar (1934), pp1-32
  7. ^ Reu (1933), pp6-9, pp47-53
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference study1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2007&oldid=988352801"