Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007
July 2007
edit- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.
After the article failed last October, several improvements have been made to the article, and I feel that it could pass FA this time. If any small, minor edits are needed, I will rectify it. Davnel03 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Despite popular belief that this lead to his release from TNA, fueled by the fact Punk didn't appear on TNA after this incident, Punk has stated that this had no bearing on his TNA career and the reason he stopped appearing on TNA was that TNA officials believed that he and Dinero had not gotten over as heels, having turned on Raven becoming a tag team managed by their old rival James Mitchell, and so the angle had been put on hold.[15] - This is bit of a long sentence and would benefit from being split into two sentences. LuciferMorgan 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Done - might need slight adjustments. Davnel03 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The linking of dates in this article is not uniform throughout the aritcle. In some places, full dates (i.e January 31, 1981) are linked, and in other places only the day/month ( February 4, 1981) part is linked. I understand that after a particular year has been linked once, you may not want to link it again, however even that method of date-linking has not been done uniformly throughout the article. I also tend to shy away from linking single years (i.e. 2001) unless it signifies something extremely important. Thanks :) --Naha|(talk) 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done -- Oakster Talk 09:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support After reading a number of professional wrestling articles on wikipedia I must say this is one of the best I have read and think it deserves FA status well done! (Everlast1910 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
- Support I believe that this article should be awarded FA status, quite simply because all of the above issues raised with the article have been fixed. If no other problems are presented, this article should pass. --SteelersFan UK06 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very extensively well written article, sources check out good with all statements cited. Photos work well with the article.--Kranar drogin 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- CommentAfter leaving the federation because unlike his friends Punk genuinely wanted to be a wrestler and saw it as more than simple fun Punk enrolled as a student at the "Steel Domain" wrestling school in Chicago, where he was trained by Ace Steel, Danny Dominion and Kevin Quinn to become a professional wrestler and as part of the training wrestled at St. Paul's Steel Domain Wrestling. That sentence is too long and puts several different statements together in one big sentence. You should consider revising it for readability and make it at least 2 sentences. Otherwise a very well written article IMO MPJ-DK 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Try avoiding the scrolly box for references. Pandacomics 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree since I've seen people make a big deal of it before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/European_Parliament and its links to other discussions). DrWarpMind 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Scrollref was deleted by the community because it messes up printed versions and mirrors; please remove the scrolls. Incorrect use of bolding throughout, see WP:MOSBOLD. A good portion of the article is lists or trivia. Ohio Valley Wrestling (the bulk of your sources) returns a 404 error.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)- Done Davnel03 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.
Self-nomination. This article details a critical event in modern history. I have used a variety of scholarly sources to document it, especially the two most respected sources in English on Hitler, those by Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw. I have sourced almost every factual statement in the article, and strove to cover all significant points even-handedly. Although I have dramatically overhauled the article, I did it after responding to constructive criticisms of a number of editors. It has been peer reviewed by four or five established editors (see discussion page). It also passed GA status on its first nomination. I have also examined the article for WP:MOS adherence. Again, this is an important subject, and it deserves to be a FA. I welcome any suggestions on how to further improve this article.--Mcattell 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment are there any web refs available?Rlevse 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are a couple of websites that deal with the subject matter. One is so throughly erroneous (meaning contradicted by written sources by professional historians) I didn't include it in the external sources area. One is adequate, but does not deal with the subject as well as any of the books do. Some of the major books cited have been scanned and available on the web at Amazon.com, through the "Search Inside" feature. If you search for "purge" or "knives" in the book, you can get to the material that deals with the subject matter. Hope this helps. --Mcattell 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Print based material is always preferred over web based material, so good job on using book sources. LuciferMorgan 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Night of the Long Knives represented a turning point in the conduct of German government. From then on, it was clear that the Nazi Party was in unquestioned control of the state, that Hitler was in control of the Nazi party, and that both were fully prepared to use brutal violence to accomplish their political objectives. - Would you say this is a viewpoint commonly held by scholars who've studied the event, or are there historians who hold a differing view as to the significance of this event? LuciferMorgan 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That sentence was one of the few that have remained intact from the article of several months ago, and probably needs to be revised. I will revise within the next twelve hours.--Mcattell 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)- Cool, as I was just curious as to whether historians wholly agree on that or if they have differing arguments (as you know, historians tend to emphasis certain events and motives etc.). LuciferMorgan 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done: I limited the concluding paragraph to statement that adheres to the broad consensus of historians of the era.--Mcattell 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, as I was just curious as to whether historians wholly agree on that or if they have differing arguments (as you know, historians tend to emphasis certain events and motives etc.). LuciferMorgan 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it's a broadly held opinion by historians, then I proclaim my Support. Good work, and I hope you lend your talents to other Nazi events like the Reichstag Fire or Kristallnacht - I find it an interesting period of history. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Article is very well-written and informative, discusses an important topic, has many reliable references, and has images that greatly add to the article (with detailed rationales for the two fair use images). that require such).
Upon reading the article, I had a few minor concerns:
- Wording - as the German courts and parliament, or Reichstag - Is clarification of "Reichstag" necessary? This is a fairly familiar term for most people, and people who would like to learn more about it can easily click on the link. If clarification is necessary, I would think it should go after the prominent wikilink, such as: as the German courts and Reichstag, or parliament. The same goes for the sentence about the Reichswehr, though I'll admit this is a less familiar term that may be in need of clarification. Done
- Link to Reichstag - The wikilink in the article for Reichstag directed the user to the dab page for Reichstag. I fixed the link, and it now directs to Reichstag (institution), but possibly the Reichstag (building) article would also be appropriate. Anyway, as the dab page is clearly not the intended redirect, I went ahead and changed the link.
- Quote - "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!" he wrote. - Not a grammar expert, but wouldn't He wrote, "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!" or "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!", he wrote be more appropriate? Done
- Online links - I know it has already been mentioned above that there are no online refs available, but are there absolutely no websites that give non-contradictory information that could be used as external links? A few external links would add to the article and give readers the chance to go outside Wikipedia and get more information.
- There is a website called "Spartacus International" that used to be in external links, but I removed it because most of what is written there is flat-out wrong. Not only that, but it's just stub. In fact, the site seems to implicitly excuse Hitler by incorrectly minimizing his role. Just a few examples from that site:
- "Many were shot as soon as they were captured but Hitler decided to pardon Roehm because of his past services to the movement." That's completely untrue. No historian that I have ever read mentions anything about a pardon. It never happened. Why would Hitler even issue a "pardon" since the courts were never involved in the first place?
- "However, after much pressure from Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler, Hitler agreed that Roehm should die." False. Goering and Himmler wanted Rohm to die, but they did not have to pressure Hitler. Hitler made his own decision.
- "The purge of the SA was kept secret until it was announced by Adolf Hitler on 13th July." Again, flat-out wrong. As it is now correctly stated in the Wikipedia article, Gobbels made a radio address to the nation much earlier to try to squelch rapidly spreading rumors about the purge.
Most of the earlier entry on Wikipedia, from a few months ago, seems to have been simply cut and paste from this site. I won't object if somebody adds this site to the "External Links" section, but when a website contains such erroneous information I (IMHO) would prefer that Wikipedia not directly link to it, because it implicitly lends credence to the stub. In any event, I think that the subject of Nazism itself leads to more erroneous and disreputable sites than, say, the history of New Zealand, so we should choose external links with care. In any event, I did add links to Brittanica Concise, a free site, and to a site at the Holocaust Museum.
Done--Mcattell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Overall, my concerns are minimal. This is a great article that is worthy of FA status. A job well done. Raime 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that these are excellent points, and I will address them soon. Done Thanks for your help.--Mcattell 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this is FA quality, I do have some small concerns.
- Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA) I wonder if the first few paragraphs need a little reorganization. The section starts in 1933 with Hilter's appointment and follows the next few month's political events. Then we jump back the 1920's and then focus in June 1932 how that violent month had influence on support for Hitler. Then we reintroduce Hitler's appointment and the political events following it and the rest of the section continues chronologically.
- Conflict between the army and the SA
- A combat veteran of the First World War, Röhm had recently announced that he would execute twelve men in retaliation for the killing of any stormtrooper. This sentence must have been moved around, because I cannot place what "recently" should be compared with. Also I am not sure who is killing SA members? the army? the communists in street brawls? This just seems out of context.
- Blomberg and many of his fellow officers regarded the SA as a plebeian brown-uniformed mob that endangered the position of the army as the sole repository of German military power. and Blomberg and others in the military saw the SA as a source of recruits for an enlarged and revitalized army. These statements seem contradictory, and it especially troubling because they are separated by a paragraph. I think the issue of how they could hold both views at the same time needs to addressed. Whether with "at worst, at best" or focusing on the first view being about an independent uncontrolled SA and the second view being their hope for the SA once brought to heel.
- In January 1934, Röhm presented Blomberg with a memorandum demanding that the SA replace the army as the nation's ground forces, and that the Reichswehr become a training adjunct to the SA. I still would like a little more background about this. What possessed Rohm to make such a move? Why did he think it would be supported? How did Blomberg immediately respond? Did anything happen between the memo and the meeting at the end of Feb.?
- Growing pressure against the SA:Good work on this section since the peer review. I think is much more informative now.
- By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision of a new German army with the SA at its core came into conflict with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the Reichswehr. Because their plans for the army were mutually exclusive, Röhm's success could only come at Hitler's expense. Considering we already covered the memo and the pledge this seems to be backtracking. It seems to me that after Rohm signs the pledge his "vision of a new German army with the SA at its core" is pretty much dead. If I am correct I think you need to do a little rearrangement here; memo, conflicting visions, and finally meeting resulting in pledge. If I am wrong, maybe you can clarify that Rohm did not plan on honoring that pledge or signed only because it was expedient. Or something else actually based on sources to reinforce that his vision held even after signing the pledge.
- and the hoped for (but never attained) command of the army for Göring. I find this very awkward, how about something like "and Goring saw the destruction of a chief rival for the future command of the army."
- Purge
- Enraged, Hitler tore the epaulets off the shirt of Obergruppenfuhrer Schneidhuber, the Chief of the Munich Police, and shouted at him that he would be shot. Is this the Chief of Munich Police a member of the SA? or was he supposed to have stopped the street violence? I am a little confused about how this ties in.
- Arriving back at party headquarters in Munich, Hitler addressed the assembled. Consumed with rage, Hitler denounced "the worst treachery in world history." The fact that no plot by Röhm to overthrow the regime ever existed did not prevent Hitler from denouncing the leadership of the SA. "Undisciplined and disobedient characters, and asocial or diseased elements," according to Hitler, would be annihilated. The crowd, which included many SA members fortunate enough to escape arrest, shouted its approval. Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself. Göbbels, who had been with Hitler at Bad Wiessee, set the final phase of the plan in motion. Upon returning to Berlin, he telephoned Göring with the codeword Kolibri to loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims This paragraph is a little problematic and lacks cohesion. "the assembled" needs to be clarified. The second and third sentence need to be combined somehow so you not talk of how Hilter wasn't prevented from denouncing the plot after a quote of him denouncing the plot. Is Hess at this assembly? Is Gobbels? Does the reaction of the assembly have an impact on Gobbels putting the purge in motion?
- Such relentless violence cemented the fearsome reputation of the Gestapo as the Nazis' secret police. I am not very skilled at grammar but this sentence doesn't sit well with me.
- Aftermath
- The army's support for the purge, however, would have consequences for the institution. This doesn't really say anything, what are "consequences for the institution"? consequences on it's independence? consequences on it's reputation?
- the later enormity of the Holocaust. Earlier "the commandant of the Dachau concentration camp" is mentioned. Is the Holocaust an ongoing or future event at this time?
- Tone:In the peer review one of my big concerns was tone. You have done a great job addressing that. There were two phrasing that still seemed overly dramatic to me.
- Germany's inter-war experiment with democracy, the Weimar Republic.
- loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims.--BirgitteSB 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support after some issues are addressed:
- In Aftermath, we read: Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned, Hitler had the cabinet approve a measure on July 3 that declared, "The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 to suppress treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State." In the next paragraph, we read: In the following weeks, Reich Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, a conservative who had been Bavarian Justice Minister in the years of the Weimar Republic, demonstrated his loyalty to the new regime by writing a law that added a legal veneer to the purge. It met no opposition in the Reichstag.
- These paragraphs read as though they are describing two different measures, while in fact they both talk about the same law passed by the Cabinet, the Gesetz über Maßnahmen der Staatsnotwehr of July 3, 1934. This should be cleaned up. (The paragraphs also contradict each other as to who provided the impetus for this law: Hitler or Gürtner?)
- Also, the legal citation for the law should be provided (RGB 1934 I, S. 529).
- Since Hitler had made the Reichstag pass the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed the Executive to enact laws, it apears superfluous to mention that the law met no opposition in the Reichstag. The Reichstag had already ceased to function as a legislative assembly, and I'm not eve sure whether it regularly met at all at this time.
- Instead of "as legally sanctioned", wouldn't be "as lawful" better? Sandstein 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- In Aftermath, we read: Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned, Hitler had the cabinet approve a measure on July 3 that declared, "The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 to suppress treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State." In the next paragraph, we read: In the following weeks, Reich Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, a conservative who had been Bavarian Justice Minister in the years of the Weimar Republic, demonstrated his loyalty to the new regime by writing a law that added a legal veneer to the purge. It met no opposition in the Reichstag.
- These are excellent suggestions, and I will address them within the next week. (I'm a little sick right now). --Mcattell 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support An engaging and articulate retelling of a fairly shocking series of events. Ceoil 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.
Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Amartyabag, Pradiptaray, Nichalp, Dwaipayanc and others have done a wonderful job. Nicely referenced and nicely laid out with good images, and reads nice too. If there are any minor issues that need to be solved, we can address them here pretty very quickly. Aditya Kabir 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) It is a national park and a World Heritage Site in Golaghat and Nagaon districts of Assam, India. Two-thirds of the world's Great One-horned Rhinoceroses live in the park. Kaziranga has the highest density of tigers among protected areas in the World and was declared a Tiger Reserve in 2006. The park has large breeding populations of Elephant, Water Buffalo and Swamp Deer. Kaziranga is recognized as an Important Bird Area by Birdlife International for conservation of avifaunal species. I ask every wildlife interested person and for further conservation of critically endangered rihnos to support this article and to correct minor sentence problems themselves if possible. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well documented and informative article.Deserves to be a FA. - P.K.Niyogi 09:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Mild Oppose— To me the "Etymology" section seems awkwardly written, and does not satisfy 1(a) of the FA criteria. It needs a re-write and some paragraph breaks. The first paragraph of the lead also seems to lack a natural flow, and reads like a concatenation of a bulleted list. There are one or two minor punctuation/grammar issues in the text that I'm sure will be cleaned up, and the use of the phrase "took off" to describe a career appears to be vernacular. Other than that, the article seems pretty decent. — RJH (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the etymology section and tried to make it more presentable. Can you please have a look and give feedback?-Deepraj | Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I made some extensive rearrangements to the "Etymology" section, before I saw that Deepraj had already made some changes. Chaipau 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've removed my opposition. — RJH (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I made some extensive rearrangements to the "Etymology" section, before I saw that Deepraj had already made some changes. Chaipau 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - These sentences could be better phrased
"Grasslands dominate the western reaches of the park which are typically at a lower altitude than the eastern end, with tall elephant grass on the higher ground while the short grasses cover the lower grounds surrounding the bheels or flood created ponds."[1]"After a decreasing trend for past few years, six one-horned rhinoceroses were killed by poachers in the early 2007, with a report establishing links for funding the Islamic militant groups in Bangladesh connected to Al Qaida."[2] There's also some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the Flora and Conservation Management sections in which the above sentences occur along with some minor copy-editing. Can you please have a look and give further feedback if you feel anything else is necessary?-Deepraj | Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "There is tall elephant grass on the higher ground" - sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything. "Tall elephant grass is on the higher ground" is better. Epbr123 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done RedoneAmartyabag TALK2ME 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Me as one of the main contributor support this article to be granted FA status. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment-
replace {{convert|37|°C|°F|0}} and some more with {{convert|37|°C|°F|0|lk=on}}. rest there is no problem regarding the content except Etymology section- it needs a bit improved.after you address all the req. feel free to strike away my comments. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- right now i just fixed one as an example. after you address rest of them, then strike away my comments. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs)04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- According to WP:MOS, only for the first time the links to the Units is needed. Atleast once of all the units has been linked, the etymology section has been redone by Deepraj. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Object -
The transport section needs some references.Many of the sources are the website of KNP. I believe that these cannot be taken to be independent sources. Thirdly, I think some of the sentences might be improved, although I am no expert on (1a)According to another legend Srimanta Sankardeva, the 16th century saint-scholar, once blessed a childless couple, Kazi and Rangai, and asked them to dig a big pond in the region so that their name would live onshouldn't the comma be after "legend"?
he was told it came from Kaziranga and the legend how it got its nameI don't understand that
Pieces of monoliths associated with Karbi rule found scattered in the area seems to bear testimony to this assertionshouldn't it be "seem to bear testimony"
- There are probably other bits and pieces which can be improved by copyediting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done some copyedit in the Etymology section and added references in the transport section and other. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I am satisfied with the notes that were struck out by Amartyabag. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Action List
- Support -Nice article, must say. It is as good as the park. Luxurious.gaurav 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A well sourced and interesting article.Bakaman 05:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.
- Self-nom by Ling.Nut but many others contributed significantly.
- This article has an A-rating in WikiProject Biography,WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Philosophy. It had a positive Peer Review. It has been collaborated on by several mathematicians and other editors. It is well-developed and has a boxful of references (plus more stored away in case of challenges). Ling.Nut 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- oppose. I am extremely disappointed by what has happened to the section on ancestry since I wrote it; I attempted to be factual and non-tendentious; this is neither. The rest of the article will require more consideration; this can be discussed on its talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The relevant discussion regarding this 'Oppose' vote is on the article's Talk, here. FA reviewers can judge for themselves whether or not these are valid grounds for opposing Featured Article status. Ling.Nut 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I may simply edit it again; but I offer an oppotunity to justify the changes. The rest of the article has been thoroughly revised, and I intend to comment on that when I have perused it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
- Comment The relevant discussion regarding this 'Oppose' vote is on the article's Talk, here. FA reviewers can judge for themselves whether or not these are valid grounds for opposing Featured Article status. Ling.Nut 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Edited; I think it's improved, and am withdrawing the oppose; but the edit history should be checked before it is put on the main page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Articles that depend strongly on a single source, as Dauben here, have been failed from both GA and FA for citing their source as rarely as this article does, and indicating it no better. This is not an oppose, because I think those decisions were wrong; but it should be borne in mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It has more than thirty cites to the main source (which is well indicated in footnote 2). I would be shocked if such a well sourced article had been failed previously for such a reason. Geometry guy 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone have any input on making Georg Cantor the selected biography for the Logic Portal for the month of August? I suppose it might be a good mark for it. Perhaps the timing is an issue, and some time down the road would be better? Please advise. Gregbard 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I had some concerns about the mathematical sections, but I fixed them. This article is in excellent state, well referenced and sourced. Geometry guy 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support with misgivings I like this article a lot, and I recognize the love and care that have been lavished on it. However, I fear that it does not reach out to lay-people in the way that a general encyclopedia should; most of it reads like a biographical sketch written for the mathematical cognoscenti. I really wish that there were a section describing in simple terms for the lay-person why the real numbers are not countable, and that that result were described with appropriate emphasis in the lead section. Bonus points for a discussion of the rationals! :) If Scientific American can do it, then so can we, no? At least perhaps someone should write a daughter article that does all that and then include a link to the daughter article. Non nobis solum — we do not write Wikipedia articles for ourselves, but for earnest students who wish to learn; please build a bridge to them, lest our work be in vain. Willow 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS. Minor point: can one make a link to non-standard analysis from transfinite numbers? It occurs to me that there is a 1-to-1 mapping between a finite repeating decimal such as
- and an infinite number, by inverting the signs of all the exponents
- which, when inverted, should give an infinitesimal. One might be able to define an ordering on the infinitesimals based on the ordering of the finite decimals. Just a stray thought, Willow 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from non-mathematician: Cantor thought infinitesimals were evil (not literally), and resisted attempts to define them using transfinite numbers. I'm not exactly sure what hat means, but it might mean that connecting the two in this article won't work....? Ling.Nut 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment/request clarification: If I understand Willow 's reservations correctly, it seems she is wanting the article to explain the logic of Cantor's diagonal argument (which mathematicians find so swoon-inducingly elegant) ...? Ling.Nut 02:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from non-mathematician: Cantor thought infinitesimals were evil (not literally), and resisted attempts to define them using transfinite numbers. I'm not exactly sure what hat means, but it might mean that connecting the two in this article won't work....? Ling.Nut 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ling.Nut, thanks for your note! :) I'm not particular about the method, although I agree that the diagonal argument seems like the rigorous proof most likely to be intelligible. The main thing is to clarify the uncountability of the reals; there are probably many ways of doing it. You might begin with a simpler, non-rigorous, intuitive argument, then move to the rationals, and thence to the reals. If you stick to arguments that seem ridiculously kindergarten-simple to you, then the rest of us might have a chance of understanding them. ;) Ramp up gradually; keep the simpler arguments close to the beginning of the article, so that readers don't drift away before they get to the good stuff :) Good luck and best wishes, and I know you'll have good help Willow 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- This should be done in Cantor's diagonal argument. The article on Georg Cantor is a biography, not an introduction to transfinite set theory. Geometry guy 09:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point and whatever you all decide is fine; the purely biographical material is excellently written and you definitely have my support either way. But please consider that readers will want to understand why they should care about Georg Cantor, what did he do important? The article has a section on his "Work", which to me seems as though it would be rough sledding for many readers. I would suggest either to (1) simplify the language throughout that section — which, unfortunately, would make it less accurate, I guess — or (2) choose one or two core concepts (e.g., power sets or that there are different types of infinity) and explain that/them in detail, either here or in a linked daughter article. Perhaps more Figures might help, e.g., illustrating the power set, and a more lay-friendly Figure for the bijection? I suspect that the two ovals with the symbols and arrows may be mysterious to many readers. There's the more picturesque metaphor of comparing the number of grains of sand in two buckets, or (say) matching parents and children at a very large adoption agency; perhaps do the finite case and then extend to the infinite? I just think readers would be happier if they came away understanding one thing well, rather than five things vaguely; grasping one concept might also inspire them to try to learn more, which would be a Good Thing, no? Willow 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Comment: In response to Willow's comments, we added a new super-top-level intro to his Works, which is extremely abbreviated/simplified. IMHO, the nuts and bolts of actually explaining his work in a digestible fashion should be done in the relevant articles which are dedicated to aspects of his work — see e.g. Cantor's diagonal argument. I agree that article and others need work, but that fact should not penalize this article. Ling.Nut 18:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -
I think the second sentence under Youth and studies would be better if worded as "Georg, the eldest of six children, was an outstanding violinist, having inherited his parents' considerable musical and artistic talents."- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but the 7th paragraph under Teacher and researcher reads, "Cantor suffered his first known bout of depression in 1884.[18] This emotional crisis led him to apply to lecture on philosophy rather than on mathematics. He also began an intense study of Elizabethan literature in an attempt to prove that Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare; this ultimately resulted in two pamphlets, published in 1896 and 1897.[19] Every one of the fifty-two letters he wrote to Gösta Mittag-Leffler in 1884 attacked Kronecker. A passage from one of these letters is revealing of the damage to Cantor's self-confidence:" - This seems to jump into information about letters to G M-L. The way it is worded is as if these letters have been previously mentioned, however, they have not. Additionally, I recommend removing the "on" before "mathematics".- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Following the previous, "Cantor soon recovered in 1885, and subsequently made further important contributions, including his famous diagonal argument and theorem, but he never attained again the high level of his remarkable papers of 1874–84." - This prose could use some work. Possibly, "*Cantor soon recovered and, in 1885, made further important contributions including his famous diagonal argument and theorem, but he never again attained the high level of his remarkable papers of 1974-84."- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Under Late years, "After Cantor's 1884 hospitalization, there is no record that he was in any sanatorium again until 1899.[21] Later that same year," - Later which year? 1884 or 1899?- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Following the previous, "and this tragedy finally drained Cantor of much of his passion for mathematics." - "Finally" seems out of place.- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The events of 1904 preceded a series of hospitalizations at intervals of two or three years." - "two or three years" or "two and three years"?
- Not fixed, the original seems acceptable. Ling.Nut 10:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Second paragraph under Set theory, "... transcendental numbers is nondenumerable (that is, not countable)." - The meaning of nondenumerable has already been explained a couple times. I recommend removing the info in parenthesis.- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Following the previous, "Cantor had shown that union of two denumerable sets must be denumerable." - Is there a word missing? Such as "that the union"?- Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Under Continuum hypothesis, "there exists no set whose power is greater" - Should that be "whose" or "thats"?
- Not fixed, the original seems acceptable. Ling.Nut 10:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unable to complete review at this time. Lara♥Love 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a fine article and deserves to be an FA. However, I have some problems with the lead section. It should summarise the article, but unfortunately there are some interesting "teasers" in the lead that are not fully explained in the article. For example, Poincaré's quote is quite strong, but is not explained. Kronecker's opposition is explained well, but I cannot see the connection between his opposition on a mathematical basis and the quote that Cantor is a "corruptor of youth". There is also a mismatch between the lead section and the philosophy section. Wittgenstein is mentioned in the lead, but there are no details in the philosophy section. Some additional sentences on the Christian theologians' objections with Cantor's theory would be nice. As it is, both sections just state that there were objections without any details. Finally, it would be great to add details, if the sources provide it, on the motivations behind Cantor's philosophical beliefs (why did he believe in direct communication from God, why was he the only person in Halle that did not believe in a deterministic universe, etc.). This addition would make this a better biography article as well as a mathematics/philosophy article. The last point isn't a big deal though, but please fix the mismatch of the lead and the rest of the article. --RelHistBuff 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: OK the quote regarding Poincare is explained in a new paragraph beginning "Debate among mathematicians grew out of...". More to come... Ling.Nut 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Further reply: amplified "corrupter of youth"
- Further reply: I really thought the Catholic argument was clear before this, but I added 1 more sentence to make it (hopefully) even more perspicuous: see "God's exclusive claim to supreme infinity". As for Wittgenstein, explaining his thought is of course difficult, but I gave a (probably inadequate) 1-sentence summary at the end of the paragraph beginning "Debate among mathematicians...". I hope this satisfies RelHistBuff's concerns Ling.Nut 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- You have my Support. Very nice article on a complex man. --RelHistBuff 06:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - All issues I found were addressed or explained. I feel it now meets the criteria. A very well-written article. Lara♥Love 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.
Submitted for your approval, Parasaurolophus, another production of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is extensively cited (40 referenced documents), presents useful images, and covers its topics in detail using the standard dinosaur article format; a particular point of interest is the thorough discussion of the many proposed functions of its hollow crest. External links are germane, the length is comparable to present dinosaur FAs, and, outside of a brief run-in with creationist POV in May, it has been stable. J. Spencer 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- shotgun Support - I'll disclose I'm one of the WP dino collab team but this is on par with the other dino FAs of similar length - I feel it fulfils all criteria well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Good overall, but:
- There isn't any mention of P. cyrtocristatus in the description section at all. Done
- There's also no comparison to other lambeosaurids.
- You have two paragraphs in the description section that start with "Like ____ __________s..." (mixed it up a bit) Done
- "The length of the type specimen of P. walkeri is estimated at 9.5 meters (31 ft). However, its skull and crest are only about 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) long"... a 1.6 meter-long skull, is that supposed to be short? I know you are comparing it to P. tubicen but you might want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like you're downplaying the length of that skull. Done
- On my screen the two pictures in the Description section don't really fit. I realize that all depends on the size of the window and whatnot but consider moving it elsewhere (or adding more text!). Done
- The whole "Species" section seems redundant and out of place to me. Most of that information is just repeated from the previous couple sections or could be placed there instead.
- A lot of things are wikilinked multiple times. You really only need to link it the first time. I would go through and remove all of the duplicate wikilinks.
- Sometimes there are two spaces between sentences, other times there's only one. I think it's accepted to have only one space, so you might want to go through and fix those where they are found. Done I think
- Some of your sentences are pretty complicated, you might want to see if you can combine clauses and things to make them read simpler. The less commas and semicolons the better in my opinion.
- On the other hand, get rid of sentences that start with "but". Use "however" or add them onto the previous sentence. Done
Just some things to keep you busy, buddy. I'm sure this will pass sooner or later. I wonder if anybody outside the Project will respond... Sheep81 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also there's no explanation of the etymology of the generic name in the text, is there? I must have missed it if there is. Sheep81 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're right on the last bit - done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do the double spaces actually show up? Count me surprised. I think multiple wikilinks can be useful if there's been a large amount of text between them, so you don't have to hunt for the first occurrence if "x" was linked in the lead and then shows up again in the last section, but I'm not going to get into a fight about that. J. Spencer 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made some check-offs, but feel free to de-check. A couple of questions/points on your suggestions, by number:
- 2. What would you suggest? They're all pretty much the same except for crests.
- 6. I took out a particularly redundant sentence, but I like the section as a brief summary. Any ideas?
- 7. I removed a number of them, although I think they should stay when an unfamiliar term, like a formation name, is used again after a break.
- 9. This is actually restrained for me. Check the edit summary for this difference on another article :). J. Spencer 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- 2) I guess you could compare the crests then, briefly. The only description of the other lambeosaurids is "helmet-crested" which doesn't really tell the reader that much (what kind of helmet?) You could do this briefly in the Classification section.
- 6) Could you make the Species section a subheading of Classification?
- 7) Not my preference, but that's fine. I just noticed that things like "juvenile" and "meter" and "plant" were linked multiple times, when to be honest I'm not even sure they need to be linked once.
- 9) Haha, well I've had to work on it myself a bit also. I tried to read through and make a few changes which made it easier for me personally to read. Sheep81 06:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made some check-offs, but feel free to de-check. A couple of questions/points on your suggestions, by number:
- Do the double spaces actually show up? Count me surprised. I think multiple wikilinks can be useful if there's been a large amount of text between them, so you don't have to hunt for the first occurrence if "x" was linked in the lead and then shows up again in the last section, but I'm not going to get into a fight about that. J. Spencer 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're right on the last bit - done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also there's no explanation of the etymology of the generic name in the text, is there? I must have missed it if there is. Sheep81 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutral until resolution to problem fixed...→Changed to Support I like the article & think it is one of the project's better articles. However, under the section "Paleobiology" there is a subsection called "Habitat". Unless I'm mistaken, "Habitat" refers to Paleoecology, and Paleoecology & Paleobiology are two entirely different things. "Habitat" should be split off into another section like "Paleobiology" but be named "Paleoecology". Other than that, everything is awesome... Spawn Man 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)- Sheep81: Okay, sounds like good ideas. I just took care of #6. J. Spencer 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Spawn Man: Originally, I thought no, but then I looked at the other FAs and thought about it, and it's a good idea, so I changed it and will make a couple of other alterations in other articles. J. Spencer 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the change JS - Changed to support above↑. Spawn Man 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I am a member of WP:DINO but mostly I just watch them in case they try and take over WP:BIRD. Good article, though I think they should work on my favourite dinosaur, Corythosaurus. Two minor quibbles, is it duckbill or duck-billed? And first sentence pronounced RP [ˌpæɹəsɔːˈɹɒləfəs], GA [ˌpæɹəsɔˈɹɑləfəs], in common usage is also RP [ˌpæɹəˌsɔːɹəˈləʊfəs], GA [ˌpæɹəˌsɔɹəˈloʊfəs], and meaning "near crested lizard" in reference to Saurolophus).... where is the parenthesis supposed to start? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen it both ways, but I've been using duckbill, so I standardized it. The parentheses start after Parasaurolophus; it's a long parenthetical statement because Parks was being clever about Saurolophus and because people pronounce it two different ways. J. Spencer 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, when are we going to make WP:BIRD a subproject of WP:DINO anyway? You know how paraphyly angers cladists... it would be safer for everyone. :) Sheep81 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Watch it, or Wikiproject Reptiles will grab us both....Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Copyedits by user:Pgan002 (of the League of Copyeditors) and user:Circeus (who always seems quite thorough) lead me to believe the content is clear and understandable, with removals of redundancies and refining of flowing prose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a member of WP:DINO. Let me just say that I really, really hope some outside editors will weigh in on this article though. Sheep81 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. A high quality, thorough article which meets all requirements. Just two minor comments; there is a single redlink to hadrosaurine in the article that could have an article created for it. Also, the description section is a bit choppy, but i understand its hard to expand or link most of those sentences. Great work Kare Kare 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- At this point "hadrosaurine" should redirect to hadrosaur, but oddly enough no one used it before. J. Spencer 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Another good article for the Dinosaur--A cool night green owl 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.
I am nominating a fourth Banksia article for FAC, this is the first one in several months - I feel it is equivalent to the others; Banksia integrifolia and Banksia epica being the most recent. It is easily the most comprehensive account on the plant online, thoroughly referenced (inlined and cite format), neutral and stable. I feel the prose is the equal of the others and have copyedited wih some help from others. It has a concise lead summarising the article and the images are free (I took most of the photos meself!). There are 2 redlinks which I can fix promptly. Leave me input and I'll address promptly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a good article. The end section - the actual finish up of the article - might like a see also section, and a few more external links might be nice just to round the article off. otheriwse I think this looks good to be
ed. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm not a huge fan of See Also sections (but can be persuaded) - I put a link to another official botanic gardens page and there's commons links etc. at the bottom. Can you think of anything on wiki that you feel would be good to have at the bottom for quick reference or which somehow cannot be linked in the main article? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Come to think of it - not really. So scratch the see also section if you want. But I think maybe, if at all possible, a few more externals might be nice, just to sort of fill up that big white space at the bottom. If you cant: thats fine too. These are very minor things we are talking; all I am saying is discountable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've hidden my list because the striking and stuff makes it confusing to look at. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Long discussion of my (Circéus) comments, now all addressed
ConditionalSupportIf these issues can be clarified:"The bark is a smooth grey colour with lenticels, but can become thicker with age."Thickness has never been mentioned so far...- (OK -expanded and reworded to reduce ambiguity)
"Old flowers fall off the cones, often to reveal numerous small dark grey to dull black finely furred follicles."What cones? Not the best way to introduce the fruits... And "often" is just confusing the matters- reworded to "Old flower spikes fade to brown and then grey with age; old flower parts soon fall, revealing numerous small dark grey to dull black finely furred follicles." - not sure whether to add "on the naked spikes" to the end - more explanatory but starts to get repetitive. - feel free to add if you feel it sounds better
"they are ridged on each valve and remain closed until burnt by fire."What? the flowers?- (follicles - done)
"Occasionally, plants occur which produce multiple flower spikes of varying sizes."- I'd think pictures in the article makes it obvious that most plants produce multiple flower spikes...
- (no, multi- spikes are pretty rare - I was just chuffed it occurred on the one in my garden - hence the nice photo which is the only one to diplay multi-spikes)
- Ah... it sounds like multiple spikes are produced by the plant overall. THat is what needs to be clarified: multiple spikes from the same point
- (no, multi- spikes are pretty rare - I was just chuffed it occurred on the one in my garden - hence the nice photo which is the only one to diplay multi-spikes)
- I'd think pictures in the article makes it obvious that most plants produce multiple flower spikes...
When "macrantha" and "microphylla" are mentioned under "taxonomy", the level at which they were placed should be mentioned. Also, what exactly has Salkin noted? In the current formulation, it seems to be the publication of "macrantha".- (Sort of - he noted the difference of the northern populations and named them "microphylla" though this was not an official description. Alex later concurred there was a difference and officially named them as subsp. macrantha)
- Further clarified. Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- (Sort of - he noted the difference of the northern populations and named them "microphylla" though this was not an official description. Alex later concurred there was a difference and officially named them as subsp. macrantha)
- "to the west of coastal areas."
- Considering the location discussed, is it necessary to specify "to the west"??
- (you're right - removed)
- Considering the location discussed, is it necessary to specify "to the west"??
- A distribution map would make a great addition (almost necessary, in fact) to this article
- (agree - one is coming...)
- The map has now arrived Gnangarra 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"nectariferous birds"Wait, wait, doesn't nectariferous means "which produces nectar"?- fixed now Circeus 02:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The prose in the cultivar list could probably still be improved. Keep in mind my previous suggestion about a centralized list, too.- I've gone through the cultivar section and ensured all are grammatical sentences as I realise alot was in note form still. I'm not convinced paragraphs is (are?) the best way to go as it will look a bit listy then anyway. I am happy to see what consensus arises with further review. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's probably the only format that can be used if the cultivars have no articles and have to be in the parent species articles. At least those are well-developed.Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone through the cultivar section and ensured all are grammatical sentences as I realise alot was in note form still. I'm not convinced paragraphs is (are?) the best way to go as it will look a bit listy then anyway. I am happy to see what consensus arises with further review. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support From an outsiders point of view, i think the article looks pretty good, meets all the criteria. My only nitpicks are the following:
- In the image in "description" the name of the plant is bolded, yet in other pictures the name isnt? it just doesnt seem consistant. Personally, i dont think it should be bolded in the first place. (yoicks! well spotted and removed)
- I dislike it when two or more citations marks are eight next to eachother, it looks ugly. You may wish to "merge" them (see reference 22 on Hamersley). This happens several times in the article, 26&27, 5&6, 7&8. (It's late here - will have a look at Hamersley tomorrow as I've not seen it done elsewhere)
- (Previously mentioned) Massive white gap at the bottom of the page (ext links). Maybe you could slide some of the commons/source boxes up little bit, so that there isnt the white gaps. (will tweak away tomorrow)
- Apart from those few nitpicks, i think the article is ready for the star. Twenty Years 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- formatted EL's into a table, to remove the white space. Gnangarra 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding combined notes, I don't think it works very well for complete references (as opposed to abbreviated ones). Multiple footnotes are alright. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support
CommentThis article covers the subject matter very thoroughly. It is well-writtenin general, but there are just a couple of sections that I think need attention as follows:
- Taxonomy
In the second paragraph of the taxonomy section there is a bit of a rapid-fire namedropping (Salisbury, Alf Salkin, Theile, Mast, Eric Jones, Shaun Havery) mostly with no introduction / context /link to indicate who the people are i.e. botanist, taxonomist etc. Also I think that consistently including the first names of all individuals for their first mention in a WP article (in contrast to a scientific paper) would be a bit more “user friendly” for a wider readership.- (OK, I've clarified several of the more important ones with nationalities and occupations where known and first names - I had meant to do this but forgot, so thanks for reminding me)
:Cultivation
As in nature, Banksia ericifolia inflorescences attract birds to the garden. (need to state that the bird attractant qualities of this plant are a factor making it popular in cultivation, but the wording which makes a rigid distinction between what happens in gardens and nature doesn’t work ) Done
:Note that named cultivars are propagated by cuttings. (Need to drop the slightly terse “Note” and add a small expansion explaning why) --Melburnian 08:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Done - though pondering whether to move this sentence to cultivar section actually...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- My comments done and dusted; I fully support this article's promotion to featured status. Nice work. Melburnian 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.
Self-nomination. This is currently a good article. I (and some other editors) have poured into the article ad nauseam. It has been through three peer reviews (a couple that were pretty anorexic). I think the article is encyclopedic, and real effort (sometimes painfully) has been put into cutting the fancruft. The article abounds in resources, many from reputable music sources (AMG, Rolling Stone, NME, etc...) Also, because John blogs so much and gives, like, an interview everyday, much of it is first hand accounts, verified by multiple sources. I have tried to work on the prose; I read the article out loud and tried to eliminate redundancies, run-on sentences, superfluous, wordy bits, and the like. I think it is thorough, as it covers all of John's major endeavors in and out of music, including his personal life. But it isn't filled with hourly are-they-or-aren't-they Jessica Simpson updates either. The images and music samples are all kosher. No edit wars. I really want this article to be great, and am eagerly open to (polite) criticism. Thanks in advance.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Selected events looks like a trivia section. ShadowHalo 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- If several editors agree with this statement (after reading the section), I don't mind conceding, and with this in mind, I've already removed a great deal of the section. But, the section amounts to (1) a simple acknowledgment that he has played himself on TV, (2) a brief mention of his endorsements and (3) his affiliation with MacWorld. I (humbly) believe they are not just a laundry list of funky facts, but really subsets of activities he's involved in. Of the three, I most defend the MacWorld part, as his affiliation with Steve Jobs and Apple is essentially a side project, although, most accurately, it is not. I welcome more feedback in this regard.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support My only objections are that the Notes and Selected events sections should be merged into the main article. The notes shouldn't be hard to do: just put them where they're a note now. To be honest I don't see why they're notes at all. As for selected events, they all fit in his biography rather well, except perhaps the Family Guy one, which wouldn't be a very big loss if you couldn't fit it in. I suppose you could if you said "In the {{date}} episode of Family Guy..." or something to fit it in the chronology. Atropos 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will definitely try to integrate the "Selected events" section into the body of the article. The Family Guy thing can be deep-sixed, and is really a remnant of a time when there was a whole section dedicated to that episode. The reason the Notes section was created was because, if you read those facts, they significantly break up the fluidity of the sections that they are referenced from. I would love more feedback in this regard, and I'll also see what can be integrated there as well.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Oppose for now. The prose has been cleaned up a lot since I reviewed it in the last peer review :) There are some other issues that need to be addressed before this will be FA quality, however.Great job with the changes! Karanacs 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)- Very minor things:
per WP:MOS, Need commas after single years (i.e., in 2003,) DoneThe first sentence in second paragraph of the lead sounds awkward to me. Done"gotten involved in charity" -> possibly "He is also involved in charitable activities" DoneFirst two sentences of Early career start with "After." The next two in that paragraph start with They. Can some of these be changed to something else? DoneInstead of "(with AMG)", use ", of All Music Guide," DoneThe wikilink for AMG goes to a disambig page -- please fix. DoneParagraph about Heaveier Things has a lot of repetitive sentence beginnings DoneNeed a better transition between last two sentences of Early life paragraph beginning "soon after getting his guitar," Done
I agree that the notes need to be incorporated into the text. Done
- At best the Michael J. Fox can be merged. The other two are entirely too disruptive to merge with the body. The note about his father is only kept because it is such popular folklore that when I deleted it previously editors would come back and add it. I think it makes sense to acknowledge that this is commonly thought, but wrong. The Tony Held note is WAY disruptive and extraneous. Apparently some editor(s) thought it was worth, including, however since it clarifies John's relationship with the company. ::Sigh:: In conclusion, I would rather remove the notes than merge them (although I would most prefer to keep it like it is).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point about the second note. I would just delete the third note; it doesn't really add anything to the article. Then I wrestle with whether it would be better to merge the MJF one and just have one note, or leave it as is. Karanacs 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- At best the Michael J. Fox can be merged. The other two are entirely too disruptive to merge with the body. The note about his father is only kept because it is such popular folklore that when I deleted it previously editors would come back and add it. I think it makes sense to acknowledge that this is commonly thought, but wrong. The Tony Held note is WAY disruptive and extraneous. Apparently some editor(s) thought it was worth, including, however since it clarifies John's relationship with the company. ::Sigh:: In conclusion, I would rather remove the notes than merge them (although I would most prefer to keep it like it is).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No citation for this sentence: "This major label "debut" included the first half of the songs that had appeared previously on his independent release." and the sentence itself is awkward (do you mean the first four songs or half of each of the 8 songs?) Done
- I didn't write that, but, being familiar with the album, the person meant the first four songs on "Inside wants out" is on "Room for Squares." And it is now referenced and rephrased.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No citation for sentence "a remark that many mistook to mean that he was only 16 years old at the time." DoneNeed a citation for paragraph about live recordings DoneNeed a citation for "lyrically underscores Mayer's decision to move away from acoustic pop music and towards blues with the line "Got a brand new blues that I can't explain."" or it might come across as WP:OR. Done
- I would just as soon as remove this as actually search for citation. And, believe me, I fail GAs everyday for lack of citations, and I think this article shows my devotion to finding sources. However, it is really painfully obvious; the song says so pretty explicitly. I defend this (humble) opinion by saying there already are sources for his move to blues (the first half of the sentence), and the quote seems to me to just defy further explanation. But, if you think this is a significant issue, I'll just remove it (which I've been tempted to do for some time now. Though in hindsight, it somewhat justifies the existence of the clip from the song. I'll try to reword it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- What about citing the song lyrics at least, and then just add a cite for the first half of the sentence? Karanacs 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Found a citation that came out last week that links the song and his move to blues.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Great job!Karanacs 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Found a citation that came out last week that links the song and his move to blues.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- What about citing the song lyrics at least, and then just add a cite for the first half of the sentence? Karanacs 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would just as soon as remove this as actually search for citation. And, believe me, I fail GAs everyday for lack of citations, and I think this article shows my devotion to finding sources. However, it is really painfully obvious; the song says so pretty explicitly. I defend this (humble) opinion by saying there already are sources for his move to blues (the first half of the sentence), and the quote seems to me to just defy further explanation. But, if you think this is a significant issue, I'll just remove it (which I've been tempted to do for some time now. Though in hindsight, it somewhat justifies the existence of the clip from the song. I'll try to reword it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This sentence needs work: "This resulting EP was released on December 12, 2006 as, entitled The Village Sessions"" DoneThe link for Mayer's auction site is an external link. This should not be included inline, but could be listed in the External links section. The links to his blog and official site need to also be removed from the inline text as well. DoneThe Other projects section does not flow well from paragraph to paragraph. I think some of this information could be trimmed a great deal, and others could be reorganized. For example, I think you should have a separate section for charitable endeavors that would cover the first and last paragraphs of this section. Done
- I merged the macworld and family guy reference into the mainstream success area chronologically. I then divided the project section into "Charity," "Design" and "Writing." This, or course, led to reviewing/re-writing the paragraphs for cohesion. I have marked this criteria as done (in my humble opinion) though I am still open to critique.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- This looks great now! Karanacs 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I merged the macworld and family guy reference into the mainstream success area chronologically. I then divided the project section into "Charity," "Design" and "Writing." This, or course, led to reviewing/re-writing the paragraphs for cohesion. I have marked this criteria as done (in my humble opinion) though I am still open to critique.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Need better transitions between sentences in the first paragraph of the Touring section. DoneDo you really need a separate touring section, since there are mentions of his tours in other sections as well? Done
- I dunno know if I have to have it, I certainly didn't write it to begin with, but, regardless, I could only merge so much, and didn't want to delete some of the other info - sooooo, I trimmed boatloads of it, rm the subheading, and blanked out the unverified sentence.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Need a citation for "As of 2007, two are filled." Done
- Very minor things:
I'll keep an eye on the page. If you fix all these things, I'll change my vote. Karanacs 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thorough feedback - you always do a great job of critique. I have began going through it, and the crossed out items I have either followed verbatim or corrected in a similar fashion. There are a few things I need clarified or have further comment on, which I will address shortly. Thanks again :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- And that, milady, is the curse of the Bambino. Which is my totally incoherent way of saying that I've tried to address every issue, and consider myself...coughdonecough.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Please see WP:PUNC for misplacement of end-quotation marks. I made a few sample edits. Done
- Comment: When I first saw this comment I was dumbstruck, since punctuation is one of my stronger suits, although I do not claim infallibility by any means. Regardless, when I read the actual policy, for all I could tell the system the system beared no resemblance to what I have seen in other grammar books (Eats, Shoots and Leaves immediately came to mind). In addition, I have repeatedly seen stated and practiced (here at Wikipedia and elsewhere) an acknowledgement of the differing rules of terminal punctuation and quotation marks between England and American English usage. All that said and done, I will try to make heads and tails of the policy, and put forth an effort to implement it, but I feel that this should not be considered criteria for not passing the article, especially since the policy itself states:
The Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically. These are not rigid laws, but principles that editors have found to work well in most circumstances. Thus, you are encouraged to follow these guidelines with flexibility.
- Agreed, that it is not a basis for failing the article, just a suggestion for improvement according to the Manual of Style, and of which I feel featured articles at least should follow. They are minor, just some ending quote marks are misplaced. Cricket02 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:CITET and WP:CITE/ES for correct use of citation templates.
- The citation method I use differs from that page in only one detail. I have "(acessed...)" and the policy has "Retrieved on..." I could go through and change that, but again, the first line to the policy you reference is "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation format for Wikipedia." And when I first started doing it that way last April, they guide I read used the word "access" (though, in Wikipedia fashion, it may have changed). Considering there are close to 80 citations, I hope that this would not be a dealbreaker. I might be able to use a "replace" feature to fix it, I'll see how it goes.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You need these cite templates to differentiate parameters such as publisher, etc., depending on if its "cite web" or "cite news" or "cite book", etc. template. I believe you'll find most featured articles use this method and I went through the same thing for FAC, reformatting all my references. But I am new at reviewing and will defer/inquire of more of an expert on the subject. Cricket02 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. For clarification, the article only contains two types of references: websites (most of which are to magazines and newspapers - Creative Loafing, Rolling Stone, NME, Spin, Bender, etc...) and a book. The two are cited differently, and according to the format at WP:CITET, as far as I can tell. I notice that you removed the {{done}} tag; let me know if that was not what you meant.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cricket02 asked me to take a look at the discussion here. It's not necessary to use the cite templates, in fact, many of us (myself included) hate them because they chunk up the article size so much and return inconsistent results for some situations. My personal preference is to do footnotes manually, as this article does. What is important is that sources are consistently cited by whatever method is chosen and that all relevant bibliographic info is provided. If an editor uses the cite templates, then they should use each parameter (example publisher, date, accessdate) correctly; if cite templates aren't used, then a consistent bibliographic style should be used. For example, on websources, title, publisher and last access date must be given, and author and date should be given when available. The only thing that looks a bit different here is the No byline for author, which isn't really necessary, but I guess that's a permissible style. (I believe when there's no author, the cite templates place the date after the title; I like that appearance better, but that's stylistic.) I don't see anything in the ref formatting that rises to the level of Object, although I do see a lot of blog sources which I hope are used adequately, as blogs aren't typically reliable sources, and it appears as if a lot of the article is sourced to Mayer himself, but the formatting seems fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) PS: an additional clarification. Cricket, the problem on your FAC was that the cite templates were used incorrectly, with publishers listed under author, which returned an inconsistent format vis-a-vis other sources which did have authors. What matters is a consistent bibliographic style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see! I knew you could articulate all that better than I could Sandy, thank you. I too thought the references looked good even without the templates, but wasn't sure exactly what was preferred for FA.Cricket02 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
And shouldn't the "Notes" section actually be the "References" section? Unsure if that's a preference thing or not.
- Thanks SandyGeorgia for clarifying this issue. Side note: I know blog sources cannot be used for verification, but these are all from John's blog, and they only are used to verify things he's said. Never factual information (like that George Washington was X old when he died). Also, I'll look into the "no byline" formatting that you mentioned. Thanks again!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that the way I have done it is correct. See WP:CITE, which suggests the heading order an naming that I have used. Of course, I'm welcome to feedback.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please state the copyright owners in the song sample information pages (they only state year of copyright). Also, cited text relating to the sound samples need to be incorporated into the sound sample boxes to justify fair use. (Example here)Cricket02 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Done
- Will do :) --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, and I will work to implement the suggestions.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Will do :) --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks like all issues have been addressed. Cricket02 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for excessive fair-use image use. The two album covers are not discussed (yes, I know the albums are discussed, but the covers are not, which is an important distinction). Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg specifically is much too high resolution. Image:That's Enough John Mayer.jpg adds nothing that a prose mention couldn't cover - fair use should not be used to decorate trivia sections. Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg is tagged with a license which explicitly explains that these uses, unless discussed with critical commentary related to the individual, are expressly disallowed. More free images should be pretty easy to obtain. The man's hardly a hermit. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree regarding album covers. Fairuse of: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). If the album is discussed, there is fair use of the album cover. Cricket02 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I, likewise, think the above policy is applies. I am addressing a response for each image below.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The two album covers: Respectfully and simply put, you're mistaken. Cricket02 has referenced the relevant policy above.
- Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg - I've reduced the size of the image.
- Image:That's Enough John Mayer.jpg - I removed it.
- Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg - For the sake of discussion, I have included the image tag verbiage here:
- I, likewise, think the above policy is applies. I am addressing a response for each image below.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree regarding album covers. Fairuse of: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). If the album is discussed, there is fair use of the album cover. Cricket02 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The article directly discusses the issue pictured, and "Rolling Stone" is clearly visable. The tag continues:It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above...qualifies as fair use.
The article is directly discussing Mayer's connection with the publication of this image. It is discussing the honor he received of being named as a Guitar God and of appearing on the COVER of Rolling Stone. So your assertion that the image "is tagged with a license which explicitly explains that these uses...are expressly disallowed" are unfounded. Otherwise, I have complied with your other objections as substantiated by Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your input.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image.
- See relevant discussion of the Fair Use issue at Talk:Slayer and WT:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks SandyGeorgia for bringing this discussion up, if no more than it gave me some perspective on the battles going on. However, I feel my comments above still stand, because (1) The references are talk pages, not policies; (2) This seems to be a campaign by Durin and "a number of us who are fighting fair use over use tooth and nail across a wide variety of articles" (his words). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to enforce their opinion without process, consensus and policy to back it up; (3) I only really thoroughly read his objections regarding album covers (since that's all that's relevant here) and all his complaints were about lack of fair use rationales, which is not the case here. On the Slayer article, he complained the images were used in other articles and thus redundant - an argument I've never heard, that honestly makes no sense to me, and that was refuted with gusto on the talk page. I don't want to seem like all his arguments were without merit (and I definitely believe in fair use rationales, not having 15 fair use images in one article, etc...) But until someone shows me a policy, law, or Jimbo Wales explaining to me why these images are't fair use, the arguments above still stand.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- See relevant discussion of the Fair Use issue at Talk:Slayer and WT:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support
CommentThe prose need a lot of work. Examples only from the lead:
- "began gaining" - Mixed tense.
- I disagree. The gerund has no tense of itself (I am eating, I was eating, I will be eating), so where is the conflict? Please explain.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"both did well commercially, going multi-platinum" - achieving multi-platinum status. Done"After originally performing mainly acoustic rock" - He began his career performing... Done"Mayer made a transition towards the blues genre, in 2005, by collaborating" - why are commas bracketing "in 2005". Done
- An editor above told me that I had to put commas after every phrase that said "in YYYY." I'll happily remove it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"The blues influence can also be seen" - The influence of blues, drop the also. Done"Mayer's other interests include stand-up comedy, design, and writing" - Unclear; is he merely interested in these areas, or active. Done"and his efforts in averting man-made global climate change" - Latent POV. Done
- This was the result of wording battle with another editor. I'll fix it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In general the article is over linked; guitarist, clarinet, cardiac arrhythmia, panic attacks, Boston, Massachusetts, United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, in 2006.Ceoil 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Done
- rm all but in 2006, b/c it links to "as of" (in the case that this can be updated).
- Thanks for your comments, I will get to it.
- I see the work you did, I'm having another read and will post back later. The collecting watches thing is odd, no? ;) Ceoil 15:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Read it again; it's good, but there are still a few prose issues as highlighted by Tony below. Easily fixed, looking forward to voting support when these are dealt with. Ceoil 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Switched to support. Ceoil 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- "The re-release also included" - "also" is redundant Done
- The previous sentence lists things that were change for the re-release. Then this sentence mentions more. So I think removing "also" detracts from the logical fluidity of the sentence. But I changed it anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You've made a good point so you can change it back if you prefer. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed it back (sheepishly)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You've made a good point so you can change it back if you prefer. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Mayer has also done some endorsements" - "some" is redundant Done
- "Mayer currently resides in" - "currently" is redundant Done
- The word currently is "redundant" by definition (if one is speaking in the present tense, the event is always occurring currently). But I removed it anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "All of the album covers" - "of" is redundant Done
- "outside of his genre" - "of" is redundant Done
- "he began a string of collaborations with various important and provocative blues artists," - "various" is redundant, "famous" is a peacock term.
- The word "famous" appears nowhere in the article. Otherwise Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant "important" is a peacock term. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- OK, I removed it.
- The word "famous" appears nowhere in the article. Otherwise
- "Mayer is partnering with Incase to produce various products" - "various" is redundant, "produce products" is repetitive Done
- You seem to think that the word "various" means more than one, and thus is redundant if you use it with a plural? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the word (which can verify yourself) basically means "of many different kinds purposefully arranged but lacking any uniformity" - which is the exact usage intended here. He is making several disparate products, but they are all "green." But, I changed it anyway.
- I think the word "products" is enough to indicate that the products are of different kinds, so I think "various" is redundant. If you strongly disagree, you can change it back. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I kept it. It think items works just as well :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its more formal to use "although" rather than "though"
- I'm not sure what this means.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "though" is a less formal abbreviation of "although", so "although" is better in an encyclopedia. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I changed them to although.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Although he's never been diagnosed" - avoid contractions Done
- Where's the contradiction?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "he's" is a contraction. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yikes - I read that wrong. Fixed it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The products are currently available only at his shows, although he has said they will eventually be available online" - this will eventually become outdated. Epbr123 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Much of the article will. He will probably eventually move, he and Jessica Simpson might get back together, his parents will die, he will probably stop writing some of of those blogs, the fifth album will eventually be released. But I (or anyone) can only write what is (ahem) currently true.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's better to say "As of July 2007, the products are only available at his shows, although he has said they will eventually be available online". Done
- OK.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention and critique. I've sought to apply it to the article. I hope you will reconsider your vote.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose wihdrawn. Epbr123 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The re-release also included" - "also" is redundant
- Support Has come along nicely. Don't worry about the exceesive fair use-itis running amok on wiki these days. To them someone that lives on the steppes of Outer Mongolia can easily have a free photo taken of them and get back to wiki.Sumoeagle179 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a and 2 (MOS). It's not bad, so once these are fixed and someone fresh has gone through it once more, I'll change to "Support".
- Redundant words, such as "first" in the second para, and "also" in the third (two of them).
This is not redundant. The word "first" has significance. It means this was the first genre that he played in. Considering he's dabbled in several, this is a chronological term - where's the redundancy? The "also" used in paragraph three means "in adition to the aforementioned, and (presuming you feel "also" is redundant because of the word "included") "included" does not signify "in addition to". If you insist, I'll change them (I want FA bad).Why not? Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- MOS says no final period in captions that aren't full sentences. Done
- "Mayer's name began to grow"—his name? How many letters did it become? "reputation".
- No, name - they mean the same thing; check it out: Roget's Thesaurus, Merriam-Webster, WordSmyth.net, Infoplease.com, RhymeZone.com and even Wikitionary (You've never heard the song "You Give Love a Bad Name" before?)
- Ceoil changed it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, name - they mean the same thing; check it out: Roget's Thesaurus, Merriam-Webster, WordSmyth.net, Infoplease.com, RhymeZone.com and even Wikitionary (You've never heard the song "You Give Love a Bad Name" before?)
- "Mayer came up with the song's concept - fantasies - and his vocals were sampled for the track." Read MOS on en dashes. I notice also spaced em dashes; MOS says em dashes are "normally unspaced". Done
- "with tickets often selling for as much as 1,625% over their face value"—This means "more than 17 times their face value", does it [17.25 times]? I hope so. Many readers would understand my quoted alternative more easily than the huge percentage value.Tony 12:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- Not that it matters, but what does this mean: "does it [17.25 times]? I hope so"?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your reading the article and offering your critique. I hope you will be motivated to change your vote.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Redundant words, such as "first" in the second para, and "also" in the third (two of them).
- Comment. The lead could do with some rewriting, I feel, and possibly could be expanded a bit.
- His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things, both did well commercially, achieving multi-platinum status. - if they achieved multi-platinum status (which could be wikilinked for explanation), it's implied they did well commercially. "Both" is redundant. So it could just be "His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things, Done
- Additionally, in 2003, he won a Best Male Pop Vocal Performance Grammy for his signature song, "Your Body Is a Wonderland". - "Additionally" isn't needed, and is rather jarring in such a short paragraph. Grammy should probably be included in the wikilink.
- Grammy is already wikilinked elsewhere in the article, in more appropriate places. Otherwise Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Grammy is already wikilinked elsewhere in the article, in more appropriate places. Otherwise
- ultimately formed - not sure what the "ultimately" adds
- A lot. Mayer's formation of the JMT was a culminating event. He stopped making original music for almost two years, and was dabbling in various genres, ranging from hip hop and film scores, to country and blues. Considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, the word ultimately is the abbreviated equivalent of two or three sentences in the "Change in musical direction" section.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- 49th Annual Grammy Awards in February 2007 - excessive detail for the lead. "The 2007 Grammy Awards" or "the 49th Annual Grammy Awards", but we don't really need to know it was in February. Done
- Mayer's career pursuits have occasionally extended to stand-up comedy, design, and writing; he has written pieces for several magazines, most notably for Esquire. - "career pursuits" is an odd phrase, to me. How "occasionally" has he been involved in these things? "Several magazines" - several is how many? Could probably remove it. Done
- If you don't like career pursuits, tell me what you like and I can change it. Also, I wasn't totally sure what you wanted removed, but I removed "occasionally" and "several".--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things, both did well commercially, achieving multi-platinum status. - if they achieved multi-platinum status (which could be wikilinked for explanation), it's implied they did well commercially. "Both" is redundant. So it could just be "His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things,
- Maybe it's me, but the lead just doesn't feel very cohesive at the moment. I would expand the paragraphs a bit; when they're only a couple of sentences it makes the prose seem choppy. Trebor 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- This suggestion is kind of vague. The lead currently is separated according to the major shifts in the article - the "Your Body is Wonderland" years, the "blues-John-Mayer-Trio forward" era and "Other". I could add something about Jessica Simpson to make that last paragraph longer. If you could give me some specific suggestions or specify missing topics covered in the article, I could incorporate them.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.
I didn't monitor the my watchlist while Hey Ya! was at FAC, so there were some problems with it when it was at its last FAC. I've done some copyediting and reorganization of the article. I removed some of the less useful links since it was looking pretty blue, and I removed some citations when there were several consecutive sentences going to the same one. The section about its impact has been condensed to remove stuff from unreliable sources, and it's now a little more clear on the markets that it had an impact on. If possible, I'd like to address any objections as soon as possible since I'll be away next week and may not have computer access, so if you do have objections, they should get taken care of within the day. 17Drew 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose No references in lead section, Track listing section and Production section. --Kaypoh 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those sections aren't supposed to be referenced. The lead only needs references when there's information not contained in the main article text. The latter two are inherently referenced to the album. 17Drew 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is correct. Velten 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I Agree. Luxurious.gaurav 03:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for answer. You all agree about that, so I will strike my oppose. --Kaypoh 09:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I Agree. Luxurious.gaurav 03:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is correct. Velten 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - I have been working on the article for quite some time and i really like it. It is my one the favourite album articles. Luxurious.gaurav 10:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good work. Velten 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeSome copy-editting needed.
- "When the two began working on a song that Stefani stated was too personal, she left to visit Kanal, who played her a track on which he had been working and which became "Crash", another single from the album." - needs rephrasing and maybe splitting into two sentences.
- "The Harajuku Girls are frequently mentioned on the album, with the song "Harajuku Girls" entirely dedicated to them." - the "with" is ungrammatical. It's best to use a semicolon instead, ie. "The Harajuku Girls are frequently mentioned on the album; the song "Harajuku Girls" is entirely dedicated to them."
- "Love. Angel. Music. Baby. takes influence from a variety of 1980s genres, with one reviewer stating..." - the "with" is ungrammatical.
- "L.A.M.B. also includes various styles of music" - the "also" is redundant.
- "It received very mixed reviews, with several criticizing its repetitive use" - the "with" is ungrammatical and the "very" is redundant. Epbr123 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done For some reason, I was under the impression that the with construction you pointed out was correct, but it looks like you're right. I've made the changes, and I found and fixed another sentence that had the same construction. 17Drew 06:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose removed. Epbr123 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments Under "Songs" section:
- In discussion of the song "What You Waiting For": The song received very positive reviews, often noted as a highlight of the album."[23] Firstly, I would remove the word "very" for NPOV. Secondly, the reference from pitchforkmedia.com is just a review, and does not support the statement that the song is "often noted as a highlight of the album". Is there a better source for this statement?
- Its single was moderately successful, reaching the top ten in most countries.[24] The source for this statement, MusicSquare is a user-edited site. Where did those stats come from? Was is http://acharts.us/? Can that source be used instead?
- The second single, "Rich Girl" charted equally well.[25] Same thing, using MusicSquare as a source.
- "Hollaback Girl", the third track, became the album's best-selling and most popular single. According to whom? It was written as a response to a derogatory comment by grunge musician Courtney Love,[26] I am a bit confused by this source (Rubenstein, Atoosa. "Courtney Love speaks about Gwen Stefani". Seventeen (August 2004): pg. 19.) As this is not an online source and I can't confirm what it says, by the title, it seems to me this article is about Courtney Love, and I question whether it supports the statement that the "song was written in response to a derogatory comment." Any way to elaborate on this, maybe by using a direct quote in the reference?
- The fourth track "Cool" was very well-received by critics,[20][28] Again, please remove the word "very" for more of a NPOV.
- The sixth single "Crash" was not heavily promoted and sold poorly, unable to reach the top forty in any country.[31] Who says it was not heavily promoted? And again, a MusicSquare source that is user edited. Where did the user get the info? I think MusicSquare is an informative site, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do question using it as a reliable source.
- Please cite the descriptions used in the audio samples box to justify fair use.
Otherwise, this article is very well written and well-sourced. Good work. ♫ Cricket02 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've taken care of most of the bullets (diff), but I do want to make sure of some stuff. The "highlight of the album" part came from the What You Waiting For? article, which has a paragraph of such reviews. Would it be good to use the Entertainment Weekly and Pitchfork reviews of the album (the one there's only for the single). Both are in the article right now, and point out the song as a highlight. I'm not sure what you mean about citing the descriptions. If you're referring to the captions in the article, the information should already be cited in the main article text. 17Drew 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, much better sourcing on chart positions. As concerns, The song received very positive reviews, often noted as a highlight of the album."[23] - Yes, I would use the Entertainment Weekly source for LAMB as well because it specifically cites that the song is a "one of the album's undeniable highs", and supports the text. But...unless you have multiple sources for this statement, you cannot use the word "often", see? I would recast the sentence somehow and attribute it, like maybe The song received positive reviews,[23] noted to be "one of the album's undeniable highs", by Entertainment Weekly.[ref] I do see that the captions in the audio samples box are cited within the main text, but for clarity, I would just be redundant and add the same sources to the captions within the box as well. This way no one has to search through the text to be sure those captions are sourced. Christ Illusion would be a good example. ♫ Cricket02 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've taken care of everything then. 17Drew 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. Great work. Support ♫ Cricket02 04:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've taken care of everything then. 17Drew 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, much better sourcing on chart positions. As concerns, The song received very positive reviews, often noted as a highlight of the album."[23] - Yes, I would use the Entertainment Weekly source for LAMB as well because it specifically cites that the song is a "one of the album's undeniable highs", and supports the text. But...unless you have multiple sources for this statement, you cannot use the word "often", see? I would recast the sentence somehow and attribute it, like maybe The song received positive reviews,[23] noted to be "one of the album's undeniable highs", by Entertainment Weekly.[ref] I do see that the captions in the audio samples box are cited within the main text, but for clarity, I would just be redundant and add the same sources to the captions within the box as well. This way no one has to search through the text to be sure those captions are sourced. Christ Illusion would be a good example. ♫ Cricket02 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've taken care of most of the bullets (diff), but I do want to make sure of some stuff. The "highlight of the album" part came from the What You Waiting For? article, which has a paragraph of such reviews. Would it be good to use the Entertainment Weekly and Pitchfork reviews of the album (the one there's only for the single). Both are in the article right now, and point out the song as a highlight. I'm not sure what you mean about citing the descriptions. If you're referring to the captions in the article, the information should already be cited in the main article text. 17Drew 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice work, as per usual. Lara♥Love 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.
Self-nomination We have been working on this article for several months, most impressively going from 5 to 56 references. It has had two peer reviews, the most recent receiving almost no feedback, and has just passed GA with the comment that it is good enough to be nominated for FA status. I eagerly await your comments. Anomie 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Conditional opposeAnother video game article! My judgments are based upon Nintendo Entertainment System and Wii. Madcoverboy 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend moving all of the cruft about technical specifications and enhancement chips to a sister article or list and rewriting the section in a more readable summary style.
- Wii has a Technical specifications section, which doesn't even follow the MoS guideline on embedded lists, and NES has a technical specifications section in a style similar to this article, so I'm not sure where this recommendation comes from. Technical specifications are an important part of the console, and are needed for FA criterion 1b. A separate article about the technical specifications would end up on AfD (for being not notable, or some part of WP:NOT in a deletionist effort to counter the WP:BIAS you mentioned above), and the likely verdict would be to merge it back into this article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are the "Quick reference" boxes necessary? Because they unnecessarily break up the format of the article at 1600x1200 and (obviously) repeat information that already is (or should be) in the text. I didn't see these boxes on the NES or Wii articles. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion that led to their creation is at Talk:SNES#Old vs New. They compromise between the big list-o-information some people like to see for technical specifications (as in Wii) and the encyclopedic prose style required by the MoS, and IMO serve the section as "other media" towards FA criterion 3. Unfortunately, my display does not go to 1600x1200, but the section looks very nice at 800x600 and 1024x768. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are the "Quick reference" boxes necessary? Because they unnecessarily break up the format of the article at 1600x1200 and (obviously) repeat information that already is (or should be) in the text. I didn't see these boxes on the NES or Wii articles. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The enhancement chips section has already undergone two rounds of summarization to reduce the cruft, but a "List of Super NES enhancement chips" list could do better by completely removing things like "ST010" from this article. I should also rewrite the section as prose per the MoS guideline on embedded lists. I will look into this later today. I may also propose a merge of some of the existing SNES chip articles into this list. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- Wii has a Technical specifications section, which doesn't even follow the MoS guideline on embedded lists, and NES has a technical specifications section in a style similar to this article, so I'm not sure where this recommendation comes from. Technical specifications are an important part of the console, and are needed for FA criterion 1b. A separate article about the technical specifications would end up on AfD (for being not notable, or some part of WP:NOT in a deletionist effort to counter the WP:BIAS you mentioned above), and the likely verdict would be to merge it back into this article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Include more about the launch and bestselling games, lessons learned from the NES and competing game systems.
- I wish that I could add more information on the launch. Unfortunately, there are a dearth of sources on this matter. At the time, most gaming magazines were not online and those that still exist have not bothered to transfer their archives to their websites. I've read both Game Over and The Ultimate History of Video Games, but neither has more useful information than what is already in the article. The newspaper articles I've found in Google News boil down to "Yup, it was released". Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- I've just had an idea that may work to add information on some few notable games, but Mortal Kombat/Mortal Kombat II and Donkey Kong Country will probably be the only two. "Best-selling games" are out, as such a section is both a cruft magnet and suffers from a lack of reliable sources. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- As far as I've seen in the sources I've found, the major lesson learned from the NES was "no ZIF connector!". Coming off the over-90% market share of the NES, if anything Nintendo refused to learn any lessons there might have been from competing systems in time for them to affect the SNES. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've been unable to find any sources regarding lessons learned, even about the decision to abandon the ZIF connector. Anomie 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- I've been unable to find any sources regarding lessons learned, even about the decision to abandon the ZIF connector. Anomie 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wish that I could add more information on the launch. Unfortunately, there are a dearth of sources on this matter. At the time, most gaming magazines were not online and those that still exist have not bothered to transfer their archives to their websites. I've read both Game Over and The Ultimate History of Video Games, but neither has more useful information than what is already in the article. The newspaper articles I've found in Google News boil down to "Yup, it was released". Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Condense and combine the sections on lockout and emulation and discuss the licensing of the technology and games more.
- "Lockout" and "Emulation" are unrelated issues, in fact emulation can and does completely ignore two of the three lockout methods. Combining them would be like trying to combine "Geology" and "Culture" sections in a country's article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how they are different. Lockout prevents game cartridges from different markets from being interoperable or accessible. Emulation is a method for circumventing these physical/hardware barriers. They both reflect design choices to protect copyrights. Moreover, much of the information on the design aspects in "Lockout" should be in the "Technical Specifications" anyway. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lockout prevents cartridges from other regions from being played on the console, just like DVD region coding prevents importation of discs. Emulation eliminates the console completely and allows the game code to be played on a PC; bypassing the lockout is a side effect and bonus. In fact, while the physical and CIC lockouts are easily ignored in emulation, the PAL/NTSC differences must be emulated and it would easily be possible to create a NTSC-only emulator. But just as the voltage on one pin of the PPU is sufficient to select 50 versus 60 Hz output, only a few lines of code are needed to do the same in an emulator. You're right that the lockout section should be moved to the technical specifications section; I've done it already. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- Lockout prevents cartridges from other regions from being played on the console, just like DVD region coding prevents importation of discs. Emulation eliminates the console completely and allows the game code to be played on a PC; bypassing the lockout is a side effect and bonus. In fact, while the physical and CIC lockouts are easily ignored in emulation, the PAL/NTSC differences must be emulated and it would easily be possible to create a NTSC-only emulator. But just as the voltage on one pin of the PPU is sufficient to select 50 versus 60 Hz output, only a few lines of code are needed to do the same in an emulator. You're right that the lockout section should be moved to the technical specifications section; I've done it already. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how they are different. Lockout prevents game cartridges from different markets from being interoperable or accessible. Emulation is a method for circumventing these physical/hardware barriers. They both reflect design choices to protect copyrights. Moreover, much of the information on the design aspects in "Lockout" should be in the "Technical Specifications" anyway. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will condense the lockout section (not so much information is needed regarding bypassing the lockouts), but I can't see what to remove from the "Emulation" section after the recent major cleanup. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- Information on the end of Nintendo's exclusive licensing policy (mainly since Nintendo was no longer the only game in town) is a good idea. I think I can work it in with the MK and DKC additions. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- The sections need to be reorganized, although I wasn't able to find any standard structures for these types of articles on the WikiProject. I would recommend: Intro, History (to include "Market Share"), Technical Specifications, Peripherals, Titles, Hacking (to include the "Emulation and controversies" and "Enchancement" chips as well as the "Regional lockout" that isn't incoporated into "Tech Specs - Game Cartridge." Madcoverboy 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree that a "Hacking" section is appropriate, and Enhancement Chips definitely doesn't belong there. I'm also not sure about putting Market Share into History, both because it doesn't fit the narrative flow of the section and because a section heading seems necessary due to the nature of the Nintendo/Sega console war; IMO, it works best at the end of the article, as it brings a note of conclusion to the text. How about "History, Notable titles, Emulation, Technical specifications, Peripherals, Enhancement chips, Market share"? History of the console flows nicely into the historical nature of the new Notable titles section, and Emulation follows cleanly as post-history. Then the article changes gears to discuss the technical aspects of the console, followed by the add-on peripherals and the add-ons in the cartridges. Market share at the end gives the sense of conclusion to the article. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- I don't agree that a "Hacking" section is appropriate, and Enhancement Chips definitely doesn't belong there. I'm also not sure about putting Market Share into History, both because it doesn't fit the narrative flow of the section and because a section heading seems necessary due to the nature of the Nintendo/Sega console war; IMO, it works best at the end of the article, as it brings a note of conclusion to the text. How about "History, Notable titles, Emulation, Technical specifications, Peripherals, Enhancement chips, Market share"? History of the console flows nicely into the historical nature of the new Notable titles section, and Emulation follows cleanly as post-history. Then the article changes gears to discuss the technical aspects of the console, followed by the add-on peripherals and the add-ons in the cartridges. Market share at the end gives the sense of conclusion to the article. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The sections need to be reorganized, although I wasn't able to find any standard structures for these types of articles on the WikiProject. I would recommend: Intro, History (to include "Market Share"), Technical Specifications, Peripherals, Titles, Hacking (to include the "Emulation and controversies" and "Enchancement" chips as well as the "Regional lockout" that isn't incoporated into "Tech Specs - Game Cartridge." Madcoverboy 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Lockout" and "Emulation" are unrelated issues, in fact emulation can and does completely ignore two of the three lockout methods. Combining them would be like trying to combine "Geology" and "Culture" sections in a country's article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend moving all of the cruft about technical specifications and enhancement chips to a sister article or list and rewriting the section in a more readable summary style.
- Weak support I still don't like those info-boxes in the technical specs section since they muck up the formatting at 1600x1200 and appear to be largely redundant with the text, but the article has improved to FA status even if it could be improved further. Madcoverboy 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Some minor cleanup (grammar) and copyediting would probably make the article even better, but it's in good shape and would make a fine FA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've done some copyediting to the History section to make it read less like a sensationalized news story or press release. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- Other sections may also benefit from similar copyediting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've done some copyediting to the History section to make it read less like a sensationalized news story or press release. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Conditional opposeThe emulation section is a mess. The sentence that lists the number of systems that the SNES has been emulated on (the one that starts with PSP) is not cited. A sentence about Snes9x and ZSNES citing the Snes9x and ZSNES forums does not pass WP:N – they need to be supplamanted by reliable secondary sources independent of the creators. Could also mention what SNES games have been ported to Wii Virtual Console, as well. hbdragon88 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)- User:Hbdragon88 no longer opposes, see this comment. Anomie 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- References added: each system now has a reference to an emulator for that system; there may additionally be other emulators. Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- WP:N does not apply: "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples suggests the following, which is the case for the forum sources you challenge:
Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may , exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.
- See List of Virtual Console games (North America) (17 listed), List of Virtual Console games (Europe) (15 listed), and List of Virtual Console games (Japan) (24 listed). Further, "new" games are released weekly. Such a list would be difficult to maintain and completely out of place for this article. Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying list all of them, but perhaps list the first one that came out? Okay, so WP:N wasn't the right policy. How about the fact that they are not verified by relisable sources, secondary sources independent of the creators? I wouldn't lean on WP:SPS too much, I think that maks for a weak article. hbdragon88 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the first Virtual Console release is any more relevant to this article than the first GBA remake, or the first game to have been playable on an emulator. The first games released for the system itself are barely relevant enough for mention on the basis of their being first.
- I've been dealing with SPS and related issues since I started trying to improve this article, and it has forced me to dig deep into WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and the like and to consider the intent as well as the letter of the policies. I've reached several conclusions. The fact is that primary sources are not always bad, they are just easy to misuse and cannot establish Wikipedia:Notability. Secondary sources are not always available; in this case because emulation isn't "newsworthy", reports on emulation might invite retaliation or legal issues, and niche news sources generally simply report releases and review games. Self-published sources are not always bad, and can contain information that is relevant but that no one else feels a need to repeat. If you have specific weaknesses in mind, I will do my best to either strengthen or remove them. Generalities, however, are not helpful. Anomie 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- I'm not saying list all of them, but perhaps list the first one that came out? Okay, so WP:N wasn't the right policy. How about the fact that they are not verified by relisable sources, secondary sources independent of the creators? I wouldn't lean on WP:SPS too much, I think that maks for a weak article. hbdragon88 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Do NOT let GA class status influence your vote, as I discovered that the reviewer who gave this article GA status does not even know the GA criteria. The article will now undergo a formal GAC review. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That does not appear to have been considered in the above, and I am finding it difficult to AGF based on your heavyhanded tactics. If you want to do a GAR, go ahead, but there is less call for you to demote the article without reason than there was for the original reviewer to promote it without using the checklist. Anomie 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeSupport Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "Although each system is essentially the same, due to the different designs, each system can only play the games specifically made for its system." "Emulation projects began in 1996 with projects such as "VSMC" and "Super Pasofami", which, despite some important initial gains, did not last long past 1998.". Epbr123 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've attempted to correct the two sentences you mentioned, and added some references in the process. KieferSkunk has already copyedited the History section, and I have requested a similar review of the rest of the article. Feel free to pitch in with further suggestions. Anomie 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to support. Looks much better now. KieferSkunk has done a good job. Epbr123 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. Anomie has made some great edits and suggestions as well. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, well-done Anomie. Epbr123 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thank both of you for helping. Anomie 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Done
- Thank you, and thank both of you for helping. Anomie 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, well-done Anomie. Epbr123 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. Anomie has made some great edits and suggestions as well. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to support. Looks much better now. KieferSkunk has done a good job. Epbr123 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've attempted to correct the two sentences you mentioned, and added some references in the process. KieferSkunk has already copyedited the History section, and I have requested a similar review of the rest of the article. Feel free to pitch in with further suggestions. Anomie 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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 15:54, 26 July 2007.
Just a few days ago, about four, I saw this article of perhaps my favorite album, in horrible shape. I had many sources, so I decided to make it better. That day, I completely re wrote the article, and sent it in for a GA the next day. It passed, and since then, I have been asking a couple of different users to help me with it. After much editing of grammar, sources, pictures, and many other stuff, I believe it is ready for you guys, here at the FAC. Hope it passes sooner or later! Oh, it's a self nomination, by the way. Xihix 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - as this article's GA reviewer (I passed it a few days ago), it has my support. Giggy UCP 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I brought up my concerns on this article with Xihix on IRC... he fixed them almost immediately. I have no other outstanding issues with this article. It is well written, referenced, and quite good. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeThere are some issues that remain with the article. It currently isn't ready for FA status; more work needs to be done:
- Reference 10 needs to be dated with the issue # and month. Its current state is not acceptable.
- References 12-19 have no publisher stated. Identify the publisher.
- Reference 11 states Billboard as a publisher. It is a magazine; therefore the name must be italicized.
- The "Album Name and Art" has this one big quote placed in the middle. Some of it is alright, but most of it is over excessive nonsense not needed in the article.
- "The name of the album originated from the band members' habit of eating food on the road while touring that had often turned bad." is awkwardly worded.
- Much of the "Writing and Composition" talks exclusively about the five singles released for the album, and little else. Some more expansion on at least some of the other 9 tracks would be nice.
- "During the fight, bassist Dirnt fell off the stage, and while trying to climb back on, the actions of a security guard caused him to injure his arm and break three of his teeth." does "bassist Dirnt" really need to be present? Also, what actions of the security guards? Did they kick him? Please clarify this.
- "Rob Cavallo was chosen as the main producer of the album, after the band was looking for one after signing with Reprise" Wordy. Could be "Rob Cavallo was chosen as the main producer of the album, as the band was looking for someone to produce their next album after signing with Reprise."
- A meticulous copy edit is desperately needed.
I was jumping around from place to place to see if any flaws caught my eye. As obvious, many did. I have not taken a complete assessment of the article as of yet. The article is a bit away from FA class. NSR77 TC 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have done everything you listed above, except the copy edit, which another editer and I are doing now. Xihix 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please check some suggestions at Xihix's talk page- TwoOars 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also fixed the ones you listed that seemed necessary. Xihix 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on my Opposition - I am still opposing this FA as the "Critical Reception" section is weak. How about some reviews from Time, EW, NME, Stylus, Mojo, Q, Rolling Stone, Pop Matters, etc.? You, currently, only have one major critic present. NSR77 TC 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't sound clear the first time, I'm sorry. It never existed, or if it did, it's long gone or not on the internet. Xihix 04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, after some searching for some old archived articles, I found two major critical reviews and put them both in the critical reception. Enjoy. Xihix 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Most things appear to be OK now for a support. NSR77 TC 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. With an album, such as Dookie, being released over ten years ago, any material that might be relevant to the article has gone down the memory hole and cannot be located. The reason why many of the tracks are not listed in the article for the "Writing and Composition" sections is because the author could not find sources on why the songs were written at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Doolittle (album) seems to do fine, regardless of being almost 20 years old. NSR77 TC 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps because it has freaking books written about it? I'm sure if Billie Joe made an autobiography, I could make all of the Green Day albums GA'd. Not only that, it seems to be considered one of the best albums ever by many different sources, as I see in the article. Same goes for Nirvana or Beatles articles; it's just a popularity contest, and since they are dubbed as the best by a lot of old people, they have more coverage. Xihix 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very comprehensive and well-sourced, and an example of what articles on albums should aspire towards. The fact that this album is 13 years old, as Zscout370 pointed out, predating the rise of the Internet, makes the effort put into researching the album even more commendable. Krimpet 03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Nitpicks. Blah blah blah great article blah blah little issues that could be fixed, the usual. Numbered for your pleasure convenience.- Why is the Longview quote blockquoted? Why is that quote there at all? It's kind of empty.
- "The song never had an official music video, however, a certain live performance of the song is often associated as a music video, which is found on Green Day's official website." - Needs a reference
- There's informal language scattered all over the place. "Most of the singles fared well in various charts too" is one example.
- "Release and reception" is pretty scrambled. The first paragraph is about producing and making the album, and seems to belong somewhere above. The second paragraph is about the album selling well, the third paragraph starts out talking about critics but seems to wander off into the subject of fan backlash, then the fourth paragraph starts off talking about new fans and the backlash from old fans then lurches off into the subject of sales numbers again before talking about awards.
- This is the only objection I'd oppose over.
- Accolades could probably be rewritten into prose instead of a needless, ugly table, and reincorporated into "Release and reception," as it is critical reception.
- The chart tables could probably be moved up into "Release and reception".
Hopefully this helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)I fixed them all, except the accolades and the chart tables, as I modeled them off of other albums that have FA status, so I think those should be fine. Xihix 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)(psst, look down for more crossed out, convo continued to there)
- Commment The lead needs expansion (perhaps include some details about the album's musical style and subject matter). Also, a brief overview of the musical style is required (in my opinion). The article is also in need of a copyedit (see here) I would help more, but I'm away from the keyboard a lot at the moment. CloudNine 10:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with the need for a copyedit- I made a couple of small edits myself, but more are needed. Also, the refs could do with expansion- some are lacking in publisher information, and all seem to be lacking in little extra bits of information which make them that little bit more professional and useful- dates, authors, that kind of thing. However, the article is mostly excellent, and would make a good featured article. J Milburn 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe all of the refs have been fixed since I first put this up for FAC. May you give me some examples of the incomplete ones so I may fix them? Xihix 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose The article is written in an over-colloquial tone and has various grammatical errors. Some examples:
- "More accolades available on the site." This is a sentence fragment.
- "Eventually, the band left Lookout! Records on friendly terms, and signed on to Reprise." "signed on to Reprise" is not an independent clause and the last comma should be removed.
- The article is filled with amateurish conjunct phrases. ("Following the underground success of 1992's Kerplunk!,"; "Much of the album's content was written by Armstrong"; etc.) This is a nit-pick, but featured articles should be held to a high standard.
- The first few sentences of "Release and reception" need a rewrite. "Went" is a poor verb choice in a featured article.--Amalgamation 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done All have been fixed. Xihix 18:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- A general copyedit is in progress. CloudNine 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very excellent copy edit CloudNine, I don't see how the article couldn't be FA'd at this point. Xihix 19:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like to comment on this guy's oppose. I've since left him a message to come see if it's satisfactory, but when I checked, he's only made six edits to Wikipedia, and hasn't responded to me. I'm just to assume he supports now. Xihix 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very excellent copy edit CloudNine, I don't see how the article couldn't be FA'd at this point. Xihix 19:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- A general copyedit is in progress. CloudNine 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Its a fairly small article but its well sourced, well referenced, and also written quite well..I'll give it a thumbs up.. :)..--Cometstyles 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I don't think it's too short at all. --Golbez 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support since the Green Day article is frequently criticized, is nice to see a GD one in such great shape. igordebraga ≠ 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nitpicks mark two. This is about scattered, overlapping topics. This counts as an
opposefor the time being.- "Release" isn't about the release at all, it's about sales numbers. It's also two screenfuls away from "Chart positions" for some reason.
- "Accolades" is separated from "Critical reception."
- "Critical reception" has more stuff about fans calling the band sell-outs, separate from the similar commentary in "Background."
- "Critical reception" is lousy with unclear or informal language. "The band did not enjoy these statements" is a bit incoherent, and "Even the New York Times, regardless of their positive comments before, also had claimed that Green Day was far from punk anymore, and was pop instead" is incredibly awkwardly worded. There's more of this; these are just examples.
- The review links in the infobox should be references.
- There's still work left to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Let me start off saying I completely modeled the article after other albums that obtained FA, such as Californication. I suppose if they had these things, Dookie should, too. That said, let me explain myself.
- The release I've seen on other FA albums talked about sales in the release section. They, too, had the chart position tables two screenfuls away.
- Accolades was seperated in every other FA album.
- The reason they were sell outs in "Background" was slighty different, and was at a different time (post album release).
- Yes, I will fix this. Thanks for pointing this one out.
- Nope, they shouldn't. Again, look at other FA albums for more info.
- Also, nope, I believe no more work is needed other than the CR fixing. Xihix 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Another FA is equally poorly organized" is not a response to my objections. This article has serious organizational problems, and this is an actionable objection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Have you ever commented on an album FAC? All of these albums are FA'ed and have a similar structure to Dookie: Adore, Californication, Enta Da Stage, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Freak Out!, Kid A, Supernature, and Surfer Rosa. For your sake, I'll combine the Accolades and Reception, but I don't think I should combine the chartings. And, I'd like to mention, if so many albums that had a charting there became FA, it must surely be alright. Xihix 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad you combined the Accolades and Reception (which are combined or proximate in most of your examples). Still, we have two different places in the article talking about sales numbers, and we have two different places in the article talking about fan backlash with lots of topical overlap. That's bad organization. While other FAs may make the same mistake, it's a lot more likely that nobody thought to scrutinize the organization of the articles that carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do not see where I mentioned the sales in two places, other than the release area and the lead (which should be in the lead). As for the fan backlash, the Background area talks about the backlash for joining a Major Label. The second backlash, which is in the Reception area, is because of the new fans they were obtaining, and the new "pop-ier" sound the band had. Other than that, I think I have fixed all the dis-organization. Xihix 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad you combined the Accolades and Reception (which are combined or proximate in most of your examples). Still, we have two different places in the article talking about sales numbers, and we have two different places in the article talking about fan backlash with lots of topical overlap. That's bad organization. While other FAs may make the same mistake, it's a lot more likely that nobody thought to scrutinize the organization of the articles that carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Have you ever commented on an album FAC? All of these albums are FA'ed and have a similar structure to Dookie: Adore, Californication, Enta Da Stage, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Freak Out!, Kid A, Supernature, and Surfer Rosa. For your sake, I'll combine the Accolades and Reception, but I don't think I should combine the chartings. And, I'd like to mention, if so many albums that had a charting there became FA, it must surely be alright. Xihix 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- As for the sales numbers, chart numbers are sales numbers.
- As for the fan backlash, that division isn't evident at all. Let's dissect the last two paragraphs...
- "However, many other music critics, and even some other mainstream bands, claimed the band had sold out for signing to a major label, and called them "watered down punk imposters"."
- Criticism for joining a major label.
- " The New York Times, regardless of their previous positive comments, also mentioned that Green Day was far from punk and was pop instead."
- Still awkwardly phrased.
- "The band did not respond initially to these comments, but later claimed that they were "just trying to be themselves" and that "it's our band, we can do whatever we want.""
- Not sure what they're talking about, but it seems to be a response to joining a major label, since no mention of a "pop-ier" sound has been made.
- "Dirnt claimed that the follow up album, Insomniac, one of the band's hardest albums lyrically and musically, was the band releasing their anger at all the criticism from critics and former fans."
- Wandering off on a tangent; this really belongs in the Insomniac article.
- "Dookie helped attract many new fans to Green Day, which furthered the labeling of the band as "sell-outs" by older fans."
- [citation needed]
- "As a result of this, the band did not receive a warm welcome home upon returning to Berkeley, California. The hatred of former fans led to physical violence in some cases, some right on the streets."
- So the old fans didn't like them because they had new fans? [citation needed]?
- "924 Gilman Street, the club where Green Day first debuted , had banned Green Day from ever entering the club, as "No Major Labels" were allowed, and the ban still stands today."
- Awkwardly phrased, and, again, it's the fans calling them sell-outs for signing with a major label, exactly like in the section above in "Background."
- "Another FA is equally poorly organized" is not a response to my objections. This article has serious organizational problems, and this is an actionable objection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Reception section is still poorly organized on its own lights, and still overlaps largely with the Background section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Chart numbers are separate from other FA album articles. I won't change that. When it's been accepted to be at a different place so many times before, there must be something about it that makes it being separate fine. Again, have you ever commented a FAC album?
- The criticism for signing to a major label before was from the former fans. The criticism post release was from critics and other mainstream bands.
- I'm sorry, but there's no other way to word that. And it isn't that awkward, I brought in several 3rd party people to read it, and they all understood it.
- Actually, the last part of the New York Times said pop quite clearly.
- As the Reception section is post album release, talking about the future is allowed. And, the writing for Insomniac was done before they went to record it, some of the songs were wrote during the tour of Dookie.
- I fixed everything else. Xihix 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- My objections stand. Reception is still poorly written and overlaps largely with Background. There's probably a enough content for an entire section on fan response, instead of scattering it all over the place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, I swear, I do not see where fans are mentioned anywhere other than the lead, Background, and the VERY LAST word of Reception after I took it out a few edits ago. Other than that VERY last word, the Reception and Background no longer overlap. And before you mention "Major Labels", the major labels in the Background was from the fans, and the major label mention in Reception was from PROFESSIONAL critics and OTHER MAINSTREAM BANDS. Alright? Xihix 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It has since been rewritten, and I'm largely happy with the article. I still don't like the sales charts being dumped at the end like that, but apparently this isn't the place to change standard style, so I don't plan on quibbling about it any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, I swear, I do not see where fans are mentioned anywhere other than the lead, Background, and the VERY LAST word of Reception after I took it out a few edits ago. Other than that VERY last word, the Reception and Background no longer overlap. And before you mention "Major Labels", the major labels in the Background was from the fans, and the major label mention in Reception was from PROFESSIONAL critics and OTHER MAINSTREAM BANDS. Alright? Xihix 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- My objections stand. Reception is still poorly written and overlaps largely with Background. There's probably a enough content for an entire section on fan response, instead of scattering it all over the place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Reception section is still poorly organized on its own lights, and still overlaps largely with the Background section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't like their music, but the article looks good and is well sourced. The numbers in the tables could be aligned differently, though. Reinistalk 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's quite well written! Good job. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well written and sourced. ~ Wikihermit 01:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Reaffirming my opposition. This article does not yet meet the "well written and stable" ("Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.") requirements given in WP:FACR. While a number of improvements have occurred in the past few days, Dookie needs a bit more time to mature while editors tweak the general wording and style. --Amalgamation 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You say it needs to mature and have be written better. Give me some examples, then. Honestly, you've been a member for a few days and do not have that many edits at all, and you say that you "Glad to see I sit at the conservative end of Wikipedia, then."[3]. I'm not saying you're a bad editor, but you're saying that the people who are very good editors and quite a few admins do not know the FAC criteria? Xihix 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, let's be civil and leave out the personal attacks. My edit count and talk page have nothing to do with the FA viability of this article. My contributions may be small, but 20% of my edits have occurred on the article in question. I'm on your side. Dookie has an overall amateurish tone and the extra time is for myself and others to massage it out. --Amalgamation 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you don't know what's FA criteria; I'm saying if all these experienced editors believe this article's writing and tone are good, why wouldn't it be? Also, I would really like an example or two of bad writing, so I can fix it. You're the only person standing in the way of an FA (everyone has consensus at this point except you), so I just want to fix it to change your mind. Xihix 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, let's be civil and leave out the personal attacks. My edit count and talk page have nothing to do with the FA viability of this article. My contributions may be small, but 20% of my edits have occurred on the article in question. I'm on your side. Dookie has an overall amateurish tone and the extra time is for myself and others to massage it out. --Amalgamation 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.
Second nomination: This article is about a very important development in the automobile industry which promises to have a substantial impact on petroleum demand and greenhouse gas emissions. About three months ago I started an ad-hoc improvement drive just as some experts decided on their own to improve it. Two months ago, it underwent peer review, and all the issues raised and suggestions for improvement were followed. The result over the ensuing weeks stabilized into what I thought was a very well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral article. However, the comments from the first nomination last month pointed out many minor issues and some serious problems, not all of which I was able to fix. So, I withdrew that nomination. Thanks to other editors, all of the issues of which I'm aware have been fixed. In the mean time it was accepted by the editorial team for Version 0.7, and rated "A" class on WikiProject Automobiles' quality scale. So, I'm nominating it again. BenB4 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support well written, well sourced. --trey 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose—1c; there is quite a bit of uncited hard data (examples only in Fuel efficiency and Operating costs), and sources aren't completely, correctly and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Last access date and publisher should be given on all websources, and author and publication date should be given when available.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask which statements you find unsupported? I know those sections take many facts from certain sources which makes it too likely that the citation might come a ways after the statement belonging to it. You might want to try the next one or two citations after the facts you are concerned about, even though they may be in the next paragraph, and see if you can verify them there. I assure you several subject matter experts have been over those sections with fine-toothed combs. As for the citation formats, I will address those in the next few days. BenB4 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Back for another look: citations are still not formatted completely. There are several missing publishers (see WP:CITE/ES). When examining a random source with no publisher identified, I find it to be a source of questionable reliability ([10]); this is why all publishers should be identified and why I am switching to Strong oppose. Reliability of sources must be apparent. Also, all websources should have last access dates.External links should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS.Month-day combos should be wikilinked per WP:MOSNUM. Some prose is stubby: Advanced battery technology is under development.[34][35][36] Battery life expectancy is expected to increase.[37] (Why three refs to substantiate development?)The {{convert}} template should be used to express units of measurement in km as well as miles. Still more work needed here; keep going, but please identify publishers and make sure sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)- I'm not sure what you mean by missing publishers. The word "publisher" appears only once in WP:CITE/ES, under books. Perhaps if you listed the reference numbers that you have a problem with, it would help me see what's missing (please.) The calcars-news email is actually a reliable source per WP:RS, because the author is the director and founder of CalCars, who is recognized widely as an independent expert in the field, and he's just forwarding a press release. I just went through every single reference, and the only ones without last-accessed dates are URLs to copies of printed publications. The month-day dates were all linked last FAC, but new dates got in without linking -- I will fix those right away. There are three references for development because someone added them -- as I recall they had corporate names and project descriptions but someone shortened them to the stubby statement because the details weren't considered to be within the scope of the article. I guess they stayed that way; I'll take a couple out. {{convert}} looks like a monumental undertaking; I'll try. BenB4 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure how else to answer your questions, since I'm not understanding what you're not understanding, and the sample above should be clear. Look in your article, and notice that almost all (but not all) of your sources (the information you've include in between ref tags, often using cite templates) have a field identified in the cite template as either "publisher" or "work", or include information about the publisher of the website or information. We need to know the publisher of all sources. The sample I gave above is missing a publisher, and a Yahoo message board is not a reliable source; how do you know the message board poster cited the press release correctly and didn't alter it? Did you see the press release yourself? I'm sorry, it's so clear to me that I don't know how else to explain this. Some random samples:
- I'm not sure what you mean by missing publishers. The word "publisher" appears only once in WP:CITE/ES, under books. Perhaps if you listed the reference numbers that you have a problem with, it would help me see what's missing (please.) The calcars-news email is actually a reliable source per WP:RS, because the author is the director and founder of CalCars, who is recognized widely as an independent expert in the field, and he's just forwarding a press release. I just went through every single reference, and the only ones without last-accessed dates are URLs to copies of printed publications. The month-day dates were all linked last FAC, but new dates got in without linking -- I will fix those right away. There are three references for development because someone added them -- as I recall they had corporate names and project descriptions but someone shortened them to the stubby statement because the details weren't considered to be within the scope of the article. I guess they stayed that way; I'll take a couple out. {{convert}} looks like a monumental undertaking; I'll try. BenB4 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- (No publisher - who published this list ??) Current list of Prius PHEV conversions as of May 2007 there are at least 35 Prius PHEV conversions.
- (Publisher, date and access date) Electric Auto Association (2007) "Battery Pack Configurations" Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle website, accessed April 25, 2007
- (no access date) Synovate (August 16, 2006) "Survey shows 49% of consumers would consider buying a plug-in hybrid"
- (what is this? wikis are generally not reliable) EAA-PHEV wiki: Mixed-mode accessed April 29, 2007
- Although I don't usually recommend this, if you don't know how to format references consistently and correctly, you can use the cite templates throughout; the article uses some cite templates and has some manually formatted refs, so isn't consistent. (And PLEASE identify PDFs; I just had to restart my computer.) As to convert, the article can't be only in miles; kilometers and needed, and the convert template will deal with that as well as nowrap and WP:UNITS at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- As for the press release, the publisher is Business Wire, and I updated the reference to show that. The author of the email is Felix Kramer, the founder and director of the California Cars Initiative, who is a reliable source per WP:RS because he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (e.g. [11]). The only reason we're using the mailing list URL is because Business Wire URLs apparently only last for a year, and the direct link doesn't work any more. Responding to your bullet points in turn:
- You are absolutely right about the conversion list reference -- I have fixed it, and I apologize for overlooking it.
- This seems perfectly clear to me: publisher=Electric Auto Association, date=2007, accessed=April 25, 2007 -- I do not see the issue.
- Correct; that's why I listed it as an example of a ref that did give a publisher :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Synovate survey was part of a paper publication but I will add an accessed date anyway.
- The EAA wiki is being cited for itself, not for containing any fact. The text says that the EAA established a wiki for conversion information, and the reference is that wiki. Should it be linked inline instead of in a footnote?
- That seems preferable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Links to PDF files show up with Adobe PDF icons in both Firefox and IE for me. I am working on {{convert}} and hope to have it done in a day or two. BenB4 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- They don't show up in all old browsers; I get had when I'm on an old laptop. It's good to indicate them for other users who may be using old browsers. Striking some above; please ping me when you're ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- As for the press release, the publisher is Business Wire, and I updated the reference to show that. The author of the email is Felix Kramer, the founder and director of the California Cars Initiative, who is a reliable source per WP:RS because he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (e.g. [11]). The only reason we're using the mailing list URL is because Business Wire URLs apparently only last for a year, and the direct link doesn't work any more. Responding to your bullet points in turn:
Another issue to be addressed is the lead. It should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article (see WP:LEAD). Rather than summarizing the article, it contains detail that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article, which necessitates the introduction of citations to fairly uncontroversial statements in the lead. Reworking the lead to a summary will lower the need to cite uncontroversial info in the lead.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - Informative and engaging. Will support once the cn tags are replaced by refs. --mav 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done Two of the fact-tagged statements were actually sourced from the next reference at the end of their respective paragraphs; deleted two unsourced statements; added refs for the rest. BenB4 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
All hard data should be cited; you can accomplish this easily by using named refs. Since a lot of this is data that may change over time, covering citations with one cite in a later paragraph isn't the best way to handle it; future editors need to know the exact source of hard data, should text change or be moved around.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)I added cite needed tags as discussed in my original post, as the citations for hard data haven't yet been provided.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)- Done At present, all the cn tags have been replaced by sources. BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A hot topic. User:BenB4 has done a great job cleaning up the references. Daniel.Cardenas 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support An accurate and timely article on important emerging technology. Much credit to User:BenB4 for all the work towards cleaning up the article! --D0li0 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Has "citation needed" tags. Spamsara 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done the first two were obviously from "the same study" as the text stated; the other one is sourced to a DoE report. BenB4 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Back for another look: old cite tags have been addressed, but there's a new, unsourced paragraph. Are you planning to work on the lead?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)- Added the ref. Which statements in the lead aren't summarizing the article? I think the only part is the list of vehicle types, but those were left in the first paragraph because they were definitional. All of the other statements, including the entire second and third paragraphs, are summaries of other parts of the article. BenB4 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I struck my Oppose since most issues have been addressed. The sentence in the lead that is still troubling me is:
- While PHEVs are usually passenger vehicles, they can also be commercial passenger vans,[1] utility trucks,[2][3] school buses,[4] scooters,[5] and military vehicles.[6]
- I don't find mention of supporting text in the body of the article (perhaps I missed it?), and those seem like fairly uncontroversial facts, not warranting cluttering the lead with citations. I was hoping you'd find a way to address that content in the body of the article, so that the lead didn't have to be cluttered with citations for uncontroversial statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree those look terrible. They are what I was referring to about the list of vehicle types. I will see if I can find a way to move the references copying the sentence to another part of the article. I think there may be a good place to put it. BenB4 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Done moved the refs to Commercialization. BenB4 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree those look terrible. They are what I was referring to about the list of vehicle types. I will see if I can find a way to move the references copying the sentence to another part of the article. I think there may be a good place to put it. BenB4 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I struck my Oppose since most issues have been addressed. The sentence in the lead that is still troubling me is:
- Added the ref. Which statements in the lead aren't summarizing the article? I think the only part is the list of vehicle types, but those were left in the first paragraph because they were definitional. All of the other statements, including the entire second and third paragraphs, are summaries of other parts of the article. BenB4 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also think the patenting issues need more legal commentary - in at least some countries, technologies cannot be suppressed by the patent holder; often, companies can sue to obtain a license from the patent holder, especially in cases where the patent holder is not using the technology, as seems to be the case here. Spamsara 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article just repeats what the sources say. In the US at least, you can sit on a patent and force everyone else to refrain from using it if you want. BenB4 04:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is what people say. And I happen to think what people say is incorrect. For an FA, we'll need some better authority. Spamsara 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The author of the book source in this case, Sherry Boschert, has been a reporter for Elsevier since 1991, and is president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association. Her book is based on interviews of primary sources.[12] There is widespread agreement with her.[13] There is no question that Ovonics aggressively litigated their NiMH patents,[14] causing Toyota to withdraw their RAV4-EV. Do you know of any sources which contradict this? BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is a section in this article entitled, "patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries" which closes with the statement "Chevron and other oil-related interests suppressed the technology to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids". I'm sorry, but I don't see where you have any insight into the motives of Chevron. "to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids" - how do you know that this was their intention? Maybe they just saw what the intellectual property was worth, and bought it for that reason? Please show me how you can refute this alternative.
- Again, that is exactly what the Boschert book says. It's not my insight, it's hers, based on her interviews. Do you have any reason to believe that she is not a reliable source? BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Referring specifically to your sources, it seems by the last source you cited in your comment above that a licensing agreement was reached which would allow Toyota to distribute said batteries commencing July 1, 2007, and certain batteries for certain applications at a commercial scale commencing July 1, 2010. There is no detail on exactly what kinds of batteries each refers to, but it's clear that a licensing agreement exists: "ECD and Ovonic Battery will receive a non-refundable patent license fee of $10 million in consideration of the licenses granted to MEI/PEVE with respect to NiMH batteries for consumer applications. Cobasys will receive a non-refundable patent license fee of $20 million in consideration of the licenses granted to MEI/PEVE and Toyota, of which $4 million will be placed in escrow to be used to pay PEVE upon reaching certain milestones under the next-generation high-performance NiMH battery module development project plan." Protecting your intellectual property is not the same as "forestalling the introduction of plug-in hybrids" by deliberate and malevolent "patent encumbrance" and "suppression of technology". Please change the wording to reflect what your sources actually support. Thank you. Spamsara 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- The statement as it stands reflects Boschert's book accurately. The license was granted after it became clear that lithium ion batteries were more attractive for automotive applications. I think the statement should stay in unless you have a source which contradicts it. Speculation isn't an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I don't have immediate access to the book to see what it contains. However, since you bring up the issue of reliability of sources, I would say that one of the sites you referenced above, evworld (where ev stands for "electric vehicle") can reasonably be assumed to reflect a particular POV. My feeling is that you may have to be a little more specific about exactly the evidence is that Boschert brings forward. It's not that I disagree with the general notion that it's difficult to establish a new technology that conflicts with a multi-billion dollar industry, I would only like it to be clear what is fact and what is Boschert's POV. It seems that all the arguments you've brought forward to far I've been able to fairly easily take apart, and the problem is that if the accused object to the phrasing of the article and contect WP:OFFICE, you may find that your article will get far more heavily censored than if you had done it yourself. Please make sure that everything you say is 100% defendable, and please clearly state "Boschert argues..." where this is appropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not about THE TRUTH (tm), but only about verifiable fact, extreme accuracy, due balance, and proper attribution. Let's please get this article nice and clean, and if that is by laying out in more detail what the evidence is that Boschert brings forward, with direct attribution, and making clear what valid alternative interpretations are. For instance, licenses are often granted only after an infringement has become apparent. Nice and clean, please. Regards, Spamsara 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done I checked to make sure the statement accurately reflects what is said in the book, and I added "According to San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association President Sherry Boschert," in front of the controversial statement. BenB4 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I don't have immediate access to the book to see what it contains. However, since you bring up the issue of reliability of sources, I would say that one of the sites you referenced above, evworld (where ev stands for "electric vehicle") can reasonably be assumed to reflect a particular POV. My feeling is that you may have to be a little more specific about exactly the evidence is that Boschert brings forward. It's not that I disagree with the general notion that it's difficult to establish a new technology that conflicts with a multi-billion dollar industry, I would only like it to be clear what is fact and what is Boschert's POV. It seems that all the arguments you've brought forward to far I've been able to fairly easily take apart, and the problem is that if the accused object to the phrasing of the article and contect WP:OFFICE, you may find that your article will get far more heavily censored than if you had done it yourself. Please make sure that everything you say is 100% defendable, and please clearly state "Boschert argues..." where this is appropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not about THE TRUTH (tm), but only about verifiable fact, extreme accuracy, due balance, and proper attribution. Let's please get this article nice and clean, and if that is by laying out in more detail what the evidence is that Boschert brings forward, with direct attribution, and making clear what valid alternative interpretations are. For instance, licenses are often granted only after an infringement has become apparent. Nice and clean, please. Regards, Spamsara 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- The statement as it stands reflects Boschert's book accurately. The license was granted after it became clear that lithium ion batteries were more attractive for automotive applications. I think the statement should stay in unless you have a source which contradicts it. Speculation isn't an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is a section in this article entitled, "patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries" which closes with the statement "Chevron and other oil-related interests suppressed the technology to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids". I'm sorry, but I don't see where you have any insight into the motives of Chevron. "to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids" - how do you know that this was their intention? Maybe they just saw what the intellectual property was worth, and bought it for that reason? Please show me how you can refute this alternative.
- The author of the book source in this case, Sherry Boschert, has been a reporter for Elsevier since 1991, and is president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association. Her book is based on interviews of primary sources.[12] There is widespread agreement with her.[13] There is no question that Ovonics aggressively litigated their NiMH patents,[14] causing Toyota to withdraw their RAV4-EV. Do you know of any sources which contradict this? BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is what people say. And I happen to think what people say is incorrect. For an FA, we'll need some better authority. Spamsara 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article just repeats what the sources say. In the US at least, you can sit on a patent and force everyone else to refrain from using it if you want. BenB4 04:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.
This is a joint nomination with Everlast1910 because i think it is now worthy of FA status. It has been through a peer review and it has recently passed a GA review. Most of the comments from GA review have been corrected although one has not due to it breaking notability guidelines. Thankyou. Woodym555 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from Universe=atom
Section 9.3 can definitely expanded. It gives the name to the main article, but there is no content in itself.- I have added the following: There have been 34 captains of Aston Villa F.C. in total. The current incumbent is Gareth Barry who has been Captain since 2006. The full list of captains can be found at List of Aston Villa captains. The subpage link is, i think, self explanatory in that it lists the captains of Aston Villa. Do i need to add anything else?
Grammar mistake: "...top-flight; 128 goals scored in season 1930–31." (Section 7) Perhaps the passive voice can be used.- Done, changed to: 128 goals were scored in the 1930–31 season
Grammar: "Aston Villa Football Club was formed in March 1874 by members of the Villa Cross Wesleyan Chapel in Aston, now part of Birmingham." (section 1) Several mistakes: (1) The verb should be "were" because A.V.F.C is a collective noun, and in British English (which this article is supposed to follow), collective nouns get plural verbs. Besides, that is also how it is done in the introduction. (2) There should be commas before and after "1874." (3) It should be "which is now part of..." instead of the current "now part of..."- Done, added requested corrections
A reference is needed for the first sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction.- Done
Grammar: "By 1880 black jerseys with..." (Section 2) Comma is needed after "1880."- Done
Grammar: "No-one is quite sure why claret..." (Section 2) No hyphen is needed.- Done, changed to nobody
The second to-last paragraph of Section 2 needs several references, as these theories can be severely challenged. A reference is provided at the end of the paragraph, but that only pertains to that one sentence.- Done, deleted Barton Arms statements as no verifiable reference (or any mention of it) could be found. I changed and referenced the Scottish angle.
Major mistake: Section 3 should be renamed to "Stadium" from the current "Stadia." The reason is that the noun "stadium" is not derived from the Latin second declension neuter. So, the singular is "stadium," and the plural is "stadiums."- Done, i didn't name it that in the first place!
Grammar: "Aston Villa's first match was against the local Aston Brook St Mary's Rugby team and as a condition of the match, the Villa side had to agree to play the first half under rugby rules and the second half under football rules." (Section 1) A comma is required between two independent clauses.- Done, changed into two sentences
Grammar: "As with all English clubs, the Second World War brought about the loss of seven seasons and several careers were brought to a premature end by the conflict." (Section 1) Same as previous one.- Done
Grammar: "The club was floated by the previous owner and chairman Doug Ellis but in 2006 full control of the club was acquired by Randy Lerner." (Lead) Same as previous one.- Done
Grammar: "They returned to the second division as Champions the following year and they continued to rise all the way into the First Division and Europe in 1977." (Section 1) Same as previous one.- Done
Grammar: "The traditional motto "Prepared" remains in the crest and the name Aston Villa has been shortened to AVFC, FC having been omitted from the previous crest." (Section 2) Same as previous one.- Done
Grammar: "The club was floated on the stock market in 1996 and the share price fluctuated in the ten years prior to the flotation." (Section 4) Same as previous one.- Done
Grammar: "With mounting debts and Villa lying at the bottom of Division Two; the board sacked Cummings and within weeks the entire board resigned due to overwhelming pressure from fans." (Section 1) Two major grammar mistakes: (1) Same as previous one. (2) No semicolon is needed; a comma would do instead.- Done
Grammar: "Aston Villa won their sixth FA Cup in 1920 although soon after the club began a slow decline that led to Villa, at the time one of the most famous and successful clubs in world football being relegated for the first time to the Second Division in 1936." (Section 1) I still do not understand what this sentence means. Several commas should be added throughout the sentence in order to give it a legible prose.- Done, changed to Aston Villa won their sixth FA Cup in 1920, soon after though the club began a slow decline that led to Villa, at the time one of the most famous and successful clubs in world football, being relegated in 1936 for the first time to the Second Division.
"To everyone's surprise, Saunders quit halfway through..." Perhaps some PoV is suggested by "To everyone's surprise".- Done, changed to: To the surprise of commentators and fans,
"Villa reached the FA Cup final in 2000 (for the first time since 1957), but lost 1–0 to Chelsea in the last game to be played at the old Wembley Stadium." (Section 1) No comma is needed between compound verbs.- Done
"After 23 years as chairman and single biggest shareholder (approx 38%), Doug Ellis finally decided to sell his stake in Aston Villa to Randy Lerner the owner of NFL franchise, the Cleveland Browns." (Section 1) Several mistakes: (1) "Approx" should be written out to "approximately". (2) A comma is needed before nonessential appositives, this time after "Randy Lerner." (3) A comma is not needed before essential appositives; this time, the one after "franchise" should be removed.- Done
Grammar: "...on May 2nd for..." (Section 2) I think that "May 2" would suffice.- Done, changed to 2 May
Grammar: "The new training ground was officially unveiled on May 6, 2007 by..." (Section 3) Commas are required after years."- Done
Grammar: "On August 14, 2006 it was confirmed that..." (Section 4) Same as previous one.- Done
Grammar: "He also appointed himself Chairman of theclub." (Section 4) Obvious mistake.- Done
A few more references are needed in the beginning of Section 4 for all that statistical data.- Not Done, all the data is contained within the reference closest to the data. As per MOS i have not duplicated references within the paragraph.
I am sure that all these mistakes can be fixed easily (most of them, at least). After all of my concerns have been take care of, I will vote "Support." Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- My first replies are listed Woodym555 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have now corrected all of your requests although the expansion of section 9.3 is still open to debate. I would now appreciate any further comments. Thankyou for your diligence and attention to detail. Woodym555 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Support: Now that the points that I raised are taken care of, the article is much better and surely worthy of FA status. Cheers. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 09:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
*Minor Oppose A few small things. Club honours needs ref. Not sure "Current reserve/Youth team players" is really notable. The Captains article is linked twice in the space of three lines. Some of the coaching staff sound a bit too minor to be notable. Why not list all the Managers? Lose the See also section. Don't really need the Traditional Home Kit image since it's in the lead infobox, maybe you could replace it with there first ever kit. Ditto the Current crest image. Buc 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Club honours:Done, added ref to each subsection
- Captains:Done, removed last sentence
- Coaching Staff:Done up to a point; I have removed two entries, the others all have articles on Wikipedia therefore meet notability guidelines. Gordan Cowans for example is a youth team coach but he was a great player in his own right.
- Managers:Not Done, there have been maany managers in Villa's history, it has been recommended in the past peer reviw and GA article to remove it to a subsection. Also many managers did not achieve much with Villa, as such i am inclined to leave it as a subpage.
- See Also:Done, removed
- Kit and Crest:Changed kit, the crest is there to show the progression of the crest, its evolution, and as such i think it is an important part of the section.
- My replies are listed. I have now fixed what i can and commented on your problems that i haven't fixed, i have added in the proposed kit of 1886 instead of the chocolate kit. I would now appreciate any further comments. Thankyou Woodym555 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Support: Disclaimer: I am the GA reviewer of the article. The article is in good shape but for a few minor kinks that i want the nominator to address:
Provide reference to the club being called The Villans - first sentence in the lead section- Done, added reference
Provide reference to the victory in the Birmingham Senior Cup- Done, added reference from AVFC Hall of fame
The Ownership section doesn't provide data on pre-1968 data. Please add the same- Done, added brief history paragraph as little is known, shares were bought and sold, Ellis was really the only significant buyer in its history
"The club was floated on the stock market in 1996, and the share price fluctuated in the ten years prior to the flotation." - shouldn't it be "since" instead of "prior to"?- Done, changed to after, as it is no longer floated
"Randy Lerner took full control on September 18 as Randy Lerner had 89.69% of the share. On September 19, 2006, Aston Villa PLC executive Chairman Doug Ellis and his board resigned to be replaced with a new board headed by Randy Lerner.[30]" - replace "Randy Lerner" with "Lerner"- Done
MCMXIV - either add Wikiarticle (atleast stub) or remove wikilink- Done, created stub
[49] - add a sentence before the link or move the link to an appropriate place. Suggestion on sentence: "Aston Villa has won European and domestic league honours, though the last of it was in 1996 (League Cup winners).[49] The club won the FA Youth Cup in 2002"As a sub point, consider moving FA Youth Cup as a seperate category instead of it being under Domestic --Kalyan 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)- Done, i have created a sub-section within the cups area, I have also created the sentence as per the main point.
- I have fixed all of your queries and replied underneath. Thankyou again for your comments. Woodym555 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- All comments have been addressed --Kalyan 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have fixed all of your queries and replied underneath. Thankyou again for your comments. Woodym555 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man
editSorry, late to join the party, my comments...
- References [3], [4], [26] should be moved to right-hand side of punctuation.
- Done
- On a similar but personal note, I'd expect to see the first reference in the lead be [1], not [3]. Looks a bit odd, I think, while I realise the infobox comes first in the markup, perhaps the citation could be made elsewhere in the text?
- Not done, i agree with you that it is unusual but that is the wikimarkup, the infobox needs to be referenced and so it must be so.
- "the The Villans" in first sentence - off to a bad start!
- Done (whoops)
- "...club was floated by the..." - needs a touch of explanation for the non-expert - perhaps just "...on the London Stock Exchange..." needs to be added... (unless the club is a sea-faring vehicle).
- Wikilinked to both
- "...on 2 May for the 2007–2008 season..." needs to be consistent with rest of the article in both date and season formats.
- Done, cleared up consistency here and in other places
- "plc" or "PLC"? Consistency required.
- Done
- 1990s or 1990's (and similar decade declarations) - again, consistency needed.
- Done, consistently "0s" now
- £13 million or GB£3m? Consistency again. Plus, no need to wikilink GB£ so many times.
- Done, removed the plethora of wikilinks, replaced with GB£ for all but one
- "...Names in bold are Villa Park board members..." - they're all bold, so any need for this?
- No there isn't now, there used to be, so deleted "bold" statement
- The lead talks of "Second City Derby" while the "See also:" says "Birmingham Derby" - consistency.
- fixed by adding (also known as ...) in the lead
- No citation for the Hannibal Lector claim.
- Deleted it, quite random anyway, (must have been added when i wasn't watching)
- "...fictional "Aston Wanderers" During episodes ..." - grammar.
- Done, fixed typo.
- No need for bold on Aston Villa in statistics - I assume it's wikilinked, so unlink it.
- Done
- Refs [53] to [55] look untidy, either move to either side of colon or move to end of seasons.
- They are footnots explaing about the name change with regards to Division one etc, as such i have left for the moment.
- FC vs F.C. - template uses FC, article uses F.C., in general the article just uses Aston Villa, the Captains section is on its own when it uses "Aston Villa F.C."...
- fixed consistency
- Why all the small text in the notable players section? If it's worth saying, say it in normal size!
- Done, upgraded to normal size
- Notable managers table - looks untidy, make Name, Nationality and Period columns one line deep and let the Honours column go as deep as it needs.
- I'm not sure being "First manager under Randy Lerner" is a recognisable honour...!
- Done, albeit begrudgingly, not a notable manager with Aston Villa in his own right, (not yet anyway)
Let me know if there's anything more I can help with, hope some of this has been useful. The Rambling Man 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have added my first replies, i have fixed everything except the table which as i am unsure of your intentions. I have left a note on your talk page. Woodym555 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Cas Liber (and page break for ease of adding)
editNice but the prose still needs some massaging -I'll try to list: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The club was founded in 1874 and have played at the club's current home ground, Villa Park, since 1897 - "club" repetitive - try "Founded in 1874, the club have played at Villa Park, their current home ground, since 1897" Done (Everlast1910 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Aston Villa were founding members of Football League in 1888 and of the Premier League in 1992. - insert "the" before Football league and take out "of" before "the Premier League" Done (Everlast1910 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- ..clubs to win the European Cup, in 1982. - I know its succinct but "clubs to win the European Cup, (which they did) in 1982." scans better Done (Everlast1910 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- All the above have now been addressed and fixed! (Everlast1910 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Great - sorry got interrupted before and now I'll keep looking. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Villa were one of the founding members of the Premier League and in 1993, the inaugural season Aston Villa finished runners-up to Manchester United. - I think the commas got mixed up here - try "Villa were one of the founding members of the Premier League in 1993, and finished runners-up to Manchester United in the inaugural season." Done
- Villa Park has hosted a number of England internationals at senior level. The first of which was in 1899, the most recent being in 2005. In all it has hosted 16 international matches. - a bit repetitive - could be more succinct with "Villa Park has hosted 16 England internationals at senior level, the first in 1899, and the most recent in 2005." Done
- The Club have planning permission to extend the North Stand. This will involve the 'filling in' of the corners to either side of the North Stand. - the first sentnece is a bit short; I'd use a semicolon between them. Done
- Villa Park was the first English ground to stage international football in three different centuries. - out of place where it is, should go after the segemnt on 16 internationals, and replace "Villa Park was" with "Thus it was" Done
Villa, also have a training ground at Bodymoor Heath in north Warwickshire. The training ground site was purchased by former Aston Villa Chairman Doug Ellis in the early 1970s from the farmer who owned the land. -eek! Try "The current training ground is located at Bodymoor Heath in north Warwickshire, the site for which was purchased by former Chairman Doug Ellis in the early 1970s from a local farmer." Done
- I have implemented your suggestions for the above comments. Any further comments are most welcome. Thanks Woodym555 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, Support then. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.
This article has evolved quite a lot over the past months, and it has recently undergone a thorough peer review here. Having checked the FA criteria, I'm confident it's now a promising candidate for featured status. The topic is certainly important - general relativity is one of the fundamental theories of modern physics; on the other hand, the main article general relativity is necessarily quite technical. This article is meant to fill the gap and provide an accessible introduction that is suitable for a general audience. As I have contributed to the article's recent overhaul, this is a self-nomination. Markus Poessel 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support and thank you so much. I've been trying to get my head around 'the' big theory of the 20th century for years, to no avail. This article, for some reason, actually makes sense! Nicely illustrated. The only comments I'd make is 1. "the gravitational deflection of light:" - isn't this effect observed when massive bodies pass in front of stars making them appear to move slightly to the observer - Is this observed during eclipses? perhaps a mention. 2. I did once read an analogy of curved spacetime as like a gridded sheet of rubber stretched flat onto which heavy (massive) spheres were placed. Objects moving along the sheet were then deflected in their paths by the resultant curvatures. I've no idea how accurate the analogy is, but it made for a useful graphic. Thanks again. --Joopercoopers 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome - and thanks for your support! Gravitational deflection of light is indeed observed as you describe, and I have now included a sentence about eclipses – thanks for the suggestion! I would like to keep the rubber sheet out of this, though. In my opinion (and in the opinion of all relativists to whom I have talked about this), it creates more problems than it solves. It has a number of confusing aspects (e.g. if gravity is the distortion of the rubber sheet, what makes the heavy sphere sink into the rubber sheet?) and is somewhat misleading in its main physics message (in fact, the deflection of objects that are forced to orbit around the sun is due almost exclusively to time distortions - the rubber sheet image suggests [wrongly] that space distortions are to blame). Markus Poessel 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for keeping rubber sheets out of most discussions! :-) --Joopercoopers 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeComment (see below). This piece strikes a wonderful balance between theoretical literacy and accessibility. While I can image the pitched battles that must have occurred on general relativity with regard to striking such a balance, Wikipedia is not a textbook — information on the same topic shouldn't be mirrored across several pages. I would, however, suggest introducing this page to Simple English wikipedia. Madcoverboy 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The creation of introductory articles is explicitly recommended by Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Since the example given on that page is Introduction to special relativity, it would be difficult to argue that Introduction to general relativity does not meet the same criteria. That style guideline, by the way, is not in conflict with Wikipedia is not a textbook, which only tells us that an article should not read like a textbook – it shouldn't be written in textbook style, with leading questions, step-by-step problem solutions, and so on. Markus Poessel 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than being "explicitly recommended" the page reads "it may be appropriate...(depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it)." I do not believe it is appropriate when it seems that little has been done to improve the primary page before forking the content. The general relativity page, while thorough, is not as readable as this intro article and lacks examples that this article has. A similar situation applies to the special relativity page and the other "introduction" pages I reviewed. I don't understand how the content in both the "primary" and "introduction" pages couldn't be merged and with judicious use of summary style with regard to both technical formulae as well as explanations/examples to make one excellent page providing an overview on the topic.Madcoverboy 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Come on chaps, this is a mindbendingly difficult subject for the lay reader and a good case for WP:IAR - the rules that apply to articles about computer games shouldn't be applied here. I'm the last to suggest we dumb down wikipedia but; 1. The general relativity article isn't here for consideration, it's the introduction. 2. This is a very important subject which most people don't have a grasp of. 3. to have a concise, accessible text for the lay reader is 'an example of our best work'. --Joopercoopers 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Especially since I don't think we are ignoring the rules. The guideline lists Introduction to special relativity as its example for a case where a "trampoline" page is appropriate. It's hard to see why general relativity should be treated differently. Markus Poessel 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Having done more research and searching, its apparent that this phenomena of "Introduction to x" is more prevalent than I thought. Per WP:WIAFA, an "introduction" article should fail 1(b) because it is necessarily non-comprehensive if it is just an introduction. In other words, if it is an introduction, why not put it into the introduction of the primary article? I continue to take issue with the content fork and
consensus-cum-resignationresignation-cum-consensus (see WP:BIAS) to leaving the primary articles of important scientific concepts as bastions of impenetrable mathematics and technical jargon while developing excellent articles like this that should be included on the primary article in the first place. However, FAC is not the appropriate forum to debate this apparent consensus on content forks, so I withdraw my opposition.Madcoverboy 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Thanks. In this particular case, I hope that consensus-cum-resignation will not be an issue, anyway. Trying to improve the main article general relativity is next on my to-do-list after this FA candidacy is finished. --Markus Poessel 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Bravo. –Outriggr § 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on principle since it is an introductory article and in fact nominate for deletion/merge into main article. I have no complaint with the article content other than that it is an "introduction to" article for another article. I do not believe there should be two articles on every topic, one and introduction and one the full article - instead the one article should be made readable and useful to the average person. Science is no harder to explain to the layman than artistic or architectural movements, it simply needs to be done correctly. In any area of expertise there are conventions, terminologies and ideas that are unfamiliar to the lay reader. A good encyclopedia article discusses the subject anyway and makes it live. A good scientist is no more intelligent and able to grasp ideas than a good artist, mathematician, linguist, historian, whatever, and it is scientific conceit to suppose otherwise. General relativity may not have been trivial to figure out from first principles, but it is trivial to understand when explained properly. If an article is difficult to understand, fix the article, don't create a dumbed-down version of it. The problem here is that the main article on this topic is written by scientists for scientists, rather than for the layman. Each wikipedia article should make no preconceptions of the reader and if the reader cannot follow the article, then that is the article's fault, not the reader's. Give an eloquent enough writer the article Schwarzschild metric to work on and they could make it live for the reader. I am in absolute opposition to any article reaching FA that is effectively a dumbed-down version of another article. I can't understand why this wasn't addressed at the article's outset rather than on its FA candidacy- PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I should also point out that a lot of the hard science that it is argued must be included in the article could more properly be included in daughter articles or "proof of general realtivity" or "development of the theory of general relativity" or suchlike - an encyclopedia article should be about the phenomenon itself primarily, not about the work that went into inventing/discovering/proposing it. For example, I would expect an article on the Roman Empire, to be about the Roman empire primarily, not about the history of thought and archaeology that has built our modern view of it. By all means, again, put this is a "history of the development of the theory of general relativity" or similar, but the primary article out to be about what general relativity is, and what general relativity is can and shoudl be able to be explained simply in the main article without recourse to "dumbed down" and "science members only" versions - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
rest of discussion moved to talk, please continue discussing there, as the discussion has moved beyond the scope of this particular FAC Spamsara 04:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeComment I have to agree with Dan. It's indicative of a problem if an article needs an introductory article. To quote Charles Van Doren, "The ideal reader of an encyclopedia should be primarily the curious average man. He should only secondarily be the specialist and/or the high school student." Atropos 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yet this article is exactly what is required for the "curious average man"... –Outriggr § 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why it should be found at general relativity. Atropos 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yet this article is exactly what is required for the "curious average man"... –Outriggr § 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since you agree with Dan, would you consider also changing your vote to "Oppose on principle"? After all, you are not objecting to anything that can be addressed by improving this particular article - only complete withdrawal of the nomination will do. The discussion about "Introduction to...", yes or no, has now moved to the discussion page, so I'll be replying there. --Markus Poessel 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed it to comment. The (in my opinion, very poor) way the science-inclined are handling their wing of the encyclopedia should not effect the question of whether this content is among our best. Atropos 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support, with qualifications I think the authors have done a good job on this article, although perhaps not yet FAC level. Here are some major gaps that I see immediately, even as a beginner to GR:
- I would argue that most (not all) of what you note below is not about gaps (let alone major gaps), but about how much detail there should be on topics for which other, more thorough, dedicated articles exist. In the current version of "Intro to GR", I have deliberately tried to keep matters as brief as possible - have a look at the article's talk page; brevity was being called for by the other editors. My personal preference would be to indeed include some more information on the topics you mention, so I will take your comments as
an excuse to follow my inclinationsa valuable suggestion to be followed. In consequence (and in reaction to your more specific comments, below) I have now expanded that section, and all the major astrophysics themes have gotten their own subsections. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- No significant treatment of the cosmological constant; this is an egregious omission, especially given that it's oft quoted ("my greatest blunder") and recent observations that it is not zero. Bonus points for discussing connection to wormholes! :)
- You are right; the cosmological constant should, indeed, be mentioned. Fixed. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cosmology deserves its own section, separate from "Astrophysical applications". The lengths scales involved (1 stellar radius vs. billions of light-years) between black hole formation and the shape/origin of the universe suggest that these concepts do not belong in the same section. The average lay-person may also care more about the "Big Bang" than about black holes.
- As they're both clearly part of astrophysics, as long as there is a section on astrophysics, that is where they belong, no? And remember that there are even subjects like "astro-particle physics" where the length-scales are as disparate as it gets. However, I hope the compromise solution that is now implemented is acceptable to you: All the major astrophysics subjects get their own subsections (and a somewhat more detailed description), so that the black holes are not lumped together with the expanding universes as closely as before. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, light deflection and the consequent gravitational lensing did not originate with GR, although GR got its magnitude correct.
- I will address this later, in reply to comments to that effect made below by another reviewer. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Frame-dragging and geodetic effects deserve some kind of mention, given the recent Gravity probe B results.
- Sure. But they do get mentioned in the current version, do they not? Including GPB (with link and reference) and the dates of the preliminary/final results? I do agree it should be mentioned, but I would hesitate to give it broader coverage (it is a rather special topic). --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps a separate section for black holes and the "no hair" theorem? The public is curious about them. A passing references to the Schwarzschild metric, Kerr metric, etc. would be nice, perhaps as a {{See also}} header.
- Again, a passing references to Schwarzschild is present in the current version. I have added a reference to Kerr. Also, having now given black holes a subsection of their own under "Astrophysical applications", I have worked in the "no hair" theorem as part of that. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would argue that most (not all) of what you note below is not about gaps (let alone major gaps), but about how much detail there should be on topics for which other, more thorough, dedicated articles exist. In the current version of "Intro to GR", I have deliberately tried to keep matters as brief as possible - have a look at the article's talk page; brevity was being called for by the other editors. My personal preference would be to indeed include some more information on the topics you mention, so I will take your comments as
- Contrary to some of the "Opposes" aboves, I think this article is essential. We would do our readers a disservice by trying cram too much into the General relativity article. Anyone who understands this subject realizes how difficult it is to explain, and why a stepwise approach is essential. One of Wikipedia's strengths is its (effectively) unlimited space, which I think we should harness for explaining difficult subjects such as general relativity. Willow 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contrary to all of the current "Opposed". So far, no-one has opposed other than on principle, and I'm proud of that :-) --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS. I included some introductory material at Kepler problem in general relativity; please take whatever might be useful to you! :) Willow 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments – it's a refreshing change to find someone making suggestions that can actually be addressed by improving the article in question. I'll address them over the coming days; for today I have (frustratingly) spent my Wikipedia time on warding of Wiki-Unitarianism ("there can only be one!"). --Markus Poessel 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I cannot believe what I am reading here. Wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopedia and can invent its own style. Because wikipedia is not paper, it has the luxury of being able to address more groups of readers than a traditional encyclopedia. We should embrace that, not reject it. As Jimbo Wales has said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." The "sum of all human knowledge" includes a real page on general relativity (with all of the math that I never studied) and a general-relativity-lite page for readers like myself. I, for one, am extremely grateful to the editors for all of the work they have put into this excellent article and am startled that others see only problems here. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- PocklingtonDan writes, "general relativity may not have been trivial to figure out from first principles, but it is trivial to understand when explained properly". I do not think that this is true. As I understand it, if one graduates with a BS in physics, one still does not understand general relativity very well (if at all); it is a course taken only by graduate students who need it for their subfield. Not all physics professors could teach it; general relativity is not the pulleys and levers of classical mechanics. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Atroops quotes Charles Van Doren (in what context, we don't know): "The ideal reader of an encyclopedia should be primarily the curious average man. He should only secondarily be the specialist and/or the high school student." - The "curious average man" is an impossible construct; it also leaves out half of the population. I would like to point out to Atroops that the editors of this page have very carefully considered their audience. It was discussed at the peer review. I was struck with how thoughtful the editor's comments were on that topic; few editors stop to consider their readership so carefully. Perhaps Atroops has neglected to read the peer review? Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Let us look at the WP:FACR:
- 1. "It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable."
- (a) This article is exceptionally well-written for a wikipedia article.
- (b) I cannot comment on the article's comprehensiveness, not being a physicist myself, but Willow has provided us with that assessment.
- (c) The article is properly sourced to academic works and even provides references for the curious non-expert. I wish all wikipedia editors were so considerate.
- (d) I believe the article to be neutral; no far-flung theories of relativity seem to be here, but Willow can speak to that better than I can.
- (e) The article is stable; only minor changes, such as dashes, have been made to the page in the last week or so.
- 2. "It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects."
- (a) It has an excellent lead.
- (b) It has a clear and helpful organizational structure.
- (c) Its TOC does not dominate the page.
- (d) It has consistent citations.
- 3. "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
- This article has exceptionally helpful images, all of which are in the public domain.
- 4. "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
- For an introduction, this article does an excellent job of balancing detail with summary. I have read many explanations of general relativity for the layman (in popular science books such as The Elegant Universe). This is one of the best I have ever read. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would also like to quote from the explanation of "supporting and objecting" on WP:FAC itself: "If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by the reason(s). 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."
- I would like to suggest that Raul ignore the opposes that do not do this. Objections based on principle do not belong at FAC. You cannot oppose an article because you do not like the idea of it. That way lies censorship. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong - there is something that can be done to address the objection, which is to merge the two articles into one single article ont he same topic, which is exactly what I proposed in my initial comment. Just because you are unwilling to address this issue doesn't mean that it cannot be addressed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I addressed this issue in my opening comments. See WP:MP if you want to propose a merger. This is not the forum for such a discussion. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could be wrong (and would certainly welcome correction) but I doubt that any previous article having reached FA-status so easily submitted to being merged into a lesser article and thus losing the status. Once (if?) this reaches FA and I nominate it to be merged with General relativity in good faith, would these talented editors so easily amputate their accomplishment? We would be having the same conversation, only now perhaps there is more participation and better chance of reaching a consensus (Linus's Law) on whether this is the type of article that should be held as an example for all others to strive for. In my opinion, it is not because we shouldn't encourage spinout topics targeting different audiences (although, different levels of detail, per summary style, is obviously acceptable). Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree that the "excellent work [smack], now do it again" aspect of an immediate merger proposal would probably move me to oppose merger, even in the absence of other arguments (which I have laid out on the discussion page). I would ask you to be patient for a few weeks (possibly months); as I said, one of my next goals is to improve the main article general relativity, hopefully to the point of FA status. Once we're there (whether this introduction makes FA or gets shot down on principle, never mind the guidelines), at least the hurdle of merging articles in different stages of development would be removed, and a merger discussion could indeed concentrate on the more fundamental question of "Introduction to...". --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could be wrong (and would certainly welcome correction) but I doubt that any previous article having reached FA-status so easily submitted to being merged into a lesser article and thus losing the status. Once (if?) this reaches FA and I nominate it to be merged with General relativity in good faith, would these talented editors so easily amputate their accomplishment? We would be having the same conversation, only now perhaps there is more participation and better chance of reaching a consensus (Linus's Law) on whether this is the type of article that should be held as an example for all others to strive for. In my opinion, it is not because we shouldn't encourage spinout topics targeting different audiences (although, different levels of detail, per summary style, is obviously acceptable). Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I addressed this issue in my opening comments. See WP:MP if you want to propose a merger. This is not the forum for such a discussion. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong - there is something that can be done to address the objection, which is to merge the two articles into one single article ont he same topic, which is exactly what I proposed in my initial comment. Just because you are unwilling to address this issue doesn't mean that it cannot be addressed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest that Raul ignore the opposes that do not do this. Objections based on principle do not belong at FAC. You cannot oppose an article because you do not like the idea of it. That way lies censorship. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest that opposers of this article seriously consider what they are doing. There are many FAC's that need reviewing. Do they really believe that this page is so detrimental to wikipedia that it should not exist and thus merits this extensive discussion? I cannot see that having two pages on general relativity (one of the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century) is really such a problem. Those who want to read a layperson's introduction can read this and those who want a more advanced understanding can read the mathematical article. Who cares that they are not the same article (which would be huge if they were)? Why does this matter so much? If you don't want a technical article, don't read that one. Having both only enhances wikipedia. Please articulate a cogent argument for the harm done with these two articles. I don't see it. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is exactly because there are two pages on the same topic, each pandering to a specific audience that is a problem. As I said before, there is a resignation-cum-consensus (maybe I had that causation reversed in an earlier comment?) on wikipedia owing to systematic bias that it's "ok" to have impenetrable and contextless pages on mathematical and technical minutae, even on the most fundamental topics like this that leads us to the current situation wherein we are writing second articles within an encyclopedia simply to describe the first page of an encyclopedia. It's madness! Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe that the problem is "impenetrable and contextless pages on mathematical and technical minutae", you should support this page and suggest that general relativity be deleted (if you achieve its deletion, this one will be renamed "general relativity"). There is no reason to complain about the more accessible article, is there? Awadewit | talk 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is exactly because there are two pages on the same topic, each pandering to a specific audience that is a problem. As I said before, there is a resignation-cum-consensus (maybe I had that causation reversed in an earlier comment?) on wikipedia owing to systematic bias that it's "ok" to have impenetrable and contextless pages on mathematical and technical minutae, even on the most fundamental topics like this that leads us to the current situation wherein we are writing second articles within an encyclopedia simply to describe the first page of an encyclopedia. It's madness! Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest that opposers of this article seriously consider what they are doing. There are many FAC's that need reviewing. Do they really believe that this page is so detrimental to wikipedia that it should not exist and thus merits this extensive discussion? I cannot see that having two pages on general relativity (one of the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century) is really such a problem. Those who want to read a layperson's introduction can read this and those who want a more advanced understanding can read the mathematical article. Who cares that they are not the same article (which would be huge if they were)? Why does this matter so much? If you don't want a technical article, don't read that one. Having both only enhances wikipedia. Please articulate a cogent argument for the harm done with these two articles. I don't see it. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I quote from one of the commenters: "This piece strikes a wonderful balance between theoretical literacy and accessibility." I cannot believe that someone who wrote this would want to stand in the way of the article becoming an FA or discourage the writing of other such articles. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still continue to oppose the article on principle because content forking inevitably leads to fiefdoms and incompatibility/contradiction. If the current "General Relativity" page was instead "Mathematics of general relativity" or "Theoretical constructs of general relativity" or some such technical subject and this "Introduction" page was instead the primary "General Relativity" article, I would have absolutely no opposition. I will respond to Markus' comprehensive response in due time on the talk page, but we should absolutely discourage the writing of other such introduction articles and instead focus on improving the original articles. Madcoverboy 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is a semantic game with no real point. Awadewit | talk 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still continue to oppose the article on principle because content forking inevitably leads to fiefdoms and incompatibility/contradiction. If the current "General Relativity" page was instead "Mathematics of general relativity" or "Theoretical constructs of general relativity" or some such technical subject and this "Introduction" page was instead the primary "General Relativity" article, I would have absolutely no opposition. I will respond to Markus' comprehensive response in due time on the talk page, but we should absolutely discourage the writing of other such introduction articles and instead focus on improving the original articles. Madcoverboy 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Adding evidence for my claims above: Here is a link to MIT's introduction to general relativity class. It is a graduate class; there is no "introduction to general relativity" class for undergraduates, only an "introduction to special relativity". Here is some of the knowledge required to take the class: "The course catalog lists 18.03 (differential equations), 18.06 (linear algebra), and 8.07 (electricity and magnetism) as prerequisites. Students should also be familiar with Lagrangians and action principles, Green's functions, and numerical analysis (some homework assignments will require the numerical solution of systems of differential equations)." Awadewit | talk 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what argument is being expounded with this evidence, but having been an undergraduate at MIT, allow me to address this hearsay. I can say with certainty that general and special relativity were covered in an introductory manner in 8.01 and 8.02 (intro physics classes required of all MIT undergraduates) and were developed more in 8.03 (Optics & Waves) and 8.033 (Relativity) which are the introductory classes for Physics majors. Likewise, there is an evening seminar for undergraduates entitled 8.224 Exploring Black Holes: General Relativity and Astrophysics. The prerequisites for these classes are Calculus and differential equations, and despite the arcane names, Lagrangians, Green's functions, and numerical analysis are likewise covered in any calc-based physics and DiffyQ class worth its weight. So no, general relativity isn't so complex that even MIT undergraduates couldn't possibly grasp the mathematics. Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quoting myself from above: "As I understand it, if one graduates with a BS in physics, one still does not understand general relativity very well (if at all); it is a course taken only by graduate students who need it for their subfield." - This is the claim being supported. I recognize that relativity in general is covered in a fleeting manner in 8.01 (I'm watching the lectures as we write) and 8.033, but again please read the statement. My point is that no "introduction to general relativity" class can be taught to undergraduates and the level of mathematics required for it goes beyond the "average curious reader". An entire class on "Introduction to special relativity" can be taught to undergraduates. Are you a physics major, by the way? I would like your opinion on whether or not undergraduate physics majors really understand general relativity - I have repeatedly heard it stated that they do not. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what argument is being expounded with this evidence, but having been an undergraduate at MIT, allow me to address this hearsay. I can say with certainty that general and special relativity were covered in an introductory manner in 8.01 and 8.02 (intro physics classes required of all MIT undergraduates) and were developed more in 8.03 (Optics & Waves) and 8.033 (Relativity) which are the introductory classes for Physics majors. Likewise, there is an evening seminar for undergraduates entitled 8.224 Exploring Black Holes: General Relativity and Astrophysics. The prerequisites for these classes are Calculus and differential equations, and despite the arcane names, Lagrangians, Green's functions, and numerical analysis are likewise covered in any calc-based physics and DiffyQ class worth its weight. So no, general relativity isn't so complex that even MIT undergraduates couldn't possibly grasp the mathematics. Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I quote from one of the commenters: "This piece strikes a wonderful balance between theoretical literacy and accessibility." I cannot believe that someone who wrote this would want to stand in the way of the article becoming an FA or discourage the writing of other such articles. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- While I do not want to pass judgment on what MIT undergraduates can and cannot possibly grasp, I certainly welcome the support for my claim that an article on gr that meets the needs of beginning undergraduates (one of the sections of Wikipedia's readership) does require technical material (namely calculus and differential equations) that is not accessible to a general audience (the other important section of readership we are talking about here). --Markus Poessel 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This whole argument about MIT course materials seems extremely pointless to me. What MIT instructors decide to teach their students should not influence editorial decisions in Wikipedia. And basic calculus is not exactly a specialised field of mathematics. Anyone who studied math in high-school knows what differential equations are, if not special techniques to solve them. What this article needs is more respect for the average readers intellect. The aricle Introduction to special relativity ends at the doorstep of general relativity, by mentioning that the Minowski metric is globally valid only for flat spacetime and that this is extended in GTR by the field equation which can be solved to find the metric tensor (a term that has been intuitively explained earlier in the article as a distance formula, an extension of the Pythagorean theorem) in the space surrounding a given mass distribution. This is quite accessible (once you have read the whole article) and manages to explain something concrete to the reader about GTR in just one line: a perfect starting point for an introduction to general relativity. It allows the reader to leave with an understanding, not simply facts. I don't know the math of GTR, or I'll have tried something similar for this article. Loom91 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm afraid that the majority of the population in the United States, anyway, does not know basic calculus (see my examples below). My high school, for example, offered a single course which very few people took. I didn't go to one of those fancy-schmancy suburban high schools with a plethora of mathematics and science courses. Nor do most students, I think. I would like to think that all this article needs is "more respect for the average reader's intellect" (inserting apostrophe), but part of the problem is simply the knowledge you need to begin this article. Many readers will not be able to understand this article (that would include almost all of the freshmen I have ever taught). Might you describe the reader who you think is going to read this page? Awadewit | talk 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- How strange! I know that the American education system is more... elementary than most others, but I didn't think that you could get through without ever touching calculus! In India (and in most other countries I'm aware of) calculus of functions of a single real variable (including an introduction to differential equations) is compulsory for all mathematics students in the country. Students of physics additionally have to study some basic vector calculus to deal with electrodynamics. Students of statistics have to study optimisation of functions of several real variables. This means that undergraduate math courses (I'm speaking from the first-year IIT syllabus) start calculus from somewhere close to Taylor expansions.
- Here, course material does not vary from school to school. There are many eeducational boards (differing ostly in details of curriculum and standard of examination), but under any one the syllabus is the same in all schools. In addition, students aspiring for one of the more advanced engineering entrance examinations have likely learned more advanced calculus (say at the level of Apostol). Perhaps my perspective is biased and the global situation is not like this, but as far as I know IB students also have to compulsorily study calculus. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm afraid that the majority of the population in the United States, anyway, does not know basic calculus (see my examples below). My high school, for example, offered a single course which very few people took. I didn't go to one of those fancy-schmancy suburban high schools with a plethora of mathematics and science courses. Nor do most students, I think. I would like to think that all this article needs is "more respect for the average reader's intellect" (inserting apostrophe), but part of the problem is simply the knowledge you need to begin this article. Many readers will not be able to understand this article (that would include almost all of the freshmen I have ever taught). Might you describe the reader who you think is going to read this page? Awadewit | talk 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support and remind FA director that oppositions "on principle" should be ignored because they can not be resolved by edits to the article. BenB4 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (was initially a support, then withdrawn, now supporting under a new section Carcharoth 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)) - [support] on principle (does that mean this can be ignored?). Seriously, I read it, I liked it, it was good. Wikipedia shouldn't get too technical, but it should sometimes offer a range of choices for readers. Not a suitable way to treat every subject, but it seems to work well here. Carcharoth 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- And about the summary style concerns. I see this article as a spin-off from the main article and part of a series on the topic. See Template:General_relativity. This way of structuring the article series fits and it works. No need to fix it if it isn't broken. Carcharoth 18:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am mildly concerned though that the description of Eddington's experiment is dumbed down too much. The paragraph links to Tests of general relativity#Deflection of light by the Sun, but the summary in the introduction article fails to say or make clear enough the following: (a) Newton's theories also predict a deflection (half the value predicted in Einsteinian physics); (b) the doubt surrounding Eddington's results; (c) how Eddington's 'results' made the front page of many newspapers and made Einstein and general relativity world-famous; (d) the date and location of Eddington's eclipse observations (29 May 1919), though Tests of general relativity also fails to mention that the observations took place in 1919. Is the rest of the article like this? Withdrawing support for now. Carcharoth 18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose much of what you are missing in the article has been left out in an effort to try to keep matters as brief as is possible while still conveying the essentials. I'm open to compromise – I have added the Newtonian prediction (it is also mentioned, although not under that name, in a footnote to an earlier section); I have added a cautionary remark that Eddington's results were not that accurate (but accurate enough), plus a reference (Hartl) that gives all the details about how the results were arrived at; I have added the year (and done the same for Pound-Rebka, to keep things balanced), but I have so far refrained from adding the day, month, and the two locations - details at that level are not included for any of the other tests that have been mentioned, and should, in my opinion, be left to the more detailed articles dealing with those tests. I don't know what exactly your ominous question about the rest of the article means – the rest of the article is also kept brief (for better accessibility), and hopefully not dumbed down (although some details are given only in the footnotes, again for better accessibility). If you have any specific concerns, I'll do my best to address them. -- Markus Poessel 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- My "ominous question"? It was merely reminding myself to check the rest of the article for things like this. :-) See my more detailed comments below. Carcharoth 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly "ominous" then, in the original sense - an omen of much more input to come. Many thanks for your detailed comments, which I will now address in more detail. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments - I like to see proper historical context being provided. It is easy to add little things like this, and it is easy for readers to understand the history - it helps offset the sometimes heavy science explanation bits. Once that's been done, I'll almost certainly support, as the science explanation side of things is fairly good. Here are some more examples of 'missing years', plus some other concerns:
- You give GR date as 1916, but fail to say when Newton published his theory. 1687 would be the equivalent publication date for Newton, I suppose. More generally, it is probably worth emphasizing just how long Newton's theory had been around for, and how many centuries of science Einstein was overthrowing (well, overthrowing is overstating it somewhat). It is also worth emphasizing that for everyday situations, Newton's theory is still perfectly adequate.
- The reason I did not give the Newton date was that this is, well, an article about general relativity. I was trying to keep the lead as succinct as possible (and still am, in fact). I agree that it might be an improvement so say more about Newton; I have now inserted some information about this into the sections where I think that it fits in well: The beginning paragraph of "From sr to gr", and the beginning of "Observations". --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I like to see lead sections, and articles, ending with a few dated statements, allowing the reader to see how up-to-date (or how out-of-date) the article is. If there is a "2007" in there, then the reader knows when the article was written. If it says "2005", then the reader knows that they may need to find out somewhere else what has happened in the last two years.
- OK, that seems a good idea. I have inserted a parenthesis into the final paragraph of the lead which shows the observational tests spanning from 1859 to 2006. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "a non-technical introduction to this theory can be found in the article Introduction to special relativity" - I feel there should be a better way to write this, though the self-reference may be unavoidable. This also falls foul of my concern above, that you are shunting people off to read about special relativity, and then expecting them to come back and start again at the point "Soon after, he began to think about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework." - the reader who has not gone and read the article on special relativity (or its introduction) will wonder what this "relativistic framework" is. Surely it is worth a few sentences to lay the groundwork here for later explanations? If it is not actually necessary to understand special relativity in order to understand general relativity, then don't encourage readers to go and read that article.
- This was something that was explicitly suggested in the peer review, but I agree that the result is not optimal in terms of smoothly flowing text. I think it is not necessary to understand special relativity at the level given in Introduction to special relativity to follow this text, beyond what is explicitly said later on (Minkowski and so on). I do not want to leave the link out altogether, but I have moved it to the top of the "See also" section now. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "the privileged ("inertial") observers" - again, you send readers scrabbling for another article (or for chapter 2 of Wheeler), trying to work out what you mean here.
- That is a good idea. I was hoping to keep readers from hurrying away by mentioning "inertial" only in quotation marks, but I have now added a few sentences of explanation. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "the second observer's clocks are running faster" - I've always been uncomfortable with this analogy. It implies a technical reason for the clocks running at different speeds. In fact, the clocks are identical and running at the same speed, but time is different for one compared to the other. When someone says "clocks are running faster", someone can easily misunderstand this to mean that if you swap the clocks round, the one running faster is still running faster. In other words, it is not the clocks that are different, but the environment.
- In a sense they are running at the same speed, in another sense they are not. Stationary spacetimes have a privileged way of defining coordinate time, and with respect to that time the two clocks are definitely running at different speed; in another sense, they are both running at the same speed "relative to local (proper) time", of course. I've tried to make clearer what is meant here. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dates reappear in the "From acceleration to geometry" section. "1907", "early nineteenth century", "1850s" and "late 1915". What would be helpful here is saying when Einstein first started working on general relativity. You say "it took Einstein three years", but three years from when? Also "With the help of Riemannian geometry, Einstein formulated a geometric description of gravity" - when was this? Admittedly, the books you are referring to, which are explaining the physics of this, probably don't give dates, so you will need to go to a history book instead, but some of the many biographies of Einstein out there should give these details. The Pais biography (Subtle is the Lord) will probably tell you what you need to know. Incidentially, how do you feel about linking authors in the references when they have Wikipedia articles? John Wheeler and Abraham Pais, for example?
- I agree that the current version could use some more concrete dates, and I have added them. From Pais, I gather that Einstein really started about incorporating gravity in 1907 (p. 178), so I will make the "Soon after, he began to think about..." more precise. I've also added some explanation in the footnote; after all, we cannot see inside Einstein's mind. Riemannian geometry: Fixed (the date is now there, but before the elementary geometry; right where it says that Einstein started his search). Reference to Pais has been added as well. As for linking authors in the reference section, what would you liked changed? As far as I can see, both Wheeler and Pais have been wikilinked from quite some time now. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Paraphrasing the doyen of American relativity research, John Wheeler" - this seems a bit over the top to me. Wheeler is well-known enough that you don't need to call him a doyen. Just leave a link to his article for people who want to know more about him, and call him a "US theoretical physicist" or something.
- This was in direct response to a point raised in the peer review: Who is John Wheeler, and why should we care what he says? "US theoretical physicist" would answer the first, but not really the second. As far as I can see, it's not over the top, either - Wheeler basically brought general relativity research to the prominence it has now, and going by the PhD genealogies, he really is the granddaddy of American gr. Also, as far as I can tell (and I've talked to quite a number of American relativists as they visited AEI), he is the most respected US relativist in the community, so "doyen" does sound no more than descriptive. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You use the phrase "probing the gravitational field" without explaining what you mean by this. If you mean "test" or "measure" or something more complicated, it would be best to explain this.
- You're right; I've changed the first sentence a bit, hopefully it's clearer now. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- At the end of the section "Einstein's equations" you give dates for some of the theories, but not all. Ideally you would put: Einstein's equations (date), then give solutions: Minkowski spacetime (date); Schwarzschild solution (1916); Kerr solution (1963); and Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution (1922-1935). OK, that last one looks a bit strange, but some form of historical context is needed. The reader may assume that you have given these solutions in chronological order, but you need to tell them as well.
- Einstein's equations have already been dated in an earlier section; so has Minkowski spacetime – I have left out the dates for now (since Einstein's equations are not a solution, I am reluctant to insert a year; Minkowski would be redundant, but in line with the other solutions) and I have tried to find a more elegant way of dating FLRW. The dates should definitely make clear now that the order is not chronological. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The "observations" section could still do with more dates. When were the radio telescope measurements of Mercury done? When were the measurements of Sirius B performed? When was Gravity Probe A launched? When were the quasar measurements (Eddington section) carried out?
- Added dates for Mercury, Sirius B, Gravity Probe A, and the quasar measurements. --Markus Poessel 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your sentence on Eddington's results. See Predictive_power#Relativity and the 1919 eclipse. That has been marked as unreferenced, but the last I heard there was still enough controversy over this that you can't say Eddington's results were "sufficient to distinguish between the Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions".
- Could you be a bit more concrete? I've read the references that I gave, and I have read Eddington's own description, and I have vague collections of some other articles about this. If you can give me a reference that takes into account all that is reliably known about the measurements, but still comes to the conclusion that the result quoted by Eddington was obtained by arbitrary "cherry picking", I will mention that (although it probably belongs in a footnote). --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "most recently by the Cassini space probe" - using phrases like "most recently" will date the article horribly in a few years time. Better to give the date when it carried out the experiment.
- Well, I do hope to be around here for some time to make little updates. :-) And even if I weren't, someone would hopefully revisit this article whenever there are major developments. Anyway, I have added a year, as well. --Markus Poessel 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You mention atomic clocks again. What would be useful here is to mention the very first atomic clock tests of general relativity. When did they take place? I'm thinking here of the ones in high-altitude aeroplanes.
- Added names and date. --Markus Poessel 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the section on the cosomological constant you say "From the late 1990s on". A phrase like this would be useful if you want to summarise the historical context of the various experimental tests of general relativity, rather than painstakingly date all of them.
- OK, now that I've painstakingly dated so many at your behest, I've changed this, too. --Markus Poessel 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Other attempts to modify general relativity have been made" - do you have any dates for these? Are they recent or do they date all the way back to the 1920s?
- Much more recent. I've added dates. --Markus Poessel 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- On another point, I sometimes disagree on the dividing line over when to send the reader off to read another article, and when to explain things in this article. I'll point out a few cases in the lead where you link to an article instead of providing a brief explanation in this article: gravitation, space and time. These are examples of articles that a reader should possibly read before this article, though I tend towards the best practice of keeping articles self-contained, and providing links for background information and further reading (astrophysics is a good example of something that doesn't need explaining in this article). To my mind, it is annoying when a reader has to keep reading other articles while trying to read this one, but at the end of the day, you often have to do this with such a complex topic.
- I would have hoped that, in those cases, a reader should be able to read on and still understand the arguments set out in the text. I have added a parenthesis for gravitation, but I think the common vague understanding of what space and time are should be sufficient. --Markus Poessel 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The ending of the article: you end with the Pioneer anomaly. I think a better ending would be to bring the article as close to the present-day as possible and say what the very latest research and theories are.
- OK, I'll change the title of that section and at least add a paragraph indicating what the hot topics are. --Markus Poessel 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hope that was helpful! Carcharoth 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Eminently so! Proof that there can never be enough sets of carefully scrutinizing eyes. Thanks! --Markus Poessel 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looking good. I'll try and dig out the Eddington refs later this evening, after which I should be ready to support. Thanks for finding all those dates. Only one problem... This article is now better than History of general relativity! I've also bee reading Golden age of general relativity, which has a fascinating timeline. Maybe something to consider when doing an overhaul of all the relativity related material. Carcharoth 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - following the discussion above, but without prejudice to a later merge to an FA-standard non-mathematical article at general relativity. Eddington point taken to the article's talk page. Carcharoth 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Support on principle, the principle being that an article that fully meets the featured article criteria deserves the label. The writing is excellent, with a tone and pacing just right to demystify this topic at an accessible level for an interested, intelligent reader. Furthermore, the article retains exceptional accuracy without resorting to technical digressions. The logical flow in the article may serve as a model to improve and arrange other relativity-related material in the encyclopedia, which frankly, is in some disarray. Tim Shuba 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)- Withdrawing support. Article is not stable and politics of FAC nomination have markedly reduced the quality of the writing. Tim Shuba 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry we lost your support - I hope we can get it back. As for stability, I don't think we have an ongoing edit war, and remember that "improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply"! As for markedly reduced quality of writing, I'm optimistic that we're on our way to a version that has at least the quality of the original - please check back a bit later and reconsider! --Markus Poessel 07:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that edits to the article in response to the FAC are explicitly excluded from the stability criteria. I include my own edits among these: I could have complained here first and then fixed my complaints, but I regard this as pointless, and so I simply fixed the issues directly. Geometry guy 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- While I was a bit daunted at first, I find it marvellous that this FAC review has led to the cooperation currently going on on the article's talk page. So far, the discussion is just the opposite of an edit war, it is a steady progression of presenting different viewpoints, reaching consensus, and moving on to the next issue. I can understand if Tim Shuba were to withhold support until the ongoing work there is completed, and I hope (in fact, am confident) that in the end, the quality of writing will be in fact better than when this discussion started. I can also understand if the FAC director chooses not to close this review before the editing over there is completed (although we are closer to consensus here now than I had hoped for). FAC review is meant to make an article better; this review, including the discussion on the article talk page, seems to me to be an excellent example of the kind of improvement you can hope for; I am at a loss to understand how this could possibly be held against the article. --Markus Poessel 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawing support. Article is not stable and politics of FAC nomination have markedly reduced the quality of the writing. Tim Shuba 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. Very relaxing read. I would encourage Markus to write more such introductions if it suits him. This article reminds me of a recommendation at Citizendium.Org that their articles should aim to have lucid highly readable introductions to topics rather than lists of information. This is primarily important when it comes to articles on the hard sciences which are difficult enough to understand as it is.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeComment. A good article, but I didn't find it very illuminating. A page of solid text without one single equation, not even the field equation! It may be very readable, but ultimately it tells the reader very little concrete about general relativity. It drones on, giving out a lot of pre-digested information (in fact, too much facts for an introduction) without ever trying to explore even superficially the connection between the principles and the results. It makes GTR appear to be a collection of facts, not emphasising understanding enough. Most importantly, it never excites the reader, never makes him gasp as understanding suddenly hit him, never leaves him wondering at the beauty of the universe and physics. I think it could benefit from a dash of the accessible but analytical and explanatory (as opposed to factual) approach employed by Introduction to special relativity. Loom91 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, you attribute the principle of equivalence to Einstine, when he was simply restating what Galileo had said in a more primitive form. In fact, the principle is often called Galilean equivalence. Very strange really, when you consider that the principle of relativity in its original form had also been stated by Galileo. Loom91 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Einsteine"? Is that a foreign language spelling? I notice that Introduction to special relativity has this spelling of Einstein in many places - could someone do a search-and-replace? Carcharoth 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those typos and others now fixed. Carcharoth 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- As for the equivalence principle, please note that there are several of those around. In line with all the literature I'm aware of, I am attributing what is nowadays called the Einstein equivalence principle to Einstein, while you are probably talking about the weak equivalence principle. I'm not sure what you mean by "restating what Galileo had said in a more primitive form" - the Einstein equivalence principle, encompassing as it does all of physics (hence its use in embedding other physical theories, not just mechanics, in general relativit), is much more general than the weak equivalence principle. --Markus Poessel 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Galileo showed that all bodies fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. This directly leads to the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Einstein phrased this in the more sophisticated, but basically equivalent, form that a constant gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerated reference frame. I've seen the principle, even in its modern form, called the principle of Galilean equivalence (can't remember where, perhaps something by Penrose). If the literature attributes the prrinciple to Einstein, that's all right then. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- If we were talking about inertial=gravitational mass (or the universality of free fall), that would indeed be wrong to attribute to Einstein. My point is that the Einstein equivalence principle goes much further (and that is important for gr): it includes all laws of physics; otherwise, you couldn't really make any statements about light propagation by using sr, for instance. And you wouldn't get to the heuristic, but quite general "take the laws of sr, replace partial by covariant derivatives" recipe for formulating physical laws in general relativity. --Markus Poessel 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Galileo showed that all bodies fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. This directly leads to the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Einstein phrased this in the more sophisticated, but basically equivalent, form that a constant gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerated reference frame. I've seen the principle, even in its modern form, called the principle of Galilean equivalence (can't remember where, perhaps something by Penrose). If the literature attributes the prrinciple to Einstein, that's all right then. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Einsteine"? Is that a foreign language spelling? I notice that Introduction to special relativity has this spelling of Einstein in many places - could someone do a search-and-replace? Carcharoth 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Einstein equation is now in the text, and I have added some explanation of its meaning which attempts to provide some understanding that the theory is not arbitrary. Geometry guy 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- On a more general note, I think you and Markus both have valid points, but seem to be taking different approaches to introductory articles. Should introductory articles be a collection of links to other articles (essentially saying to the reader - read this article and those articles to get an idea of what this is all about), or should they be an expanded explanation of existing articles, linking to the articles but also explaining (with diagrams) what is meant? That, to me, seems to be at the heart of your two different approaches. For what it is worth, I did find Introduction to special relativity easier to read, but it did feel more like a textbook than an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Loom91; it would be much easier to address your objections if you could tell us a bit more what your pronouncements are based on. For instance, as far as I can see, the section "From special to general relativity", makes a coherent argument leading from the universality of free fall via the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, the problem of tidal forces and its resolution via the analogy to the geometry of curved surfaces to Einstein's geometric theory of gravity. Given this, I find it hard to understand how you come by your claim that the article, as it stands, makes GTR to be merely "a collection of facts".
- You have told us that the article "drones on" and "never excites the reader": if it were so, it is a grievous fault. Yet more than thrice, earlier reviewers have read the article and have been so kind as to highly praise it, in tones kind enough to suggest that there was something akin to excitement there. Does this sound like an article that never excites "the reader", in general? Yet you say it never excites the reader, and I am, of course, assuming good faith. I write not to disprove what you wrote, but I write what I do know, namely that at least on some readers the article has had the desired effect. Could it that your pronouncement, in this case, is more an expression of your personal dislike, rather than a sentiment that, given the data available, can be attributed sweepingly to "the reader"? Bear with me; my mind is still over there with the article itself and I just remembered I wanted to fix another reference; I will pause and then come back and address the last part of your objection. --Markus Poessel 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Talking about a generalised abstract hypothetical reader is an unfortunate by-product of writing literary reviews :-) I was talking about my personal opinions, just like a movie reviewer might talk of the viewer feeling distinctly unsatisfied at the end of the film. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought as much; just couldn't help pointing it out. My question is: Would you see yourself more as the reader of the "Introduction to..." article, or do you think you might head straight for the main article? It's hard to tell, since we're currently revamping it, but I think that the result would be much more what you're thinking about for your proposed introduction. --Markus Poessel 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Talking about a generalised abstract hypothetical reader is an unfortunate by-product of writing literary reviews :-) I was talking about my personal opinions, just like a movie reviewer might talk of the viewer feeling distinctly unsatisfied at the end of the film. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You have told us that the article "drones on" and "never excites the reader": if it were so, it is a grievous fault. Yet more than thrice, earlier reviewers have read the article and have been so kind as to highly praise it, in tones kind enough to suggest that there was something akin to excitement there. Does this sound like an article that never excites "the reader", in general? Yet you say it never excites the reader, and I am, of course, assuming good faith. I write not to disprove what you wrote, but I write what I do know, namely that at least on some readers the article has had the desired effect. Could it that your pronouncement, in this case, is more an expression of your personal dislike, rather than a sentiment that, given the data available, can be attributed sweepingly to "the reader"? Bear with me; my mind is still over there with the article itself and I just remembered I wanted to fix another reference; I will pause and then come back and address the last part of your objection. --Markus Poessel 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Coming back, I have now added Einstein's equation, and I think it is an improvement - thanks! As for making the article more like Introduction to special relativity, I think there is a fundamental problem. Special relativity can be formulated (relatively) rigorously using only high-school mathematics (not even calculus). General relativity needs mathematics that is so advanced that even Einstein had to get help (Marcel Grossmann) when developing it, and that a "quick course" in the relevant mathematics is provided as a standard service by general relativity textbook. You can earn a PhD in physics without ever encountering the relevant mathematics in your studies. Given this, I would argue that there is no direct analogy; the mere fact that it works (sort of; cf. textbook character remark) for the present version of Introduction to special relativity should not be taken to mean that general relativity can be presented at the same relative level. If you are basing your faith that such a presentation is possible on anything other than that analogy, I would like to hear your reasons. That said, I am sure that one could add some more mathematics - say, a generalization of Pythagoras theorem to show what "metric components" are. But I do not see that this would tell the reader that much more about the physics of general relativity. On the other hand, I think you gravely underestimate the amount of math that the average reader has at their fingertips (braintips). In my experience, even Pythagoras' theorem will make many people switch off and lose interest. Why are books like those of Brian Greene so popular, while the valuable book of Schutz (2003), which does attempt something like you have in mind (but takes 400 pages to make it work, and even then does merely skim the edges of the real mathematical formalism) doesn't get rave reviews in the popular press? In my opinion, that is indicative of the fact that most people will find a presentation that goes easy on the math more accessible than one that requires them to unearth formulae they have never thought about after high school. I am not making a value judgment – it's the same reason that so few people read French or Spanish books in their original language, even though, in reading English language editions, they can be sure that a number of subtleties will have gotten lost in translation. I would be happy if those reviewers that were satisfied with the present version could give is information about how much more math they think could have been added without compromising accessibility. --Markus Poessel 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since GTR is a geometric theory of spacetime, couldn't just a little bit of the math explained in intuitive visual terms? I'm thinking about metric tensors here, though I hope a few other parts could be given the same treatment. Math != equations. Saying matter curves spacetime -> sloppy pop science writing that gives the reader a false sense of understanding without saying anything concrete. Saying the field equations can be solved to give a quantitative measure of how the presence of mass distorts the way we measure in distance in flat space (explain briefly the evolution Pythagoras -> Minowski -> GTR) and what straight lines actually mean -> intelligent, accessible writing that may take two instead of one reading but is actually saying something. Note that I'm not saying the example of sloppy writing is the one being used in the article, only that it could do with a little more leaning towards the second.
- I realise that I'm not being very concrete here, that's a disability. I wouldn't object if Raul disregarded my oppose. As for your statement about Pytahgoras's theorem, I find that hard to believe. Where I live, a person would probably be laughed at if he couldn't say the theorem. That's almost as basic as you can get. Even if it's true in USA (which seems to be a land of mathophobics), we need to ask ourselves: when writing about an undeniably mathematical and difficult topic like GTR, do we really want to cater to an audience that won't understand Pythagorass theorem? That section on from SR to GTR seems like a section the article should be based on, instead of looking like one of those sideboxes "containing more advanced material for interested students".
- Implementing what I'm thinking of may require a fundamental restructuring though. Suddenly, the ridiculous suggestion of two different introductory articles is not looking that ridiuclous anymore. What's the disadvantage in letting readers choose and pick what works best for them? Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you look more closely, there is more math (in terms of non-equations) there than in many popular science books. While it doesn't go as far as Pythagoras (I think you're still too optimistic about that), it does try to explain the metric by using the simple image of a sphere, and the fact that 30 degrees different in longitude do not always mean the same distance. As for the two different introductory articles, as I said above, I think the main article might head a bit more in the direction you're looking for than this "Introduction to...". It's currently being reworked; once it's done, there might not be the need for another introductory article like you're envisioning (but I'm sure there still will be the need for the introductory article we're currently discussing).
- As for the audience, it's always encouraging to hear about math-friendly countries, but what you say about "do we really want to cater to...." - yes, I think we should! Those people's money is paying for a lot of research on the subject; there *are* aspects of general relativity that can be fascinating (sadly not to you, but that's may be because you have too much previous knowledge) without all but a basic notion of pictorial geometry, and even people who shudder when they think about high school math can be interested in cosmology and the question of where it all came from, in black holes and some of the most energetic phenomena in the universe, and, by implication, in the theory that made all that possible - general relativity. I can understand if you say the resulting article is not for you, but I'd like to ask you to take a step back and try to take a look through a different set of eyes. You're not a literary critic on this, you're part of a peer review process that is based on certain, specific criteria: Is the prose professional (we certainly don't want poor grammar, or articles that read like bad middle school essays)? Is the article reasonably comprehensive (and please don't read too much about this - leaving out Pythagoras is a matter of the level of presentation; leaving out the metric altogether might still be debatable; leaving out black holes would be unforgivable)? Reliable sources? Stable? Manual of style compliant (after all the hours spent on chasing the right kind of dashes, it better be)? Images? Proper length? This isn't about inspiration and about whether the article touches your soul (though that would be nice, and I am sad to hear of anyone - like you - who finds it boring and side-bar-ish; I hoped that readers with previous knowledge would at least appreciate how the article deals with many things that, in dumbed-down texts, are often not quite right - the relation of the bending of light to the equivalence principle, stuff like that). This is more about craftsmanship, albeit on a very high level. If, leaving aside your personal gut feeling and your inner literary critic, you think that the article shows bad craftsmanship, then by all means oppose. If not, even though you have a vague feeling of disappointment, I would ask you to consider changing "Oppose" to "Comment"; your different philosophy for writing an article like this would be noted, but the craftsmanship aspects acknowledged. And I'd certainly like to invite you to head over to the main article general relativity and join the bunch of us who have started re-working it. This is where I think the kind of basic-math-based explanation (such as the metric with generalized Pythagoras) might well find a proper place. --Markus Poessel 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Coming back, I have now added Einstein's equation, and I think it is an improvement - thanks! As for making the article more like Introduction to special relativity, I think there is a fundamental problem. Special relativity can be formulated (relatively) rigorously using only high-school mathematics (not even calculus). General relativity needs mathematics that is so advanced that even Einstein had to get help (Marcel Grossmann) when developing it, and that a "quick course" in the relevant mathematics is provided as a standard service by general relativity textbook. You can earn a PhD in physics without ever encountering the relevant mathematics in your studies. Given this, I would argue that there is no direct analogy; the mere fact that it works (sort of; cf. textbook character remark) for the present version of Introduction to special relativity should not be taken to mean that general relativity can be presented at the same relative level. If you are basing your faith that such a presentation is possible on anything other than that analogy, I would like to hear your reasons. That said, I am sure that one could add some more mathematics - say, a generalization of Pythagoras theorem to show what "metric components" are. But I do not see that this would tell the reader that much more about the physics of general relativity. On the other hand, I think you gravely underestimate the amount of math that the average reader has at their fingertips (braintips). In my experience, even Pythagoras' theorem will make many people switch off and lose interest. Why are books like those of Brian Greene so popular, while the valuable book of Schutz (2003), which does attempt something like you have in mind (but takes 400 pages to make it work, and even then does merely skim the edges of the real mathematical formalism) doesn't get rave reviews in the popular press? In my opinion, that is indicative of the fact that most people will find a presentation that goes easy on the math more accessible than one that requires them to unearth formulae they have never thought about after high school. I am not making a value judgment – it's the same reason that so few people read French or Spanish books in their original language, even though, in reading English language editions, they can be sure that a number of subtleties will have gotten lost in translation. I would be happy if those reviewers that were satisfied with the present version could give is information about how much more math they think could have been added without compromising accessibility. --Markus Poessel 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As you say, a personal feeling of disappointment and disagreement over target audience is probably not sufficient grounds to oppose. I change to comment. That leaves you with inanimous support (except Opposes on principle). Good job! My knowledge of GTR is severely limited, so I fear I could contribute little to the article, particularly since specialists in the subject must surely be working there. I will try to help out with accessibility issues. But won't the main article be the place to discuss differential topology, pseudo-Riemannian manifolds and other such esoteric what-nots rather than provide the basic, intuitive mathematical description I was proposing? Loom91 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for changing to "comment"! I am not sure how the main article will develop; the current consensus is that it should go easy on the more complicated formulae (there is an additional article "Mathematics of general relativity" for that), but it is, of course, going mention the more advanced concepts (and the necessary technical terms - comprehensiveness!); my hope is that at least some of what you were proposing (e.g. an image explaining generalized Pythagoras to motivate talk about the metric) can fit in there. It would still not be a systematic introduction at that level like Introduction to special relativity (and for general relativity, as I said, I'd think that kind of introduction is simply not possible - unless you go book-length, perhaps). We'll have to see how it works out - at the moment, my main concern is to get some sections written and well-referenced, but afterwards there will surely come a phase where your input on accessibility would be greatly appreciated. --Markus Poessel 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Addressable oppose.Great work, guys, but the image in the lede is unintelligible without explanation and saying that it is a "simulation based on the equations of general relativity" doesn't help much. The legend on the picture is just about too small to read and what's that tiny squiggly graph supposed to tell me? If we want a picture that really explains something to the reader this needs to be addressed. If we want an eye-candy picture then others would be better - for example the one in the lede of General relativity. Haukur 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)- I explained the picture using the caption at the image page. Carcharoth 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was quick and indeed an improvement. I still feel the image is a bit small, but okay. Haukur 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about this new version? Following an off-the-record I received about the image possibly being a bit overwhelming, and taking my cue from Madcoverboy's proposed merged version, I've now taken the Cassini picture as a lead (and put Gravity Probe B where Cassini used to be). Is this better? --Markus Poessel 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- (As you might guess, I'm trying to gently persuade you to change your struck-out addressable oppose to a "Support"! --Markus Poessel 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- I like the Cassini image. I still haven't read the article all the way through so I don't feel comfortable writing a "Support"! :) Haukur 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- (As you might guess, I'm trying to gently persuade you to change your struck-out addressable oppose to a "Support"! --Markus Poessel 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- How about this new version? Following an off-the-record I received about the image possibly being a bit overwhelming, and taking my cue from Madcoverboy's proposed merged version, I've now taken the Cassini picture as a lead (and put Gravity Probe B where Cassini used to be). Is this better? --Markus Poessel 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was quick and indeed an improvement. I still feel the image is a bit small, but okay. Haukur 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I explained the picture using the caption at the image page. Carcharoth 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on Edit 1 I have tried my hand at merging the two articles at
User:Madcoverboy/Sandbox/General relativityGeneral relativity (BE BOLD!). I also put merge tags on both pages. I don't purport to be an expert, merely an educated user/reader/editor. I believe this version retains the technical literacy of the current general relativity page with the readability of the introduction. Obviously it could use a copy and fact check by an expert, but this is meant as a proof of concept that the main article can still be accessible without having to employ condescending/didactic assumptions about the reader requiring a second article to explain the first.Madcoverboy 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the basic flaw in your thinking is assuming that general relativity was already as it should be, as a higher-level main article. It isn't, and that's why your gesture might be bold, but it's not a proof of principle. I indicated earlier in this discussion that I was willing to put work into bringing it to the stage where a fair comparison (namely of a good introduction and a good main artice) should be possible, intended to do so, and that it should make matters clearer. You didn't bother to reply, and forged ahead. As also indicated in the discussion, there are "Introduction to..." + main article pairs where the comparison is less skewed, for instance Evolution and Introduction to Evolution, where the more technical of the two articles is in very good and the less technical one in good shape. You did not choose to make an example of those; instead, you chose the less suitable example. I know I should assume good faith, but it's getting hard. Let go of your anger! Tempting the dark side is. --Markus Poessel 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although it may seem like "I have it out for this FAC (or you)" I am acting in the utmost good faith that the consensus "force" that is with me. I continue to assert that by electing Introduction to general relativity to FA-status, we are setting the precedent for electing future "introduction" articles when myself and other editors have expressed well-founded doubts about the merits of content forks (defining the audience, codifying the "introductory" style, selecting appropriate analogies/examples, cross-checking claims, grappling with verifiability/citations between articles). I certainly don't mean to sound alarmist, but I see these good-faith "Introduction" articles as the first step down a slippery slope whereby important/essential wikipedia content becomes ghettoized with some articles intended for some audiences and exclusive of others WP:BIAS. Although I didn't quite have the time in the last 2 days to change every single "introduction to" article, I was bold in editing this one since I was already so immersed in the material. Moreover, if GR was not already as it "should be" why is/was it rated an A-class article by two separate projects? I continue to believe that the primary pages can be written to appeal to the non-specialist/generalist while still retaining value as a scientific reference by judicious use of summary-style and linking to sub-articles as is already done (EFE, mathematics of general relativity, various solutions of EFE, etc). The reason, I believe, we are at loggerheads is because you would have the "Introduction" article be the first article read by a generally educated reader whereas I see no reason why "GR" couldn't be the same. Madcoverboy 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Madcoverboy, do you think you could maybe look at Genetics and Introduction to genetics? That is a better candidate for merging than this one. Maybe you could even undo your merger and let Markus see if he can achieve his aim for General relativity and Introduction to general relativity? Carcharoth 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although it may seem like "I have it out for this FAC (or you)" I am acting in the utmost good faith that the consensus "force" that is with me. I continue to assert that by electing Introduction to general relativity to FA-status, we are setting the precedent for electing future "introduction" articles when myself and other editors have expressed well-founded doubts about the merits of content forks (defining the audience, codifying the "introductory" style, selecting appropriate analogies/examples, cross-checking claims, grappling with verifiability/citations between articles). I certainly don't mean to sound alarmist, but I see these good-faith "Introduction" articles as the first step down a slippery slope whereby important/essential wikipedia content becomes ghettoized with some articles intended for some audiences and exclusive of others WP:BIAS. Although I didn't quite have the time in the last 2 days to change every single "introduction to" article, I was bold in editing this one since I was already so immersed in the material. Moreover, if GR was not already as it "should be" why is/was it rated an A-class article by two separate projects? I continue to believe that the primary pages can be written to appeal to the non-specialist/generalist while still retaining value as a scientific reference by judicious use of summary-style and linking to sub-articles as is already done (EFE, mathematics of general relativity, various solutions of EFE, etc). The reason, I believe, we are at loggerheads is because you would have the "Introduction" article be the first article read by a generally educated reader whereas I see no reason why "GR" couldn't be the same. Madcoverboy 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the basic flaw in your thinking is assuming that general relativity was already as it should be, as a higher-level main article. It isn't, and that's why your gesture might be bold, but it's not a proof of principle. I indicated earlier in this discussion that I was willing to put work into bringing it to the stage where a fair comparison (namely of a good introduction and a good main artice) should be possible, intended to do so, and that it should make matters clearer. You didn't bother to reply, and forged ahead. As also indicated in the discussion, there are "Introduction to..." + main article pairs where the comparison is less skewed, for instance Evolution and Introduction to Evolution, where the more technical of the two articles is in very good and the less technical one in good shape. You did not choose to make an example of those; instead, you chose the less suitable example. I know I should assume good faith, but it's getting hard. Let go of your anger! Tempting the dark side is. --Markus Poessel 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no clear idea of how project-rating works - is it a single editor's decision? If yes, you should ask him or her. Reverse question: If all was as it should be, why did it fail its last FA candidacy? That certainly indicates a consensus for the need for improvement. Why does it have an impressive to-do list? I know that Introduction to general relativity was also rated A by the Math project, and that I then spent a sizeable amount of time and effort to bring it to its current state. As for the consensus being with you, don't forget that you are opposing on personal principle something that is allowed by a guideline, which has by definition been developed "through the consensus of many editors". It's frustrating enough seeing this article in danger of being shot down on principle – just as many others here, I joined since I enjoy creating content; I was aware that there were also guidelines to be followed; while I believe that content quality should always be more important than formal considerations (WP:IAR tells me I'm not alone), I was (and am) more than willing to follow these guidelines, and to make improvements in response to helpful suggestions. I didn't expect that someone would choose this article to make a steadfast last stand on some supremely important general principle, and that I would suddenly find myself in a classic Catch-22 situation where the only way to address an oppose would be to withdraw the candidacy. I was certainly not prepared (and OK, may be that was naive on my part) for being sucked into discussions where the article's content suddenly became completely irrelevant (and half hating myself for rising to the bait — as I'm doing now, come to think of it). All of the above would have been bad enough if it had been happening to demand compliance with a principle laid down somewhere in the guidelines or policies, clearly and unambiguously, or even almost clearly and more unambiguously than not. Talk about irony: all of this for a principle that is in direct opposition to an agreed-upon guideline? — OK, enough whining on my part. As I wrote on the talk page of that article, I'd like to see this as an opportunity to bring the main article general relativity to FA status; once that is done, we can have a look back and see whether we do need an "Introduction to..." or not. --Markus Poessel
- I understand your frustration Markus and I would be similarly miffed if I was in your position. Since you are committed to both improving the GR article as well as revisiting this Intro article when (if?) GR hits FA, I'll relent. Per the discussion on Talk:General relativity, let's focus on bringing the main GR page to FA, and re-evaluating the need for this article to be merged then. In the meantime, this exclusionist Grinch will go off and kill all the other intro articles. ;) Madcoverboy 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I apologize for casting ever-so-slight aspersions on your good faith. I hope your skeptical "if?" is too pessimistic. --Markus Poessel 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Those editors who believe that a general introduction to general relativity for the layperson can easily be blended with a sophisticated, mathematical article would do well to look at this survey. The National Science Foundation does a "scientific literacy" survey each year (these results are then compared with Europe in the study). These are the most recent results (I believe). One interesting fact: fewer than half of the Americans surveyed knew that an electron was smaller than an atom. This kind of information should help keep us grounded, I believe, and keep us from assuming too much about the reader. Obviously, a self-selecting readership will come to this article, presumably one that is a bit more educated than this survey, but it is a good benchmark to start a conversation with. Other interesting results to look at are the math scores of high school and college students on standardized tests. Anyone who has seen those will know why books like The Elegant Universe don't use much, if any, mathematics. Awadewit | talk
- Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think that the main article on general relativity should avoid mathematics, with all the mathematics shunted to a daughter article. I strongly oppose the idea that the main article on general relativity should go into any substantive detail about the mathematics. Carcharoth 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is absurd; any article on general relativity without the mathematics is castrated. As I am repeatedly told by friends and books, mathematics is central to physics. I quote from a lay introduction to the Standard Model, Bruce A. Schumm's Deep Down Things: "To be deeply interested, however, does not mean to be steeped in the formal content, mathematically or scientifically, of physics. In particular, I presume little in the way of mathematical background--just some very basic notions of algebra and the concept of orders of magnitude. It is impossible, though, to elicit the critical notions of the theory of particle physics without an involved discussion of the mathematics that underlies it. The beautiful connection between the worlds of the mathematician and the physical scientist is one of the most interesting threads we'll follow and one for which there is precious little material available to non-professionals. That the abstractions of higher mathematics bear some relation to the physical world--in fact, seem to lie at the very heart of its order and operation--is one of the most profound revelations of the modern era." (2-3) There is no reason why we cannot have one article that loses "one of the most profound revelations of the modern era" by necessity ("Introduction") but also one that retains it ("General relativity"). Let us not pretend that an article on general relativity denuded of its mathematics would explain much at all; such an article should be titled "Introduction to general relativity" since that is what it is. Awadewit | talk 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- So what is the purpose of Mathematics of general relativity and Introduction to mathematics of general relativity? Are you saying that general relativity = mathematics? Where does that leave History of general relativity and Golden age of general relativity and Tests of general relativity? Not to mention all the articles in Template:General relativity. All of the articles I've mentioned can be written about with a minimum of mathematics. Would you include those in an article on general relativity, reducing the mathematical content to a small section, and if so, why not make that small section a summary of Mathematics of general relativity? Carcharoth 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I am saying that you cannot understand general relativity without mathematics. This has been stated in numerous "popular" books that I have read. Ask a physicist. I'm sure that they will agree with me. Awadewit | talk 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- So what is the purpose of Mathematics of general relativity and Introduction to mathematics of general relativity? Are you saying that general relativity = mathematics? Where does that leave History of general relativity and Golden age of general relativity and Tests of general relativity? Not to mention all the articles in Template:General relativity. All of the articles I've mentioned can be written about with a minimum of mathematics. Would you include those in an article on general relativity, reducing the mathematical content to a small section, and if so, why not make that small section a summary of Mathematics of general relativity? Carcharoth 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is absurd; any article on general relativity without the mathematics is castrated. As I am repeatedly told by friends and books, mathematics is central to physics. I quote from a lay introduction to the Standard Model, Bruce A. Schumm's Deep Down Things: "To be deeply interested, however, does not mean to be steeped in the formal content, mathematically or scientifically, of physics. In particular, I presume little in the way of mathematical background--just some very basic notions of algebra and the concept of orders of magnitude. It is impossible, though, to elicit the critical notions of the theory of particle physics without an involved discussion of the mathematics that underlies it. The beautiful connection between the worlds of the mathematician and the physical scientist is one of the most interesting threads we'll follow and one for which there is precious little material available to non-professionals. That the abstractions of higher mathematics bear some relation to the physical world--in fact, seem to lie at the very heart of its order and operation--is one of the most profound revelations of the modern era." (2-3) There is no reason why we cannot have one article that loses "one of the most profound revelations of the modern era" by necessity ("Introduction") but also one that retains it ("General relativity"). Let us not pretend that an article on general relativity denuded of its mathematics would explain much at all; such an article should be titled "Introduction to general relativity" since that is what it is. Awadewit | talk 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The separate articles are clearly more specialized; I would not expect them to be as accessible and I see no reason to merge them. And, by the way, what do you mean "a minimum of mathematics"? That "introduction to mathematics of general relativity" is a joke; that may be "introductory" to a minute portion of the population, but it isn't to even the "average, educated, curious reader," in my opinion. I think that I speak for many humanities people (the world is divided in half, isn't it?) when I say that the last time we did any significant math was in high school. Thus, the extent of my mathematical knowledge is theoretically early calculus, although I only vaguely remember that. With such a dim memory of high school mathematics, it is impossible for me to understand these articles without learning material that might take me months or perhaps years (I have another life, too). I am not going to do that to read one article. I am interested in science, but I haven't yet taken the plunge to learn the math necessary to really understand it. Also, I think that you greatly underestimate the fear of math, at least among students in the United States. It begins early: elementary school teachers spend less time on math than any other subject, because they don't like it and don't really understand it. I demand that my freshmen composition students figure their own grades (if I give them a 35 out of 50 on an assignment, for example, I won't tell them what percentage it is) - they cannot do those basic functions. I, who know nothing about teaching math, have had to teach students how to do this. I even taught area once, to a group of students studying for their "scary" midterm in some obviously remedial math class. Many people are frightened by math and including any equations at all in an article will scare people away from the page. This is true even of people who read popular science books - they want something easy to understand, to read on the airplane, say. I doubt that readers coming to wikipedia for an "introduction to general relativity" are going to spend hours decoding the page if it contains equations. It is already getting to be a mite technical and long. Awadewit | talk 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, the answer to your question ("general relativity = math?") is basically yes, with only a few qualifications. Someone once said physics is a subject locally isomorphic to mathematics. To Awadewit, I find it frankly unbelievable that undergraduate students can't calculate percentage. Surely you are exaggerating? Even if that was true (my mind boggles even at the possibility, I can safely bet that I would be extremely hard pressed to find an adult who couldn't calculate the percentage of 35 out of 50 in their mind), should we really be aiming at that population? I think readers like you should be the standard (that is, we should set a dim knowledge of calculus as the minimum prerequisite). The concept of tensors can be introduced using vectors and matrices as the basis, and the elementary concepts of tensor calculus built up by restricting ourselves to a particular coordinate system and defining differentiation component by component. The concept of metric tensor can be derived from Pythagoras's theorem (which is actually a metric tensor itself). Curvature can be explained by starting from a bell-shaped curve and then generalising to 4 dimensions. Anyone with the inclination to really understand and a grounding in high-school math (as opposed to the man who only wants to flatter his ego and boast to his friends by reading some cheap pop sci book) could make it through such a treatment without suffering nervous breakdown. Loom91 11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I am not exaggerating about the percentage thing - it has happened numerous times, unbelievably enough (one person asked me what 90 out of 100 was). I swear on my wikipedia user account. :) I have seen even worse, though, sadly. Two stunners: a student who didn't know the difference between "throne" and "thrown" and a student who thought slavery ended one generation ago (and I don't mean metaphorical slavery of any kind, I mean the enslavement of blacks in the U.S.). I could go on and on in this vein, and so could anyone who teaches college students, I think; my experiences are not atypical, as far as I know (I am at a major state university in the US). Like I said in one of my postings, obviously the readers of this article are going to be self-selecting to an extent, but even so, we need to determine just how much those special readers are going to know. Grasping the "average" knowledge of a regular old person (such as in that NSF survey) gives us a place to start. I mean, I thought 99.99% of the people surveyed would at least know that the earth went around the sun. Not so - only around 70%, I believe. I'm afraid that under your system, I would not qualify as a reader for this article. My memory of high school calculus is so dim, that I don't think I could use it (imagine a language you learned in high school and never used again - that is what calculus is like for me - a shady memory - things look familiar, but I don't remember what to do with them anymore). I have been working on understanding vectors for several days now, but I have not come very far. The thing is, you cannot pile so many new concepts on readers at once. In the space of 30 to 60 minutes (let's say I took that much time to read this article - a staggeringly long time, by the way), under your outline, I would have to learn what a vector is, what a metric is, what a tensor is, and try to comprehend four dimensions (along with all of the other stuff in the article). That is a lot of work; while some people would be willing to do it, far more, I think, will give up. Which is better - to have more readers make it through the article with less understanding or to have a few of them gain a more precise understanding? I can see why you would vote for "fewer readers" and "more understanding", but as wikipedia is trying to convey knowledge to everyone, I vote for less understanding and less frustration; we are not a textbook. :) I think that it is useful to note that all of the popular science books I own (many, I don't know the exact number) stop at algebra or maybe a little trigonometry. I think that the same people who buy The Elegant Universe are going to be interested in this page. Apparently, most of the authors of those books think calculus is too advanced or not well-known enough to use it in their books. (Roger Penrose is the exception, but I don't really believe that his book is meant for lay people, even though he says it is.) Loom91, I share your desire to educate the reader and your desire to "raise the bar" as it were, and I attempt to do so in my classroom every day, but it is possible to raise the bar too high and have everyone come crashing down with you. I have horrible visions now of trying to explain a section of J. S. Mill's On Liberty to a class of freshmen - it haunts my dreams. Awadewit | talk 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- How sad! As a sidenote: it is not meaningful to say that the Earth goes around the Sun. You could just as easily say the Sun goes around the Earth. I also don't think Penrose is for the laymen, it's frighteningly dense to anyone who is not consulting references as he reads. Coming to the point, the dilemma you refer to is one faced by high-school physics teachers here. As they face a new batch of students who have just reached the eleventh grade, they need concepts of basic differential calculus right form the start, but the students are not going to reach that stage in math for a few more months. The solution they usually adopt is to forget the math teacher and teach calculus themselves. That takes time though (article space in case of WP) and is probably inaapropriate for WP. What if we defined the term derivative as the rate of change? That sounds tame enough. Loom91 12:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sidenote: I believe that the survey respondents thought we lived in an Earth-centered galaxy. The point there is, what is most important to know - that it doesn't really matter from which reference you discuss orbits, or that the ancients were wrong and Copernicus/Galileo were right? I would go with, again, best to know that the Earth isn't at the center of the galaxy. :) Moving on, I thought that all physics taught math alongside itself? All of my roommate's physics books begin with some sort of review, most often of mathematical subjects necessary for the book (I was just perusing the description of vectors and tensors in his classical mechanics book). "Rate of change" sounds fine, but I would really need to see it context. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- How sad! As a sidenote: it is not meaningful to say that the Earth goes around the Sun. You could just as easily say the Sun goes around the Earth. I also don't think Penrose is for the laymen, it's frighteningly dense to anyone who is not consulting references as he reads. Coming to the point, the dilemma you refer to is one faced by high-school physics teachers here. As they face a new batch of students who have just reached the eleventh grade, they need concepts of basic differential calculus right form the start, but the students are not going to reach that stage in math for a few more months. The solution they usually adopt is to forget the math teacher and teach calculus themselves. That takes time though (article space in case of WP) and is probably inaapropriate for WP. What if we defined the term derivative as the rate of change? That sounds tame enough. Loom91 12:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support. Not only does it satisfies all the FA criteria, I believe it is a prime example of what is meant by well-written as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Rather than discourage people from writing articles like this, we should be encouraging and so elevate the article to FA status. I don't see any problem with stability. In any case, it's a shame that some of the discussion here has led to actions like a merge request, which was obviously going to be rejected (and has been), and led to perceived stability issues and one subsequent withdrawal of support. --C S (Talk) 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ready to support plus comments. Like many others here, I have been surprised by the objections to this FAC on the grounds that it is an "Introduction" article. Let me offer a few of my own observations.
- I find it helpful to view Wikipedia not as a monolithic encyclopedia, but as a family of nested and overlapping encyclopedias: if WP is to become the "sum of all human knowledge", it must be this way, since general encyclopedias certainly are not. A general encyclopedia and (say) an encyclopedia of physics will contain different levels of detail. Sometimes WP can reconcile these differences, through summary articles, but sometimes introductions are needed. We can (and have to) be flexible about this.
- Take a look at Category:General relativity, which has 12 subcategories and at least 10 further significant subsubcategories: this is a vast field. General relativity is the main article for this category, and must survey the field in order to be broad in its coverage. It is currently 60kB long, despite being written in summary style, with (I counted) fourteen subarticles. The article must be mathematically technical in one or two places for completeness reasons (as discussed previously, this is a very mathematical subject), but this is not the main reason that it will overwhelm the lay reader: it is overwhelming because the topic is so vast. To suggest merging an introduction into this vast overview is ridiculous; this is exactly the kind of topic where a separate introduction, which focuses on the key points, is essential.
- Not all knowledge is easy to understand. There are some who object to technical FAs, or even technical articles in general. I accept there is a debate to be had about whether, or how often, technically difficult FAs should appear on the main page, but if WP is to fulfil its mission, then there is no question in my mind that it will include top quality articles of a technically difficult nature (and it already does). Instead the goal should be to make every article as accessible as possible, given the content. "Introduction" articles are no excuse for not making "main" articles as accessible as possible. This does not imply that "Introduction" articles should not exist where they are needed.
- There have been suggestions that this article cannot be broad in its coverage because it is an "Introduction". Let me remind them that the title determines the coverage: this article needs to be cover everything that a good "Introduction to general relativity" would cover.
- I read through the article entirely and found it remarkably thorough. I had some criticisms, but rather than complain about them, I have fixed them myself. The edits coming out of this FA candidacy are now being assimilated into the article. Once they are, I am confident I will be able to give it my full support. Geometry guy 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.
This article has been extensively worked on by WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, including myself, has passed GA and had pretty productive peer review. Kamryn Matika 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments and Support - Just want to add in that this is a Self-nom. Furthermore, I give my support, but I am an extremely significant editor to the article. NSR77 TC 00:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Object
Audio files do not have non-free content rationales, the rationale for the last image does not explain its significance within the article, and the image from the commons is certain to be deleted so it should be removed.Jay32183 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments I added Fair Use rationales to "Around the World" and "Otherside" respectively, removed the soon-to-be deleted image, and changed the description of the remaining image to coincide with the article's text. I believe that's all you've addressed. NSR77 TC 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'll add to the audio files: The copyright owners of the songs need to be stated, i.e the record label, or whomever. Also, the descriptions need to be cited within the sample box, and I believe the same text needs to be included in the section where the samples are provided. Cricket02 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Several comments:
- see 1999 in music. I'd remove this link; I don't think it's of high-value. Done
- "High School" -> "high school" surely? Done
- Release and critical recognition doesn't hold together well as a section in my opinion. It talks about what single would be picked for the album to the excessive distortion of Californication. Done
- You may want to include some of the critics' reaction to the album; what did NME, Rolling Stone, Q et al say? (see Doolittle (album) for an example). Done
- Ref 21 (about "Summer Time") is a link to trivia on TV.com. Are you sure there's not a more reliable reference?
- see 1999 in music. I'd remove this link; I don't think it's of high-value.
- It's a good article otherwise. If you disagree with any of my comments, let me know! CloudNine 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's all! If anything else still persists, just point it out. NSR77 TC 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's nothing I can come up with that can replace reference 21. If you wish, I'll remove it. NSR77 TC 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's all! If anything else still persists, just point it out. NSR77 TC 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support well-written and referenced article about a nice album. igordebraga ≠ 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks - and the name of these are? Done
- song in 2000 - 2000 should not be wikilinked unless it provides context (which it doesn't here) Done
- Anthony Kiedis recalled - only refer to their second name after the first mention Done
- Some web references are missing date retrieved while others lack a publisher or date (ref 35 has a date) Done
- Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks - and the name of these are?
- looks good otherwise, however Rick Rubin is only mentioned as producer in the credits section, a producer is important to list under some sort of recording/production section. M3tal H3ad 07:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Virtually no words were spoken about Rubin during Californication, even in Kiedis' Scar Tissue (other than a note that he actually was returning). If I come up with anything on it, I'll be sure to include it. Otherwise, I think all the other things you have addressed, so far, has been dealt with. If anything else still strikes you as incorrect, please, point it out! NSR77 TC 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, however the image of the band has the caption "John Frusciante's return to the Red Hot Chili Peppers marks a change from their previous album." Could you tell the reader who John is in the picture like John Frusciante's (third from left) return to the. Some references are still missing retrieval dates 9, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 42. References 35 still has no date. The article gets quite listly towards the bottom, might want to consider converting the album's chart position into a paragraph under 'release', as it is not mentioned it hit #3 on the Billboard chart aside from the lead and the table. Also did it debut at number 3? that would be mentioned in the paragraph. M3tal H3ad 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed all the references and incorporated the charting into the prose. Should be all done, but if there's anything more, just pick it out. Thanks again, NSR77 TC 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, however the image of the band has the caption "John Frusciante's return to the Red Hot Chili Peppers marks a change from their previous album." Could you tell the reader who John is in the picture like John Frusciante's (third from left) return to the. Some references are still missing retrieval dates 9, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 42. References 35 still has no date. The article gets quite listly towards the bottom, might want to consider converting the album's chart position into a paragraph under 'release', as it is not mentioned it hit #3 on the Billboard chart aside from the lead and the table. Also did it debut at number 3? that would be mentioned in the paragraph. M3tal H3ad 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Virtually no words were spoken about Rubin during Californication, even in Kiedis' Scar Tissue (other than a note that he actually was returning). If I come up with anything on it, I'll be sure to include it. Otherwise, I think all the other things you have addressed, so far, has been dealt with. If anything else still strikes you as incorrect, please, point it out! NSR77 TC 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- looks good otherwise, however Rick Rubin is only mentioned as producer in the credits section, a producer is important to list under some sort of recording/production section. M3tal H3ad 07:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Ref 12 needs to state author and format for consistency with the rest of the references.Over the years Californication has remained popular; in 2003, the album was ranked number 399 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time and, in 2006, the Chili Peppers recorded a five-set playlist for AOL Sessions that included "Californication" and "Scar Tissue".[26][19][27]. A bit of a run-on sentence, maybe split?Planning to get to the venue one hour before they were set to perform, the band was informed of the hectic situation only minutes before arriving.[36] The situation escalated, however, when the Chili Peppers performed a tribute to Jimi Hendrix's song "Fire", from several casual bonfires to rapes and beatings.[38] Maybe I'm blind, but I was completely lost in this section. What situation? The casual bonfires etc occured because of the song "Fire"? Maybe further clarification or expansion is needed here.Please see WP:MOS regarding quotation marks before or after full stop depending on full sentence or sentence fragmnets.I might be wrong here but isn't LastFM more of a spammy type of link? Not sure where its informational.
Cricket02 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I corrected reference 12, cleaned up the run-on sentence and clarified the Woodstock paragraph. If possible, could you point out a<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ny specific infringements to WP:MOS? Also, I removed the external link to Last.fm. If anything else still persists please point it out. Thanks! NSR77 TC 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I found it easier to fix the minor quote mark fixes than to list them here so that is done. Good job on the clarification. Only thing for me is to list copyright owner of the songs sampled in the file info (Example here) and citing of descriptions within the sample box(comment above). Cricket02 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! NSR77 TC 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I found it easier to fix the minor quote mark fixes than to list them here so that is done. Good job on the clarification. Only thing for me is to list copyright owner of the songs sampled in the file info (Example here) and citing of descriptions within the sample box(comment above). Cricket02 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: features a repeating guitar riff that was deliberately recorded backwards (hence the title "Emit Remmus", "Summer Time" backwards).[21] Do we really need the word 'deliberately' in there? Its not as if he recorded it backwards by accident. Also, someone mentioned earlier that the ref for this sentence isn't very good. Does that matter so much? 'Emit Remmus' is clearly 'Summer Time' backwards - it's not like an external source is needed to confirm this. Milstrom 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you were mean, and removed "deliberately" from the sentence. NSR77 TC 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose with comments:
List who produced the album and where it was recorded in the lead section. DoneThe lead in general should be more expansive. It's worth mentioning that the album was a commercial revitalization of the band after their popularity dropped off in the late 90s. Conversely, the fact about the title doesn't seem like it belongs in the lead. DoneRemove "Alternative rock was tangible in tracks like "Easily" and "Emit Remmus"". The source doesn't say that, and it's a silly thing to comment on since technically everything on the album is alternative rock. DoneMore detail about the recording process would help. Explain where the album was recorded in the body of the article. Particularly important: Rubin is only mentioned in the Credits section and infobox, but not at all in the prose. Done- The fair use image of the band is unnecessary. Remove it.
Is is necessary to note that the album was released on the CD format? DoneThe sentence "Around the world, the album peaked at #5 on the UK Top 40[23], #1 on the Finnish, Austrian, Swedish and New Zealand charts, and #2 on the French Top 40" needs to be restructured. DoneMove the paragraph that begins "Over the years, Californication has maintained its popularity." to the Critical Recognition section. DoneCan you find more critical commentary? This is the section that suffers the most right now. It needs to be more substantial. Make sure to look for reviews on site like Time.com, EW.com, NME.com, and other major media sources that might have a review. Done
- Overall the article's ok, but not outstanding. It's mainly the article's lack of comprehensiveness in certain areas that I'm voting a weak oppose. However, the points I've illustrated, when fixed, will improve the article substantially and I'll be glad to strike out my oppose when those points are addressed. Look at featured album pages like Surfer Rosa, Reign in Blood, Kid A as guidelines. The basics of an FA-worthy article are present in this article; it just needs to be built upon. WesleyDodds 06:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have re-tooled the lead to be more appropriate to the article and coincide with the prose, and have added information about Rubin in the prose as well as the lead. The minor cleanups and adjustments you have identified have been addressed. Personally, I believe the image should be kept, as it does show the reader what the Chili Peppers looks like as of 1999, since only two years prior, Navarro was in the band. I've added critical commentary from NME and EW. Time had a pathetic review that isn't worth including, as it gave no indication of being for or against the album. Please, if there is anything else, just contact me. NSR77 TC 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would be fine with the picture if it were free, but it's not. The screenslot further down in the article serves the same purpose somewhat but has a stronger rationale, being from the accompanying tour video. Even then there are a number of free images available featuring Frusciante with the band (not fron the Californication period, granted, but that's not that big of a modifier). It also just clogs up the Music section, which also has two soundclips that are more relevant and necessary to the accompanying text. I feel strongly that the image is unnecessary and replaceable, and should go. WesleyDodds 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the picture could be replaced with a fair use one, although it doesn't need to be. The image has, therefore, been removed. NSR77 TC 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would be fine with the picture if it were free, but it's not. The screenslot further down in the article serves the same purpose somewhat but has a stronger rationale, being from the accompanying tour video. Even then there are a number of free images available featuring Frusciante with the band (not fron the Californication period, granted, but that's not that big of a modifier). It also just clogs up the Music section, which also has two soundclips that are more relevant and necessary to the accompanying text. I feel strongly that the image is unnecessary and replaceable, and should go. WesleyDodds 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have re-tooled the lead to be more appropriate to the article and coincide with the prose, and have added information about Rubin in the prose as well as the lead. The minor cleanups and adjustments you have identified have been addressed. Personally, I believe the image should be kept, as it does show the reader what the Chili Peppers looks like as of 1999, since only two years prior, Navarro was in the band. I've added critical commentary from NME and EW. Time had a pathetic review that isn't worth including, as it gave no indication of being for or against the album. Please, if there is anything else, just contact me. NSR77 TC 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Additional comment Reading the article again, I really think the prose needs to be spruced up. The article could stand to have some sentences reorganized, and lines like "it became known that he had developed a heroin addiction that left him in poverty and near death" and "And while many critics found the band's new sound refreshing, NME simply wanted the funk to return" are just some examples of text that needs to be rewritten for grammar and tone. I'd advise asking someone who's a very capable writer to go through the article and try to improve on the prose. WesleyDodds 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I second this; there are several awkward phrases and redundancies. I edited "Californication was a commercial revitalization in comparison to their previous album, One Hot Minute, which had sold a considerabley fewer amount." as the last part is redundant; a "commercial revitalization" already implies Californication sold more than One Hot Minute. I'll copyedit soon. CloudNine 11:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support per igordebraga. Cliff smith 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support a very good article for a very good album. Milstrom 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.
After working for the past couple of months on this article, I confidently self-nominate it, as I believe that it has grown to the point where it both merits FA status and meets all criteria. I am particularly satisfied with the referencing and citation, which provides a source for every fact and multiple sources for some. I think the subject is treated fully, answering just about every question a person could have on the topic, and explicitly stating "research is underway" or "XXX is unknown" in the case that questions are left open. The article has interesting, informative images, as well as useful external links, and I feel that anyone reading it would come away informed on the topic and with the impression that the article was distinctly well-written. PaladinWhite 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support: The article has undergone dramatic improvement in the past few months. It is informative and very interesting. It has proper references. I believe it deserves its place in FA-dom. Fred Hsu 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have been shuffling and rewriting sentences slowly. I started at the beginning of the article and have worked my way to Life Cycle section, so far. I'll address some of the fact-questions as I work on the corresponding sections. I think this article can be made a FA-worthy one. Fred Hsu 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixes needed - sorry, a few tweaks needed which I'll list below- Support - vast improvement. Well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- First up, LEAD needs to be 2-3 paras and summarize the salient points of the article.
- Done by Metamagician3000
- First up, LEAD needs to be 2-3 paras and summarize the salient points of the article.
- Headings need to be succinct as per MOS. For the cumbersome Skin, body, and size, why not Description? Try Feeding for Diet and feeding habits, Life cycle for Lifespan, growth, and reproduction
- Done I also added one image and moved other images to proper sections. Fred Hsu 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Headings need to be succinct as per MOS. For the cumbersome Skin, body, and size, why not Description? Try Feeding for Diet and feeding habits, Life cycle for Lifespan, growth, and reproduction
- The stubby name section at the bottom, could be renamed Taxonomy and include more info on classification and go in the first section after the LEAD, like in many biology FAs, like Fin Whale and Common Raven etc.
- I renamed and moved the section, but have not enhanced its content. Fred Hsu 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done Expanded the Taxonomy section with more text and inline citations. Fred Hsu 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The prose looks ok from first glance, though I'm not inclined to examine too closely until the article is more comprehensive (by including more classification notes) - but Despite this frequent confusion, the two species can be easily... - species is wrong as there are more than one shark species, try "animals" or "sea creatures" or something else.
- Done Yeah, I rewrote parts of the fins section. Fred Hsu 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The stubby name section at the bottom, could be renamed Taxonomy and include more info on classification and go in the first section after the LEAD, like in many biology FAs, like Fin Whale and Common Raven etc.
- ..must consume a large bulk of food.. - eek, replace "large bulk" - amount?
- Done Fixed. Fred Hsu 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- IN Lifespan, growth, and reproduction section I wouldn't use italicized genus in the plural. Also, need the tags between the units.
- ..must consume a large bulk of food.. - eek, replace "large bulk" - amount?
- Despite its size, the docile ocean sunfish poses no threat to human divers,[12] and is a popular target for sport dives, becoming "familiar with divers in some locations" -several fixes - singular to plural subject (fix please), several clauses makes for ungainly sentence anyway and odd thing quoted which should be rewritten without being directly quoted.
- Done Fixed. Fred Hsu 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- If the body does indeed contain toxins, then the marketing and sale of ocean sunfish meat is forbidden in the European Economic Community according to Council Directive.. - huh?? Is it suspected of containing aforesaid toxins. If not I don't understand why this is here.
- Done Yeah, removed. Fred Hsu 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Through the mid-1900s, sunfish... - ? mid 20th century?
- Done Fixed. I removed the speculation on dates. Fred Hsu 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Despite its size, the docile ocean sunfish poses no threat to human divers,[12] and is a popular target for sport dives, becoming "familiar with divers in some locations" -several fixes - singular to plural subject (fix please), several clauses makes for ungainly sentence anyway and odd thing quoted which should be rewritten without being directly quoted.
Overall, interesting read and good info but definitely needs some work. Feasible it can be done which is why I'm not opposing for now.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The first thing I saw was that a proper lead needed to be written. Rather than opposing, I've been having a go at it myself. I'll be grateful for help. Getting this article to clear FA quality looks very do-able, thanks to all the nominator's efforts and good scholarship. Metamagician3000 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have just enhanced the lead section (and the description section) as well. No article on sunfish can be deemed complete without a word on the fact that it looks like a fish head without tail ;) Fred Hsu 04:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Support I made a pass, I edit conflicted and will work in my changes shortly. Here are some other suggestions:
- References in the article should go after punctuation for easier reading.
- Done Fixed during previous edits. Fred Hsu 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Should "regionally-specific" be "region-specific"?
- Done Yeah. Fred Hsu 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article switches between Metric (Standard) and Standard (Metric), shouldn't one be used through-out?
- I formatted all the conversions with the original (source's) figure first, and the converted figure second, as it is a "derived" figure. PaladinWhite 06:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Generally it should be on then the other. [30] -Ravedave 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "They spend most of their time in water warmer than 10 °C (50 °F),[16] and prolonged periods spent in water at temperatures of 53 °F (12 °C) or lower can lead to disorientation and eventual death." - should "and" be "though"?
- Done Fixed. Fred Hsu 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The text doesn't describe what the "larva" stage is, or when it happens. Also more info about the larva spines might be good.
- Done Apparently a lot of people use fry and larva interchangeably. Some of cited webpages apparently mean 'fry' when they talk about 'larvae'. I rephrased sentences in this paragraph to make it slightly more clear. Fred Hsu 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mention that its habit of sunning itself is what causes it to be a boating hazard?
- I can only assume that the fish's habit of swimming at or near the surface, as described in the fins section, also presents a hazard. PaladinWhite 06:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-Ravedave 05:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, where did the conservation status of "Secure" come from. Natureserve [31] only lists one ranking and that is for Quebec and it rates it as a 3. -Ravedave 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)- Can't find anything to support any global status. -Ravedave 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- And one more thing, menton that the skeleton is 80% cartielge, [32], even though it is in the "bony fish" family?-Ravedave 05:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Good Ideas. Thanks for copyediting. I am slowing going over every section and reorganizing sentences. I don't want to step on your toes as it is apparent that you are still editing. I'll resume tomorrow. Fred Hsu 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done Cartilage issue addressed. Fred Hsu 18:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I believe the cited reports of breaching 10 feet out of the water are a fluke that originated with Wikipedia, and now Wikipedia cites these sources circularly. I attempted to contact these publications for verification of their sources but none responded. It seems unverifiable as a fact, but at least it's verifiable that the behavior is reported somewhere, and the article rightfully reports it correctly as a claim from other sources. =Axlq 07:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I sent Tierney Thys from some of the references an email asking about breaching and telling her about the page, she said it looks very good and will have a look this weekend and update. Stefan 04:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I look forward to seeing an update. The bit about leaping 10 feet out of the water is the only thing that seems contradictory, in this article about a weak-swimming, non-hydrodynamic, rather sluggish fish — in spite of sources claiming it happens (and I suspect those sources saw the Wikipedia article back when the claim was uncited). Again, I stress that the article handles the claim correctly, so its presence doesn't detract from this article's candidacy for FA status. =Axlq 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well basking shark can breach so you never know. Stefan 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I look forward to seeing an update. The bit about leaping 10 feet out of the water is the only thing that seems contradictory, in this article about a weak-swimming, non-hydrodynamic, rather sluggish fish — in spite of sources claiming it happens (and I suspect those sources saw the Wikipedia article back when the claim was uncited). Again, I stress that the article handles the claim correctly, so its presence doesn't detract from this article's candidacy for FA status. =Axlq 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I sent Tierney Thys from some of the references an email asking about breaching and telling her about the page, she said it looks very good and will have a look this weekend and update. Stefan 04:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support.
In principle support, but will read more later and confirm,what I can see that is missing is a range map, although it is not a requirement for FA status from my side just a nice thing to have. Stefan 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)- OK, had a closer look, very good seams to cover most everything, 1 more comment: I think there should be a section describing the conservation status, even if it is unknown??? Stefan 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, a range map would be nice. The conservation status really is unknown. Even though I have not lived in Taiwan for the past 20 years, I was born in Taiwan and I still keep myself updated with local events. Ocean sunfish has apparently generated widespread interest in the past 5 years. That is, people used to catch them, remove their intestines (a delicacy) and throw away the fish. But in recent years, all parts of the fish is consumed due to the new craze. But it seems there is not yet a shortage of the fish. And the public is waking up to the need for responsible harvesting of ocean sunfish in order not to drive it to extinction. But most of stuff I read about this is in Chinese. Fred Hsu 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, had a closer look, very good seams to cover most everything, 1 more comment: I think there should be a section describing the conservation status, even if it is unknown??? Stefan 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.
Self nom Recently passed a very tough GA, I can not find any flaws to fix, I think this article is FA material. Satisfies WP:WIAFA. --trey 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nom and significant editor. --trey 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- support I feel as if the quality of this article is high enough to be a featured article.--†Sir James Paul† 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Object—Image:Erie bay.jpg has a bad license tag. Image:Erie flag.jpg has no justification for why it is public domain. Image:Erie seal.JPG has no fair use rationale. Image:662006erie-1922.jpg needs a better source, and preferably the date of first publication. I stopped checking images at this point, there's quite a few. Please go through all images and verify their status.Pagrashtak 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Image issues have been taken care of.Still waiting for uploader to sign off on the changes.--trey 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)- No, they haven't. You can't just change an image's license to public domain and think you've solved the problem. Image:Erie flag.jpg still has nothing to convince me that it's public domain. Since the first two images still have problems, I'm not checking the rest. Pagrashtak 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
First off assume good faith. I am not image expert. The people at Media Copyright Questions seem to think the skyline picture is ok.See here. Secondly, a user created that flag, and released it into the public domain. I am working on the ERI sticker right now. --trey 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)- When have I not assumed good faith? That's insulting. I didn't say you changed the license in bad faith. If so, I would have accused you of vandalism—I didn't.
- I don't go around deleting GFDL-presumed images, and I normally wouldn't have a problem with the skyline picture in the article. However, you're asking for featured status. Criterion three of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states that images must have acceptable copyright status. You're asking us to hold this article to a higher standard, and it is unacceptable for a featured article to have a GFDL-presumed image. As for the flag, can you point me to something that shows that the government of Erie does not claim copyright? Pagrashtak 20:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Skyline picutre changed, sorry if I offended you a little, but is sounded like you were being a little mean to me. The new skyline picture is GFDL, so you can go ahead and delete the old one. Thanks, still working on some other images, --trey 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I think, (almost positive, still the flag might not be right?), that all images issues have been fixed.--trey 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)- You're correct about the flag. You need to find out if it's copyrighted or not. Image:JerryUht.jpg has an incorrect license. I believe the uploader was confused: "dedicating information to the public domain while retaining all legal rights" doesn't make sense. This image is a replaceable copyrighted image. I see no reason why Image:Lecom.gif cannot be replaced. I don't think there's a need for Image:Erie Times-News front page.jpg in this article. It doesn't add much more than the text. Put en dashes on page rages and any other places that need them. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) . Pagrashtak 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Users are in the process of replacing copyrighted photos with free ones taken by them.--trey 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, they haven't. You can't just change an image's license to public domain and think you've solved the problem. Image:Erie flag.jpg still has nothing to convince me that it's public domain. Since the first two images still have problems, I'm not checking the rest. Pagrashtak 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Dashes have been implemented, still working on getting free photos.--trey 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Flag fixed, LECOM photo replaced, working on Jerry Uht, but most image related problems have been fixed.--trey 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)- All images fixed or replaced by free ones. Also, dashes used. Just waiting for you to strike your oppose.--trey
- Per Raul's suggestions, The opposing user is absent and un-able to strike out object.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just too busy for Wikipedia lately. I apologize. Pagrashtak 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Per Raul's suggestions, The opposing user is absent and un-able to strike out object.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose seems to be some minor grammar problems that can easily be fixed. (→zelzany - fish) 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. --trey 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Universe=atom- Why is the second image in the "History" section placed in a part of the text talking about the early 1800s when the image itself portrays the 1920s. more information about the 1900's added, image moved down a bit, but I still want to space them out.--trey 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence in the lead needs a citation.The third sentence of the "Geography and Climate" section has the following grammar mistakes: 56.9 should be written out because it begins a sentence; and there is a spacing mistake between the second pair of parantheses.
*In the first paragraph of the "Demographics and religion" section, why are there slashes in the km squared and mi squared units?Grammar mistake: Third sentence of "Demographics and religion" section: 33.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 13.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The percent 33.4% should be written out because it begins a sentence.Grammar: Since the mid-1990's,... ("Geography and climate" section) No hyphen needed and no apostrophe needed. and its in Demographics and religion =)Grammar: ...9,936 sq miles... (same section) - why not mi²There are only three internal links in the entire "Economy" section. Perhaps some others (e.g. Industrial Revolution) can be wikilinked.There is a red link in the "Recreation" section.There are absolutely no internal links in the "Government" section. Perhaps some (e.g. the several people mentioned there) can be wikilinked.Grammar: ...which is to do short-term (4 year) and long-term (20+ year) transportation... perhaps four years and 20+ years.Although not an FA requirement, perhaps some other links can be introduced in the "See also" section.
This has some potential as an FA. However, before it can achieve that status, these (and other) points should be taken care of. On a good note, this article is well-referenced, well-written, and within size limits. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Those were the comments I were going to post here to elaborate, had I not gone to lunch break. (→zelzany - fish) 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Will work hard on the article tonight, seems as tho I have no plans. --trey 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support now that the problems are fixed. (→zelzany - fish) 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice job, a superb article. It's well-written and well sourced, and has plently of good images to pass. I like the way that 1912 panorama image was done, very creative to improve the article's quality. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Now that the comments that I raised are taken care of, it is an excellent geographical article. It surely deserves FA status in my opinion. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The article looks good, but in the transportation section, the airport logo Image:ERI sticker.png worries me. Isn't this a trademarked logo, even though someone has used a graphics program to create it? I feel that this is a fair use image (and should be tagged as a logo), whose use can be justified in the article on the airport, but hardly in the article about the city. (I am not a lawyer, and I may have betrayed my complete lack of insight in the field of course.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The Photo it is based off, doesn't seem to have and copyright or trademark notes on it. (you can click "zoom" and get a closer look). I am not an expert with copyrights either, but the sticker isn't really a logo, see that on Erie International Airport. Advice, anyone? --trey 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)- Photo has been removed and replaced by one I took myself. --trey 02:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, support featured status. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for now, some fixes needed:
The WP:LEAD does not provide a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, and appears instead to focus on tourist-y aspects.No crime ?
working on it --trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTCpls ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Cite templates are employed incorrectly. Publishers should be provided for all sources so reliability of sources can be identified. Not all sources have publishers, and most have publishers listed incorrectly under the Last parameter (which is intended for last name of an author). Author and publication date should be given when available.
There are still many missing publishers (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
One-sentence paragraphs; stubby prose. Please merge them into paragraphs or expand.
I may have missed a few, please point out.--trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:CONTEXT regarding wikilinking of low-value and common words like tourism.
You say too many, universe=atom says too few. Compromise? I've un-linked some generic words (aerospace, tourism, ect.) Is this ok? I am willing to please you =) --trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Universe=atom also comments on almost every FA that links should be added to See also, which is incorrect. See WP:LAYOUT; minimal to no See also is desirable, as valuable links should be worked into the text. High-value terms should be linked; common words should not. Please ping me when the article is ready for a new look (and I hope you didn't follow the advice above and add something to See also just for the sake of it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)You still need to unlink common words like creek and 1970, per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Too much detail for encyclopedia, and subject to change: An Amtrak train calls on the city twice daily (at 1:36 a.m. for the westbound train and 8:30 a.m. for the eastbound one) at ...Please see WP:MOSBOLD: Erie International Airport (IATA: ERI; IACO: KERI), located ...Unformatted refs: Volunteer Match [2]Words like "recently" and "currently" become outdated, time frames need to be specified: The 19th Street tracks were recently removed.
There are still occurrences of recently; pls add a date or say as of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The above list is samples only; pls audit the entire article for similar. This looks very doable; pls ping me for another look when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
TAlso, I changed the weather table to get rid of the pesky white space :P --trey 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)TStruck some as done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I did some sample ref cleanup edits to show the extent of the problem; there are missing authors, incorrect titles, missing dates, and missing publishers. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
CommentsIn the "History" section, it starts off with rough statements (the Iroquois were there, the French built a fort, the French word for peninsula is Presque-isle, the French left) that can be made into one pre-British narrative paragraph.
Combined.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- "
and in general did everything imaginable to thwart standardization." and "several extremely valuable acres of property " hyperbole is not professional.
- "
Fixed.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Erie Downtown Improvement District paragraph in the "History" section? Has anything actually been built?
They are renovating historical building, see more in article that I added.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The "History" section of this article is larger than History of Erie, Pennsylvania. Summary Style can be used
Some info removed.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In the "Geography" section. a normal low of 20 °F (−7 °C) is "bitterly cold"?
Just put "cold" instead, although temperatures have been know to stay below zero for days at a time.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In Demographics, the racial make-up list goes on a little too long, is "0.04% Pacific Islander" necessary? and who is forecasting that "Erie is expected to have gained people by 2010."
Fixed racial make-up and removed un-sourced info.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In "Demographics", why say "a vibrant Jewish community"? The last three paragraph (all on religion seem like they could make one good paragraph.
Removed and combined.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In "Education", the library has "facing financial woes over the past few years" - are libraries suppose to generate profits?
They get money thru the budget. Budget cuts=financial woes, I clarified in article.
In "Transportation", "in light of Amtrak's perpetual budget woes, this will likely not take place in the near future." seems speculative.
Removed speculation.
--maclean 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- All your issues have been fixed.--trey 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know why these pesky green checkmarks are again working their way back into FAC, cluttering the pages. Comments are done when reviewers strike their objection and say they're done. I've removed those done marks from my comments so that I can review and strike as I consider them done, per WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment All issues have been fixed, even though editors have yet to come back and check.--trey 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Object
I still don't see the point of the Erie Downtown Improvement District in the History section. To me 'plans to' & 'calls for' = nothing happened, which does not equal history (perhap Economy?)In History please specify that the "recent local newspaper poll" consisted of only 208 votes, and if possible, how the poll was conducted (from the reference it seems to be just an online opinion poll).The Geography and climate section is dominated with climate and area stats but little on its geographic setting, landscape, or the built environment (see Providence, Rhode Island#Cityscape)Naming a few services in the Government section that the City of Eire provides its residents would help.- Prose and language: a lot of lists of census data in the "Demographics"
(would be easier to read if some was in a table and compared to PA). "The region is also the 3rd largest grape crop in the country, resulting as Erie producing the 3rd largest amount of wine in the United States." (awkwardly phrased). the last two paragraphs in "Government and crime" cover the same ground (best to merge them). Why so specific on what services the Lord Corporation offers? Unprofessional language: "boasts numerous public beaches", "good fishing locations" "..become a popular home because of the beautiful beaches, revitalized downtown, and a suburban feel, even though Erie's population is over 100,000." "is the city's premier art gallery," (is there a reason it is the best or is this an editorial), "Erie's unique location along the shores of Lake Erie" (lots of cities along Lake Eire, what makes this city so unique?). - Comments (not objections):
- 40,938 households and 44,971 housing units is a significant gap, add a vacancy rate if you find one.
- The government and crime topics in the same section? I know it's about law and order but seems like it's implying (without stating) a connection...is there one, eh? eh? say no more.
- Overall, this is good and most of my points are minor fixes but I would like to see a more descriptive geography section. --maclean 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've added a section on cityscape and geography. I separated climate and expanded the geo. Still working on other fixes, but semi-busy in real life.--trey 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I am going to leave crime with Law section. There really is no where else to put it. Also, (not like this has anything to do with it) the former mayor (flippi) was indited for insider trading or something. ( I don't really remember). Also, I am just about done.--trey 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done--trey
- Those were some good fixes. Further points: the Economy section is using footnotes as an excuse to place external links to certain businesses
and the Reference "Weather Statistics. Action News 24. Retrieved on 21 May 2007." has moved (link went dead).Future points for improvement include replacing some of those references with more reliable sources (Flagship Niagara League?), write a more balanced history (really drops off in 20th-century). --maclean 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are these objections right now? Also, the Niagara League is the organization that maintains and sails the ship (reliable) and, when a link goes dead, it can still be used, but I will just get the new one (the channel got a new website).--trey 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dead ref replaced.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those were some good fixes. Further points: the Economy section is using footnotes as an excuse to place external links to certain businesses
- Final Comment: As my available time is about to be reduced I can no longer provide consistent full evaluations, so here is my final analysis:
- The prose is fine except for the Demographic section which devolves into a regurgitation of census data (ethnic groups) in a one-sentence paragraph.
- There is an abuse of footnotes and reference in the Economy section (advertisements masquerading as footnotes/references).
- Needs a map of the city (roads, landmarks, etc.)
- The History section should provide more narrative on the 20th century.
- I leave it up to the proponent, Raul654, and other reviewers to determine if these points are (a) relevant to the criteria, and/or, (b) satisfactorily addressed. --maclean 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can probably provide a map that is self-made, or get one from USGS (public domain). (→zelzany - fish) 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed demographics, also; I am not sure images (maps) are required for featured status; but I will try to have one made through vish.--trey 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Removed the references to companies.--trey 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are two good paragraphs covering the 20th century. One of your comments was on taking downtown improvement (history-ish I think) and moving it out.--trey 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's still refs for Lord Corporation & the biofuel plant. Should they be just removed or should they be replaced with something better? --Dtbohrertalk•contribs 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The lord one is on its history, citing it was founded in Erie. The biofuel one verifies the 45 million gallon statement.--trey 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to try to find a news article to replace the biofuel ref anyways. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Replaced it. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to try to find a news article to replace the biofuel ref anyways. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The lord one is on its history, citing it was founded in Erie. The biofuel one verifies the 45 million gallon statement.--trey 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ding! Let me know if Image:Erie, Pennsylvania map.png is sufficient. Cheers, (→zelzany - fish) 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can probably provide a map that is self-made, or get one from USGS (public domain). (→zelzany - fish) 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool!! Thanks! --Dtbohrertalk•contribs 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Done--trey
- 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.
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bobcat2.jpg){kind=link}