Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2006

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

Velociraptor

edit
Note:This article is already an FA. Please discuss any further changes to the article on the article's talk page.

Recently collaborated on by the Dinosaur collaboration. Very good article & has come a long way from a few weeks ago. Would be great on the main page as it is a very popular dinosaur & the article is so informative I doubt much will need to be done to it. Spawn Man 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This article can (and should) become FA material but not in its present form. It needs some work still. The description section is too short and includes some one sentence paragraphs. The references are mixed up, with some in footnote form, others in Harvard style. I will fix that presently. Many red links in the history and provenance sections, which could use copyediting. The history of classification section is a little POV ("It is becoming increasingly likely..."). Information in the history section is repeated in the predation section and should probably be removed from one or the other. The entire article could use copyediting. So basically, not quite ready yet, but soon. I'll do some work tonight. Sheep81 01:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove red links. Expanded Description section a fraction, & merged other sections to deplete 1 sentencers... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed red links. Also removed external link only available in German! Thanks, Spawn Man 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted repeated text from the history section & placed it in the predation section. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been addressed (by myself and others), but since I have worked so heavily on this article and am involved in WikiProject Dinosaurs, I feel I should abstain from officially supporting the article. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couple of suggestions. First off "In Jurassic Park" and "In Popular Culture" should almost certainly be merged, as Jurassic Park is definetly a subseciton of Pop Culture in general. Second, if at all possible, an image of the "distinctive" claw mentioned numerous times in the article would be very very nice. I know one of the supposed claws featured large in the first Jurassic Park, though given the numerous mentions of literary license taken with those 'raptors a pic of the real claw would be nice. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Two sections merged. Will get pic soon. Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a picture of the sickle claw, but this picture has it shown. Will this picture do if none of the project members can't find a picture either? Thanks, Spawn Man 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged... Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied, but as long as others have outstanding copyright and reference concerns, I'm afraid I can't strictly support yet. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reference concerns have been addressed by nominator, myself, User:Firsfron, and others.Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this article clearly is the best we've got...as long as someone else nominates a better article, my support is with this one. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Minor oppose, for two reasons. First, why are some of the references Harvard style and some in cite format? Second, I'm not wild about a couple of the photos, particularly this one and this one. The first one is just... well, it's just bad. I can barely tell what it's supposed to be. The lighting is washed out and there's a line (I assume an edge of the display case) running right through it. The second one, although I'll grant you that it's in the pop culture section, is silly. "Highly stylized" is really just a nice way of saying "completely inaccurate". It's a silly statue, and the park that statue is in is not mentioned in the section anyway. If the references can all get on the same page and the photos can be replaced (or just removed) I would support. Kafziel 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will get someone to edit the 2 fighting dinosaurs photo. The "highly stylised" photo, to be fair is in the pop culture section. It is just a statue to show the way humans have distorted the dinosaur's image through time. However if you want it removed, I will do so. Can you confirm you want it moved? Will do footnotes soon... Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure what the picture of the statue adds to the article. It's like a sculpture of a third-grader's drawing. It's standing on all four (pretty much equally sized) legs, with zany coloring and goofy teeth. But if I'm the only one who thinks so, I can let it go. If retouched and clarified, the fighting skeletons picture might be cool. I do have another question, though - as I understand it, it's just a theory that Velociraptor had feathers. It hasn't been proven yet. But both anatomical drawings in the article show him with feathers. Not to say they shouldn't be there, but the captions should mention that the drawings are based on the bird theory, not the fossil record.
Moving on... the main thing is the reference formatting. The section entitled "footnotes" should be entitled "references"; all of the contents are cited works, not notes. A couple of specific examples of problems:
  • There's a credit made to (Hwang, 2002). Footnote #5 is next to it, but #5 is for some completely different work from 2005, and it makes no mention of anyone named Hwang.
Removed, outdated. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reference, (Barsbold, R. and Osmolska, H., 1999) is in the "references" section, and nothing cites it.
Fixed. Sheep81 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reference, this one Osmolska by himself and from 1993, is cited in the body but has no mention in the references section.
Removed, unnecessary. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be others, but I figured there's no need to beat you over the head with it. Anyway, to sum up, I won't continue opposing over the pictures, but the references are really in need of major fixes. Kafziel 02:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of revising the entire set of references in the article, which will probably take me several hours. I've already made it down through the history section and should have the rest done in the near future. Also, (Halska) Osmolska is female. :) Sheep81 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I have now revised all the references, putting them all in footnote format, adding new refs, and citing more passages using existing refs.[reply]
No problem. I'm not really up to date with the references & footnotes section as the layout has changed drastically since I featured Dinosaur. I guess I could have a go on my own, but I have asked someone else to help me... Below, someone asked me to state the general refs section as refs & the refs section as footnotes or citations. This is who I thought it was done. Is it okay if I stick with it, as I wouldn't want to rechange it & anger the other guy opposing down there... Thanks, Spawn Man 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the bulk of my points have been addressed and fixed, so I have changed my vote to support. Good luck! Kafziel 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fair Use images lacking a fair use rationale. The references should preferably appear after punctuations (though I am not opposing for this). The section "General References" should be "References" and the current "References" be either "Notes", or "Citations". Couple of single sentence paragraphs can be merged into existing paragraphs to avoid breaking flow. Non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) needs to be added between numbers and units. Once these issues are fixed, the article is worth the FA status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with fair use rationale, could you give me some pointers? I thought you just put on what it was from, eg tv program, & hey presto you have image? Will fix footnotes. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) needs to be added between numbers and units? Would you be able to explain more so I can fix the problem. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Fair Use rationale see Help:Image page. As an example, you may want to refer to this image. I myself fixed the non-breaking space problem. Refer to my edits for future. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed extra spaces before references. I noticed at some places, references were provided in article text and not in footnotes. I have indicated an example in the text by commenting. I also found that though written professionally, in order to have consistancy and allow easy understanding (and expansion in the future), references may need to be standardised using one of the cite formats (eg {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}). Also, I noticed that the article everywhere uses hyphen-dash. Please use emdash, endash, or minus at appropriate places (See WP:DASH). For an example, I have corrected one use in the article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed footnotes & references titles. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although you weren't opposing for it, I placed inline citations after punctuation. Hope this helps, Spawn Man 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided rationale for the pictures in question. I hope that is what you meant. Spawn Man 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FU rationale for time magazine is satisfactory, but not for Image:Velociraptor222.jpg. The image should be scaled down to web-resolution for use. The second problem is that it says it is from a movie poster or title card. For that you need to show the source from where you got it. As far as I can remember, I hadn't seen any such poster, and even if it existed, it is cropped (contrary to FU rationale provided). I feel that it is most likely a cropped screenshot of the movie. Please confirm. Also, the article is missing the FU rationale text; i.e.
<!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -->
-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An extensive Google Images and eBay search failed to turn up any trace of a poster with this image. However, the image can be seen on a random dinosaur website here. Believing it to be a screenshot, I scanned through my DVD copy of the film but also failed to find such an image during the course of either of the first two movies (the third is ruled out due to the absence of head feathers in the image, which were present on the raptors from the third film). However, I did locate the image while looking through the special features of the disc. I believe it to be a publicity photo, although I cannot find it listed as such anywhere online. Is a single publicity photo considered fair use? Sheep81 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A single publicity photo qualifies as fair use and is infact a good candidate as it can be said for sure that it does not reduce the value of copyright. However, there are other issues. I am assuming that you saw the image from an authentic DVD, and not a pirated one. The issue is that in such a case the image would be a landscape one and not a portrait one like this. So it is most likely a cropped version, IMO. As far as I know, cropping (a derivative work) of fair-use images is not allowed. If you want to use it, use the actual screenshot and attribute it as such. And don't forget to make it web-resolution. You may also wish to contact the uploader for source as he's still a bit active nowadays. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original picture was deleted by the nominator. I went ahead and took a screenshot from my copy of the movie (which, by the way, is most definitely authentic) and placed it on the page. Hope that helps. Sheep81 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we have fixed all of your requests.... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object. Good article overall, but there's at least one {{citation needed}} tag still there at the moment; obviously this needs to be resolved. Also, is a separate heading for "History of classification" necessary? There are no other sub-sections of "Taxonomy"; why not just have a single long section there. Kirill Lokshin 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second title gone... Will find citation in my books somewhere... Or I could just delete the sentence needing citation.... Spawn Man 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added by User:Firsfron. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good; support now. Kirill Lokshin 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This article has come a long way since its nomination. For the record, I am a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs, but I would not support this article for a FA unless I felt it really was ready. I am unsure about the Jurassic Park photo, but I'm certain a substitute can be easily located, if it turns out to be unusuable. I feel most of the remaining concerns have already been addressed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Given the particular way that the Jurassic Park image is used, I think that the use of a fair use screenshot is quite justified. It probably ought to be made smaller - the only justification of fair use images is that they are used in an article (which is why a justification has to be given for that particular use - there is no point having an image that displays more detail than is shown in the article. (The image page shouldn't be a "use in itself" - if you make it something worth clicking on as you can see a far more detailed version, then there's an indication the use of the image in Wikipedia has crept beyond the article it is fair use in.) Image:Time-magazine-cover-henry-fairfield-osborn.jpg is a different matter. The use of Time magazine covers has been a bane of Wikipedia (yes, I'm going to gratuitously link to the infamous RFC). If you read the image copyright tag it refers to the use of the image "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover" which is clearly not the case here. Now it's arguable that a case for fair use could be made, and some Wikipedians would be satisfied with it and others wouldn't. It would help the argument's cause if the image was closer to a thumbnail, for instance, than the size it is at the moment: again, it is rather large for an image that we declare is "fairly used in particular articles" - the level of detail substantially exceeds what is visible in those articles. (Having big, detailed, freely licensed pictures to click on the image pages for viewing in detail is great because we are meant to be a "free", reproducible encyclopedia with high quality, free content. The fair use image pages have a different purpose: they should pretty much just contain the image as it appears in the articles it is used in, an "unfortunately this isn't free content" notice and an explanation of why it's in line with Wikipedia's copyrights policy to include it in the articles it's used in). I'm not even convinced that the use of the Time magazine image really adds that much to the article, especially bearing in mind that this is meant to be a "free" project. TheGrappler 06:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm guessing that you want me to delete the time picture? You never really said what you actually wanted me to do, so forgive me if this is wrong. I'll delete the picture & hope you can support.... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying not to be too prescriptive - if I wanted a particular change done, I'd do it myself. I'd accept a range of solutions, and this is certainly one of them. The Jurassic Park picture is much better a case of fair use, though do you think you could rehash its fair use rationale a little? As far as I can see, the heart of the fair use claim is that the article engages in critical commentary about the portrayal and appearance of velociraptors in the movie. If it did not, and the picture was simply included as eye candy, I think the fair use claim would be far worse. The fact that the fair use claim actually is this good should surely be reflected in the rationale. Also, would you put in a fair use comment into the text, perhaps in a similar way as, for instance, Starship Troopers#Background: The writing of Starship Troopers does? TheGrappler 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now altered the fair use rationale to indicate why use of this picture in the article is legitimate. Please advise if this is still unsatisfactory. Thanks! Sheep81 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I believe this article on a large naval battle from World War II meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article (FA) status. The article has been through a peer and good article review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. The article was also reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA. I'm standing by to respond to any suggestions, comments, or requests. This is a self-nomination. Cla68 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 37KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style
I added links for as many of the books as I could find with that feature available on Amazon. Cla68 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Citations for works listed in the "References" section should only have the minimum info necessary to identify the work. Usually the authors last name is sufficient, supplemented with year of publication, in the case that more than one work for that author is listed. So for example there is no need, and bad style, to include al those titles in the notes. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really agree here. The titles are useful as a recognition factor, since someone familiar with the literature regarding this topic can more readily identify the work being cited (without having to also consult the alphabetical list of references) if the title is included directly in the footnote. (And, to be slightly pedantic, "Last name, Title, page number." is the exact footnote format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.) Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style does call for "last name, title, page number" for each footnote. More information can be added, but not less. For example, if you look at Franks' book, one of the main sources that the article uses, he not only uses the last name, title, and page number in each footnote but also includes a brief quotation or explanation of the substance of the source cited. Cla68 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about notes used for citation when there is a separate "References" section which gives complete bibliographic information. I am not talking about so called "content" notes, used for providing explanatory information. I can't see where our WP:MOS recommends adding titles, can you point it out to me? If so then I will withdraw my objection. Paul August ☎ 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our MoS, quite correctly, says nothing at all about what the content of footnotes should look like (beyond the obvious point that it must somehow identify the work being cited); the choice of which format to follow is left to the individual editor. In this case, said editorial discretion has resulted in adopting the Chicago style. I cannot find anything in WP:MOS which would suggest that this is not a perfectly acceptable course of action. Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Footnotes guidance clearly states that the Chicago Manual of Style for footnotes is acceptable. Cla68 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of the Chicago MoS handy. But in my experience it is normal to give bibliographic information in notes only when there is no separate "References" section or Bibliography. Are you sure that isn't the situation the Chicago MoS is referring to? Paul August ☎ 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite (I just checked again); you might be thinking of previous editions of the CMoS, which did use the "last name, page number" form. In any case, from the fifteenth edition: "The short form, as distinct from an abbreviation, should include enough information to remind readers of the full title or to lead them to the appropriate entry in the bibliography..." (16.41), "The most common short form consists of the last name of the author and the main title of the work cited, usually shortened if more than four words..." (16.42), and "First note citation in a work with full bibliography: 1. Doniger, Splitting the Difference, 23." (16.3, emphasis theirs). Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I withdraw my objection. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A separate bibliography or references section is necessary with the Chicago MoS because the footnotes omit important information, such as the copyright date of the source, the publisher, the author's full name, the ISBN number, place of publishing, full webpage address, etc. Cla68 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those two books are the best two books (at least that I found) on the subject. Both use extensive primary sources, especially the Frank book which uses original research into Japanese documents by the author. But, several key points in the article are attributed to a third source (the Hara book) that represents a firsthand account of the battle from a Japanese participant and is used as a source for 16 different assertions in the article. Cla68 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources listed are well regarded and highly reputable.--Nick Dowling 02:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the constructive feedback. I've fixed the two items. Cla68 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I now fully support.
  • Support A truely wonderful article to read. I loved every minute of it. TomStar81 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Long, inlince citations and maps. One note: merge notes with references, it will be more logical that way (after all, notes ARE references, aren't they?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A very good article though I have some concerns:
    1. I detect a pro-Allied stance either from the writer or creeping through from sources that describe the battle from the viewpoint of the Allied ships. Note the use of the word "sudden" or "suddenly": "Suddenly...Akatsuki and Hiei turned on large searchlights ", "Two of the U.S. destroyers now met a sudden demise", "Laffey... suddenly encountered", "Monssen...was suddenly accosted", "Sterett was suddenly ambushed", and "South Dakota suddenly suffered" all refer to unfortunate events happening to the Allied vessels, with "Washington suddenly hit Kirishima" being an exception. Meanwhile, "Amatsukaze didn't notice" and "Yudachi... appeared totally unaware". I believe that equally valid wordings might be "Sterrett was unaware" or "Amatsukaze was ambushed". The aggregate implication of the word choice is that bad things just happened to the Allies while the Japanese were incompetent, which if true needs to be stated explicitly.
    2. Minor issues: (1) the previous bombardment of Henderson Field on 13 October 1942 is not mentioned and (2) according the combinedfleet.com record of movement I used to expand Kongo, she was providing "distant cover" to the battle but I find no mention of her, or a force of which she may have been a part. - BT 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is difficult to completely avoid a slightly pro-Allied stance for several reasons: Most of the English-language sources are written by authors who are glad that the Allies won the war, not the Japanese, and, much fewer Japanese sources exist that have been translated into English and/or are widely available. However, in spite of those obstacles I felt that I had accomplished giving equal coverage to the significant actions, plans, strategies, and motivations of the Japanese side, but I'll review the specific text you mention to see if some sentences can be worded differently.
2. In an article already as long as it is on such a large and complex event, it's difficult to choose which details should be included and which should be omitted. I'm including a description of the Oct 13, 1942 bombardment incident in the background section for the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, because I think it more directly affects that earlier battle in the same campaign. As for this article, several large Japanese ships provided "distant" cover, but otherwise had no impact on the course or outcome of the battle at all. Kongo fits into that category. I tried to include only details that had some impact on the actual outcome of the battle. Cla68 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I removed some of the subjective wording that you specified. Cla68 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)My concern, perhaps not clearly expressed, is over what I feel is a lack of Japanese perspective when attributing perceptions of the combatants, which is not the same as rooting for the Japanese. The article consistently takes the viewpoint of a captain/s on an Allied vessel - so if he was surprised by an attack, the article states the attack was "sudden". If a Japanese commander was surprised by an attack, the article still views the engagement through the eyes of the Allied commander, describing how his opponent didn't seem to notice as he approached. Note that I do not doubt that the article is factually correct, just with a viewpoint that I feel should be minimized to the extent possible. This is admittedly a subtle point, but I noticed it quite clearly within a few paragraphs of the battle description. Reading between the lines of your response, it seems that this is a reflected bias of the sources used. It would be unreasonable of me to demand Japanese language sources for an otherwise fine article and I support promotion to FA status. - BT 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the links in: [[November 12]]–[[15]], [[1942]]. They do not work with preferences and will look bizarre for some users. bobblewik 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

edit

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on this article since I finished getting Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article up to FA status. I've written this article to follow suit in the same style as that article, it was recently named a good article and has received a peer review which unfortunately did not receive much notice. Instead I decided to simply put it up for FA. I believe that if the Revenge of the Sith article is worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have helped work on this article for a while now, it has grown tremendously, and it grew from the Good Article review to what it is now, ready to be featured. Judgesurreal777 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per above. The Wookieepedian 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my own nomination. The Filmaker 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Support This is my opinion and please dont flame me because I'm a newbie, but I found the dvd realease kinda useless and some infomation that could be abridged or removed, but other than that it is a great article -ScotchMB 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish there was more information to fill out that section. But so far I have found none. At the moment I think the section is fine. So would you mind being more specific on what about the section bothers you? The Filmaker 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again please don't flame me or call me anything but to me the DVD part sounds a bit like advertisement like the listing of features and what is inside. Don't get me wrong, this article is great and informative and is ready to be on the featured. I changed my opinion to support because I was browsing and noticed that Episode 3 was just like this article and since ROTS was on featured its only fair if this goes up.-ScotchMB 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I went through and tried to improve a few awkward-sounding sentences, but another round of copyediting would be beneficial. A few problematic sentences that I found were:
    • "Because of the enormous number of elements from different departments that are created in the practical and digital world, Attack of the Clones became to the first film to ever to be produced through what Rick McCallum refered to as "virtual filmmaking" because of George Lucas' method of creating shots through various sources that are sometimes miles and years apart from each other." I'd break this up for clarity.
    • "While Lucas had used other ways of producing motion-based storyboards in the past, with cutting documentaries footage together in A New Hope, using cartoon animation in The Empire Strikes Back, and using small models in Return of the Jedi, after The Phantom Menace the decision was made to take advantage of the growing digital technology." This sentence is a bit too busy.
    • "The films that outearned it were Spider-Man and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which also enjoyed a more favourable critical reception." The referent of "which" is unclear; does it refer only to Two Towers or to both higher-grossing films?
    • "Attack of Clones references The Empire Strikes Back most often as a nod toward them both being the middle film in their respective trilogies." The "them being" construction is awkward; technically, it should be "their being" but that's a bit jarring, too. Recast the sentence to avoid that wording.
In general, the article could stand to use more active rather than passive voice. Switching voices in some sentences would improve the vigor of the prose. The content is there, it seems; just tighten the wording. — TKD::Talk 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed all of your points, but I'm finding your words pretty vague, would mind going into more detail to what you mean by having an active vs. a passive voice? The Filmaker 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been a few years since I've seen this movie, and I'm wondering about this, "Anakin, Padmé, and Obi-Wan are drawn into the heart of the Separatist movement." If you say they were drawn into the movement it sounds like they joined the movement, which IIRC they didn't. Perhaps they were drawn into separatist territories? "As a disguise during filming, the film's "working title", intended sarcastically in light of the fan response to Episode I, was Jar Jar's Big Adventure." Perhaps a little context explaining who Jar Jar is, that people dislike Jar Jar and why they dislike him? "Back on Geonosis, Count Dooku tries to persuade Obi-Wan to join him, warning him that Darth Sidious is now in control of the Senate." I'd like a little more context here. Who is this character (I know it's Palpatine, but for the purposes of understanding the plot, what do the Jedi know about this character and why should they care whether he controls the Senate)? Which actor won the Worst Supporting Actor award? (and I'd add on a more humourous note, how could Anakin and Padme not win the Worst Screen Couple Award :-)?). "Also, it was not the top grossing film of the year, the first and only time that a Star Wars film has not had that distinction." ROTS topped the box office in the US, not worldwide. Maybe clarify? I also thought the references to other Star Wars section could use a bit more referencing. Other than these things the article is looking good to me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, "As confirmed in a video on the StarWars.com Hyperspace section, a deleted scene involved the Jedi battling the droid army on Geonosis, with the droids all powered down (just as they did in The Phantom Menace after the Trade Federation ship was destroyed). This was part of an unused subplot involving Jedi master Plo Koon infiltrating the Trade Federation ship and destroying it. Dooku had planned for this and found an alternate way to power up the droid army." It's not really clear to me what this is doing in the cast section. Is this where NSYNC came in? Is there anything else to add to the cast section, anything interesting about how the actors chose to play their roles? Wasn't there a big search for an actor to play Anakin? Shouldn't that be mentioned, and an explanation given on how the part was cast? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed most of your suggestions. I've also added a paragraph on the casting on Anakin, and I've taken out the the part on the supposed deleted scene because it is uncitable (atleast in any tangible way). Two things though, to expand on why the fans dislike Jar Jar is non-comprehensive mostly because if you want to know than you should be looking at the article on Jar Jar himself, or the Episode I article. Also with the Darth Sidious moment in the synopsis, to elaborate on that would also be non-comprehensive since the reader/viewer would remember him from the previous film. Both the Sith and Darth Sidious are explained in the previous film and I shouldn't have to go over their history again in this synopsis. I have reworded both of those sentences though. Other than that, I completely fixed the rest of your suggestions. The Filmaker 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of adding a bit more about the search for Anakin. That said, I still have two comments: About more referencing for the section about references to other Star Wars films, what I meant was that it could use a few more footnotes. The Jar Jar material is now clear enough. However, I disagree with you regarding Darth Sidious. Whether or not "the reader/viewer would remember him from the previous film" is George Lucas' problem. In truth I didn't remember him from Ep I or even Ep II (I only remember the stuff about him in ROTS), but that's beyond the point. Wikipedia's problem is to make sure the reader knows who he is without being required to see any movies or read any other articles. Let this article stand on its own. I'm not asking for Darth Sidious' article to be merged into this one, just some kind of brief explanation would do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You personally don't remember anything about him from Episode I or II. If what you said were true than I would also have to explain the concept of the Jedi and the Force. Each Matrix film article would have to explain what the matrix is. Why would someone read this article without having seen the other film, or at the very least read the previous article? Should the reader become confused, than they would realize that they are beginning in the middle of the grand story and would have to find another article to explain what they do not know, which is already conviently placed with a link to the Darth Sidious article. Finally, in the interest of the prose in the article, by giving the character a description, it appears that he is being introduced as a new character, and he is not. The Filmaker 20:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the article is a bit more clear now than what it was when I first read it, "warning him that Darth Sidious is now in control of the Senate." The version now explains he's a Sith Lord. That said, the article should stand on its own. People like me might have seen the movie and may want to read about it without remembering all the crufty details. What if I were a Natalie Portman fan, and I absolutely hated sci fi, and I wanted to know about her work without sitting through this movie? Lastly, if this were a featured article on the main page, everyone would see it, not just Star Wars fans. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's say on the off chance that I didn't know what peanut butter was. If I read about Elvis' favorite food being peanut butter and banana sandwiches, should the Elvis article have to explain that? If the article was on the main page, everyone would see it, not just food fans. By entering an article on a subject so vast like Star Wars you will realize that one article cannot comprehensively take in the entire concept. But am I beating a dead horse? Are you fine with the sentence now? The Filmaker 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • P.S. The Elvis article that does not explain what peanut butter is, is a featured article. And Star Wars is not a sci-fi movie. :P The Filmaker 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm OK with the sentence now, though perhaps it could benefit from another descriptive term or two, like "mysterious Sith Lord". Anyway, peanut butter and bananas are things one would have lying around the house, and even if they weren't by saying they were Elvis' favourite food you'd know they were food. It's been a long time since I've had Darth Sidious over at my house. Concepts like the Force and Jedi are probably more or less sufficiently well-known. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very interesting article with nice well-rounded writing. I found the "Historical and cultural allusions" section most fascinating. Most of the other sections didn't deilever any new information on the subject, but I thought it was well done nonetheless. I think if it has the potential for feature article status. If not now, soon. Cormacalian 24:14, June 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Neat, tidy, comprehensive, ref'd, just like Revenge of the Sith. Well done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up three problemmatic footnotes out of five sampled. (Results are here.) Please go through and make sure all citations lead to information supporting the footnoted statement. --RobthTalk 04:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All three citations have been fixed one way or another. :) The Filmaker 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job with those three. My point, however, was not just that those three need to be fixed, but that if three out of five randomly selected citations have serious problems, it seems unlikely that those are the only problematic citations in the article. Please go through and check for any other errors and correct them; if there are actually no others, that's all well and good, but I'm inclined to suspect that at least a few more are going to be iffy. --RobthTalk 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[1]] and [[2]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral for now. I'm satisfied that the citation and weaseling problems have been cleared up, but I need a chance to read the article more critically before I can support or object. Thanks to the Filmmaker and Wookieepedian for doing the legwork to fix the citation issue. — BrianSmithson 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Object per Robth. There are a couple of weaselly sentences, too: "This scene appears to be influenced by an execution method employed by the ancient Romans at the Colosseum where lions and other dangerous predatory animals were permitted to have their way with condemned prisoners." (Please say exactly who said this, not that it "appears to be" so.) "NSYNC reportedly filmed a cameo appearance which was cut from the movie. This was reportedly put in by Lucas to satisfy his daughter." (Two "reportedlys" in a row. Give a name for the person or agency who reported this.) — BrianSmithson 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of Robth's points have been corrected and the weasel words have been removed or changed. The Filmaker 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Can we clean up some more weaselling? "The end credits erroneously list Alan Ruscoe as playing Neimoidian senator Lott Dod.[citation needed that this is erroneous] In fact, not only is there serious doubt as to whether the Neimoidian abetting Nute Gunray is actually Dod (as some sources identify the character as Gilramos Libkath),[citation needed listing which sources] the character was actually played by an uncredited David Healey and voiced by Christopher Truswell.[citation needed that this is indeed the case]" It's possible all of this can be cited from one source; if so, all the better. But it needs to be more clear: "In fact, [so-and-so] has raised doubts as to whether . . . (as [this source] identifies the character . . . ). And later: " Leonardo DiCaprio was speculated to be in the running but has never been confirmed" should be "[Source] reported that Leonardo DiCaprio was in the running, but this has never been confirmed." The whole "Cast" section needs some work; for example, shouldn't the quote about Haydn Christensen and the discussion of casting Anakin go under the heading "Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker"? Alternatively, the part about casting might fit somewhere in the "Production" section. — BrianSmithson 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Robth's point has not yet been addressed, and I am also objecting based on it. For example, the article says, "Leonardo DiCaprio was speculated to be in the running but has never been confirmed." The source cited says, "The actor's rep tells USA Today that the 25-year-old star did meet with George Lucas about the 'Episode II' prequel. But the conference was all for naught. Says DiCaprio publicist Ken Sunshine: '[H]e is definitely unavailable.'" In other words, nothing about speculation or confirmation of that speculation. Like Robth said, don't just fix the examples he provided; there's likely more where this comes from. — BrianSmithson 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robth's point is well taken. I've run through all of the references and had to change a few lines here and there. But now I believe that all of the references are in place. The Filmaker 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi paradox

edit

This is a former featured article, which I took to WP:FARC two months ago (see here). Some massive changes were made at that time and since: refs from 3 to about 30, K down from 65 to 55, enormous TOC reduced from close to 60(!) to about 30 sections. I think it's much tighter now and while it needs a few more tweaks there's nothing that can't be worked out through a new candidacy. A note to those unfamiliar with the topic: it's enormously speculative, which means our page on it is subject to tangent after tangent. I have tried to make sure the dozens of hypothetical answers to the paradox get at least mention if only in a word while cutting the fat that has been added; info that has been removed is properly linked on other pages. Marskell 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. The overall tone and language sounds wrong for an encyclopedia to me. Questions are all over the place, and it has an awful flow. I found it difficult to read, personally. — Wackymacs 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything actionable you could point to? Cheers, Marskell 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically: Explaining the silence section is the most worrying - too many subsections, and I don't think the titles are right. A general summarized "Reasons" and "Explanations" section might be better, and maybe "Theories". — Wackymacs 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does get weaker toward the end and the number of headings has been an outstanding problem. However, the topic is usually approached with lists of this sort. I'll try and work on it. Marskell 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I understand the various subsections, and for this article, I think that this approach really works well. My one minor criticism (and this is in no way standing in the way of me supporting) is that I'm not a big fan of inline external links. Other than that, fantastic job. Cheers! The Disco King 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rrpbgeek 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object based on the opening paragraph. The precise definition of physical paradox wasn't clear to me, though I knew what the Fermi paradox was. Is it really necessary to include that term? It seems to me that for the opening paragraph, it would be better to speak of something like the "apparent contradiction" between the high estimated probabilities and factual absence of contact.

It also seems unclear what "a lack of evidence" refers to. There's no need to try to be neutral here, the Fermi paradox is the dual assertion that by reasonable a priori estimates, life should exist, but it doesn't. I suggest rewriting the opening paragraph. RandomP 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the first. "Physical paradox" was indeed probably poor word choice. Marskell 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good :-) RandomP 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I agree with Wackymacs on the tone arguement. This reads a lot like something from Popular Mechanics or another similar magazine. The tone is just all wrong for an encyclopedia article, especially the section "Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically: Explaining the silence" — Scm83x hook 'em 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything actionable you could point to? Cheers, Marskell 10:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, the old "actionable" herring. Haven't seen that one in a while. You didn't even read his complaint, Marskell: the action here would be to change the tone. --Golbez 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Golbez, Marskell most likely wants a particular sentence or paragraph quoted here that needs specific work on the tone. — Wackymacs 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, ya Golbez, I do want something specific and, sorry to sound resentful, but I read his quote properly. "Oh hey--change the tone" is not actionable. Actionable is not a dirty word. I'm not entirely responsible for the tone on this page to be clear, which was much more bloated when I found it. It's a popular topic (or more precisely, it's a "respectable" topic to talk about if you want to talk about "little green men") and it's given to tangents and speculation. All of the sources, more or less, use a point A, point B, point C structure (or they take one of A, B, or C and look at it at length). I think it would be a disservice to suddenly gut that structure. But it can be worked on, which is why it's here. So yes, give me something actionable :). Marskell 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the tone is too familiar. A formal tone is expected in an encyclopedia, not a tone which interlaces humourous quotations ("... begging your pardon sir, but it's a big-ass sky." — Billy Bob Thornton as Truman in Armageddon), first-person writing outside of quotations ("The simplest explanation is that we are alone in the galaxy." and many others if you do a CTRL+F search for "we "), non-standard italics and bolding, the informal and non-standard section headers, and the colloquial style with which the article is written, in general. The article is formatted as though it is appearing in a science periodical (i.e. PopSci), as opposed to an encyclopedia. — Scm83x hook 'em 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather like the quote as a light point on a long page but I will remove it if you like (probably in the morning at this point). Hit the history back 300 hundred say, and do a search for "we" and note the comparison--it has been a raging crusuade to remove. An otherwise very helpful editor had a tendency to use the first person plural as the subject of every sentence. The bolding for (what would otherwise be) level five headlines is not non-MOS (is it? it was actually suggested during FARC). As for the comparison to Popular Mechanics or whatever, I don't particulary care if that's how it reads if it does justice to the topic. We aren't using exclamation points for everything! The aliens are here or maybe they're not! Not to sound disinteresed, but gutting this for a vague objection won't help the topic. This sounds "popular" in the broad sense because it is "popular" in the broad sense (unlike the Crab nebula or Neutron stars, say). You can only make "the aliens are here and attempting to communicate with us" so encyclopedic. Marskell 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite my protestations, the point about first-person was actionable: all uses of "we", "our" and "us" have been eliminated (thx User:Zafiroblue05 for helping in this regard). This was needed--we'd roundly debated it on talk but the problem hadn't been systematically addressed.
      • The Billy Bob Thorton quote has been removed.
      • Any other specific points welcome. Marskell 09:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you make the lead image smaller? CG 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's looking good again. Nick Mks 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object In the refs section, you can't have lots of inline citations, then 2 bulleted refs. It's bad form. The non-inline refs should go into a seprate section. That's why many articles have notes sections in addition to refs sections. Tobyk777 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, after pickaxing out all the 'we's. Its parent article, SETI could do with this kind of treatment, as it is god awful. Proto||type 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't find the tone overly unencyclopaedic. A couple more images to break up the weight of the text might not go amiss, but otherwise I see no problem. BillC 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Highly readable article on an interesting topic. I think the structure is well-chosen, but the titles themselves are too populist I think. If the various subheadings are rephrased in a more encyclopaedic manner then you have my support. Would like to see this on the front page. Soo 11:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status. This is approaching decision time. The small things have been taken care and what seems to remain is a difference in kind over the headings of the last section. Yes, they could be drastically made over but I don't know how while still doing justice to each individual response to the problem. Our headings are similar to our sources (as they should be) and with the first person removed they are arguably more formal. See here for the largest popular look at the topic. So that's my take for now--I don't think we should compromise the article because of headings. Marskell 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I have some misgivings about the tone. Phrases such as "seems likely" or "seems plausible" are used too often, and this article does not feel polished. The lead, for instance, is disorganized and a little fuzzy. All criticism aside, this is really quite a good article, and on a difficult topic, and if it were featured right now, I'd be fine with it. -- Rmrfstar 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "seems to" is hard to avoid with a speculative topic like this. I'll try and look for other examples. Marskell 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead looks like it could use ilinks in third para, and the see also is long - should be merged with text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There really is nothing in that para that could be linked (that isn't already). The see also has nine--fairly modest. There's a couple only partially related things I'll remove now. Marskell 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. This article may be a little unconventional, but it does deserve recognition as a well written, interesting article which conforms to our standards. One problem, perhaps, is it not identifying religious non-scientific theories clearly as that. Another is little explanation about what the Drake Equation is. --Oldak Quill 09:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the sentence "Although not generally considered a testable scientific explanation, the belief that a creator deity has placed humanity at the unique focus of creation has broad historical support" meet your first concern? Beyond that, there isn't a lot of religious discussion on the page. We do have a section on the Drake Equation but we don't list its factors; for a +50k article we need to let the sub- or related articles do some of the work. Marskell 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support - concerned about the following statement "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to an alien civilization, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible with minor investment in energy and resources." Evidence please? Who states this? The drake equation also needs to be explained very briefly, there is no context as to what this is, and I have to click on another link to understand it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the sentence to "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to an alien civilization, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible" dropping the bit about "minor investment" which is assumptive. The next sentence points the reader to the main section on this topic where sources are provided. Is this acceptable? I'll get to the Drake Equation soon. Marskell 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added for Drake equation: "The speculative equation factors: the rate of star formation in the galaxy; the number of stars with planets and the number that are habitable; the number of those planets which develop life and subsequently intelligent communicating life; and finally the expected lifetimes of such civilizations." OK? Again, given size concerns I'll leave fuller explanations for the sub-article. Marskell 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Eastern Solomons

edit

I believe this history/war article meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article (FA) status. The article has been through a peer review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. I'm standing by to respond to any suggestions, comments, or requests. Cla68 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, excellent article in every regard. One minor thing to check, though: the times seem to be sometimes given in pure military time ("At 1629...") and sometimes in regular 24-hour time ("...at 16:46..."); it would probably be best to stick to a single format throughout. Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have caught that before. I've changed all the times to 24-hour time format. Thank you, Cla68 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. Article looks good. I am slightly concerned about using too few sources for inline citations which may have resulted in a POV article. Hopefully the editors have taken care of that. The article, though, requires extensive copyediting. Clean it per WP:WTA and you will get my support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the WP:WTA guidance and the only word on that list that I see in the article is the word "however." But, the way that word is used in the article, to contrast different decisions made and actions taken during the course of the battle, doesn't appear to be used in the way that the guidance suggests shouldn't be done. As far as the number of sources, even though there are only three main sources used, I believe they do cover the event comprehensively and neutrally, the only obstacle being that not as many Japanese sources appear to have survived that document their side of the battle. The Frank book uses extensive western and translated Japanese documents as references and is very well sourced. The Hara book is a first-hand account of the battle by a Japanese participant. The Hammel book leans more towards the U.S. side, but does include POV from the Japanese side, although not as much as Frank's book. The attack on the U.S. ships (especially Enterprise) is given more detail than the attacks on the Japanese ships because more details are available, plus, one of the significant actions and effects of the battle for the Japanese, which was the loss of many of their aircraft, occurred during their attacks on the U.S. ships. Cla68 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from on the question about the white space. I've tried different things to get rid of it, but I'm stumped as how to do it. The problem is that placing the image link at the beginning of that paragraph moves the image and paragraph down to the bottom of the campgain box, creating the white space. If the image link is put at the end of that paragraph, then the image will run into the next section. If the image link is put in the middle of the paragraph, then white space appears in the middle of the paragraph. If anyone knows how to resolve this problem, I'm open to the advice. Cla68 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no excess white space. Running Firfox/Windows. —D-Rock 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with having images overlap a section break. In fact, I think that it's a positive thing from an aesthetic viewpoint, since it reduces the extent to which the line after a second-level heading interrupts the flow of the article, and is more consistent with how images are positioned in printed material. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support. I can only think this is an issue with my browser at work. At work (IE), there was a huge white space breaking up that section, but at home (both IE and FF), there is no break. Maybe my work browser is an older version. Kudos to the author for the rapid fixing of all the feedback. Rlevse 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I view the article on my laptop, the white space disappears. Cla68 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment: In hiding the TOC, I notice that the campaign's navigation box gets covered by the photo of the Wasps. For what it's worth, I'm using FF at 1024x768.--Monocrat 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with a few minor suggestions I like the article, and I believe it is very well-referenced. However, there are a lot of book references, which could make it hard for someone who doesn't have that book to verify the material. Providing a link along with the book (e.g. a link to Amazon, which often allows searching inside the book, or to a summary/review of the book somewhere) could be helpful. Also, there are a number of repeat references/notes: use of the ref name attribute would group these together. But these are minor issues. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but, from what I've seen in other articles, links to Amazon and other commercial book sellers are frowned-upon by the Wikipedia community. However, I'll try to find neutral (i.e. not trying to sell the book) media reviews of those books and add the links to the end of the book reference in the "books" section. Cla68 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, using Amazon's search inside is one of the methods reccommended by Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Finding a good source may require some effort for fact-checking book references. Of course there are other options. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added some links for several of the books, including Frank's, to Amazon's Online Reader for those books. Cla68 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
: ) I added a few more Amazon Online Reader links... I don't think Amazon has it for the rest. I also combined a few of the repeat inline citations... you can see what I did... great job on the article! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs)
Thank you. Cla68 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII

edit

Peer Review 1
Peer Review 2

Self-nom (although others have worked on this as well). This is an extremely comprehensive, well-referenced, and neutral biography of an important and somewhat controversial Pope. It received Good Article status on April 27 and has had two peer reviews since then which turned up no major problems and improved the article further. Its size (~53K) is appropriate in my judgment; if you feel it is too large, keep in mind that the size is inflated by the extensive references and end materials. This article has had its share of edit warring over the years; however, the current version has been free from major disputes for a long time. It has also been stable for a few days since I finished making a series of minor edits. I hope that you’ll see fit to join me in supporting this article. Otherwise, I will do my best to address any actionable objections. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 38KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style
  • Minor suggestions Looks like a really good and well-referenced article, but here's a few minor suggestions. Firstly, some of the references could probably have a bit more bibliographical information. (I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, that would be great.) Secondly, while certainly not required, links to summaries/other helpful online material for offline references could help people who do not have the offline material try to verify it. For example, for books, Amazon often provides an Online Reader that allows searching inside the book (this is suggested by WP:RS). Anyways, impressivly-referenced article, overall. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the works included in the "further reading", I included only author, date, and page number. I did this because there is no need to give the full cite repeatedly for works cited multiple times. I made this clearer with my most recent edit, I think. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes more sense now. Support. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and learned a lot. However, here are some thoughts: I'm not a fan of one- or two-sentence paragraphs or sections with only a single subsection. The lead, "Theology," and "Views..." are rife with the former, and "The Holocaust" and "Notes" (the latter) could probably be made their own principal sections. You might also consider stripping "Apostolic Constitutions" and "Encyclicals" of their status as subsections (perhaps massaging the text for flow). Perhaps "Canonizations..." and "Great Consistory" could be merged, as the former seems way too short to warrant its own subsection. "Post-World War II" seems a little inelegant to me, so something like "Post-war reign" might do. Better would be to combine that section with the following section and rename it "Later reign and death." These are all optional, but I think they would greatly improve an already fantastic article. Great work!--Monocrat 05:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the one sentence paragraphs and made "The Holocaust" and "Notes" their own sections. However, I am hesistant to merge the sections that you suggested. The canonizations section I just intended to provide links to the people that he canonized. A lot could be said about his choices, but that would probably violate our original research policies. This could even be changed to a box on the left side of the papacy section, rather than making it a section (I'll play around with that and see if it looks aescetic). I also would rather not merge the post-war section with the later life section because that would imply that he basically just started dying after WWII and in fact some of the more important elements of his papacy occured then. In my mind, the later life section starts thematically with his illness. As for the section title, I'll let you change that if you want to, but if having a section called "WWII" is fine, then "post-WII" makes a lot of sense to me. Breif and specific. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about the sections "Post-WWII" is that the last paragraph, which looks to be about half of the section, could easily go under "Views..." or under "...Legacy," leaving only his activities in anti-communism and advocacy of clemency. I also think the current location of "Theology," "Canonizations..." and "Great Consistory" is disruptive to the historical narrative. The first could be made its own section, possibly, and the others subsumed into it, or moved into an independent "Legacy" section. If this were done, "Election and coronation" could be included in "Church career". Just thoughts.--Monocrat 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the Corriera della Sera controversy in the post-war section because unlike many of the criticisms or defenses of Pius, this one was localized to only one of his specific post-war activities. I didn't want to separate the Foxman comment from the actual facts, though. As for your changes to the Papacy section, I don't really think it disrupts the historical narrative. What happens at this point is that the narrative splits into his spiritual and worldly activities. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Many facts are lacking context, since they are described with just one sentence. I.e. "On October 28, 1943, Weizsacker, the German Ambassador to the Vatican, telegrammed Berlin that the pope "has not allowed himself to be carried away [into] making any demonstrative statements against the deportation of the Jews."" There is a story behind this fact. It was Weizsäcker's aim to appease Berlin not to invade the vatican. Pius overwhelmed him with protests, Weizsäcker again warned Pius that provoking Berlin could have the contrary effect. Thus, Pius did not repeat the protests publicly and Weizsäcker did not deliver them to the government, but on the contrary appeased Berlin. Source: Pinchas Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews, who is not quoted one single time in this article, whereas he has rendered the earliest (1967) and most thorough research on this matter. - Another example: When mentioning the Reichskonkordat, it should be mentioned that the german "kulturkampf" of the Bismack era lead to the vatican's desire of making a concordate. Furthermore, the concordate should promote international diplomatic reputation of the young vatican state. Without these facts, the whole Idea about the concordate is completely turned upside-down. -When mentioning the circumstances of passing the enabling act, please don't forget to mention that the SPD members could not cast their votes because they were all arrested the night before (Göring was the chief of police in Prussia and there was no immunity of representatives). If the SPD members (among them also catholics) would have attended, the enabling act would not have been passed. That much to Pius and his alleged influence on the enabling act. UAltmann 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the nomination has already been closed, I'll address these on the article talk page. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House

edit

This is about one of England's greatest buildings, albeit not one of its best known. I found this page as a stub a couple of weeks ago, but it is mostly a self nomination, but with a lot of good advice and copy-editing from other editors. Particularly Bishonen. I think the pictures are great, but then I took them! It seems to me the page is as complete and referenced as is possible and it meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellently written and quite interesting article; my only question in this regard would be to ask if you have the map coordinates of the house available. However (and I suspect you'll throroughly hate me for this) I have a number of concerns with regards to the references for the article. There are a few parenthetical citations still remaining in the text that should be converted to footnotes, as well as a number of websites listed in the footnotes that need, at a minimum, assess dates (and perhaps a listing in the "References" section as well?). More curiously, the ISBN (ISBN 0802112285) listed for Chesshyre's Belton House seems to instead resolve to The English Country House in Perspective by a Gervase Jackson-Stops; perhaps you made an error in transcribing it? Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was a mistranscription The English Country House in Perspective was one of the major refs used, sorry. Map ref is now in the lead, it was actually a link before. I hope I have now addressed all your points. The only links left now in the notes, are those which were not used as references, but are there for the benefit of anyone interested further in a particular area mentioned in the text. Just put of interest do you know - there are two books listed both published in the 1960s which don't give their ISBNs anywhere that I can find on them - is that common? Giano | talk 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the ISBN wasn't introduced until 1966 (and didn't become a standard until 1970), anything published before that date may not have one unless it was reprinted. Everything else seems fine now; full support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks that's great. Noting Jim62's point (below) concerning the map reference do you have any comment? It would be nice to keep everyone happy. Could it be a footnote after Lincolnshire? Giano | talk 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote could work. Alternately, there's a template I've seen that places the coordinates in the top right corner of the article, but I can't recall the name offhand; I'll see if I can find it somewhere. Kirill Lokshin 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. It's one of {{coor title d}}, {{coor title dm}}, or {{coor title dms}}, depending on how exact you want the numbers to be. Kirill Lokshin 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! a Giano nom... (jumps excitedly from torpor of constant 'object' votes...) Anyway, Conditional Support. Could the map with lettered rooms have have its explanation be a subsection, or paragraph in another subsection, instead of an overlong picture caption? That's my only quabble (Is that a word?) RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thrilled your thrilled and even more thrilled with the conditional support, and I don't want to lose it, but I would like to attempt to change your view by explaining why it's captioned like that. The best idea would have been to have the room names actually written in the rooms, but that would not show up clearly at low resolution. The plan is referred to continually throughout various sections so a sub-para would be repetition, yet I think the plan need to have an explanation close at hand, it's tiresome to have to keep scrolling up and down. What do you think? Giano | talk 07:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noted your comment Mongo and am working on it. The figures or at least some of them must be given somewhere, just a question of where. I'll look more thoroughly this evening. Giano | talk 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine...I Support anyway, I just thought that if those numbers in metric or standard were available, it may help get an idea of scale..the images actually do a fairly good job of this...it's almost as big as my summer cottage. Ha.--MONGO 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well your vote is very welcome - thanks, because I can't find dimensions anywhere "Country house in Perspective" is full of plans and line drawings, yet does not give a dimension anywhere, I'll bin the useless book! Google is worse than nothing, having seen the place I would say the kitchen "A" on the plan is about 5m X 15m. Otherwise take a look at the amazingly professional fotos and take an inspired guess. In the meantime I'll keep searching. I'm afraid I can't return there with a measure, because I was practically evicted while taking interior fotos with my fone and they may remember me! Giano | talk 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Solid article. Just went through and added metric equivalents to the two land areas given. Also, what did you mean with "encourage people to spend longer"? Is there some sort of missing word? But otherwise nothing wrong. Daniel Case 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very thoughtful and thorough article. DVD+ R/W 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Informative, well-referenced, with many images that help illustrate the subject. Great job! --Aude (talk contribs) 02:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Good, well written article. I've fixed the vernacular link to point to Vernacular architecture rather than the literary sense. I'm a little concerned with the assertion that:- '(Belton House) has been described as a compilation of all that is finest of Carolean architecture, the only truly vernacular style of architecture that England has produced since the time of the Tudors.' Do you have a citation for this? I'd have thought that at least Georgian architecture could be considered vernacular if we take it's meaning to be an indigenous architecture that does not necessarily require the intervention of architects.--Mcginnly 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the vote. I don't want to argue with someone who has just supported either ;-). It is cited the very first one (after "has been described"). Georgian architecture is a collective term that covers 18th and sometimes early 19th century classically based architecture, it is not exclusive (in spite of its name) to England, its evolved from palladianism, it was not really something new and different in its conception whereas Carolean is a clear style easily recognized. I suspect this is one of those things that could be argued for ever. It is cited though not just my opinion. I have never edited (the unreferenced) Georgian architecture but a quick glance of the two images there described as Georgian one looks like what the British call "Queen Anne" ( a late Carolean before Georgian), and the other is quite definitely and famously Neoclassical [3]. If you want to continue this we can on my talk page as it is quite convoluted Giano | talk 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies! Just seen there was a typo in the quote "has" should read "had", but above refering to Georgian still stands Giano | talk 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much more comfortable with Carolean being the only truly vernacular times since the time of the tudors, rather than ever. I've actually heard of carolean, described as a kind of 'proto-georgian' anyway, now fully support --Mcginnly 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow! Nice article. Prose, citation, content, everything checks out. However, I wonder why all of the nice photographs are in GIF format (Ironically, the only non-GIF is the floor plan JPEG, which should be a PNG). Since all these images were taken by Giano, I wonder if he might upload the original JPEGs? Converting them now would not be beneficial to the quality, but the dithering is a real shame when you view the full resolution. It's not big enough a deal for me to oppose, but I can't support it either as long as this remains so. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because having lightened, brightened and cropped them, when I upload them in any other form they come out pixally, anyway the look fine to me as they are. They serve their purpose which is to illustrate the points raised in the article. Giano | talk 06:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuary

edit

(Self-nomination): The article has had significant work. It has obtained good article status, and then underwent a peer review in which a number of comments were left and these, together with the basic style, layout, and other considerations were addressed. I have tried to make it well-rounded without going out-of-scope, and worked a lot on sourcing the article, removing WP:POV, and removing WP:OR. I think it is well-written, well-organized, and thus I am nominating it for featured article status. Thank you. -- Avi 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally they were much longer, but I moved credentialing requirements to the respective society pages where they belong such as Casualty Actuarial Society and American Academy of Actuaries. As for other countries, they often follow a similar system, I could bring India and Mexico as examples, but is this article supposed to be about all forms of credentialling? That is why there is Category:Actuarial associations. As for the floating tag, it is that all that dead space looks funny to me, and I thought it was OK according to Wikipedia:Section#Floating_the_TOC, but if others don't like it that could be changed. May I ask, what about the lead paragraph is too short? It isn't that much shorter than todays main page article, Canada? Thank you again. -- Avi 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the lead section on Canada is too short, if it were up for FAC today I would vote against it. Since you defend against my other criticisms so well, we'll wait and see what others think. As for now, I'll vote Abstain. Sorry if I'm being a bit harsh, it's been a long day... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the disciplines section was really an introduction as well, I have now made it part of the lead instead, leading to no loss of continuity, but more explication in the opening. -- Avi 20:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, y'all win. Normal TOC now in service :-) -- Avi 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object. The mutual aid agreements in Greece sound like a really interesting part of the article. Could you cite a source for finding out more information about them and possibly provide some more details? For example, were there any famous agreements? Cedars 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from the same source here http://www.actuaries.org.uk/Display_Page.cgi?url=/library/profession_history.html which applied to the entire paragraph, but now was broken off into its own sectin. I will see if i can find anything more specific, otherwise, it will revert to having the above as its source. Thanks for your input! -- Avi 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Between myself and Joe, we have fleshed out the burial society quite a bit, and I will try and see what I can uncover specifically about pensions, more than the F/I of Actuaries site has. I hope you like the new content :) -- Avi 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The changes address my objection. :-) Cedars 06:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, you may want to delink some of the monetary units. I usually go by the maxim: "Link the first, delink the next." Which roughly means, if you already link it at its first appearance, you should need another link for quite a while. Just a thought though. Эйрон Кинни (t) 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks have been streamlined in accordance with the WP:MOS. -- Avi 14:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cochineal

edit
Previous discussion from July 2005 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cochineal/archive1

This was previously a FAC, about eleven months ago. It seems to have come a long way since then; see [4]. It seems to be of high quality, and whilst I'm never entirely sure where the FA boundary lies, this is probably towards the right side of it. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—I'm almost ready to support, but the British/American thing needs to be fixed--I see four instances of "color" and about 15 of "colour", and check the -ize vs. -ise thing too. Personally I'd prefer to see American usage here (since this seems to be more related to the western hemisphere), but just make it consistent. Also, a few more citations in the history section would be welcome. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fiddled the language (to br.eng., since I'm more comfortable with it and "colour" was pretty dominant), but I'm not sure about the history links. I'll see if I can find anything - I can spot a couple of possible details needing flagged. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani people

edit

I'm nominating this article because it meets the criteria required for a featured article and has an exhaustive 66 notes and has settled lengthy disputes with neutral writing. I put everything except the kitchen sink into it and I believe it compares well with other similar featured articles. Thank you for your consideration. Tombseye 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a lot more to women section. Kept it short as links served much of the purpose and article was getting a bit long. Still I've added as much as possible. Tombseye 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the images of Azeri people are silly and POV (how can a photograph of some children and some people be included in a article about an entire group of people?), the women section is too small, and the first sentence is strange, I don't understand the bolding of different terms. Support Re-oppose per the problems brought up by TigranTheGreat. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which other photos are silly? I can remove the children's photos, but the city scene in Baku is silly or POV how? Or the musicians playing, etc. I don't quite see how they're all POV. Tamils has numerous pictures of regular people and is a featured article. I'm okay with taking out the kids pics and I've removed the somehow confusing bold (you're the first to not understand the sentence). Women's section much bigger now as well. Anything else? Tombseye 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The street scene and musicians are great, they are general images. Had I seen the photos of the regular people on the Tamil FAC, I would have opposed for the same reasons. I don't like using personal photos for an ethnic group — it's too easy to fudge. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I gotcha. I wasn't sure if you meant all the pictures or not. I was just using them to show the general population. Is it okay now then? Tombseye 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Those were my first observations, I'm going to read the whole thing carefully tomorrow, will update vote then! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the photos that are silly, it's Páll claiming the children photos are silly that is silly. Photos of musicians are okay but not happy children playing or a photo of people of all age ranges? Get real.Rlevse 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my view, which I am allowed to express. Please do not make personal attacks. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great job! Well-referenced, balanced, informative, with nice use of summary style. A thorough copyedit would help, as there are certainly aspects which don't flow brilliantly - Caucasian theory, performance art section, and institutions section stand out as needing help. I don't object to the image of the children InvictaHOG 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited sections in question except Caucasian theory which segues into the genetics section that supports a largely Caucasian origin given the genetic data. If still not clear, I will try to rework it though. Tombseye 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All pictures with questionable copyright issues have been taken down. Will make sure any replacements have clear copyright status. Thanks. Tombseye 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my bad. That picture's gone too. Tombseye 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Tombseye, the article looks much better now than it did before but I do I have one concern. There is a huge gap in the Ancient period section. In general throughout the article one doesn't get the sense of which part of modern day Azerbaijan is discussed. For example Western parts of modern day Azerbaijan were part of the first Armenian (Orontid) Kingdom afterwards Seleucids absorbed that Kingdom, since the second Armenian Kingdom was created by Artaxias I most of modern day Azerbaijan was part of that Kingdom until 428 (under the Artaxiad Dynasty and Arshakuni Dynastys. The Caucasian Albanian Kingdom was to the North-East. Other than that everything is short and neutral and my porblems only exist with the main articles and not the short sections within this one. So good job.--Eupator 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added mention of the Armenian Kingdom with a citation so everything should be fine now. So we're good, right? Tombseye 08:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on that. Had problems over copyright issues so couldn't keep some pictures we had. Thanks. Tombseye 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was added today by another editor. Tombseye 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be part of the "Azeris in Iran" section, not "Institutions." --Alex S 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved cartoon riots to Azeris in Iran. Thanks for the comments. Tombseye 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do that asap. Tombseye 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good subject, and one which I've come to find most interesting.--Megaforcemedia 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job on the article, very balanced! Baku87 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work! It would be also useful to add sections on Azeris in Georgia, Azeris in Armenia and Azeris in Turkey. And personally, I think Azeri is the term we should stick to for this particular ethnic group. Ideally the term Azerbaijani refers to anyone or anything that comes from Azerbaijan, regardless of his or her ethnic background, whereas Azeri serves (or should serve) as a more specific term related to ethnic and cultural characteristics only. Anonymous 07:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well done --K a s h Talk | email 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment Good article, but not all population data has references and the data of Canada is about "ethnic origin" which is not the same as "ethnicity". While it is likely that at least some of the newer generations in Canada are still ethnic Azeris, it is also likely that some have assimilated Canadian culture and are not really Azeris (culture, language, etc) anymore. The number should be replaced by a number about ethnicity, or a note should be made to warn the reader that this number should be read with caution. Sijo Ripa 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I will correct the problem. Tombseye 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the demographics page of Azerbaijan says that only 89% of the population is Azeri. Shouldn't the 8,411,000 number be multiplied by 0.89? (about 7,486,000). Sijo Ripa 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-fixed the population stats. I originally had the CIA Factbook stats and linked it, but someone decided to inflate the figures and cleverly link it to the Azerbaijan page. I wish I could monitor everything about the article, but some people just come in and make little changes that can slip past. Thanks for catching it though. Tombseye 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. I love the topic, but that doesn't mean it passes. Here are examples from the top.
    • "a region that spans the Caucasus to the northwestern Iranian plateau." We've had this span thing recently in this room. You span something, or you span from somewhere to somewhere.
    • "an ancient cultural heritage that consists of Turkic, Iranian, and Caucasian elements." Why not remove "that consists"?
    • "Russian/Soviet influenced-Azerbaijan"—don't like that single hyphen, and short of rewording it (which is what I'd do), perhaps another hyphen between "Soviet" and "influenced" could make it OK. The whole sentence needs to reworded: I hate "somewhat"—so vague; what does it mean? "Where" is inappropriate; it should refer to a location. "Vary" is vague.
    • "is mutually intelligible with Turkmen and Turkish, as all of these languages can be traced back to the Turkic Oghuz"—sorry, just because they can all be traced back to a common ancestor doesn't logically make them mutually intelligible.
    • "The Azeris, as a result of this separate existence, range from mainly secularists in Azerbaijan to largely religious Muslims in Iranian Azarbaijan. Since Azerbaijan's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been some renewed interest in religion and cross-border ethnic ties." Why not deal with the separateness of the northerners and southerners in the middle paragraph? It's disorganised. Awkward word order. Try: "As a result of this separate existence, Azeris range from ...". "Mainly" and "largely" are different words in a misguided attempt to avoid repetition; sometimes repetition aids the reader.

This suggests that the whole text needs intensive work. It's so interesting: please find editors to fix it. It can't possibly pass yet. Tony 08:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have done more copyediting myself, as there are no other native English speakers available to do so. Judge for yourself if there has been improvement as I think there has been. Changes reflect an attempt to eliminate redundancy and clarify points in the article with brevity in mind. Also, changes suggested have been implemented in the opening. Tombseye 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment about my object. Well, if it's "prime and ready", why is it that I can find significantly substandard prose at every turn? I took one paragraph at random—it happens to be from "Caucasian theory"—hoping to find "compelling, even brilliant" prose.

"Modern Azeris, not unlike the Turks of Turkey, have, during their journey into discovering their roots, come across forgotten possible ancestors. As many modern Turkish historians looked to the possibility that groups such as the Hittites may have contributed significantly to the modern Turks, many Azeris have also looked to ancient peoples in order to better understand their background. In the case of the Azeris, there is evidence that, despite repeated invasions and migrations, an aboriginal element may have survived in what is today Azerbaijan even as the languages and religions changed. Academic Audrey L. Alstadt notes in her book, The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule, that many Azeris regard both the Oghuz and the Caucasian Albanians as their ancestors, in particular as there is no political rivalry with either.[13] Regardless, considerable information has been learned about the Caucasian Albanians, including their language and history as well as their conversion to Christianity. Some academics believe that the Udi language is a remnant of the Albanians who were assimilated into invading cultures over time. Lastly, ethnic animosity and rivalry with many of their neighbors has possibly prevented [the] modern Azeris from examining ties to [with?] their neighbors, in particular the Armenians. What remains difficult to determine is the [overall] number of Turkic invaders, which may not have been enough [sufficient] to dramatically alter the population genetically."

    • There's a lot of hedging in the first two sentences (my highlighting); if it's conjectural, one announcement to that effect is enough; reword. To start with, why "may" and "significantly" (they go in opposite directions). The first sentence is awkwardly organised; re-arrange to reduce the number of commas.
    • I see a lot of "many"—this can probably be removed, since it adds nothing.
    • "in order to"—NO: just "to". Remove "also": every sentence is an also (typically, 4/5 occurrences are redundant).
    • "in what is today Azerbaijan even as the languages and religions changed"—unidiomatic word order ("today"); a comma would be good. The last clause begs questions (I think I get it, but I'm unsure).
    • "Academic Audrey L. Alstadt notes in her book, The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule, that (The details are in the reference list—don't clutter the main text with it.)
    • "... regard both the Oghuz and the Caucasian Albanians as their ancestors, in particular as there is no political rivalry with either ...". The logic doesn't hold: they regard them as ancestors because they have no political rivalry with them? And perhaps remove "in particular". I don't understand the logic of the next "Regardless".
    • Another marked "as well as": "their language and history as well as their conversion to Christianity". Why? Just make it: "their language, history, and conversion to Christianity"—so much neater.
    • "Some academics"—If you're not going to name them, or provide an e.g., ref, then don't say it; just use "may", preferably with a ref.
    • What does "over time" add?
    • Whenever I read "finally," or "lastly", I feel tired. It's a poor back-link.
    • More redundancies and suggestions in square brackets. The last sentence will confuse some readers.

Have the reviewers above who offer effusive support read the text properly? This is definitely not good enough. Let us know when it has been thoroughly copy-edited—the whole text. Tony 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I copyedited and completely changed the section as per your suggestions and some changes of my own I thought of. That was the last section that was not copyedited previously. You've helped tremendously with the article actually as it's hard (and time-consuming) to edit my own work unless I'm being graded or paid. Given the critiques you've given thus far, feel free to continue if you have any more objections. Thanks. Tombseye 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tombseye, thanks for your quick response. That's exactly why another person, who's more distant from the text, is necessary for an entire copy-edit. Have you tried AndyZ? There are other editors who may help, too.
Until this happens, the prose is not going to be "compelling, even brilliant", as required for promotion. If you ask Raul, he may extend the time of this process while you network on WP for the right kind of assistance. Tony 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good points. Okay, I will drop Raul a line. Who is AndyZ? Do you have his username wikilink so that I can contact him? I'd be really cool with someone helping me out. I think the information is definitely enough to make it as a FA, but there may be things I've missed which someone else could spot. Thanks for the help Tony and feel free to let me know of any more problems or correct them yourself if you can. Most of what you've brought is spot-on so far. Ciao. Tombseye 06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did a search and found Andy so we'll see if he can help. Tombseye 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; more than one person would be good—have you researched the editors/reviewers who are good copy-editors and like this kind of subject? I'd help myself, but I'm short of time. Tony 07:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have done more copyediting with help from other folks. Tombseye 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The history and origins section has several POV issues. For example:
  • "The Azeris are typically at least nominally Muslim and have an ancient cultural heritage of Turkic, Iranian, and Caucasian elements": This sounds abit nationalistic. Such statement could be claimed virtually for every modern nation. The Spaniards can "have an ancient Iberian heritage," the English can "have an ancient Briton heritage," same with Iraqis and Babelonians etc. Much better to replace "ancient" with "mixed."
  • "major rebellion by Babak, who is considered both an Azerbaijani- and Iranian national hero, from 816-837" Passive subjectless statement like "is considered" falls under "Weasel words and phrases" category and contains hidden POV (see WP:AWW). Who considers so? Is it the mainstream view? Or some individual authors? Is there sufficient evidence for either 1st or 2nd? Needs to be specified. (and if it's just the cited author considering him Azeri, just state in the sentence "so and so considers him Azeri" and cite).
  • "Despite pockets of continued resistance, the vast majority of Azerbaijanis converted to Islam." We are talking about the Arab period (7-10th cc). Have we established that Azerbaijanis as an ethnic group existed *before* becoming Islamized? If not, need to change to "population of Azerbaijan" to avoid confusion.
  • "The Seljuk period marked the beginning of the turkification of Azerbaijan as the Azeri language supplanted earlier Caucasian and Iranian ones" [6] Was it the Azeri language or Turkic? Did Azeri langauge exist back then? The source itself doesn't say so. Instead it talks about early Oghus Turkic language. That's what should replace "Azeri"
  • "The Safavids established an empire that was multi-cultural (the dynasty was bilingual in Azeri and Persian" [7][8]: None of the two sources state anything about the dynasty speaking "Azeri." Again, without a proper source, should be replaced with Turkic.
  • "Archaeological surveys conducted in western Azerbaijan have uncovered numerous settlements of the Urartians, another Caucasian people who may have been assimilated" The statement implies that Urartuans *may* have been assimilated to future Azeris. Instead, Western Azerbaijan was first part of Urartu and then part of Armenia (see Strabo, with Orkhistene and Sakasene placed in Armenia). So, Urartuans were most likely assimilated to Armenians. Unless there is an actual neutral source saying that "Urartuans may have assimilated to Azeris," the statement is too dubious and should be removed.
  • "The standard Azerbaijani language dates back to the 10th century CE, and mainly existed in oral form, and then began to develop as a literary language by the 13th century" [9] Not according to the cited source. It says "the language spoke today in Azerbaijan is one of the branches of Oghuz Turkic. It was introduced into Iran by Turks entering the area in the 11th-12th cc and underwent a gradual development before assuming its present form" So, according to the source, first there is no 10th c CE, and second the language back then was not "standard Azerbaijani language" but a branch of Oghuz Turkic that developed through centuries and later became a "standard Azerbaijani language" The sentence should read "The origins of standard Azerbaijani language dates back to the 11-12th centuries CE, and then explain the Oghuz connection.

These are just some of the objections, but I will stop for now.--TigranTheGreat 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just few very quick notes per Tigran's request for clarifications: according to, for example, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, whose editor was an ethnic Armenian, Shaumyan, in the article "Azerbaijani language" it says: "Literary Azerbaijani language started to form from 11th century" ("Литературный Азербайджанский язык начал складываться с 11 в") [10]. It is also well-known that Shah Ismail Khatai wrote in Azerbaijani language, also referred to as Azerbaijani Turki, not in the general Turki, which was common to all Oghuz and other Turkic people until 11th century (part of that proof is also in the abovecited GSE article). Urartu did include some portions of Azerbaijan, and hence, it is obvious that some Urarteans were assimilated into today's Azerbaijanis, just like some did into today's Armenians, Iranians, Turks. In fact, that's what's taught in Azerbaijani schools -- that the complex ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani nation included nations of Urartu, Manna, Atropatena, Caucasian Albania from among the ancient states. Meanwhile, on Azerbaijani nation per se here's what the relevant GSE article "Azerbaijanis" writes: "Formation of Azerbaijani nation has mainly (in major part) finalized (ended) in 11-13 centuries..." ("Формирование азербайджанского народа в основном завершилось в 11 — 13 вв.") [11] --AdilBaguirov 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Safavids, see encyclopedia Iranica, very authoritative source on Iranian history: Encyclopaedia Iranica: azerbaijan :: azeri turkish viii., Azeri Turkish, Doerfer, G. page 246

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war.

As you know, Safavid dynasty started ruling Iran since 16th century. Grandmaster 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can say mixed instead. I only used ancient b/c I read in a book about the Azeris, can't remember which one as I returned them all to the library.
  • It wasn't my idea to refer to any of Babak's ethnic origins as the wikilink to his article should suffice, but people insisted. I'll take it out in the hopes that it doesn't return.
  • I'll reword to say inhabitants of Azerbaijan.
  • It's actually Oghuz which evolved into the modern mutually intelligible languages of Azeri, Turkmen, Turkish so I'll reword rather than Turkic which is much wider and vague.
  • Hmm, Ismail I wrote Azeri poetry so it's accurate, so I'll put in a source.
  • Given the genetic similarity between Armenians and Azeris, it's not that hard to believe that the Urartians were absorbed by both populations. I'll reword as the source doesn't discuss assimilation.
  • Yes, I'll reword to say Oghuz Turkic, although it's just Old Azeri as far as we'd be concerned since Turkmen, Turkish, and Azeri are mutually intelligible which basically means that the Oghuz spoke the same language albeit in archaic form. I will reword though anyway.
Give the controversial nature of these ethnic articles, I had a hard time trying to reconcile nationalist views with plain academia which was my intent. By all means, if you have other objections tell me as I prefer to deal with this now and make the article worth of FA status. Thanks for your help Tigran. Tombseye 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fixed the issues raised. Let me know if there are any other issues of concern. Thanks. Tombseye 05:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Tombseye, and thank you for considering my suggestions. Almost all changes are great, the Urartu sentence is better than before.

I still think the mentioning of Urartu in the "Origins" segment insinuates a connection which is not supported by an authoritative reliable neutral source. We may think that "the Arm-Az genetic similarity leads one believe that Urartuans were absorbed by both," but this is our conjecture, and under No Original Research rules (WP:NOR), no matter how obvious, we don't put or insinuate our interpretations--they need to be based on a source. Furthermore, such conclusion precludes the possibility that Urartuans and Caucasian ancestors of Azeris, albeit not same, have come from a common Caucasian origin--i.e. Urartuans didn't have to get absorbed to Azeris to explain the modern similarity.

Please note that Western Azerbaijan was only in the periphery of the Urartu Kingdom--it's bulk was what later became the Armenian kingdom (or modern Eastern Turkey). Western Azerbaijan has come under Roman control too (when it was part of Armenia)--yet we don't say "Azeris have Latin origin" unless there is a source.

In sum, without an authoritative reliable neutral source saying so, the connection between Urartuans and Azeris is too tenuous and conjectural. The mention of Urartu may be relevant in "Azerbaijan" article, but not "Azerbaijani People".--TigranTheGreat 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Urartians removed from Caucasian origin theory section. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks. Tombseye 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could the photos be moved around a bit? Currently, they are all right aligned; it would add visual interest if every second or third photo were left aligned. — BrianSmithson 18:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by visual interest you mean making an article harder to read, sure. I find mixed alignment articles to be much harder to read and much less attractive. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have responded with just the the second of those two sentences, and I would not have been offended. The article is ugly with all the pictures right aligned. — BrianSmithson 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, moved a few pictures to the left that didn't disrupt flow of article. Let me know if this is cool with you. Thanks! Tombseye 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, Tombseye. Now it's better. I have no further objections, so you may remove my opposition. Actually the article looks way better than half a year ago. Almost unrecognizable. Did you do it all? You da man:)--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "support"? :( —Khoikhoi 00:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove pictures with uncertain status. Thanks. Tombseye 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to Oppose: The page is 62 KB in length. I wonder how much of this is due to the redundant listing of sources. In short, why two separate, full-format reference sections? It would make sense to either axe the "References and further reading" section (the citations are given in full in the footnotes), or make the footnotes much terser, with just an author name and page number (or article name for an online source). See Tasmanian Devil and Dixie (song) for examples of what I mean. This can shave quite a few KB from the article and allow for better reflection of where other cuts may need to be made to bring the article down in size. — BrianSmithson 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will take care of it. Tombseye 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update-Took care of it and considerably reduced article size by a whopping 6kb! Very good advice Brian and it should have been obvious. Thanks! Tombseye 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak oppose for the momentSupport, but read on. The article looks good! I've done some more copy editing, and now I am eager to support. However, I have a few remaining concerns:
  1. First, the name Azeris is used throughout the article as a synonym for Azerbaijanis. This should be specifically given as an alternate English name for them in the introductory paragraph and bolded.
  2. There's a lot of language like "Such and such is believed" or "are believed". Some of these are okay, but it would be nice to change some of them to active constructions: "A common theory is that . . . " etc. (I am not opposing based on this; this is just a suggestion.) Four left, but I'm striking this.
  3. A lot of things are quoted in this article. Most of these punctuated with ." rather than ". , but according to the Manual of Style, ." should only be used when the punctuation is a part of the original quotation. I ask the authors of the article to please check the source material and punctuate appropriately.
  4. On the subject of quotations, some of them seem kind of redundant. For example, the article explains the Y-chromosome haplotypes being used in genetic studies then follows that with a quote that says essentially the same thing. Either the quote or the paraphrase should go. I would strongly prefer that most of the direct quotations in this article be changed to paraphrases (my personal style is to use quotes mainly for color), but I won't oppose based on it.
  5. I've added some {{fact}} requests for source citations.
  6. It seems to me that the "Origins" section should come before "History". After all, "Origins" describes the very earliest history of the Azeris: Where they came from.
  7. There are a few instances of weasel words. I'd like to see phrases like "some scholars" and "some academics" replaced accordingly with the names of the academics (a few at least) who believe those things.
  8. The "History" section is good, but it seems to be told from a nationalistic point of view. I'd like to see it changed slightly to seem less like the history of Azerbaijan and northern Iran and more like the history of the Azerbaijanis. By that, I mean change phrasing like "Azerbaijan is believed to be eponymously named" to "The Azerbaijanis are believed to be eponymously named . . . " and "This influx sparked a major rebellion in Iranian Azarbaijan from 816–837, lead by a local commoner named Babak" to "This influx prompted a local commoner named Babak to rally an Azeri army and rebel from 816–837." I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well here, but think about this section and try to frame it from the point of view of the Azeris, not the point of view of their territory. Another example: "The Safavids established a multicultural empire . . . " becomes "The Azeris became part of the multicultural Safavid empire . . . ."
  9. The claim that "Azerbaijan falls short of being universally regarded as a democracy" is weaselly. Could it be rephrased to name some of the nations who do not regard Azerbaijan as a democracy?
  10. "As of June 2006, wide protests were being reported . . . ." Rephrase this to make it active and thus say exactly who was making such reports.
  11. I'm not sure why Languages of Azerbaijan and Languages of Iran are listed in the "See also" section. They can probably be axed.
Like I said, nice article. Just needs a bit more work, and I think it'll be there. — BrianSmithson 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brian. I implemented most of your suggestions to the article. The history section is a delicate matter because there IS a lot of nationalism involved. The final rendition has come after a lot of compromise etc. Thus, for example Babak is considered an Iranian (and he was by language), but because he lived in Azerbaijan, modern Azeris see him as one of their own. As a result, we can't say Azeri army as the Azeris as we know them didn't exist yet. Similarly, the Safavid wording took some negotiations. Now as for the many quotations, there's a reason there too. People keep arguing over the paraphrasing and so quotations were the only thing that put a stop to it. I sometimes added further paraphrasing when some people felt it wasn't clear. I've since removed some of it as per your request though. As for the Origins section, well the reason the history section comes first is because it introduces to the reader the background so that they can understand the terminology used in the Origins section. I looked at Tamils, a featured article, for some inspiration on the matter and went with the history section first as a result. In some places where the wording seems overly careful is simply due to the nationalist sentiments that this page (and others like it) invoke. I had to write it (and re-write it over and over again) to keep things both clear and not cause more friction. Everything else you've suggested I've implemented as much as possible. This article was before a battleground for constant edit wars and conflict and is now finally at a concensus point. All the groups interested, Azeris, Iranians, Armenians, have actually endorsed it so I figure we've finally reached the end. I hope. Anyway, let me know if it's all good with you at this point. Whew. Ciao. Tombseye 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through the addressed objections. I'm still not confident that the ." vs ". punctuation issue has been addressed, and some weasel words remain. I understand your reasoning for the history section, but I still think it might be possible to reword things to be told from the people's point of view. I'll post a proposed rewrite on the talk page tomorrow (probably), and if folks don't like it, I'll withdraw that comment here. I still think "Origins" should logically go before (or be part of) "History", so I'll take a look at that tomorrow, too. Looking good! — BrianSmithson 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks your help Brian. Yes, please post any major changes first. I wrote the article after consulting a lot of peope who have an interest in how things are written. It may not look it, but the weasel words (as it may appear to some) were to appease different perspectives and render a neutral view. If you look at the archived discussions, you'll see what I mean. You gotta understand that the very issue of the 'people' is questioned in that some think it's wrong to say they even existed before the 11th century, while others think they belong to a larger group etc. Re-writing it from a "people's" view will, I guarantee it, simply take us back to a position of more edit wars and conflict. So yes, by all means bring up changes (I'm not trying to dictate terms just b/c I wrote it) and if people like your ideas, then I won't disagree. As for the origins section before history, you might as well ask what others think on that issue as well. Thanks. Tombseye 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's part of the the style guide: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. And I'm not sure I understand the problem. I have a hard time believing that people would object to replacing "Some scholars believe that" or "some academics hold that" with "Academics such as Bob Johnson believe that" or "Anthropologist Francine Thomas and historian Georges Martin hold that" kinds of phrasings. There's absolutely nothing controversial about a statement like that; one need simply consult the work in question by Bob Johnson or whomever to see that the statement is 100% fact. — BrianSmithson 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That I don't have a problem with, but as I said, the issue is a delicate matter as to the ethnic identity of the Azeris. Now even if we do put up some experts who think one way, someone else will say they don't agree and will counter with someone of their own (might not even be an academic) and then it'll all fall apart. If don't believe me ask Khoikhoi as we're the two Americans here who try to be neutral about things as we're not personally involved. I wrote a number of things and even with citations debate raged over various issues. Wikipedia says avoid weasel words, but in this case and at this time, I think we can make some exceptions as weasel words is somewhat subjective AND we do avoid weasel words in the vast majority of the article with only some instances that may be questioned. Again though, if you have some changes in mind, bring them up at the discussion page and if it turns out I'm wrong, then great no problem. At this point, after having written and constantly re-written the article and finally gotten to the stage where there aren't any more edit wars and conflicts you might understand as to why I'm wary of any dramatic changes. Plus, I don't use the rules as sacrosanct so much as guidelines. Sometimes you have to bend the rules a little and I don't think people will go nuts (including admins). Tombseye 23:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as a Featured Article, this piece will be standing for the best of the best Wikipedia has to offer and as an example for which other articles should strive. In that regard, it is imperative that it follow all relevant style guides and policies. However, most of the weaseling has been dealt with, so thanks. There's one sentence that still bothers, though: "Some academics believe that the Udi language, still spoken in Azerbaijan, is a remnant of the Albanians' language." Following the source citation leads to an article by Wolfgang Schulze, but it's hard to tell whether Schulze supports the statement or not. (He reports on it, and gives some names of others.) However, I just skimmed Schulze's article; perhaps you can comment on a specific researcher or academic who holds the view that Udi is a remnant of the Albanians' langauge? As for my other concens, the ." vs ". issue has definitely not been addressed; I followed through on some of the linked sources and found one that does not match up. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks for our policy on this. — BrianSmithson 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have not heard about any dispute with regard to Udis being Albanian tribe Uti, mentioned in ancient chronicles. As far as I know, it’s pretty much an established fact. I provided some sources in the article Caucasian Albania and its talk page. Grandmaster 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't help you with a source but the Udi language is indeed considered a direct ancestor of the C.Albanian language.--Eupator 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added another source that was already in the article (the Thor Heyerdahl one) which directly discusses the Udi-Albanian link. As for the quotation marks, I went through and changed the ones I could find to conform with the Manual of Style rules. If I missed any let me know or you can feel free to change them yourself. and then also feel free to support the article. ;) Tombseye 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I'm almost there. :) Another thing I noticed: The sources that cite IranDokht News need to be converted to point directly to the articles that were used as a source. IrankDokht News seems to be no more than a list of pertinent articles (that probably change over time) and is not a proper source itself. — BrianSmithson 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Irandokht references are gone. I replaced one with an article from Iranian. So, done and done! Tombseye 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. I still would like to see the two unstruck suggestions implemented, but I won't oppose because of them. Nice article, and sorry for being such a bear about seemingly minor things. :) — BrianSmithson 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will temporarily take down picture as Khoikhoi, who got the picture is out of the country for a month or so. If he responds with the pertinent info. then we'll put the picture back. Okay? Tombseye 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian War of 1521

edit

Another obscure—but quite dramatic, at points—war; the article is quite comprehensive (perhaps too comprehensive), and, if nothing else, has been cited with abandon. I await your comments :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qualified Support. This is quite good. I do have two issues that I would like to see addressed/responded to. The first, which is simple, is that I think this ends a little abruptly; I would appreciate a sentence at the end along the lines of "The fighting would only cease for good in 15XX, when XXXX and YYYY happened...", or whatever would be appropriate, just to give a nice wrap-up feel. The second issue, which may just be a personal preference of mine, is the heavy use of clauses separated by dashes, which seems to break up the text to the point of interfering with smooth readability at certain points; I would like to see the use of such clauses reduced, although it isn't a huge deal either way. In any event, great article. --RobthTalkCleanup? 03:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a sentence to the end that gives some indication of the rest of the Italian Wars; I didn't want to go into too much detail there, as it's really a subject for other articles. As far as the dash-separated clauses are concerned, please see my response above; I'll see what I can do, but I have a certain predilection for the things ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through and removed some of the dashes in favor of other constructions; hopefully that has improved the article somewhat. Kirill Lokshin 04:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The new end sentence is perfect, and the dash use is now at a level I'm comfortable with. Good work. --RobthTalkCleanup? 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very good article. Comprehensive, neat and tight formation. Good job. Tombseye 07:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Just a detail, but why are the Swiss mercenaries mentioned as combatant in the infobox? I understand that they did much of the actual fighting, but I would say they were just "in it for the money". I would think that large parts of the other armies were also made up of foreign mercenaries, and they're not mentioned in the infobox. Jeronimo 09:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, since they didn't really pursue their own political goals; I've removed them from the list in the infobox. Kirill Lokshin 10:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Jeronimo 09:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on wheels. An outstanding article! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well-written. Anonymous__Anonymous 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article. Cvene64 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The thick, choppy writing -- and especially all those dashes -- get in the way of appreciating what is here. I also think more attention needs to be given to the organization of the paragraphs within each section and the introduction of clear leads. For example, the prelude section has numerous themes that are not drawn together, and a single paragraph at the beginning summarizing the overall themes would let you rewrite this in a more coherent way. In addition, the lead tells us who was in the war, but not what sides which country was on, so we enter the article trying to figure out some real basics. We can then figure it out, but it takes some work. Sam 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the lead and added some more summary material to the introduction of the "Prelude" section. I've also further reduced the use of dashes; unfortunately, I'm not sure to what extent the writing can be made less thick without omitting much of the valuable detail here. Kirill Lokshin 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't get a chance to review until the weekend, but will look then. I may take a crack at a section to show how I'd do the "thinning". Thanks, Sam 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be quite appreciated. I'll try to give it a few more rounds of stylistic editing myself; but I'm at a slight disadvantage, since I know what the text is supposed to say ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think after the last few rounds of copyediting much of the more complicated sentence structure—and almost all of the dashes—have been cleaned up; how does the article look now? Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that all of the dashes ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has come a long way. A lot of good work has been done, yet more is needed. There is a pattern of complex sentences with two thoughts joined together by a comma and the word "and." One or both pharses in the complex sentence has either a lengthy participial phrase ("by which time...") or appositive ("notably that of..."). This results in 3 or 4 thoughts fighting to be heard in a single sentence. A key to finding such sentences is that they usually have many commas. Break them up, and the flow will be much improved. A second problem is that there are many extraneous leads. "However..." is the favorite; "however" usually adds nothing and weakens the sentence. Many sentences also lead with a date, such as "in May" or "by August." There is nothing wrong with this some of the time, but there are simply too many of them. I edited to mix the dates up, putting some at the beginning some at the end. I would change my overall rating from "Object" to at least "Neutral" and probably even "weak support" right now if the only issue were the writing. However, in editing I also realized that this article suffers from being too strictly chronological. I get lost because the narrative moves among the different fronts without explanation. Someone grounded in the geography and time period will follow easily, but the average American reader who opens the front page to read this article will have little idea of what is going on. This article either needs to be organized differently, to separate out the battles on different fronts and to separate the political and military developments where possible, or it needs a section outlining the geography up front and a little more attention within to putting military and political developments in separate paragraphs. It may be that the prelude can be used for some of this. The article could also use a good map showing the major troop movements and battles, but I do not know how hard that will be. I did do some copyediting in the intro and in the "France at Bay" section. Since I have not done the reading, you will want to check my changes. Thanks, Sam 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really agree with you regarding geography versus chronology. Unlike more modern wars, warfare during this period did not involve well-defined or distinct geographic fronts; an army would take part in a campaign and then simply disappear from the region. It's my opinion that a chronological structure (which does, in almost every section, treat regions separately, because campaigns generally occurred in a single place) produces a narrative that's easier to understand than a forced split along geographic lines would; the same can be said for attempting to split political points (which, except for the prelude and ending, were only minor details) from the military ones.
    (The geography involved here is that of Western Europe. I think it's unreasonable to have an introductory course to European geography in every war article—the curious reader can simply follow all the links for various places that are already present in the text—and would point out that none of the FAs on such topics do so.)
    I will continue to work on copyediting and improving the wording and sentence structure, however. Kirill Lokshin 20:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood on the chronology; I do think historical FAs overwhelming follow a chronological sequence, in many cases to their great disadvantage, but I won't force my viewpoint on you there. Many of them also pull out key thematic elements for separate treatment (see, for example, the Martin Luther article), and establishing those themes can help hold the whole together. It is not the geography of major locations, like Lombardy, Provence or Milan, that worried me, but of Artois and Boccacia, for example. By the way, I'm withdrawing my opposition at this point - in rereading, there are a number of things done better here than other FAs. For example, I think the ability to put the story in broader historical context here is done better than the Martin Luther article, even if that one is better written. Best, Sam 02:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Martin Luther is a biographical article (and on someone quite important in the "big picture" of history, to boot), which goes beyond pure narrative; discussion of the broad themes for this period is probably more appropriate to the base Italian Wars article than each of the individual episodes. But this probably isn't the best place to have a debate on the use of narrative style in general. ;-)
    Fair point about some of the more obscure locations; I'll try to add some explanatory wording when they're mentioned, at least where the actual locations are meaningful. (Did you mean Bicocca, incidentally?) Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Bicocca. I guess I made my point in a rather ironic way. Sam 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some brief comments about the general location to some of the more obscure places mentioned. If I notice any other ones that need it, I'll add them too; please let me know if you notice anything that strikes you as needing annotation. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support A terrific, well-sourced article. Prose could use help in certain spots, but it's not a big enough problem to cause opposition, for me at least.UberCryxic 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I tried reading the article thoroughly before voting but I could not. The writing is too thick at times. Sentences are too lengthy.Also, too many sentences with the following structure ("xxx ;yyy") can be confusing to the reader. A copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the text should be performed. If/when that happens leave me a message on my talk page. Joelito (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I made a copyedit. It should read a bit more smoothly now.UberCryxic 22:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks rather cleaner now ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed my oppose but I will not support yet. It still needs anothe round of copyedit but the article is marvelous as it is now. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't agree that a "proper" map is necessary for an an article to receive "FA" status if the rest of the article meets the criteria. A recent entry to receive FA- Battle of Midway, doesn't contain any kind of a map. A good map is nice, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite. Cla68 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I like maps, but don't think of them as indispensible. You may want to think about whether you're now a bit heavy on the images with the addition of these maps, though it's a nice collection of images. Sam 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I could probably remove one of the maps if it's really a problem, but I think there's still enough spacing between the images that it doesn't look particularly crowded. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article looks really good, although there needs to be more info on the casualties in the battlebox. Mercenary2k 12:35 AM June 20, 2006
    There's no casualty information in the infobox because there isn't enough historical data to arrive at meaningful counts for the entire war. All we have are a handful of figures from indivudial battles, which doesn't account for smaller engagements, sieges, skirmishes, attrition, disease, and so forth; it's my opinion that having casualty information that's substantially incorrect is worse than having none at all. Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albertosaurus

edit

This is the second attempt by WikiProject Dinosaurs to get a specific dinosaur featured. I believe we learned a lot the first time around and that this article is at FA standards or close enough that we can make it worthy after hearing comments here. Albertosaurus did have an extremely uneventful peer review and most of the discussion has been between Project members on the article's talk page. This is a self-nomination as I wrote most of the article, although several others have made valuable contributions. Sheep81 09:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Last sentence of first paragraph a bit on the confusing side. Please redo.--ZeWrestler Talk 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditial support - Good article, and I have only one issue with it. There's a question mark in the section on the Albertosaurus libratus, why? It may have to do with the status of the genus, but it is unclear to me. Jeronimo 13:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that particular species is questionable as it may belong to the genus Gorgosaurus instead. That is often represented with a question mark in front of or behind the genus name in scientific papers... if you think it is too confusing we can find another way to represent it. Thank you! Sheep81 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see you've removed it, so I support. If the ? is indeed common, it could also be included, but perhaps linked to an explanation such as the one you gave. Jeronimo 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. The ? is common in scientific publications, but I am now thinking it is a bit jargony (like that's a word or something) for an encyclopedia article. I think it's better now that Spawn changed it (thanks Spawn). Sheep81 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO, the question mark method is a little conusing for a general audience--it's not clear whether that species is questionable or the source, or even the spelling.Reimelt 15:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I am going to change the entire subheading A second species?. Would it better to just not have a question mark in the subheading at all, or is that title encyclopedic enough? I thought about changing it to Gorgosaurus libratus but I'm concerned that might be confusing too as the article is not about Gorgosaurus. As a general reader, would you have a preference? Sheep81 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd love to support Sheepy, but the article needs a few things done. I'm gonna do a few things, but I need opinions on others. The article is way too short. And with those gigantic pictures, it looks like a thin piece of ribbon with writing on it. However, minimising the pictures would be sadly mean. Maybe a few of them can drop in size, but overall, for that amount of huge pictures, the article needs radical fleshing out. If I was here for Psittacosaurus, I would have said the same thing. The A second species? heading should be changed to Gorgosaurus libratus for sure, & I'll fiddle around with the lead picture, as they should always be as big as their frame. I've done that now. So all you need to do is just generally flesh it out & with the stuff I'm doing, it'll all be great. Spawn Man 22:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I await your picture fiddling. But what, exactly, do you think should be added? "Generally flesh it out" is not quite as helpful at one might think it is. Are there topics that I failed to address? Research I overlooked? Do I just need to fill more space with more words about the same things? Please be more specific so I can address your concerns. Sheep81 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also reduced the pic of the dino skull. Yes, the article is very informative, & well written, but yes, it needs to be filled with words to flesh it out. I don't care what words, if they give new info, old info, no info, the same info, I just think FAs should be larger. Spawn Man 00:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I'm not going to just start adding extra words and sentences, especially since Tony down there is telling me to remove unnecessary words. Would love to write more if I get some indication of what you would like me to write, but I think I covered most of the recent published research on this beastie. If you know of anything else, please let me know, or go ahead and add it yourself! I suppose I could start adding random factoids but that might not be all that encyclopedic.Sheep81 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks better... Changing vote, but stop deleting words now. Spawn Man 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I am done with major copyedits as long as there are no big objections. Possibly (I or someone else) could still add things if there is anything important to be added though. Thanks for reviewing, man. Sheep81 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. Sheep, are you the one who wrote that the Redwood National Park below is a "beautiful article" and "thoroughly a good read" (sic)? I hope your standards are better here.I've struck that comment as being a little harsh. Sorry. The opening paragraph doesn't fill me with confidence that they are:
"... over 70 million years ago. Scientists currently disagree on the number of species represented within the genus, recognizing either one or two species. If only the type species is considered, this genus was restricted to the modern-day Canadian province of Alberta, after which it is named. However, the range may have extended farther north and south if additional species are recognized."
    • Most US style manuals prefer "more than" to "over". It's less likely to be ambiguous, and is processed more quickly by the reader.
    • For heck's sake, get rid of "currently", the oldest redundancy. Haven't you used the present tense in that clause?
    • "in" would be nicer than "within"—trust me: go for plain, direct language.
    • "extended farther north and south"—doesn't "extended" say it all? Why not remove "farther"?

In the second para:

    • "tyrannosaur"—is this a genus? Consider linking it.
    • The head was lined with teeth?
    • "albeit" is too literary for this register; what's wrong with a simple "although"?
    • "over"—as before.
    • So because there are lots of fossils, the species is one of the "most completely known"? Knowing it completely is surely an overstatement; and are there gradations of complete knowledge? I'd have thought it was a binary concept: either complete or incomplete.

Please get someone who's relatively unfamiliar with the text to go through the whole article to remove redundancies and otherwise to clean it up. If you need to prime yourself, undertake some exercises. Tony 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for getting to the nitty-gritty, Tony. Your exercises were very helpful. I'll make your suggested changes, quickly scan the article for any similar errors, and then attempt to find someone to read and copyedit it. Please stay tuned to see if conditions improve. I've revised the article with input from someone outside of Wikipedia. I'm not asking you to copyedit the whole thing, but if you wouldn't mind giving it a quick scan and noting any objections here (grammatical or otherwise), I would be grateful. Thank you again for your assistance. Sheep81 06:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Sheep81 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work, I don't see anything wrong. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the graph shown on the page is quite unique. I don't believe there are any other graphs on all the other 800+ dinosaur genera articles, making this article really stand out. I hope future articles may also include graphs, where appropriate.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support...I might like to see more in the Paleobiology section, or maybe remove it altogether, but otherwise, I think the article meets the criteria needed to be featured.--MONGO 03:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I would like to see the following sentences explained more clearly (and I left inline comments to that effect in the article):
"It may have been the top carnivore in its environment." - mention food chain or whatever is necessary.
"The two skulls were referred to the existing species Laelaps incrassatus by Edward Drinker Cope in 1892." - what does "referred" mean here?
"A bonebed in the Two Medicine Formation of Montana was recently described as containing three Daspletosaurus, associated with several hadrosaurs." - what does "associated" mean here?

With fixes to those sentences I support the article. (I contributed recent proofreading and editing which I hope, but don't assume, improved the article.) Outriggr 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your edits. I'll go ahead and try to clear those things up. The food chain bit I will explain in the body of the article rather than the lead, if that is okay. Sheep81 10:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I modified all of the above lines to make them more accessible to lay readers (hopefully). Let me know if further changes are needed. Sheep81 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article was considerably better than I expected. My only criticism is that the growth curve diagram looks ropy and hand-drawn, and should be replaced with a PNG (as opposed to JPEG). Soo 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Model dinosaur article. Good tone. Thoroughness. I have only one point of criticism, and that is on the last paragraph of "Pack behavior". This paragraph seems to come out of nowhere and discuss too much other species of dinosaurs. In other words, I think it doesn't relate directly enough to the topic at hand. Maybe the significance of the large number of skeletons found at the Barnum Brown site should be explored there instead. Kudos, though, for the rest of it! -- Rmrfstar 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll work on that section. Thank you very much. Sheep81 10:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I have shortened that paragraph and added language which I hope indicates why that information is relevant. Hope that helps. Sheep81 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood National and State Parks

edit

After it was commented that this article was was in need of improvement, I started over and greatly expanded the article. The article has only been at peer review for a few days, but no opposition was encountered there. So any suggestions on what I need to make the article better are greatly appreciated.--MONGO 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look there and see if I can encounter anyone who speaks German and English to assist me.--MONGO 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My German is lousy, but from what I saw, that article is better than this one in terms of the amount of detail. I suppose I could say I am flattered that they created such a great article on a park that isn't even in Germany. I will probably utilize some data from there and one image I saw. The image of Beargrass (the plant) may be incorrect though as I don't think that plant exists in that park, at least not in abundance.--MONGO 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was pretty impressed! I think that the history section and the different ecosystems probably comes from a few of the books referenced. Might be nice to eventually add what we can. InvictaHOG 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This article looks great! Its amazing to compare this article now with a month ago. PDXblazers 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think the red dot on the opening image is in the right place. I thought it was further south. If someone investages and proves that is it in the right place, I have no other objections and will support. Tobyk777 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything the location is north of where the dot is now. It unfortunately is affected by what browser you may be using and what resolution you may have it set at. The park is not far south of the Oregon border and is centered near Cape Mendocino--MONGO 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MONGO is correct. As a multiple time visitor of the park, the dot is definitely not too far south. PDXblazers 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after reading your assurances that the dot is in the correct place, I just looked it up. Apparently I was mistaking this park for something else. It is in the right place. Change vote to Support Tobyk777 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Sequoia National Monument, maybe? Sheep81 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—fails Criterion 2a. Take the lead, for example.
"Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP) is comprised of one federal and three state parks that are jointly administered in an effort to protect a large portion of the remaining Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees, the tallest trees on earth. Located entirely in the U.S. state of California, approximately 45% of all remaining old growth redwoods are protected by these parks. Redwood National and State Parks consists of the original National Park, created on 2 October 1968, as well as Prairie Creek, Del Norte Coast and Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Parks, all of which were administratively combined in May 1994. The park preserves habitat along the northern Pacific coast of California and includes 37 miles (59.5 km) of pristine coastline. By the time the federal and state parks merged, the United Nations had already designated Redwood National Park a World Heritage Site on 5 September 1980[1] and an International Biosphere Reserve on June 30, 1983."
    • "is comprised of" is ungrammatical. Would it be better to say "... comprises four contiguous parks—one federal and three state—that are jointly administered ...". You are intending to say that the parks are jointly administered for that purpose, and no other purspose, are you? That's the sense as currently worded.
    • Remove "in an effort".
    • Why make us read the initialism "RNSP" and subsequently fail to use it?
    • The dates should be formatted consistently; if you want to auto-format them, do it for all. (It's fine not to, and definitely don't link chronological items that have no date.)
    • "already" is redundant.

Not a good start. Tony 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That bad eh? So you only read the intro I take it. I made some adjustments as you mentioned. RNSP is used as far as I can see almost everywhere else in the article. Yes, the parks work together with the slated goal of protecting the coast redwood.--MONGO 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Sheep, have you read the article closely? By the way, "Thoroughly a good read" is not idiomatic English. Let's look at the section on management.
RNSP is managed by both the National Park Service, (a federal agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior), and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The 2004 annual budget for the park was $7,380,000 which is roughly the same as for the previous year.[8] The National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation work collectively to protect not only the redwoods, but also pristine Pacific Ocean coastline, cultural resources and the unique natural habitat. Much of the more recent land area that has been purchased to expand the parks was logged and the old growth trees are now gone. Efforts to rejuvenate these areas have been ongoing for several decades as old logging roads are removed and the land is allowed to return to its original state. Lack of adequate funding precludes major improvements and much of the logged sections were replanted by timber companies with tree species that were both faster growing, and not native to the environment. Coastline areas including dunes and coastal prairie have been impacted by exotic species and the previous elimination of forest fires, which until the 1980s were suppressed. A fire management plan now utilizes controlled burning as one method to return the parkland to its original state. The redwoods were logged based on accessibility, so forested areas that were the most difficult to get to were the last ones to be cut. This left an island–like mosaic whereby large old growth forest sections were isolated from one another, sometimes by many miles. In many cases, it will be many decades before the forest fills in naturally regardless of the amount of money used to rehabilitate the environment.[9]
The park utilizes many logging roads that are now scenic public drives. They do not meet current safety standards, yet funding for improvements is not adequate. Park structures such as visitor centers and employee housing are generally in need of updating to meet 21st century needs. The park also performs air and water quality surveys, endangered and threatened species monitoring and works cooperatively with the California Coastal National Monument, which is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, to protect coastline.[10] The park headquarters is located just outside the parks in Crescent City, California.
    • The commas need a thorough audit. The first sentence contains two in a row (the parentheses don't count here); a comma is required before the "which" in the second sentence (and what's your point about the fact that the budget is roughly the same in 2004 and 2005?).
      Major screw up...I'll fix this. The budget is the same, even though cost go up...I dunno, do I need to spell this out?
    • "not only ... but also"—it's a tired way of marking text; does it really need emphasis? Just use "and".
      Yes, it needs emphasis...the park is named after the redwoods, but the mission of the park is about a lot more than just protecting the trees.
    • "more recent"—is this in contrast with something "less recent"?
      Probably needs tweaking...oops, is that bad English?
Not by itself, but here, it's vague and begs the more/less question. Can't you be more specific? Our readers want precise information, if possible.
    • "Lack of adequate funding precludes major improvements and much of the logged sections were replanted by timber companies with tree species that were both faster growing, and not native to the environment." Two different ideas jammed into one sentence, without a logic connector. "Lack of adequate funding"—just "inadequate funding"?
      Yes, this is a disaster. I'll fix it.
    • "both faster growing, and not native to the environment"—again, why mark it with "both"? As well, it's kind of fuzzy, because it's unclear that both attributes are undesirable (am I right in assuming your intended meaning?). Remove the comma.
      Faster growing...can be removed....not native is negative.
    • My US Encarta dictionary is very sniffy about "impact" as a verb. Perhaps "significantly affected"?
      Literature does not indicate that the exotic species have significantly affected the park, only that there has been an impact.
If you mean the literature, it's vague: what literature? Can't you refer to one good piece?
    • "Utilize" is one of the ugliest words in the language, and is quite unnecessary. What's wrong with "use". (Two occurrences.)
      I don't like the word use...if we use it too many times, it gets used up. What exactly, aside from your POV, makes the word utilize one of the ugliest words in the language?
Whatever, but get rid of "utilize". "Use", as a common word, can be used more often than its ugly sister can. There are other synonyms, too; consult your online thesaurus.
    • "The redwoods were logged based on accessibility"—"logged based" is ungainly; try "logged on the basis of".
      Yes, this could use some tweaking
    • "the last ones to be cut"—spot the redundant word. Replace the stop with a semicolon, yes?
      How many points do I get if I am "right"?
None; I'll' reconsider my remove declaration if the whole article is fixed.
What remove declaration at the end...you lost me.--MONGO 01:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "island-like mosaic" is unclear—what is island-like about it?
      Well, not island like as in tropical islands and Tahitian Princesses...I dunno...the groves are isolated from each other.
    • At least one occurrence of "many" in the next two sentences could be removed.
    • "the amount of money used to"—there's a more elegant wording, surely. Comma before "regardless".
      Okay
    • "not adequate"—as before.
      Inadequate?
Yep.
    • "Structures"—"built infrastructure", to be more precise, or just "buildings"? Why not be plain and simple for our readers?
      Just trying to not use te same words over and over.
Sometimes it's better to repeat a word if it adds to the cohesion of the text. It's a fine judgement.
    • "to meet 21st century needs"—get rid of it and the prose is stronger.
      Opinion noted.
I think that means "opinion rejected". The problem is that it's vague: what needs? If you insist on keeping this phrase, at least reword it so that it's useful to our readers ...
    • "the park performs surveys"—no, the management, or some other entity, does this.
      Yes, how foolish...the park couldn't possibly...of course, I'll adjust this.
    • "to protect coastline"—"the"?
    • "The park headquarters is located just outside"—Spot the redundant word; didn't I raise this very point in relation to your previous nomination?
      I have used an oak ruler across the back on my hands for this gross oversight.

I've chosen these paragraphs at random. The prose is not "beautiful", as the previous reviewer claims, and it's not "compelling, even brilliant" as required of our FAs. There's an urgent need to network to find others to help with the prose of the entire article.

On a lighter note, I can't resist pointing out that the person in the first pic looks as though he's relieving himself. Tony 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is releiving himself...haha! I stuck that picture in there deliberately it has nothing to do with trying to emphasize scale.--MONGO 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of images for the article size...I can see about taking one out. Image size also may appear much bigger if you have your resolution set low. I try to show numerous images in these types of articles since the appeal of the parks for most people is visual.--MONGO 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My res is 1440 x 900. I would size the images down a bit, and take one or two out. I much prefer articles when they are well written rather than a picture book. :P — Wackymacs 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a very high resolution. I get complaints from folks if I make the images too small and I get complaints from some when I make them too big. Without the images, the article loses its ability to fully document the subject visually. I took one out.--MONGO 09:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would strongly agree that many of images are too large but I woudn't say there's too many. Also, in the Geology section you say that "The region in which RNSP is located is the most seismically active in the U.S. outside Alaska." "How do you define "region?" Do you have a source for this statement? --Nebular110 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image size is dependent on resolution. I reduced the size of the larger images, and referenced the issue of the earthquakes, which by the source I used, indicates that it is more active than anywhere else in the U.S.--MONGO 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why specify the size at all? Why not let user's preference determine the size? — Zaui (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the size constraints.--MONGO 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose for now. Unfortunately, Tony is right about the copy. Sentences end in prepositions, commas don't seem to know what they're doing, and, generally, in part because of overly complex sentences, that is, sentences which contain multiple thoughts and self-explanations that are often redundant and repetitive, the whole things wanders (all over the place) and fails to flow well. Simplify. If you are doing this yourself, my suggestion is a careful and methodical review: paragraph by paragraph, one sentence at a time. I will be predisposed to support after a thorough copy-edit. Tony has given you a lot of detail on many items, but he has only given examples. Please listen to him, and apply the examples throughout the article. You've done a lot of work; this will take it past the finish line.

: On the images, I would suggest trimming images that do not clearly illustrate the point. Then I would vary the size. Right now, the images are simply green tiles appearing one per section. Sam 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has tried to offer his opinion on what needs to be done to the article, and I have addressed many of his concerns I believe. I was told by another commentator above to remove the size settings for the images and allow each persons browser do the work, now you want something completely different. Sorry about the flow...I've been informed that even though I have 3 FA's my writing skills are not up to FA level. For fear of "making a mess" I suppose I will refrain from any major stylistic changes.--MONGO 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The process can be frustrating - I've gone through it before and expect to go through it again soon, and recently found myself defending an article from Tony in the FARC. I'd be happy to take a crack at a section sometime and give you my thoughts, but I still found the flow choppy and the language overwrought.

:::On the images, it was just my observation; make your own assessment and decision using the comments from all of us to help. I'm not going to make up my mind as to support or oppose based on the images. Sam 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick crack at the history section, not making any major changes, just paring here and there for readability and precision. It could use more. I deleted a little information that didn't make sense to me as a reader unfamiliar with the topic.Sam 15:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note there are several people actively editing this article. I'll revisit in a couple days and really do hope to support. There's a lot of good stuff in this article. Sam 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...I just read through this article and as far as I am concerned I think some of the recent changes over the past few days have greatly improved the prose and flow of conversation. I tahnk all those that have helped to improve this article.--MONGO 10:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral for now. There's been a fair bit of work and progress, but I don't think the surgery has been radical enough. If you look at the history section, where I made some changes and then Frutti di Mare made some (including fixes to mine) and then we essentially collaborated in polishing for a bit, I think there is a good model for the rest of the article. But in copyediting, there seems to be as much added as subtracted, so the simplifying that needs to go on isn't quite there. It's worth some more more, but getting there. One small point (that will likely require a short add) - the lead mentions the Biosphere and World Heritage designations, but I don't see them discussed in the article. I'm interested. It's worth a couple of sentences. Thanks for the work that has been done, especially to you and Fruiti.Sam 13:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. WP:SS...the article is not about Bioshere and world heritage designations, which are wikilinked to articles about those issues...the article is about the redwoods.--MONGO 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See criteria 3(a) for FACs - lead should summarize more detailed info below. I was trying to help. But, as you say, whatever. Sam 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry...I didn't mean to come across as snide. I didn't elaborate on the Heritage or Biosphere issue when working on the Glacier National Park (US) article. I guess I thought it was wikilinked and that was sufficient. I also appreciate your contributions.--MONGO 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and interesting, MONGO's done a great job. Full disclosure: I've done some recent copyediting and now also amplified the intro a little, as suggested by Sam. Frutti di Mare 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you...your changes have been excellent and I appreciate it. It is much improved.--MONGO 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Entire article text (each and every paragraph) has been extensively tightened up by Mongo and others, especially since Tony's detailed comments of June 8[12]. The images display based on the user's prefs, so that seems to be resolved. My edits are pretty much limited to adding some details about the UNESCO designations to the body of the article, as suggested above. Well, and dabbling a bit with a couple of the supporting articles. Niteowlneils 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions and the query on the article talk page about the biosphere reserve issue. The "tightening up" of the article was not really my doing though...that credit definitely goes to all the others who have helped.--MONGO 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The content was always good, but this has seen a lot of improvement to the copy and is now up to snuff. There's always room for more, and I hope this will be well maintained so it will continue to see improvement. I think it would benefit from a revisit from Tony if he is willing, who is a tougher critic than I on the copyedit front. Sam 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does anyone think I should eliminate the "RNSP" abbreviations and stick with he full title or maybe even use some other less lazy looking abbreviation?--MONGO 00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins 2: The New Batch

edit

Partial self-nomination. Gremlins has recently become an FA, and inspired by the success of the Halloween sequels, I thought, why not try Gremlins 2 too. Gremlins 2 is currently a good article. As with the first, I reorganized, expanded and referenced it. It's a weird movie though, and some of it might be tough to put into words. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, just makes it all clearer IMO. Also for that section (purely stylistic and minor), merging paragraphs would not be a bad thing (so you have fewer 1-2 sentence 'graphs). Staxringold talkcontribs
  • Oppose Now Weak Support. The article seems to cover the content well, but I would fail it on point 2a, the quality of the English. I think going from GA to FA often requires a complete rewrite by someone who writes well. The style has a lot of short, choppy sentences that don't flow, and in other places the sentences are rather clumsy. For example:
Plot section:Although Billy was informed of the "rules" regarding mogwai, to never get Gizmo wet or to feed him after midnight, Gizmo was later exposed to water and multiplied.
Plot section:The gremlins are hit by the electricity and consequently melt away.
Plot section:This gives him with the ability to speak with a refined voice provided by Tony Randall. How does this hormone select Tony Randall as the speaker?
Special effects:In addition each one had a name, though these were used in the script and never actually spoken aloud in the film. They were Lenny and George, named for the principal characters in Of Mice and Men, whom they resemble in both appearance and demeanor. There was also Daffy, who displays manic behaviour, and the leader Mohawk, so named for the mohawk he sports.

I didn't look to hard to find these. None of them are terribly wrong, but all of them could be phrased more effectively. I would like to see the article completely rewritten in something closer to "brilliant prose" before it is approved for FA status. Walkerma 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the English has been improved. It's still not perfect, IMHO, but I think it's now much better. Walkerma 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, I just noticed that this article goes nuts on the wikilinks. Fur, bat, water? These entries don't add much at all to the quality of the article and should be removed.--P-Chan 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about this [13] [14]? Wikilinks kept should obviously include people involved in making the film; other movies referenced by the film (should particularly help add context); 1990 in film (obviously, context); places. Also kept:
      • Cartoon, slapstick, parody, plot, wit, revenge, satire, emotion, meta-reference, etc.: All literary/artistic elements that should help to understand a piece of art or entertainment;
      • Cable television, genetics, frozen yogurt: three things identified (the third, albeit humourously) as phenomenons of the time that left marks on the movie (helps establish context);
      • Executive producer, character actor- again, relevent to the type of subject matter involved;
      • Puppetry, animation, stop motion- techinal aspects integral to the making of the film.
      • Video game, personal computer, action figure- nothing to do with the movie but important contextually, for the merchandise covered by the article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to improve the article further as there still seems to be minor issues with copyediting and choice of words, but it should be good to go. (I'll strike-out my objection) --P-Chan 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I printed it out again and made a few more adjustments. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elfin-woods Warbler

edit

Looks close to, if not ready for, FA status SP-KP 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support I did some copyediting and fixed several problem sentences. Take a look at this one - I couldn't figure out what it was saying! "Nests are built within dry aerial leaf litter, a material used by no other Parulidae species, usually Cecropia leaves in Bulbophyllum wadsworthii trees, close to the tree trunk." I like the self-made maps and the article seems complete for the topic that it covers. Getting rid of the red links would be wonderful, of course...great job! InvictaHOG 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix the sentence you mentioned. The red links might be a long shot for me since I have few references for the trees. The most I could do is create a stub for them. Joelito (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the sentence although it may still read awkward. Please let me know if it needs further editing. Joelito (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns were addressed. Thanks! InvictaHOG 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. Looks good, but are those references standard? I'm not familiar with this style of referencing, I haven't seen it before, but it seems adequate. If it is a Wikipedia-approved referencing style, count this as a full support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also find them a bit weird. I would prefer more referencing throughout the article, and the use of a standard numerical system. Everyking 07:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will convert the referencing style.Referencing style has been converted to cite.php Joelito (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jeronimo 06:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Having page numbers, where there are pages, for the references would help readers find specific information. In the case of quotations, page numbers are vital. In the case of articles pulled from the web, another form of reference might be appropriate when a quotation is cited. The article could be improved by a picture of the Black & White Warbler for comparison purposes (I know there's a link, but when the article gives tells for identification, it's customary to show the two species side by side). Geogre 12:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooooh, on the contrary, I vastly, vastly prefer parenthetical reference. I was just saying that you need page numbers when you have a quotation, and, generally, the parenthetical references aren't superscripted. I think MLA style citation is now extremely common in the US and UK and Aus/NZ. In fact, footnotes are pretty rare. Geogre 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The final paragraph, about the bird's conservation status, mixes risk catergories of the USFWS, IUCN, and Birdlife. I think you should the difference between those statuses clear. The way it is written now, you would think that the USFWS has changed the status of the warbler, but the USFWS does not have catergories of lower risk/least concern, etc. The USFWS considers it a candidate species, so it would have a listing priority number (the lower the number, the more concern for the species). That would be published in the federal register, and may well have changed along with the other conservation assessments. Good work on the article! Matthias5 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you modify the range map, by including a world map which shows the exact location of puerto rico? CG 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I cannot, I am not very skilled when it comes to graphics. Maybe someone else can help in this regard. Joelito (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the map issue. Raul654 10:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

edit

Currently rated as a Good Article. It has been through a peer review and has been aggresively edited over the last several weeks to resolve the noted issues. Self nomination. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't there any way to turn the lists of equivalent honors into a table or prose? Themillofkeytone 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I tabilized it, but it didn't look good, so I prosified the lists. Please take a second look. Rlevse 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better than before... looking at the history it wasn't what I had in mind but the prose looks fine to me. I'll do a more complete reading tomorrow before voting. Themillofkeytone 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A listed Similar Awards has my preference. And I would move the ScoutingPortal logo to See Also to unclutter the top of the article. Fortunately, all in all, this is a well done article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not Supporting (yet) but not opposing. I like this article. As an Eagle Scout myself, this caught my attention immediately. I like this article a lot, but there are some things that I would like seen done before I fully support.

  • First, excellent job with citing sources. I am a big supporter of referencing and I think you have done well. My only concern is that the sections after the beginning of History of the medal and History of the badge are not cited at all. If you could fix that, that would solve about eighty percent of what I have as an inhibitor.
  • The lead section, at least to me, seems a little short. This isn't incredibly important, though, because you say what you need to. I'm just throwing this out to you in case you feel like doing something to it.
  • When I was going through the Eagle process, the service project was incredibly important. If you could expand upon that (examples of service projects, etc.) then that would make me happy.
  • There's... something.. about the Similar awards section that just doesn't seem right. I know that this is not at all helpful, and I apologize for my lack of specificity. If you could rewrite it or redesign it in some fashion, I would appreciate it.

So, there you go. I wish you good luck and if you decide to pursue what I have mentioned, please drop me a line on my talk page so that I remember to come back and review it (and hopefully change my vote from effectively a good-natured neutral to a proud support :-) ). Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The medal and badge histories have one source in toto- the Grove book (and it's really hard to find now- I got lucky). The Murray site listed in the references is derived from that work- I think it's based on an early edition though, so its rather outdated. If there is a better way to reference this without plugging in the same footnote repeatedly, please let me know.
The lead has been pretty stable for a few weeks now- frankly it was all over the place before. Is there anything specific that you think should be there?
I'll think over the service project.
The similar awards was a list in the earlier version before the comments above.
I won't be able to personally get back to this until later this evening, but we have a good team on the job. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added details about the service project. Rlevse 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that he meant us to expand the project under the current requirements- give some examples of a good project. It could probably take a whole paragraph in that section. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rlevse 14:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. After consideration, I'm supporting. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Linuxbreak can now support - I am going to try to add some more references in the sections that have none. Johntex\talk 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references for those sections are from Grove. A number of the Murray references are outdated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There may be a better way to do the similar awards section, but I played around with it for a bit and couldn't get it any nicer. My other issues have been addressed above. Maybe you can do something with the Grove book to make it more obvious that the whole section is sourced from that... Themillofkeytone 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either your format or mine is okay with me, just as either the list or prose version of the similar awards section is fine with me. But I do have a slight preference for the list versions.Rlevse 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article. Lead seems adequate, to me. (Now I wish I got beyond life Scout 20 years ago all the more!) I think the other awards section looks fine, too. Reimelt 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support And I remember when Rlvese was just getting started with all the Scouting stuff on WP.. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I would add one thing, and change one other. The second point first - I got my Eagle in 1993, and still carry my original "gold card" - so I'm not sure it's correct to say that the plastic credit-card sized Eagle certificate card was introduced in 2000 (NESA also issues plastic cards of this type, white ones for five-year memberships, and I don't know what color for lifetime members). Second, it might be worth noting that if a recipient wishes to go to a Scout Store and get any of the merchandise, or, say, replace the tie tack (the chain has broken off of mine a few times) you MUST show said card. --JohnDBuell 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Us older Eagles don't have the gold cards, but it is true you have to prove you're an Eagle. I'll defer to Gadget850 on your suggestions. Rlevse 01:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Having just flipped to the back of the Spring 2006 Eagletter, it looks like the current small cards are white for Eagle Scouts, white for regular NESA membership, and gold for NESA life membership. Any Eagle scout can get the new white wallet card for $5 provided you give your name, date of birth, unit location and number, date of your board of review and the council's number! --JohnDBuell 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but most people don't bother-;), though I did. The main point is proof you're an Eagle. Rlevse 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the Grove book on my business trip, so I have it at hand. You are correct: the plastic cards were introduced in 1991. I'll fix that in a moment.
Replacement of official insignia requires verification by presentation of the card or certificate. Replacement of cards and certificates can be made by application to NESA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Town

edit

This article has been steadily improving over the years - it was one of the first articles made on Wikipedia in 2001. It is already listed as a good article, and all concerns from a recent peer review have been addressed. I think it is a very well written, concise, yet elegant article on South Africa's "mother city," and the oldest city in South Africa. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 06:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nice! Well rounded article, with good coverage of every major aspect. Hopefully your next SA city will be as good, or better! Steve-o 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservation, comment I would love to see this as an FA (see my wiki-wishes on my userpage) but there's one thing that bothers me: too many redlinks in the communication and media section. That doesn't look good on an FA. May be they should be delinked until some stubs are made for them? The article looks pretty good. - Cribananda 06:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the redlinks, but I can imagine it doesn't "look" that good. However, I don't think that it should reflect badly on the article itself; in fact, it reflects badly on the whole project, since it is information that is still missing! dewet|✉ 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the links have been sorted out - please check back at the page. -- Chris Lester talk 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Cribananda 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your concern has been addressed. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored the refs to use proper cite* templates. dewet|✉ 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for fixing that. — Wackymacs 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree about the length issue. Take a look at Johannesburg and at WP:SIZE which shows that Cape Town is not really out of line (in fact the page size is about 31kb of ASCII text). Anyway, which sections need expanding? -- Chris Lester talk 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Great Job on this article. It's clean and spiffy. Okinawadude 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object for now... too much uncited POV. Cape Town has a vibrant collection of community newspapers, much of the "Tourism" section (though this is minor), High school attendance rates and a superior higher education infrastructure has also helped Cape Town to compete globally when compared to other cities in South Africa that have less developed infrastructure and education. --W.marsh 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a long time editing tonight sourcing and removing weasel words, hopefully these edits are what you were looking for. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive, seems everything has been adressed. Support. --W.marsh 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:120px-Cape Town city flag.gif has a fair use rationale: Government Logo; Image:Capetownarms.jpg is older than 50 years and as a work of the South Africa government falls into the public domain. Source has been added. -- Chris Lester talk 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The flag has the bare minimum to avoid being deleted. Leaving that aside, you simply removed the unsourced tag for Image:Capetownarms.jpg and claimed it was created by the South African government. It is a coat of arms; the actual artist who created that particular illustration holds copyright. We need to know who that is, when and where it was first published, etc. Jkelly 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not so, according to South African law. You cannot copyright an image of a flag or a coat of arms, as it is a derivitive work of something that is ineligible for copyright. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 02:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have given fair use rationale for all images, none of them can be copyrighted. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In South Africa, coats of arms are registered at the South African Bureau of Heraldry and not copyrighted. Elf-friend 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all of the above is true, and I suspect that you are confusing the concept and the execution, we still need to know who the artist is of this particular rendering. We have no way of knowing whether or not the artist's copyright opportunity falls under South African jurisdiction. Jkelly 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who the artist is is utterly irrelevant. It appears you have striken through my reasons on the images descripton which I have reverted. There is no originality in copying an uncopyrightable image, it is a derivitive work which is not covered by copyright law in South Africa or the United States. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jkelly, Páll is absolutely right here. Even if I were to draw a new rendering of the coat of arms here in the US, it would be a derivative work of something that cannot itself be copyrighted; I cannot gain a greater property right by the back door than is available to the original work--that would be like me making a realistic forgery of the Mona Lisa and then claiming that no-one could upload an image of it. Nope--once an image is free, any instance of it is not subject to copyright. We don't care who re-types a novel whose copyright is expired, nor do we care who "rendered" this image. I knew going to law school would help me one day!Reimelt 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Oh, I just noticed--my above argument assumes when I say "coat of arms" that there is a definitive image--not a description a la, field vert, lion rampant. In the latter case each artist's impression would probably be--itself--a work eligible for copyright under US law.(Not always, however. The US flag is a "described" standard, and is not eligible for copyright, unless significantly different than the statutory description, e.g., Jasper Johns.) If this is what you mean by coat of arms, jkelly, you are right as a rule, but that is not the case here--we have an actual registered image with which to compare instances created derivatively.Reimelt 05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that our article Seal of Cape Town gives us the heraldic description, using proper terminology, that any artist should follow to create the arms. Some individual artist made the image we are publishing here, whom we apparantly know nothing about, as the only source given for the image is a dead weblink. Jkelly 19:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your objection will have to stand, then, since all information to the contrary to your assertion, and that the name of the artist is not important or germaine, does not seem to change your view. No artist could create the exact image depicted here from the heraldic description — this image was drawn in the 18th century and cannot be copyrighted. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, this illustration of the Cape Town civic arms comes from the Letters Patent issued by the College of Arms in 1899, and is the only version of the arms which the City Council used in the 20th century (certainly during the past few decades that I've lived in the city). Who holds copyright in College of Arms renditions of arms? The College, or the armiger who paid the College for the grant, in this case the city Council? I'm no lawyer, but I would suspect the latter.

The arms were indeed registered at the Bureau of Heraldry, which produced a much more modern rendition of them for the registration certificate. --Arthur R 15:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Arthur R[reply]

Object as per W.marsh and lack of inline citations in key sections such as Tourism, Communications, and Universities. "The water at False Bay beaches is often warmer by up to 10°." "Many tourists also chose to visit Cape Town's beaches, which are also popular with Capetonians." (how many?) "Cape Town is also noted for its architectural heritage" (any international recognition?), "a trend which continues to bolster the economic differences these institutions" (sounds like OR to me; any sources?). Also, some clumsy/less than optimal wording: "Cape Town, with its good transport links, serves as the gateway" (what does "good transport links" tell the reader?), "Bryde's Whale occurs all year-round" ("occur" seems unusual), "Several newspapers and magazines have their offices in the city, as it is the transportation hub for the south western region of South Africa." (logical sequence doesn't make sense—newspapers and transportation?) --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a long time editing tonight sourcing and removing weasel words, hopefully these edits are what you were looking for. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I don't see any sources; I see inline footnotes linking to external links. Now, for example, there's a footnote for "Cape Town is one of the most popular tourist destinations in South Africa due to its good climate, setting, and the city's relatively well-developed infrastructure." But the footnote gives me a link to [15], which says nothing of the sort. I'm looking for a tourism magazine or a tourist book or a newspaper article or something that supports the actual statement. As it exists currently, these aren't references. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just did that, what do you think? :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support on the inclusion of a section on culture (art, music, etc. - sports seems to be well-covered already) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Added a few additional articles to remove some more redlinks. Elf-friend 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Greenman 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A quality article like I have come to expect from Páll. Keep up the good work!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article, I have no objections Impi 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Appealing look to the article. Good job. Tombseye 07:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tombseye. —Khoikhoi 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just recently copyedited the entire article, ironing out a lot of grammar flaws and typos.  Denelson83  06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above. htonl 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)c[reply]
  • Object—This fails 2a by a long shot. Here are examples from the lead of why the whole text needs to be thoroughly copy-edited, preferably by someone who's distant from the text.
    • Even the strictest hyphen pedant wouldn't insist on "third-most-populous", and it's right up there in the opening sentence.
    • "It is the provincial capital of the Western Cape, as well as the legislative capital of South Africa, where the National Parliament and many government offices are located." Why mark the second item with COMMA PLUS "AS WELL AS"? I see another "as well as" in the same paragraph. I hope the whole article isn't littered with them. Just "and" will do. "Where" is ambiguous—it could mean "South Africa, "the Western Cape", or "the provincial capital".
    • "Cape Town originally developed around its harbour as a refuelling station for Dutch ships"—Can you remove "around its harbour"? Kind of obvious.
    • His arrival "made" it a settlement: clumsy expression, and what does "it" refer to?
    • "Cape Town quickly outgrew its original purpose as being the first European outpost at the Castle of Good Hope, and became the largest city in South Africa until it was outpaced by the new city of ..." "As" is ungrammatical. Was its purpose to be the first European outpost? Surely there were more important purposes, such as economic ones. Can "become" be just "was"? "Outpaced" is unidiomatic. Do you need "new"?
    • "is comparatively larger than other South African cities, resulting in a comparatively lower population density ". Both instances of "comparatively" are redundant.

Please let us know when it has been transformed into "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Tony 07:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some copyediting. See here [16]. Will try to find more errors later. -- Chris Lester talk 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that these copyedits are sufficient -- Themacmoo 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead paragraph says "According to the 2001 Census, the city has a population of 2.9 million. Cape Town's land area of 2,499 km² is larger than other South African cities, resulting in a lower population density of 1,158 people per km²." Lower than what? Other cities? All of them? If Cape Town is significantly less densely populated, then maybe something like "Cape Town's large land area of 2,499 km² results in a population density of only 1,158 people per km², significantly lower than other major cities such as..." or something to that effect. Matt Deres 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word relatively has been put in; it shows that this is lower than other South African cities. Hope this makes it clearer. -- Chris Lester talk 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O-Bahn Busway

edit

A well-written and comprehensive article on a unique subject. Has recieved positive feedback and undergone peer review. It is my fourth featured article nomination, and hopefully my third featured article.

All queries will be dealt with reasonably and as soon as possible. michael talk 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think it's a great article. There are two things, however, that might be nice to change. The last couple of paragraphs from the history section are more appropriately "the future." It would be nice to split them off, perhaps at the end as "the future of the busway." The word "carparks" is, I assume, a common word in Australia. I think that "space to park x cars" would sound better, but I understand if that is unacceptable. The only other thing is the note about Tom Wilson at the end - I suspect it is there to explain the reference with his name in it, but it might be nice to either move into the main text or delete. I don't know that I've seen a note used that way before. You might also trim a few external links. InvictaHOG 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove if it's a nuisance, but I just thought the nod to Wilson would be a nice addition. I never knew 'carparks' was a purely Australian term! michael talk 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Did I miss it or is there nothing in here about how successfull this has been and its level of ridership? It does 'most heavily patronized guided busway', but just how successful is that? 10%, 70%, or??? Rlevse 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some statistics regarding its ridership. However, I didn't include them because I felt such an addition would compromise the article's neutrality. If there's a demand for them, I'll go through my notes and see about their entry - they've only been rising since 1986. michael talk 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is put one line in the body of the text somewhere as in the opening you say it's great but then don't support it. Rlevse 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It was a brilliant article to begin with, and it has improved greatly since then. Rebecca 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Surprisingly good. Yet another strange topic is conquered by FA. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—"car park" is correct, with the space. Patronage stats would be useful, if kept concise. I don't see NPOV arising from them. Tony 07:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeComment: The article begins with a rather grand sounding but entirely unsourced statement that this is the fastest, longest, and most heavily traveled guided busway in the world. A source is needed for the statement. It would also be good to put it in context: how many guided busways are there, and how do they compare to other mass transit systems? It may be that the quantitative comparison really isn't all that important, and you have given a qualitative comparison, which strikes me as more interesting. (While I'm rather overdoing the picking at this small nit, I might as well also note that it's good to date such facts, since they do, inevitably, become dated). Best, Sam 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've switched my "comment" to oppose for two reasons: (1) the comment should have been easy to deal with, and I am concerned that it has not been; and (2)since it wasn't, I read a bit of the article and found a number of statements that seemed irrelevant and so did not flow. Just looking at the last couple of paragraphs, we see: "[s]ix million dollars of the total cost was used for the redevelopment of the Torrens Gorge, in which the Torrens Linear Park was created." This statement leaves me wondering what the Torrens Gorge and its redevelopment have to do with the O-Bahn. Was this simply an unrelated project thrown in on the same budget for political reasons, or did construction of the O-Bahn damage the Gorge requiring redevelopment? Clicking the Gorge link doesn't help, as that gets me to the Torrens River, which is not obviously related. Likewise, there is a comparison of ticketing subsidies of $2.90 versus $8.80 for the railways. Why are these comparable? Are the lengths of rides the same or similar, or is the $8.80 a subsidy for a potentially much longer ticket? It seems there are a number of relevancy issues like this throughout. Organizationally, I don't mind that only level 2 headings are used given how concise the article is, but having an initial lengthy section followed by increasingly shorter and choppier sections makes it look like the authors just ran out of steam. So, I think there is some work to be done to put a bit more meat on the well-drafted bones. Sam 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes on about how the Torrens Gorge was landfill and how it was redeveloped with the O-Bahn. It is brought up several times in the history section and again in the environment section.
Thaks for the quick response; I've reread and seen the discussion. I stand corrected. Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the government subsidy for tickets; it's supposed to be an example of how cost-effective the O-Bahn is in comparison to the rail system.
Yes, but why is it relevant? Are these subsidies for similar rides, or are you comparaing apples and oranges? Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the purchase of a Adelaide Metro ticket, a $2.90 subsidy is required by the O-Bahn, a $8.80 by a train. Am I not making this clear enough in the article? Feel free to suggest how to improve the wording.
I made some changes, and perhaps you will see my point there. What I am not certain of is the relevance of the amount of subsidiary per ticket (especially given that you apparently buy one ticket for use across the entire system, so I'm not sure how you separate the subsidy level for one versus another without allocating some of each ticket to cover the expense of each system). If the government subsidizes meals for low income people, I'm not sure the fact that the subsidy of quarter-pound hamburger may be 25 cents while the subsidy of a one pound steak may be $1 has much meaning; the subsidy for the chocolate bar is lower, but you are both getting four times as much steak and most people would rather eat steak than burger. A comparison of the subsidy per pound of meat (or per mile of average ride) would be more directly comparable. Does this make clear my concern? Sam 17:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have statistics as you would wish. The ones I am using are from parliamentary debate about the O-Bahn where the MP's discuss it cost-effectiveness. The calculation is not a pure science, but it does show how much more the rail system costs. michael talk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added usage statistics in the history section.
Thank you. I think these are useful. But is 22,000 riders really the most heavily patronized system in the world? The fact that so little of its capacity is being used makes me wonder if it is successful at all compared to the hopes for it. Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its capacity is 'potential' (as noted). The area it serves will never take advantage of its huge capacity, even if every person there used it daily. It is the first large-scale guided bus system and none built since has matched it. There are only small systems in the United Kingdom and the tiny original section of O-Bahn track in Essen.
It would still be good to support statements like "fastest, longest, most heavily patronized" with a citation. I do wonder how relevant it is, especially since the definition of guided bus seems to sidestep systems like Boston's Bus Rapid Transit system, which uses a dedicated lane, is often but not always guided by overhead wires and by advanced electronics. I think you've got a nice article about a system that is clearly fast, that is 12 kilometers long, and carries 22,000 passengers a day. What I'm still left wondering is what the citation is for it being the fastest, longest and most heavily patronized and why is it important that it is the fastest, longest, and most heavily patronized - it seems so much more important that it is a fairly unique system. Sam 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "fastest and longest" and provided reference. "Heavily patronised" is accurate, but I have no explicit reference, so it has been changed. michael talk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Hope these comments / changes allievate your concerns. michael talk 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They help, and I appreciate the quick response, though as noted I still have some queries. Best, Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An oddly interesting article on a very specific and unique subject. >s?My only suggestion would be finding an appropriate article to link to for the "carbon-neutral" statement under Environment as everyone might not be familiar with that term. Nevermind, I did it. Easier than I thought. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - again excelent.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support brilliant article for a very interesting topic. The only thing that needs to change is its title, but we'll deal with that post-FAC.--cj | talk 07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with some minor comments: The caption on the new tram image (beginning "A quarter of a century later" doesn't seem right. I think captions should to a large extent be able to stand alone apart from the main text. I also agree that usage stats should be included, if available. Apart from that, a great article. JPD (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is something I wouldn't mind riding on one day, and Cheer Bear wouldn't miss it for Care-a-lot! (Sorry, my two cents for being so nostalgic and everything in that last part.) --Slgrandson 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: I feel that there needs to be a map of the route taken. Otherwise good. Todd661 01:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

edit

Self-nom on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This is perhaps one of the WikiProject's most important articles, as it is evidently a household name inside the United States now. The article itself may be a historical reference for future works about the subject; its edit history is one of the longest in Wikipedia, and it records the chaos that occured on those days.

However, the article in its current form is everything but chaotic: it fully represents the best of Wikipedia, as required by the featured article criteria. It is thoroughly referenced, and is, to the best of my knowledge, neutral. The article also balances the need for comprehensiveness with Summary style, as it spearheads a category with more than 100 articles. The article has finally become stable, as time has passed, and does not neglect any side of the storm or its aftermath. As a result, it's time to put it under consideration for Featured status. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As of 15 June this article has 42KB of prose.
  • Very nice. A few formatting quibbles, though:
    • Linking to a section via {{main}} (here) produces something rather ugly in the output. I'm not sure how you could deal with this; do redirects to a particular section work?
    • The "see also" links at the top of sections are somewhat jarring. If you can't work those into the text (which would surprise me), why not just have a "See also" section at the bottom?
    • Some of the external links are a bit too general. Is it really necessary to link to FEMA's homepage, for example, given that the page isn't exactly prominently featuring Katrina anymore?
Other than that, looks like an excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play around with the template to see if I can make it look all right. However, the WP:MOS is a bit confusing about the see also links; one subpage says to weave them in, another says to use the templates. I'll fix the FEMA link too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those two things are fixed (as {{further}} did the trick). The Guide to layout says that the seealso links should be at the top of the section, so I'm not entirely sure as to what to do there. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought see-also links went at the bottom of the relevant text, seeing as they were supposed to be additional reading; but it's a trivial issue in any case. Support from me. Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while laughing at the near-simultaneous nominations. Fulfills all criteria and is another essential article to reach featured quality. —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 04:07 UTC
  • Weak object - "South Florida" and "Retirement" sub-sections are too short. — Wackymacs 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hurricane brushed by the tip of Florida as a Category 1 hurricane, so there were not many preparations to begin with, when compared to the rest of the coast. The "Retirement" section is already longer than many retirement sections of other hurricane articles, such as Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd, both of them featured. It is a WikiProject standard to place a subsection about retirement if the Aftermath of a hurricane article has more than two sub-sections, as required by criteria 3. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually the South Florida preps can be expanded, in content and in scope - by adding the TS warnings for FL and the Bahamas- I'll work on that later--Nilfanion (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      The point about the retirement is, sorry to say, quite ridiculous. On Wikipedia there seems to be a strange obsession with the naming (and particularly the retirement of names) for hurricanes. This obsession may be to do with the fact that naming schemes are relatively accessible and easily understood compared with physics or meteorology, and it results in a (sometimes outright silly) overrepresentation of the matter in many hurricane-related articles. See talk page archivess for hurricanes in general or for recent seasons for examples. In fact, the naming and retirement are of comparartively minor relevance in the context of a natural disaster of Katrina's scale. The two-sentence paragraph is absolutely appropriate. 87.122.50.75
      The South Florida preps section has been expanded. The retirement section is as stated before unexpandable and standard practice.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the opening paragraph rewritten.

RandomP 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, the problem is that there is so much to be written about the storm that a one-paragraph summary is simply not enough. All of the things you mentioned are within the lead section, although the numbers can be pushed further below, I agree. The problem is what to "bring up": the location cannot be given justice without its own paragraph, and the area of impact is so broad that saying that it hit New Orleans in the first paragraph is more likely to irritate someone (as users have made their thoughts about this previously on the talk page). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My take on the lead would be to change the first paragraph to have this in prose form: Katrina formed, moved over Florida, exploded and hit the Gulf Coast during August in 2005. The records should be relegated and the fact New Orleans was rendered uninhabitable should be in the lead section at some point (not the first para though).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The opener shouldn't be rewritten, but New Orleans needs to be mentioned further. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've reorganized it slightly, and pushed the numbers further down to magnify the importance of the impact in the Gulf Coast as a region (singling New Orleans would anger Mississppi readers, as some of them have already made us know). Some of the other changes I don't agree to, though, for example, bringing the certain cash figures after the death toll (as it is beyond a doubt the most costliest hurricane in US history, but due to problems in the historical record, it is not completely certain where Katrina falls in the death toll category). Titoxd(?!?) 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are currently 190 words in the lead section before New Orleans is first mentioned. Even angry Mississipi residents will have to admit that New Orleans is what Katrina is best known for. I believe that what many perceive to be the destruction of a major city is, frankly, more notable than that. RandomP 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've rewritten it again, although the New Orleans info is now split between the first and third paragraphs, which I don't like at all. Titoxd(?!?) 08:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • okay, one minor change that I went ahead and made: I changed "destroyed" to "had catastrophic effects to", and linked catastrophic effects to the main article. Maybe (honestly I'd have to research proper usage here) change "New Orleans, Louisiana" to just be "New Orleans"? I think the lead section is good otherwise though: first paragraph is essentially "yes, that katrina. this is the article you're looking for, unless it's the new orleans specific article we link to" second is about the storm as a meteorological event, third is about impact. As I said, I'm neutral on removing the Louisiana, and I'm also neutral on moving the last sentence of the opening paragraph to before mention of New Orleans. RandomP 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This wikiproject Tropical cyclones is producing amazing works.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --ZeWrestler Talk 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Perfect article. juan andrés 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article and topic to make FA. Rlevse 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article deserves to be featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object. This article exemplifies Wikipedia's major weakness. We can get the facts down as well as anybody, as well as Britannica - better, actually, because the ability to cover breaking news. In heavily edited articles, the worries about untrustworthiness disappear due to extensive fact-checking. But analysis still seems to be beyond our capability. At least some of the time, that is, and this article is no exception.
The titles of the two main sections deserve looking at. "Impact," for the place-by-place, hard fact detailing of Katrina's physical force; "Aftermath" for what happened next. The only "impact" described in that section is the physical impact; social impact is almost nowhere to be found. Perhaps one would find it in the "aftermath" section — but the very word betrays that: "aftermath" is, as well, a centrally physical word. How about "Consequences"?
The main problem is the lack of analysis. Why is Katrina significant? Twenty, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years from now — will anyone care about Katrina? (Probably not about the loss of breeding grounds for redhead ducks. Certainly not about the August 26 "F1 tornado" that formed from Katrina's "outer rainband.") What did Katrina mean? Why did it matter?
You see, it's relatively easy to find out the Gulf of Mexico shut-in oil production before and after Katrina, or how many billions in aid were given by such and such a country. It's harder to create a balanced discussion of differing viewpoints in regards to, say, the (at the very least, perceived) inadequacy of the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
Case in point — our section on exactly that. Four paragraphs — that's it. The first paragraph is a throwaway, posing as a lead but instead merely explaining terms that don't need to be explained. Half of the second paragraph is a prelude to whatever criticisms there were; the rest of it, the meat of the section, dances around the issue. "Harsh criticism" is mentioned, but no mention of what that criticism was, or examples, or links to examples, or any evidence for that criticism is presented. The hard fact of Michael Brown being recalled is mentioned — with news story to back it up — but why he was recalled is not mentioned. Brown's resignation is listed, along with a hazy mention of "having received praise from ... Bush" — what, no "heckuva job, Brownie"? Seriously! A key statement by the President of the United States, clearly political speechifying BS later exposed as exactly that and therefore ridiculed across the country, and all we get is "in spite of having received praise"? The third paragraph is short, talks about "raising questions" without actually saying what questions were raised, and includes a punctuation mistake. The fourth paragraph concerns something slightly after-the-fact and has little connection (except in association) to the rest of the section. The picture accompanying the section is relevant — except that it isn't mentioned in the least in the article. Another juicy quote ("George Bush doesn't care about black people") isn't present — but, of course, it couldn't be, because there's no discussion of Katrina's perceived exposure of race relations in this article. The whole New Orleans/urban poor/the Superdome/etc. thing is all but nonexistent in this article.
This is our section on "Criticism of government response"?! Of course, a few sections above, we have a decent section on "Government reponse," detailing, seemingly approvingly — anyway, without disapproval, which is key — all the money, etc. the government gave. Why the two sections aren't combined I don't know. Of course, right after this comes the "Media response" section, which may be even worse. No mention of Anderson Cooper (much less the cult of Anderson Cooper). No mention of reports of people firing on helicopters, etc. No mention of (possibly exaggerated?) media reports of looting. (There's a brief mention of the same in the looting section above, but no analysis is made.) There's a brief mention of the New Orleans Convention Center, but no context whatsoever is presented, nor is any mention made of the Superdome, except stranded in single sentences in different places across the article, unorganized, ungathered.
In short, we need to ask ourselves what Katrina meant and why it matters. To be sure, asking such questions — and, particularly, answering them — delves deeply into point of view. That's why we need to present different points of view and different ideas — and balance them, order them, and present them. It's not rocket science, but it is hard work. For a few days in August, the US looked like a third world country. Does anyone reading the article gather that? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. A small quibble: the Chandeleur Islands picture should be rearranged so that the "before" is on the left, as is customary in the English language. A larger quibble: why is there exactly — only — one picture of a human victim in this most human of tragedies?)
Why did Katrina matter? It is something Wikipedia cannot answer. Why? It is something that is the job of scholars, and our No original research policy explicitly disallows it:
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." (emphasis mine)
Also, the first line in the Criticism of Government response says:
Main article: Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina
It is impossible to talk about such a subject in the main article in a way that does not shatter the Article size guideline. We strived to achieve the preferred summary style, which is truly a balancing act.
No mention of looting? Did you try going into the subarticles prominently detailed in the article? It certainly is there. Titoxd(?!?) 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. Subarticles are subarticles. This nomination is to feature Hurricane Katrina, not the subarticles. No, I didn't read each subarticle top to bottom, as I did the main one. They're different, separate articles. My criticisms may well be better developed in certain other articles, but in no way is the important information "prominently detailed" in the article. You realize we have more words on the mere preparations for the storm than the criticism of government response and media involvent combined? Why do we include vast sections on minute details of the storm itself while neglecting its significance? Why does the reader have to go to subarticles (linked at the bottom of the page) to get to the important stuff but is presented right at the top, pages and pages worth of what is near trivialities in respect to the scope of the storm? As to the original research, a discussion of significance — different viewpoints, different ideas, properly attributed and supported — does not mean putting one's own ideas into the article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the strong object. Certainly, we could go into more detail, but that's the whole purpose of the article size attribute and the MANY sub-articles to this topic. The sub-articles support this article very well, and if we put every single minute detail about the criticisms to the government response into this article, we'd have an article that would be way too long that no one would read. There's also an overwhelming amount of information about this topic as well, but a lot of it is POV blogs, conspiracy theories, and extreme liberal or conservative views on the topic, which is best left out of the encyclopedia. It's best to produce an article in the middle, with little conspiracy theory talk and extreme views. Dr. Cash 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Certainly we could go into more detail," you say. Tell me this: why do we go into such fine details with regard to the physical impact of the storm, but the social impact - the media, the criticism of the government, the race relations; that is, what is most significant about the topic - is relegated to subarticles? Answer: because it's so much easier to document statistics than analyze, organize, and clearly and NPOV-ly present difficult social issues. But the fact that a proper article on this topic would be difficult to write does not excuse the failings of this current article. In short, this is not Wikipedia's best work; not even close. So it shouldn't be featured: period, the end. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the most important section in the article is the "Storm history" - that is the storm itself after all. And its not relegated to subarticles, its expanded in subarticles (the physical impact is also expanded in the subarticles, particularly the New Orleans info). Some specific detail about physical damage may be slightly excessive (the F1 tornado for example) but I think that is more significant to the story of Katrina than the fact there were racism allegations in photos showing looting/collecting stuff. The most important thing to cover in this article is the storm itself, the title is "Hurricane Katrina" after all not "Social effects of Hurricane Katrina"... The physical impact is an aspect of the storm, the social aspect is more an aspect of American society than the storm IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't titled "Storm history of Hurricane Katrina" either. It comes down to which subarticle, which section, you want to give focus to. Currently, the vast majority of the article centers of the storm history, while the larger significance is largely ignored. I think that's ridiculous, and that's why I continue to object. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it isn't that article either and the article doesn't give much weight to that section (its expanded in a subarticle, like everything else). What I meant by saying the history is the most important section is that without that section the article is "Effects of Katrina" not "Katrina". I think the article does a good balancing job between physical and social impact. IMO $5 million of damage is more pertinent to the story of the storm itself than the cult of a journalist.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That strong object above was well written, and that is to his/her credit, but this article is good. It is very informative, it has alot of good in depth detail, and it covers mostly everything that anyone would want to know about the subject. I don't know if the person who strongly objected read the subarticles, but this article can hardly just be labeled a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". --Makaio 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read the subarticles, because the article nominated is not the subarticles. Those are separate articles. As to it covering everything anyone would want to know about the subject, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent article, well written and well referenced. I can see where some people may need more information but I thought that the subarticles did a decent job of covering that. The article is long enough as it is. --Nebular110 05:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent article with great and well referenced information. Aeon 19:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aesthetic object - why are there five different image widths, and why are most images on the right but only a few on the left? And, why have a before and after shot with the before on the right and after on the left? This is totally counter-intuitive to most people. And also a question - does anyone share my concern at frequently seeing lots of people who are part of a wikiproject leaving support votes on articles produced by their wikiproject? I really don't think it should happen. It looks like the project is trying to railroad nominations through. Worldtraveller 21:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The before/after shot has been fixed (the NASA source image was the "wrong" way round). Vote-stacking shouldn't really be an issue if FAC is working correctly, its certainly not the intent of the editors of the article or the wikiproject to railroad this (or any other article) through; its a lot of "me too" voting when that happens.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I count 17 supporters from outside the WikiProject, so "railroading" is probably the least accurate way to describe it. Everything else has been fixed, and all images now are 250px (with the exception of the initial image, which should be small to avoid getting a narrow column of text in the Storm history section, and another image which is only 240 px originally).Titoxd(?!?) 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you'd have about 14 votes from members of the wikiproject. This really does skew the discussion significantly - a pile of supports like that will certainly make people reading the nomination think there can't be very much at all wrong with the article and may dissuade oppose comments. Given that this is a nomination 'on behalf of' the wikiproject, members of the wikiproject really should not be voting. At the very least they should be declaring that they are members of the project.
The article still has one random image on the left. It's something of a matter of personal choice but I've always thought alternating left-right looks way better than all images on the right. Worldtraveller 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've refrained from voting here, and I've edited the article significantly. The wikiproject sup's are from people who joined the project as "interested in hurricanes" and as such are voting on their interests, certainly not encouraged to vote support by the rest of the project. That's no different than any other "popular" subject, the difference is the 'cane-fans tend to be in the wikiproject. I've moved the images (except for the storm track, that's opposite the Katrina template) to the right hand side.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the very least that can be done is that they should declare that they are members of the wikiproject. It does look suspicious when half the votes are coming from people in whose name the nomination is supposedly made, but they aren't being forthcoming with that information.
As for my objection, I apologise if I'm being a pain in the arse but I do believe that looking good is an important thing. The three tables of different widths that start the article really don't look very good. Could they be made the same width, or moved to different parts of the article? Worldtraveller 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed from using the Katrina template to just using its content (stops the repetition of Hurricane Katrina 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and two similar pictures). I'm not convinced of the point to the intensity table myself but I don't fancy a lame edit war over it.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a great article considering the fact it was one of the most chaotic and difficult articles ever created for what turned out to be one of the defining moments in American - and world - history. CrazyC83 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - awesome article for such an important event, especially considering how chaotic the article was for the first few months. It's a little short, but otherwise it looks pretty good to me. bob rulz 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sicerely folks. I think this is taking too long. It has too much supporting votes that I think it should have been an FA already. Leave all your replies on my talk page. juan andrés 00:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC is not a majority vote. Titoxd(?!?) 00:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to the max!!! Tobyk777 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly object, per Zafiroblue05. The inadequate government response is one of the most significant aspects of Katrina, but the article does not cover it adequately. What there is seems oddly truncated. For example, it says that "video footage and transcripts ... indicate that federal officials did inform Bush and Chertoff of the danger of levee breaches", but it never said why this was an issue: that Bush had earlier claimed that no one could have predicted the breaches. Rebutting criticisms without otherwise acknowledging them could be seen as POV. In any case, the lack of coverage of controversial aspects introduces a POV in itself. Wikipedia articles should be neutral, not neutered. In my view, the article fails to meet FA criteria 2b (comprehensiveness) and 2d (neutrality). -- Avenue 12:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The restored paragraph (see below) deals with that issue to what I think should be to everyone's satisfaction. Titoxd(?!?) 07:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does somewhat improve the coverage of these issues, but not enough. The social/political issues surrounding Katrina are among the most notable features of the storm, setting it apart from many other major hurricanes, and they're not summarised well by the current "Criticism of government response" section. There needs to be some mention of concerns over long-term clean-up, not just the emergency response. The text also contains a peculiar selection of material. Apart from the specific point I raised above (about levee breach notification), the last paragraph on "a minor scandal" doesn't belong in this summary section. There have been wide-ranging concerns about corruption and waste in clean-up contracting (see e.g. [17] [18]), and reporting one minor scandal without mentioning any other issues is misleading. -- Avenue 12:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just reviewed the article again, hoping there might have been some improvement in the absence of further discussion here. But no. So I'll reiterate my strong objections to this being made a featured article in its current state, due to its poor coverage of some of the most notable aspects of the subject. Perhaps this sums it up best; in the lead section, the following sentence details virtually every possible variant of Katrina's position in the 2005 season: "Katrina was the eleventh named storm, fifth hurricane, third major hurricane, and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic season." Meanwhile the preamble contains absolutely no mention of any failings in the preparation for the storm, the emergency response, or the recovery efforts following Katrina. According to WP:LEAD, an article's lead section should include "a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies". This one does not. -- Avenue 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Image:Kanyebush.jpg and Image:Geraldo-Rivera-Katrina-Aftermath-FNC.jpg need fair use rationale on their image description pages. See Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale and the description pages for the images at Sunset Blvd. (1950 film) if you're not sure what to write. This might be particularly important for this article because of the high number of free-licensed images available (some of which are already included). Extraordinary Machine 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big article, but is comprehensive and up to date with a good flowing text that is orderly and easy to read. This footnoting style is one I really do not like however, although I do recognize that in keeping with the new cite.php style, the editors on this page are simply following protocol. What I mean is if you simply look at the first few paragraphs, you see, as the footnote, the number "1" repeated over and over...and then have to figure out if this is a footnote (which is isn't since real footnotes are numerical from first to last) or more like a reference note. Regardless, that is an argument for another page, just wanted to bring it up. Excellent job.--MONGO 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object The "criticism of government" section does not make any reference to state and local governments or to Louisiana Governor Blanco and New Orleans mayor Nagin. In fact, both Blanco and Nagin are only referred to once in the entire article. Seems odd considering the roles they played during the hurricane. In fact, Blanco is never even referred to as a governor. In the "Looting and violence" section she is just quoted as Kathleen Blanco with no title. --Jayzel 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. there is no mention of the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, et al. in the "preparations" section and not a word about the state of Louisiana and Mississippi and the city government of New orleans in the "government response" section. In fact, this entire article leaves the reader to believe the Federal U.S. government controls all local, Parish, and state decision-making. --Jayzel 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, someone had vandalized a paragraph out of it, as it surely had that information. I've restored it now. The states info is in the preparations section too, so I don't see what you're saying...? Titoxd(?!?)
      • The paragraph is an improvement, but I have some agreement with the concerns of poster Avenue. Re: my comments about the "preparations" section, the section is broken down into Florida, New Orleans, and the Gulf Coast. First, as Louisiana and Mississippi were the hardest hit areas, why is there no discussion about how these state and local governments prepared for the storm? Second, the "Gulf Coast" section just talks about President Bush and the National Weather Service. These comments should be listed under a "Federal Government" header. You also haven't acknowledged my concerns re: local and state "reponse" to the action. Lastly, I noticed in the "New orleans impact" section there is reference to 6 dead found in the Superdome with a citiation to an article called Reports of anarchy at Superdome overstated. This story has extremely important information that is left out of the article. It talks about all the extreme claims of rapes and murders that were falsely alleged to have taken place at the Superdome and Convention Center by both the mayor and police chief of New Orleans. It was these erroneous claims that began the backlash about the government's response to the hurricane, therefore this should definately be highlighted in the article. This info can either be placed in the "critcism of government section" of the "media involvement" section. One final, minor note: I noticed there are a number of duplicate wikilinks throughout the article. Names and such wikilinked should only be linked to once in an article and at the time they are first mentioned. Someone needs to comb through the article and fix this issue. --Jayzel 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, a final note. Don't be concerned about the article's length. Wikipedia suggests a 50kilobytes maximum on articles, but it is only a suggestion. There are many current featured articles that are between 50-80k in length. It is more important to see to it that all major issues are addressed at least briefly. --Jayzel 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  1. I'm not sure it's "stable" enuf to be an FA. For example, I am assuming (well, on some levels more 'hoping') that the still changing circumstances are the reason that it is in such sharp disagreement with New Orleans, Louisiana regarding the early 2006 city population (100K vs 200K).
  2. This partially goes a bit beyond this article to FAC process, but how can we at WP:FAC really determine how complete an article is when the topic is so big and complicated? Due to a slow day at work last week I was fortunate enuf to be able to spend 2-3 hours reading much of the 520-page Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina[19], and some things don't appear to be covered in the article, or it's sub-articles. Probably one of the most important being that Chertoff named Brown PFO even tho' Brown had no PFO training, yet there were other PFO-trained candidates available: "Finding: The Secretary should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required PFO training, unlike FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO decisions".
  3. A related point: Overall, the article seems heavily influenced by the US media pack-mentality to blame Brown more than Chertoff (despite the fact that searching the Final Report file for "the secretary should have" gets 9 hits (4 actual points, all in various "Findings"), versus zero for "brown should have" or "director should have"), while the media in turn (IMHO) was heavily influenced by Bush administration actions designed to make Brown a scapegoat (despite being in contrast to their words to the contrary).
  4. I wish I could remember what I read where in the various sub/related articles, but several need good copyediting, and some seem to conflict. For example one says there was 'virtually no wind or rain damage to NO' (blaming all damage on the flooding), while others say there was significant wind damage several states further inland--hard for me to believe NO suffered less wind damage from Katrina than say Kentucky or New York. Niteowlneils 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plano Senior High School

edit

I have been working on this article for a long time with the help of such other school editors as User:Harro5, User:Staxringold, User:Bishonen, and others from the school project. It is listed as a good article and is a showcase article at the schools portal. It features mostly GFDL and PD photographs and cites a multitude of sources to verify its content. It has undergone a significant peer review and further editing by many editors. I believe that it is ready for the rigors of FAC! — Scm83x hook 'em 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. — Scm83x hook 'em 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Another in a small but quality group of high school articles that cannot be faulted. Harro5 12:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, fits criteria nicely. Finally, a good school article! — Wackymacs 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now) - the article is good, I like most of it, but:
    • The 'extracurriculars' section is incomprehensible to a non-American. Can that be translated into straight English (What is 'an enrollment'? I could guess this, maybe, but what is an 'enrollment for competitive purposes?', what does 'district 8 of the 5A class' mean?, how can its enrollment not be an integer?, and so on).
      • "Enrollment for competitive purposes" is explained in the next sentence: "This is the number used by the UIL when determining what other schools Plano competes against in all academics and academic competitions".
      • The district and class divisions are explained on the University Interscholastic League page.
      • The fractional enrollment is explained at the end of the paragraph: "The number is fractional because Jasper High School, one of Plano's feeder schools, is also a feeder school for Plano West Senior High School, and therefore the enrollment is split." — Scm83x hook 'em 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think more I'm just intrigued by how the whole thing works ... is there a page on all this that explains it to those who weren't schooled in the US? Proto||type 08:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there are 3 short paragraphs on teaching methods and academics, and 11 on extracurriculars (sports, bands, competitions) plus two tables says a lot about prevalent attitudes towards the scholastic system in the US. I'd like to see more about how the school teaches, what its methods are, and so on.
      • Because Plano is a public school, there isn't really anything special about the teaching methods that they use. Furthermore, there isn't any information about what teaching methods they use. There isn't really much more that could be said here, and I feel like adding some information on something I have no sources on would bring down the quality of the article. — Scm83x hook 'em 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that has a 'long history of academic excellence' - prove it, or remove it. I see reference to it currently having a high standard (second best in Advanced Placements issued in the US at the moment, but that's it).
      • The claim of academic excellence that Plano states on their website is based on the events of the History section. Some examples of this claim:
        • "By the mid-1910s, a majority of the graduating class, as much as eighty percent, matriculated to an institute of higher learning"
        • "According to the 1915 Plano Review, "The University of Texas probably draws more students from Plano than any one other institution."
        • "The Review goes on to state that "no town in Texas, in proportion to its size, has more students in higher institutions of learning than Plano."— Scm83x hook 'em 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add years to the access dates of your URLs.
That's it for now.Proto||type 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—What does the title "Academics" mean? There are two such titles. I don't like the fuzzy plural of "Extracurriculars", another title. Is this word suddenly a noun? Tony 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under the extracurriculars heading, academics refers to academic extracurriculars that have achieved notability (e.g. Math Club or Debate, as opposed to football or band). After your comments, I see that extracurriculars should become "Extracurricular activities". These activities are often referred to colloquially as "extracurriculars" in Plano and Texas in general, I've found. But, adding "activities" would be more correct as extracurricular is an adj. and not a noun, strictly. Thanks for the commentary! — Scm83x hook 'em 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings

edit

This article has been peer review twice, both this year, with the later being at my request. They can be found here and here. I have since made every change and imrpoved many other parts of the article. It covers the topic in every detail and is well-referenced. It also meets all MoS requirements and has generally great prose. If there are still problems with the article, no matter how minor, please note them here so I can improve the article further. Thanks, SorryGuy 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 43KB of prose as of 1 June 2006
Done. -- Avenue 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!RN 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 66kb is much too long - 32kb is the recommended maximum size for an article; there are links in section headings, contrary to the MOS; some section heading capitalisations also contravene the MOS; the pop culture section consists only of a stubby paragraph and a short list; the arrangement of the article is poor - why is 'back story' first, before it's even been set out that this was a book by Tolkein? What's a 'back story' in any case? In large chunks of text there are no citations, with sentences such as He thought about using Bilbo's son but this generated some difficult questions — Where was his wife? How could Bilbo let his son go into that kind of danger? — so he looked for an alternate character to carry the ring crying out for them; there is also a 'citation needed' in the critical response section. Worldtraveller 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree with the size requirement here - I was thinking some of the exact same things Worldtraveller was - especially regarding references. RN 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will address each of your statements here: 1) The size is a rough guideline and not a requirement. Lord of the Rings happens to be a very wide topic to cover, as shown in the artcle and most of the information need be there to cover the topic well. In addition I do not believe it is possible to cut half of this article and retain any sort of cohertness. 2) However the section links to the larger article which covers the topic in great detail. Adding more seems to contradict your above objection. 3) The back story is first because without it it is impossible to summarize the books. The summary is first because that is the information many will seek first when looking for information on Lord of the Rings. As for Tolkien writing the books that is established multiple times in the lead. At any rate I am open to suggestions, what order would you prefer? 4) As for the two references I will find them and add them. 5) The titles are quick fixs that I will do right now. At any rate I thank you for your suggestions and hope that correcting them can improve the article. Assuming all of them are completed you will change your vote to a support, yes? SorryGuy 02:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, 32kb is a rough guideline but more than doubling it is just ignoring it entirely. Sure, there's a lot to cover but the skill is covering it in as concise a way as possible. The longer your article, the fewer readers will bother reading all the way to the end, and that's a shame. As for organisation, the lead should be a concise summary of the article rather than an introduction to it, so the beginning of the main article should not follow on from the lead. You really need an 'overview' section or something like that before launching into 'back story' (a term which I'm not sure is widely used in any case).
    • Of course I would support if my objections are addressed. Why wouldn't I? Worldtraveller 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WorldTraveller about the MOS for section headings but I disagree that the article is too large; it's appropriate for the topic. savidan(talk)(e@) 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you talk about is *only* concerned about the size of the *prose* in an article. Things like references (esp inline ones), external links, see alsos and tables bloat the page size while not affecting the all-important size of the prose. Summary style further states that the *starting point* where an article may be considered too long is about 30KB and the likelihood of being too long goes up with size until one reaches 50KB of prose; only a small handful of topics require that much prose and vanishing few need more than that. What drives the need and/or ability to take more space than 30KB of prose? The scope of the topic and quality of the writing. This article has 43KB of prose and is about a huge work of fiction that has had a very dramatic impact on culture and even a bit on society itself. So the scope of this topic alone warrants going over 30KB. Whether or not the writing is also brilliant enough to warrant the extra reading time is up to debate though; we must be extra careful to ensure writing is engaging when going above 30KB of prose. --mav 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support on the article size yet I am a little confused. I thought the problem with the titles were the wikified parts and the capitalization on second words and the like. I have since correct those. Are there addition problems that I am missing? SorryGuy 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. This is a well-written and seemingly comprehensive article. However the whole section on Adaptations seems overly long to me. Each of its sub-sections does a thorough job, but the effect is to overwhelm the general reader with details that don't really relate to the books or the saga. I feel that some of this detail would be better shifted to separate articles, leaving a much more tightly summarised version, perhaps more like Romeo_and_Juliet#Adaptations. Less importantly, there seem to be a few minor inconsistencies or typographical problems (e.g. should it be Hobbits or hobbits). Also, the description of The Two Towers seemed unclear about the parallel stories, initially suggesting these covered the Rohan/Saruman angles. -- Avenue 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the article has improved, I think it hasn't reached featured article quality quite yet. The Adaptations section still needs much more cutting; the quotation of Lifeline Theatre's mission statement is one of the clearest examples, along with most of the second paragraph of the "Strategy battle game" subsection, but there is some fat in other areas too. I also agree with several comments made by others: launching directly into the back story does seem a bit abrupt, maps would be very useful, and more citations are needed. On maps, the current map seems poorly labelled - the labels are too small to read easily, and it shows "The Great River" while the article mentions the River Anduin. The names shown generally seem more appropriate to the LOTR synopsis than the back story where it currently resides. Would it be appropriate to show this map of Numenor first, and shift the Middle-Earth map further down? The Middle-Earth map might also benefit from being more tightly cropped. -- Avenue 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take another look at adaptations and see what I can cut. The map currently in use is actually rather large and detailed once you see it at its full size. This of coarse is impossible in the article. However the addition of the other, assuming that its copyright status is fine, can be added. As for the synopsis I have said on the talk page that I would prefer to not do it as my knowledge of story is far from being as extentsive as others. If anyone reading this can improve it, please do. I will do my best to get rid of the backstory and combine it but some may need to be added back. At any rate thanks for the suggestions, SorryGuy 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Adaptations section is much improved, and although I don't like some of it (e.g. a messy start to the films subsection; excessive detail and poor writing about the Cincinnati productions), I would probably not oppose if these were the only problems present. But the lack of citations is still worrying, and the capitalization, map labeling, and back story abruptness problems remain. The changes to the preamble haven't solved the back story issue, IMO. A better solution might be to turn "Back Story" and "Synopsis" into subsections of a larger section, and explain the need for background before launching into the back story. More generally I suspect the article size could be cut significantly by tightening up the prose, without losing anything of substance; see Tony's comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States for an example. -- Avenue 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My criticisms of the Adaptations section have been addressed. However the other problems remain. The lack of citations is the biggest issue (see the comments by Worldtraveller and Mike Christie for details), and the capitalisation problems have got worse since I first commented. This is a very good article, IMO, but it's not featured quality yet. -- Avenue 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what you mean about capitalization? Do you mean the hobbits/Hobbits? If so please check the talk page of the article. The capitalizations have signifiance, as explained by Tolkien. SorryGuy 02:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean the hobbit/Hobbit distinction in particular, as discussed here Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Hobbit_or_hobbit? and here Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Beware Hobbit/hobbit capitalisation. The article does not reflect the talk page consensus yet, as I understand it. For example, when the article says "The Hobbits also learn...", "...the fun-loving Hobbit...", and "...so the Hobbit Frodo came into existence", these all refer to a particular hobbit or hobbits, and so should be lower case. -- Avenue 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to look up Gandalf's quote about Gollum coming from a race "not unlike hobbits", to see if I could give a citation. So far I haven't found the phrase in LOTR, although Gandalf does say of Gollum's people that "I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors" (The Fellowship of the Ring, 62). This is also widely referenced on the web, e.g. [22]. Googling only yields one non-Wikipedia LOTR-related reference for "not unlike hobbits", in a review of one of Jackson's films - perhaps that's the source? Can anyone shed more light on this? -- Avenue 14:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, you are correct that it is from the movies. I have not checked if you change it or not but if not I will do so. Nice find, thank you. SorryGuy 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and cited. -- Avenue 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recent attention to citations has greatly improved the article, and I fixed the capitalisation problems I was aware of. The abruptness and length of the back story are the main reason I'm still opposing FA status, although I've moderated this to "weak oppose". I think the Middle-Earth map could also be improved, but that's not necessary for me to support. -- Avenue 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The backstory needs to be worked on, I agree. I will do my best although I am unsure how well that will work out. The aburptness concerns I am unsure how to address though. The lead seems to cover the overview well and give the readers an idea what to expect. May I misunderstand but my logics says that the story that the whole article is about should follow next. Do you think that you could link to a few articles which are what you are looking for? I would prefer they be featured but anything to give me the picture would be great. Thanks, SorryGuy 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it might be a good idea to have the map of middle earth in the Synopsis section. This section talks about many different places and for the uninitiated those places mean very little without a map. Just my 2 cents. Witty lama 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree with World Traveller on the size issue. The text can be easily summarised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems odd that in the Dramatic productions the most recent events comes first, while in the films and games sections the oldest events comes first. --Peter Andersen 10:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is excellent proof that a good article about a copyrighted work does not need excessive amounts of "fair use" images. Well done! Angr (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article starts off by stating that it's about the book, but devotes an enormous amount of space discussing video games and the movies. I'd suggest cutting the Adaptations section and using it as the basis of a new article. That would help to keep this article on topic and also solves the length issue. --NormanEinstein 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of size issue. The size being a guideline is OK, but this is way too long. Also, I think a lot of paragraphs can be merged as short paragraphs break the flow. Date linking is not consistantly followed. (One out of FAC querry: Should we wikilink dates at all for dates in Third Age). Please also fix the unsourced statement issue. A "Well done" from me too per User:Angr. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Support as size issue seems to have been handled well. BTW there is no such word as "nicer" (as used in the article). Also, the use of word "nice" is frowned upon as it means that the person doesn't know what is being talked about(ref). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.Weak support. This is a fine article, and I think it is approaching FA quality. However, I agree with others that it is too long. You've already cut the section on games; I think that could lose a little more, given the existence of a separate article. I also agree that the first section after the lead, "Back Story", is a little disconcerting; as a section it is fine, but I think it needs prior text saying something like "Tolkien began work on the book in 19(whenever) and worked on it etc."; in other words, approach the book a little more historically, and don't just jump into the fictional context. I'd also suggest cutting the backstory somewhat; it is well covered elsewhere in WP and I think mentioning Ar-Pharazon e.g. is more than is needed at this level. The details on publication history are excellent; and overall the article strikes a good balance in covering different aspects of the book. One area that could do with expansion (possibly even to the point of a separate article) is the "Influences on the fantasy genre" section; LotR's influence of course has been phenomenal, and this is something that would be good to spend a few more words on. Finally, there are a couple of places where a reference would be good. Examples: in "Influences", "widespread speculation that the One Ring was an allegory for the nuclear bomb"; I agree, but for FA you should have one cite at least, and preferably two to bolster "widespread". Next para: "Tolkien states in the introduction": that should be easy to cite, and would be good to have the exact reference. Next para: "contemporary anxieties"; I certainly would support this, on the basis of writings like "Tree and Leaf" if nothing else, but is there a good quote from an interview? And then the reference to Sigurd the Volsung; again this is plausible but is this speculation or is there supporting evidence? And so on. This is a very good article; good luck on getting it to FA. Mike Christie 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck out comments that I think have been addressed, if not to my complete satisfaction then at least to the point of qualifying for FA. I still have the concerns about references. Mike Christie 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed to weak support. The main reason for the "weak" modifier is that I understand from SorryGuy that some of the print references have been done from memory. Knowing what I do about the sources, I believe the references, but I would like to see someone with a hardcopy put in page references. Other than that, the article is now well-referenced. I agree with some comments above that some wording improvement could be done, but I now support FA. Mike Christie 04:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update: I have been doing some work with creating new article and being more concise with wordings with most of my work focused on the adaptations. As a result I have cut about 10KB from the article and overall I feel that nothing has been lost. I have more additions to make though and will need to do more cutting. As a result I was wondering what those of you objecting on the basis of lenght would like to see the article get to. I realize 32KB is the recommendation however I find it unlikely for an article of this scope. I feel that 50KB would be fair but would like some input on this. SorryGuy 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done for trimming it this much. I wouldn't like to give a specific figure to aim for but the smaller the better really. If you can keep it under 50kb that's reasonable, though still longer than I would prefer. Put yourself in the position of a reader who's curious but doesn't know anything about LOTR at all - I think 50kb and beyond is the territory in which, for most subjects, such a reader will probably want something more concise. Most of the FAs I've written are between 20 and 30kb; Mercury is 35kb, Hubble Space Telescope is 60kb but was 51kb when it became an FA so I'm off there now to see if I can edit it back down... Worldtraveller 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My long-standing concerns from the peer review about the overemphasis of adaptations have finally been addressed, so I can now support. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:06 UTC
  • Oppose Comments strike my oppose and change to comment - I am now too involved with editing to support or oppose Carcharoth 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC) - I'll list a few points that I would want to see addressed before even considering supporting it:[reply]
    • Intro - "written during World War II" - this is misleading as the writing started in 1937 (as the writing section makes clear). Most of it was written during World War II, but it was not properly finished until 1949, again, as the later section makes clear.
    • Intro - the introduction does not do an adequate job of summarising the article, in my opinion. There seems little reasoning behind what is in the intro - it could say much more about the publication history, rather than the films. Also, the links in the intro lead to the Jackson films, but not to the articles about the other films - ie. lack of correct linking here.
    • Back story - I would cut this entirely, or integrate it with the synopsis. I also agree that the order is not good here. Start with a small synopsis and then go straight into the publication history.
    • Other - While reading the rest of the article, I spotted many other things. These are probably best addressed elsewhere, on the talk page, or I may just dive straight in and edit the article. One bit that caught my eye was: "The books have been translated, with various degrees of success, into dozens of other languages." - which languages? At least some of them should be mentioned.
    • Overall, I think this article still needs more work done on it. It needs to be made more coherent and have more quotes supporting the statements made in the article. Several of the sections need rewriting as well. Carcharoth 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Carcharoth has attempted to resolve the issue of the article going straight to story by adding much more content to the lead. However the lead now has more paragraphs than suggested by WP:LEAD. Which is better and does the current verison entice those currently opposing to support? I will contact those of you opposing because of that to discuss it on here or the article's talk page. For those of you just voting please note that we are current discussing this. Thanks, SorryGuy 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support good job. igordebraga ≠ 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - so long as my section changes stay, I can see a couple of superficial problems. The "themes" section needs desperately to be prosified: it's a very ugly list. The "Publication history" section looks very messy - can something be done about those lists? Finally, something needs to be done about the disambig at the top - it's not just about the books. Otherwise, really good job :). — Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Please contact me on my talkpage to ask me to have another look: I won't be watchlisting this page. — Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not read this yet I still believe I should respond. The seperation of Critical Responce and Polls was as recent as two days and still not decide. The same goes for the Themes. It was a recent addition which most of us on the talk page have agreed can be cut. As for the publication history and disambig I can see what I can do about it tommorow. As usual thanks for the comments. SorryGuy 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll discuss the disambig on the talk page. I'm slightly surprised to see someone say they will support a nomination "as long as my [...] changes stay". That doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia is about: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly [...] do not submit it." I would qualify that with at least being prepared to discuss things and reach consensus. Carcharoth 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, and of course they will be, and obviously I welcome this. My point (badly expressed) was that I thought that the TOC was too long, so I endevoured to fix it. If a better solution can be reached, I'm all for it. — Celestianpower háblame 10:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strong prose and enough information. Felixboy 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Article seems fineAnonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article, has cites, has quality content. Rrpbgeek 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support As per above. JONJONAUG 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good structure, citations.--Aldux 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The first reference is about a fifth of the way down the page, which leaves quite a lot of unsourced info. And the books aren't even cited! And the animated film section lacks a ref about the company thinking of it as a flop. Not well enough referenced. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference is to one of the books. Would you be able to add {{ME-fact}} to anything else you think needs a reference? Also, the lead section is not referenced because it is a summary of the article - the references should appear in the parts of the article that were used to create the summary. This is a common style, if not yet widely accepted. If you spot parts of the lead section that do not have corresponding text and references later in the article, it would be great if you could point that out. Carcharoth 11:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few comments (in my "Oppose" paragraph, above) about specific areas in the text that I feel could use citations. If you would like me to add some {{ME-fact}} notes I would be happy to do so; let me know either here or (preferably) on my talk page. Mike Christie 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some, in the intro and animated film area, which is enough to contend with. Sorry if it's a mess, I'm tired. Some of the intro is kinda dodgy, the media paragraph isn't brilliant prose at all, and the animated film section (the Hobbit) is somewhat stubbish). I've left a note in the intro about original research too, it's hidden. Regards, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After the removal of a statement, the rewrting of several and the addition of many references no sections now contain ME-fact. If there are more needed please let me know, I have found a great source in National Geographic that is citable for alot of this. Besides the citations I am going to begin to attempt to start and cut some of the excess material again. Let me know if there is anything else. SorryGuy 03:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Fill in most of the missing citations in the writing section, then contact me on my talk page, and I'll change the conditional part.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by False Prophet (talk • contribs) .

Venus

edit

This is a joint nomination by User:BillC and myself. Venus lost its FA status about a month ago, because of serious omissions and poor writing quality. Bill and I have rewritten it completely since then to address these concerns. We've got something now which we believe covers all the fascinating aspects of the brightest object in the night sky after the moon, and so here it is for your consideration for a return to FA status. Worldtraveller 07:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object – some tweaks still needed: 1. Why are .gifs used? Please convert to .png. 2. MoS for units not followed. a) The non-breaking space (&nbsp;) is not used for all units. b) Inconsistencies noticed in the use of imperial equivalents. In some places imperial units are used, and in some places they are absent. Needs to be consistent. c) subzero temps need to be prefixed with &minus;, not a hyphen. 4. This could be also added as Venus is refered to in Vedic astrology. Q: Why is the infobox a transcluded template? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have converted Image:Phasesofvenus.jpg to svg: Image:Phases-of-Venus.svg =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that; it looks good. I have tackled your points as follows: 1. There are no longer any .gifs. 2.a) Non-breaking space now used throughout for units. b)Imperial equivalents now all removed. c) Negative values prefixed with &minus;, not a hyphen. 3. I will look into adding a para about Venus' influence on eastern and western astrology. 4. I am not sure why the infobox is a transcluded template, though it appears to be standard for all the planet articles, including the recently FA-promoted Mercury (planet). It could, of course, be subst'ed if there was a strong need to do so. --BillC 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking care of it. I didn't exactly intend to have the imperial equivalents removed. What I meant was to include them for all the missing ones. Including the equivalents would reach out to a wider audience. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider doing that, but with over 20 measurements imbedded in the text, and not including those in the infobox, I thought it might become a little bloated with imperial equivalents. I'll have a look around at a number of FA's on scientific topics, and if the consensus there is to provide imperial equivalents in each instance, will do so for this article. (The infobox looks out of the question if we want to avoid serious clutter.) --BillC 08:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a number of other FAs, especially Mercury (planet) and Enceladus (moon). These last two don't provide imperial equivalents, so my intention is not to do so for Venus. I'll leave it to someone else if they feel it is particularly necessary. BillC 10:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have though now added a couple of sentences on Venus' significance to western and Vedic astrology. BillC 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is it specified to not use gif files? What is wrong with them? If you can't find a specification to not use gifs, that is not a valid objection. Rlevse 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that doesn't make it a valid objection as it's not a requirement; it should only be suggestion. Also, gif files are bigger than png and jpg, but I don't see that as a valid objection point either. Are jpg files generally better or worse quality than png? Many articles use jpg. Rlevse 10:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PNG is superior to GIF and JPEG for small diagrams - GIF is limited to 256 colours while PNG is not. For photos, though, JPEG is far superior to PNG because although it's a lossy compression and therefore lower quality, file sizes are far smaller and the perceived loss of quality is negligible. Worldtraveller 10:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I can understand that but I still think making an objection on image type is going too far, it should just be a suggestion. Rlevse 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is valid as it is official policy. Please see this: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectSupport—2a. I believe that it's a candidate for the CD, and this is one that I want to see promoted. However, considerable work is first required to fix the prose. Here are examples.
    • Your reference to 224.7 days in the first sentence: don't you have to specify Earth days? After all, Venus has its own diurnal rhythm.
    • "As such," starting the third sentence. As what? Can't this just be removed?
    • "is often referred to as the Morning Star and Evening Star." Better as "the Morning or Evening Star".
    • "the two are very similar in size and bulk composition"—"very" means nothing without a definite comparator; better without it.
    • "The planet is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds and no surface can be viewed in visible light from Earth"—Awkward. Try this: "The planet is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds and its surface cannot be seen from Earth in visible light".
    • "The nature of Venus was therefore historically a subject of great speculation until some of its secrets were revealed by planetary science". Doesn't this flow from the previous sentence well enough to do without "therefore"? The first three words mean nothing, and should be removed. Can you add a chronological item, such as "over the past two centuries"?
    • "Venus has the most substantial atmosphere amongst the terrestial planets". What do you mean by "substantial"? Sorry to be a stickler for concision, but why "amongST"? Nowadays, "among" is the default.
    • "Venus's surface has only been mapped in detail in the last twenty years." To be precise, "only" should be more carefully located in the sentence. Please consider using numbers for 10 and above; most international journals like it that way.

Now, that's the first two paragraphs. This suggests that the whole text needs a good massage. It's potentially such a good article; well done, you two; but thus far, it fails. Tony 11:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. On the first one I'm not sure - adding 'Earth-' looks a bit clunky to me, and it seems implicitly clear that Earth days are what is meant. Would quite like to get a second opinion on that one, but I've corrected the others. Actually, the way we wrote it we probably paid the least attention to the intro, so I'd suspect that problems there would not necessarily mean the rest of the text needs work. If you could give it a read through and see if that's so, we'd appreciate it. Worldtraveller 11:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at random and saw:
    • "The astronomical symbol for Venus is that also used in biology for the female sex".
    • "The probe arrived and was placed in a polar orbit on 11 April of the following year." What exactly does "arrived" mean? Then the subsequent sentence is a bit clumsy with those commas, finishing with just "of Venus". What does "Its" refer to straight after that?

So, yeah, it does need a word-nerd to go through it, preferably someone who's unfamiliar with the writing of the text. I look forward to reading sparkling prose after your process. Tony 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having left it a couple of days and done other work, I've gone back to the article and thoroughly reviewed it. It should be much clearer and hopefully more sparkling. Any further comments most welcome. Worldtraveller 10:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatophore

edit

I'd like to nominate this for a featured article, as i feel it meets the content requirement and is a fascinating subject that people ask about time and time again at the science reference desk. I guess it is a self nom, as i have provided most of the material over a period of many months, after setting myself a challenge to make a featured article from a stub. I have made efforts for peer review, and have had some excellent advice [23] [24] [25] from both scientists and copyeditors that i have tried to incorporate. I hope it has been enough, if not i'd appreciate your constructive criticism to reach my goal. Rockpocket 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I believe. Anville 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I get it now; before I it made me think a word was missing or the and should not be there. Support now.Rlevse 13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Self: find a way to work car chases and explosions into my next FA nomination. Anville 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane John (1994)

edit

Self-nom on behalf of the Tropical cyclones WikiProject. I've done much of the writing on this article, and I think it's finally ready for FAC. The storm is notable despite not making landfall (far more so than Hurricane Irene (2005), which drew some criticism here for possibly not meeting the notability criterion) and the article is well-written and well-sourced (in my biased opinion). The article has had a peer review and has been assessed as A-class by the WikiProject. There's not much more to say, I think. —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 02:46 UTC

  • Support. However, the storm history is a little long. It could use a minor copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While having two FACs at the same time was not in the plan, this article is quite comprehensive and concise at the same time. Good job. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Article seems way too short for the subject it covers. — Wackymacs 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually thought the opposite, as the storm never really affected land, so there weren't many preparations possible, nor there was aftermath after landfall. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all hurricanes did enough to have a long article. The storm is notable, but only for its records. It barely impacted land at all and caused no death or serious destruction. —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 12:02 UTC
      • It may be difficult to expand this article, I understand that; But it is not the length that an average FA is. Not every article is sufficient to become an FA, most often because of the subject matter. In this case, there just isn't enough to write about. — Wackymacs 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I personally think that all articles can achieve FA, maybe having a criteria such as length isn't a good idea if the coverage includes everything. Lincher 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, its comphrensive and an appropriate length- what FA requires.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, right on John! íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per nom. Lincher 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I did with Hurricane Irene. I simply can't see how a short article on a storm that didn't do very much can be considered to represent the very best work that Wikipedia can produce. I just don't think it remotely compares to most other featured articles. If very short articles on extremely minor topics continue to get featured I feel that the motivation to work on long articles on significant topics will suffer. I also feel that the hurricane articles are beginning to look extremely formulaic. It's good to see a large number of articles being raised to high standards but they could really do with being a bit more varied. Finally, I'm concerned that pretty much everyone voting here is a member of the project which this is a nomination on behalf of. Worldtraveller 09:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about that latter point too - that is a little worrying. Hurricane articles are always going to be fairly formulaic as the variety comes from the impact information not the rest of the info (and with minimal impact the basic formula is all that is there); for ease of use a consistent format is probably more valuable than real variety. Question, how exactly do short articles becoming featured detract from the motivation to improve large articles?-Nilfanion (talk)
Sorry, but I agree with Worldtraveller here. It's great that people are trying to improve articles, but this would best suit WP:GA. As I said before, not every single article on Wikipedia can become featured.— Wackymacs 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I would like to get the answer to my question, if only to understand the logic behind it (which I cannot see). In fact, IMO denying featured status to short articles is worse than the converse - because GA is a lower standard than FA. Why improve beyond the GA requirements (which are weaker than FA's) if you can't obtain the "higher" status?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here we run into wider problems. If you compare WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA they are extremely similar. GA was supposed to be a kind of FA for short articles but has evolved away from that. I don't think short articles represent the very best of Wikipedia but I do think that there are tens of thousands of subjects that deserve an excellent short article. With Irene, several people said it shouldn't appear on the main page, which to me suggested that they agreed it was not representative of the very best.
As for motivation, the time it takes to write a 10kb excellent article is considerably less than a third of the time it takes to write a 30kb article. If 'easy' articles are becoming FAs, that does make me wonder why I bother writing long ones. Why spend many days getting Venus up to FA standards, when Maat Mons could be made FA (if Irene has genuinely set a precedent) with far less work? It seems to me that the cyclones project itself is evidence of this - lots of short, formulaic articles about minor storms, but articles covering the very important topics like tropical cyclone, storm surge, cyclone etc have not been given the same attention. Worldtraveller 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you write featured articles only for the trophy of having written featured articles? That's surely an improper motivation that should be discouraged. In any case, I think you are also wrong to assume that the Wikiproject focuses only on minor articles; Hurricane Katrina has been given more attention than any other article. In any case, your concerns seem to be more about Irene, which is fine (and I agree with some of them), but please do not let concerns about Irene spill over into other FACs. As I stated in the opening, this is not a minor storm, though it did little damage. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 14:03 UTC
I write articles generally. I nominate for featured status ones that I consider to represent the very best of Wikipedia, as required by the FA criteria. I write lots of articles that I consider to be of high quality but which I could not possibly claim were among the very best - things like Boltysh crater, Maat Mons, Caloris Basin. They're comprehensive, but I can't possibly consider them in the same bracket as FAs like Eldfell or Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. I am objecting to this article for the same reason - I just can't see how it can be considered the very best of Wikipedia. The fact that the short hurricane articles are extremely formulaic suggests that the storms themselves are not particularly notable. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Maat Mons as a FA worry you? I look forward to that, even if it gets to be FA years before Venus. Yes, of course it's easier to get something to FA if it's a less important topic. (And let me point out, Worldtraveller, that you are not known for writing "long" articles at all—you write short articles where there should be long ones, and then try to put them through FAC. Who is really interested in the quality of the product here?) Everyking 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Curious that you should support the nominations for Irene and this when you repeatedly oppose my FAC nominations saying they're too short. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is saying that in his opinion those articles are too short for their subjects whereas this article is appropriate in length for the much more minor topic it covers.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I believe it's because Everyking has a long-standing grudge against me. He opposes my nominations because he doesn't like me - he freely admits to ignorance of their subject matter. Sadly I suspect he supported Irene and is supporting this just because I've opposed. Worldtraveller 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nilfanion has it right. I support or oppose not based on the length itself, but on whether the coverage is complete. I would love for this article to be longer, but apparently there is simply nothing more to say. For your articles, though, there's always tons more to say—you just have a philosophical objection (deletionism) to saying it. Everyking 00:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've never been able to point out even one tiny fact that's missing from an article I've written. If you haven't opposed on length, why have your oppose votes said 'too short'? Worldtraveller 07:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Too short for the subject. Do you think I'm going to object for being "too short" when there is nothing else to write? The whole basis of my objection to your articles is that they deliberately omit information. Everyking 07:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. Worldtraveller 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An amazing claim. You have stated otherwise numerous times, that you omit what you consider "trivial", that encyclopedia articles are supposed to be concise summaries, etc. I have had God knows how many arguments with you over this philosophy of yours. You gave me grief over a set of articles about which you knew nothing on the grounds that they contained too much information. This is plain dishonesty; there's no other way I can interpret it. Everyking 09:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could the two of you please take this debate elsewhere? It is clear that it is no longer relevant to this specific FAC and should thus continue on your talk pages. —Cuiviénen 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic fails on two points: first, there is no dissuading for developing more important articles - how come Hurricane Katrina is right above this nomination? If the "Irene precedent" were true, no one would have developed that article. Also, you point out that tropical cyclone is not an FA - but it is almost ready for peer review, and hopefully we'll do the same for Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Rita, which are next on the "importance" queue. Also, WP:WIAGA has standards that are more lax when compared to WP:WIAFA, so saying that editors should not write featured-quality articles so they can be listed in WP:GA is ridiculous, IMO. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said giving FA status to very short articles would damage motivation, not eliminate it at a stroke. I have to say I'm really beginning to question why I bother with substantial articles like the rewrite of Venus I'm working on, if dry, production-line articles with less than 10kb of prose can be considered the very best that Wikipedia can produce. GA standards are actually more or less the same as FA standards - the only substantial difference is the requiremement to be 'broad' instead of 'comprehensive'. This is because they were designed to recognise excellent short articles. Of course I'm not saying don't make article well-written, referenced, illustrated, neutral etc - all articles should be this, and GA is trying to encourage this on a much broader scale than FA does. I'm just asking how mass-produced short articles on barely-notable storms can be considered as examples of the very best that Wikipedia can produce. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WIAGA is slightly weaker than WIAFA but thats not why GA is lower in standard than FA. IMO the reason for that is FA standards are those of the harshest reviewer, whereas GA standards are those of the laxest reviewer. Surely the motivation for working on Venus is to get it to the wikipedia article on a very important topic to be the best it can be, why should the possibility of Maat Mons being featured affect that? This is getting off-topic for this FAC isnt it?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true about the difference between FA and GA, although I do find that often I am the harshest reviewer but my objections are ignored and the article promoted anyway. As for motivation, mine takes a knock when I see tiny, formulaic articles on minor topics being put alongside fascinating and detailed articles on major topics. When I've put many, many hours into writing each of my FAs, I feel extremely disappointed that something that clearly far less work has gone into can be put alongside them as an example of the 'very best'. I do want all article to be of high quality - I just don't see the point of calling FAs the very best if absolutely any article can become one. Scrap criterion 1 of WIAFA and I'd have no reasonable objection to this nomination. Worldtraveller 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as you can clarify whether it was a category 1 or 2 when it was closest to Johnston atoll. It sounds like it dropped from 5->1 but later in the article says it was a category 2. They are separate statements, but confusing enough to want to clarify! I think that the formulaic nature of these articles is good - standardization of common articles makes sense. - InvictaHOG 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It weakened from Category 2 to Category 1 while at its closest approach to the islands. I'll try to make that clearer. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 13:52 UTC
  • Support The article covers the storm i a fine way given the notability of the storm. However i don't think that its a good idea to let the cat5-storm-table going left-right. I think toy normally would read a collum to they end, before starting on the next. Jonatanj 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not going to worry about a "formula" if the formula is a good one. The point is the best possible presentation of the most possible info. I would like this to be longer, but it didn't hit land, so I suppose little info is available—please expand if possible, though. Everyking 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the only notable damages were at a military base, we have virtually nothing to report other than a figure for damages. The government does not release detailed reports of damages at military bases for obvious reasons. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 23:42 UTC
  • Oppose. My concerns are as per above. NSLE (T+C) at 02:02 UTC (2006-06-08)
Which is? Too short or inappropriate FAC? If it is too short, how is it too short? If it is inappropriate, why is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cane Toad

edit

I found this article in a decent state, though it was missing quite a bit of info. So, I have been working on it for the last couple weeks, and I think it is good enough for FA now (though, undobtably someone will find something here :)). It has been through peer review, here, which was quite succesful, as it has improved greatly. --liquidGhoul 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nowhere is it stated that the links should be blue, and that there should be an external links section. It is very well referenced, and that should be enough if someone wants some extra information. External links are usually the residue of someone not referencing properly, and they can cause problems with spam. Also, a featured article shouldn't require external links, as ideally, all the information is within the article. --liquidGhoul 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give it a go, but that sounds bloody hard. I think milestones were only ever recorded in the literature. I have a diagram in Australian Frogs a Natural History by Tyler, which has every five years up until 1980, so I will research the expansion after that and see how I go. Thanks --liquidGhoul 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, will change that to Pacific region. When I originally wrote it, I thought they were more widespread, they are pets in many parts as Europe, but just don't survive in the wild 'cause it is so damn cold. Thanks for all your work on the article Tony. --liquidGhoul 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object. I agree this article seems lacking, and doesn't appear to be very comprehensive either. 63.23.19.22 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind getting object votes as they ultimately improve the article. But, I need to be told what sections are not comprehensive, and what information is missing. I would not have put it through FAC if I thought it was not comprehensive, so when you object to something, it is obviously something that I missed. --liquidGhoul 01:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the last two reviewers: please specify what you find lacking. It is quite dysfunctional to write vague negative statements here. Tony 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like the article, but I have a few minor queries.
  • The call is likened to a "pur". Do you mean purr?
According to Google, "pur" has some diverse meanings, but "purr" isn't one of them. -- Avenue 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Puerto Rico, was it the white-grub population or populations? Or is there a reason for switching from plural to singular?
  • What's a morphling? I can guess, but for an uncommon word like this a wikilink or even a short definition would be useful.

-- Avenue 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong object - it's cane toad, not Cane Toad. All other decent animal articles have the name of the animal in lowercase (e.g. polar bear, tiger shark), and so should this one. Surprised nobody else has picked up on this. The other animals referred to in the article should also be in lower case, also (unless they have a proper noun in their name, but none of these do). And there's nowhere near enough on the problems the cane toad has caused in Australia. Proto||type 10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Objection withdrawn (see comment below) Proto||type 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you (Proto) are talking about, even if you do dislike the use of capitals in common names, why would you go and "Strongly Object" an article that's only fault (in your opinion) is because common names are capitalised? If you "Strongly Object" to a few capitlisations you don't like, then I wouldn't want to see your opinion on an article that has a bad layout or no references to support the articles info, etc. Froggydarb 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a strong objection because I (Proto) in no way could ever lend my support to an article with such a basic error. Something more complex and more esoteric is harder to fix, and so I wouldn't object as strongly. Proto||type 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't an error! In fact, it is so much not an error, that every bird species' official common name is capitalised and, many extremely reputable publications use capitalised common names for species. I personally prefer capitals, but I would never oppose a featured article candidate because it doesn't use capitalisation for common names. It is absurd. --liquidGhoul 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with froggydarb and liquidGhoul. Every frog field guide that I have calls the Cane Toad "Cane Toad" as well as every other frog, their common names are all capitalised. Why shouldn't we follow suit with books that a good deal of the information in the article comes from. Even if you (Proto) disagree with this form of naming I really don't see it justifying a strong oppose.--Tnarg 12345 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the 'the section on Australia is too short' argument, you could go down the Rabbits in Australia route, but it seems that that caused a lot of heartache at the time. And do some people really keep cane toads as pets? That just seems totally bizarre to me. Perhaps a mention of cane toad golf/cricket might be good, as well as the recent(ish) shock when an MP suggested making it legal? [30] - Malkinann 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rabbits have caused a huge amount more damage than Cane Toads, and hence there is more information on them. The Cane Toads are causing big problems (especially amongst predators), but when you put them up against the problems that foxes, cats and rabbits have caused, it is small. The only thing is, is that it is happening now. All the extinctions by the cats, rabbits and foxes have basically occured, and are therefore not in the media as much. I will add the cricket and golf (and torture mentality) thing to the popular culture section sometime in the next couple days, though it disgusts me, so someone should probably check it for POV once I am done. --liquidGhoul 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some politicians are even more stupid than I thought, if a section on Cane Toad golf is added to the article it should say how horribly inhumane it is and that Cane Toads are just as poisonous once dead as they are when they were alive. So leaving dead Cane Toads around after a game of golf is going to be even worse for the enviroment as most predators will take them as easy food.--Tnarg 12345 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've withdrawn my objection, as it appears there's a guideline that says capitalising is the correct way to do it. Which makes sense (capitalise "Cane Toad", don't capitalise "toad"), I guess. But platypus should be lower-case. Proto||type 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic fibrosis

edit

Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. It has been recognized as a good article. It has had a peer review which can be read here which was extremely helpful and truly improved the article as a whole. The primary change which has not been done from the peer review is cleaning up Image:CFTR.jpg because my computer crashed and I haven't been able to resurrect it yet! InvictaHOG 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the external links significantly. Links are often added with great intention to these medical articles and it's always hard to cut out what other people have felt was helpful. Luckily, one of the sites included links to most of the others! InvictaHOG 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—needs a copy-edit. Let's look at the lead.

"Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common hereditary genetic disorder which affects many different parts of the body, including the lungs, pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, reproductive organs, and sinuses. In early childhood, prominent symptoms include growth problems and frequent infections, especially of the lung. As the disease progresses, frequent lung infections (pneumonia) often lead to breathing problems, lung damage, prolonged courses of antibiotics, and respiratory failure requiring support by a ventilator. CF may also cause diabetes mellitus, frequent sinus infections, difficulty with digestion, and infertility."

    • Spot the redundant word in the opening sentence.
    • Do we need "prominent"?
    • "Frequent" occurs twice in 11 words. Is there a synomym? Or perhaps remove the second occurrence?
    • "treament with" might be preferable to "courses of".
    • Redundant "also" in the last sentence.
    • There's "lung" and there's "lungs"; your ordinary punters would be more comfortable with a consistent plural.

Then:

    • "in a gene called the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene"—why not remove "in a gene" and transfer the link to the same word later in the sentence?
    • "Cystic fibrosis does not have a cure"—clumsy.
    • Second paragraph: finishes with a long list, and I'm pleased to see that there are no "also".
    • A few commas would make the reader's task easier: e.g., "Many of these symptoms occur when bacteria which always live in the thick mucus grow out of control and cause pneumonia." Two commas here would slightly change the meaning, but I think it's what you intended.

Although much of the text is good, someone who is relatively distant from the writing needs to go through it. Tony 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough reading! I just gave it another good scrubbing from top to bottom, incorporating all but one of your suggestions (I vote that the prominent stays, since there are many symptoms). I would love to have further copyediting, as I'm sure you're right that I'm just too close to the writing to recognize my own systematic errors. Hopefully, though, it's improved quite a bit from your initial reading. InvictaHOG 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not sure if I really should vote especially since I'm so close to this subject. Looking at it from an outsiders perspective, it is a great informative article. Much better than I could have done, but as stated before in discussions it could use a picture of an xray, and some minor copy-editing. --ImmortalGoddezz 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (based on opening para only). The opening paragraph, while including a long list of affected body parts, fails to mention that the disease is fatal. I believe the opening paragraph of an article about disease should include information about its name, prevalence, severity, major symptoms, and not much else - the current paragraph contains two lists that appear at first reading could be shortened, but doesn't mention the disease is disabling, untreatable, and fatal. RandomP 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've extensively rewritten the entire introduction, focusing on the first paragraph. Let me know what you think! InvictaHOG 03:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I was going to suggest mentioning explicitly that it's uncurable at present, but on thinking the matter over a bit, I'm neutral on that. Great job!
As for the rest of the article, I was under the impression that a support group for families with CF by the name of "sixty-five roses" was notable and well-known, but the article doesn't mention it .. I'll assume I'm mistaken for now.
RandomP 05:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is what you are thinking of. It's certainly notable enough for me to create a page about and to link several of their resources both within the text and in the external links. I couldn't find anything independent and reputable documenting the degree of their contribution to the disease (and I looked explicitly in several places!) but if someone had an external critique of their impact then I think they would fit nicely in the history section (I had staked out an area when I was investigating their role). I have a vague sense that they were one of the first disease support/research groups and would love to recognize that if possible InvictaHOG 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some remarks about the current intro: Difficulty breathing is the most serious symptom - is it?? That is quite a bold statement, especially considering CF can also cause e.g. pancreatitis. Approximately 30,000 Americans have CF, making it one of the most common fatal inherited diseases. - while both individual statements are true, 30,000 Americans don't make it the most common when we have 5 or 6 billion people walking around on this globe. frequent lung infections that are treated, though not cured, by antibiotics and other medications. - of course it is possible to cure certain lung infections with antibiotics even in people with CF. --WS 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I went ahead and made things a little more precise. The data on curing early pseudomonas infections really is exciting and something which I wasn't familiar with prior to working on this article. InvictaHOG 03:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking great now. --WS 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either is correct, don't know if british vs american, though InvictaHOG 05:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torchic

edit

Here goes nothing, I'm nominating this because after months of full rewriting and being promoted to GA status, I, among others, believe that this article is ready to face the FA gauntlet that nominating an article of this nature is. While trying not to only judge this article within the Pokémon hub, this article is only second to Bulbasaur, which acheived FA.. eventually. In short I believe this article is of a high quality and please don't let your prejudices against "Pokécruft" fail this article, it at least deserves a chance.

I've attempted to respond to most of the objections from the previous FAC (although not all since it isn't finished) here. I believe this article has greatly improved since then, and I thank all who helped improved Torchic. As I'm sure most of you know, Pikachu is also/was recently up for FAC also, and this isn't attack of the carbon copy FACs, since the Pokémon Collaborative Project hasn't nominated either of these articles, the first being nominated by an outside party, this being nominated by it's main contributor. Thank you for reading this and all comments are welcomed, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous FAC here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. As far as I can tell, all my previous objections stand. For convenience, I will copy them back in here: All objections addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plurality / meaning of "Torchic". The lead starts out defining Torchic as a species, then quickly switches to sentences treating Torchic as a character: "Torchic is most famous for being one of the three Pokémon players can choose from at the beginning of their adventure..." Either the article should consistently treat "torchic" as the name of the species ("Torchic are most famous for being one of the three types of Pokemon...") or this dichotomy should be clarified.
    • Lapses into an in-Pokemon world-viewpoint. The article needs to be more consistent in describing Torchic in terms of our real world, not the fictional world it inhabits. To pick out one section, the "Characteristics" section is written as if describing the characteristics of a real creature.
    • Original research. As far as I can tell, "A possible reason for Torchic not being a dual Fire/Flying-type is that it evolves into Combusken, a dual Fire/Fighting-type.[10] Further evidence for this is that Flying-types have a natural advantage over Fighting-types, making it super-effective against its own evolutionary chain." is all original research.
    • Lack of secondary sources. The games, their instruction manuals, the pokedex entries, and the strategy guides are all primary sources for this material, produced (or in the case of strategy guides, closely overseen) by the same companies that created this character. The reference used for "synopses of Pokemon Anime appears to be just a fan site, so if I'm being ungenerous, I'd call it an unreliable source, or if I'm being generous, I'd call it a proxy for the cartoon itself, another primary source. Secondary sources would provide critical analysis or evidence of real-world impact. I don't think enough secondary sources providing critical analysis of the topic are present here to make for an FA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. First of all, could you explain the first note, I'm not exactly sure what "dichotomy" means. As I explained last time, both individual Torchic and all Torchic are called Torchic, kinda like calling your dog, dog.
The Characteristics section is meant to be from "an in-Pokémon world viewpoint", since it is referring to the Pokédex, an ingame reference tool for all Pokémon. Since you are talking about a fictitious creature, how can you reference and in-game encylopedia while using an out-game view point. I also had a ton of chicken notes, but somebody complained, so I tried and the people revolted.
I'll remove that original research now probably.
Could you give an example of a "secondary source", since I'm not sure of what you mean. I don't see how this can't be an FA without secondary sources while others of the same subject can. Thank you, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A magazine or news item would be a secondary source, usually. RN 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Dichotomy is just a division in two; I'm referring simply to the two different uses of the word "torchic". If I were reading the article sheep, I'd be prety surprised to see the word "sheep" being used as the name of a single specific sheep: instead it would be written as "a sheep named 'sheep'" or something. That same problem is confusing in this article. The lead sentence defines "torchic" as a species. Fix it to mention that it's also the name of a character, or however it works, and you'll have addressed this objection. (2) "How can you reference and in-game encylopedia while using an out-game view point?" It's a matter of writing. "Torchics are portrayed as..." "The Pokedex describes torchics as..." Qualifiers. (4) As RN says, secondary sources would be books, magazines, newspapers, etc. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up. Someone reccommended to before to refer to May's Torchic (the only one that is a significant character) "May's Torchic", to clear things up. Thanks again, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've noted that Torchic is both the species and the name of indi. Torchic, I've removed that original sentence and I've had a scout about for secondary sources. I remember doing this last time, and I didn't find anything that went into any great detail about the one character, more on the games. I'll try and fix the characteristics section now. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still bad in that area, especially since you put the explanation at the end of the lead. Look at the very first two sentences of the article. "Torchic [...] is one of the 395 fictional species of Pokémon creatures[...]. Torchic is most famous for being one of the three Pokémon players can choose from..." This definition of "Torchic" as a species then the immediate jump to using the word as a character name doesn't work; needs rewriting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should I change the lead to -" Torchic (efefhwefh) is on the 395 self entitled fictional species...", or something else? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not; nobody would understand that. I don't know what the best solution is, since I'm not into Pokemon, but my personal preference would be to always use the word as the species name, so the second sentence becomes something like "Torchic are famous for being one of three kinds of Pokemon which players can choose from..." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "Torchic are famous for being one of the three species of Pokémon players can...", is that better? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but now look at the very next sentence: "Its main purpose in the games..." The singular pronoun doesn't work if you are talking about a species. In honesty, I'm getting a little frustrated with your fix-one-tiny-thing way of working here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Starts new line because too many colons) I am sorry if I'm at your wick's end, but I am feeling ill and I have as little clue as you do what to do, and I am no mood to trash the article and getting more confused, so I'll go one step at a time so I don't get a sore head. I've done some rewording and re-arranging. The intro now reads as-

Torchic are famous for being one of the three species of Pokémon players can choose from at the beginning of their adventure in the Pokémon Ruby & Pokémon Sapphire and Pokémon Emerald versions of the Pokémon series. The purpose of Torchic in the games, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both "wild" Pokémon, which are untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments, and "tamed" Pokémon that are owned by Pokémon trainers.

After that, it goes into the clarification that Torchic can be called Torchic in the games, anime and manga, which should prevent any more confusion later on in the article. I'm sorry for snapping, but I'm feeling really ill, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Oppose (via edit-conflict with User:HighwayCello) - This article is well-written and comprehensive, but I have two problems with it, one minor, and one significant. The minor one is the links to merchandise in the "External Links" section - Wikipedia is not for advertising. The major one is more systemic. While technically very detailed, the article presumes that the reader has a good understanding of the workings of the Pokemon universe, and little context is given for Poke-world situations which the non-initiated (such as myself) may not understand. This is true more or less throughout the article. To respond to Bunchofgrapes, the FA criteria do not specify that an article needs any secondary sources, just that it be referenced. This article is referenced, therefore it meets the criteria. Cheers! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense there -- if someone wrote an article on a movie, and their only sources were the DVD of the movie itself and a transcript of the script, that article shouldn't be an FA. This is similar in my view. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but if the companion guide to the movie, the original books on which the movie was based, and fan and critical reaction to the movie was also taken into account, that would be good enough for me. User:The Disco King (not signed in)
You'd need sources for the "fan and critical reaction to the movie", right? The fan and critical reaction -- ie, the effect this thing has had on the world -- is exactly what I see lacking; in many ways, that's my point regarding the lack of secondary sources. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the edit conflict, I'm normally on the receiving end. ; ) In regards to the first problem, the uncited merchandise was move from the references section to External Links primarily because it wasn't referenced in the article. I, by no means am trying to advertise this, but I didn't see the need or the point of drowning on about random Torchic products when they could just be noted. In regards to the major problem, I can appreciate this since it is the main problem in the majority of Pokémon articles, (notice how we're always explaining ;) could you point out some areas that you can't understand (I'll go through it myself, but it's harder for me to notice). Thank you again, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take this paragraph as an example:
However, Torchic is the only Fire-type Pokémon available between Littleroot Town, the first area of the game, where one can be obtained from Professor Birch,[5] and Fiery Path, a mountainous region around a violent, active volcano several hours into the game. Grass-type Pokémon (such as Oddish, Sunkern and Shroomish) are very popular early in the game in all incarnations of the series and Torchic has a definitive type advantage against them.[6] Torchic evolves into its Stage-1 form, Combusken, at level 16, and evolves into its Stage-2 form, Blaziken, at Level 36.[7]
I've got no idea what half of that means. To the average reader who clicks on this article if it's on the Main Page, they're going to tune out if the prose isn't accessible to people who know nothing about Pokemon. First of all, what game are we talking about? Would it do to just say that they're rare in the early stages of the game? Evolves? Level 16? Professor Birch? Fire-type? I know that there are other articles for things like "fire-type", but since this is a fire-type Pokemon, do you think you could add a line or two describing what, exactly, a fire-type Pokemon is? Things like this. Similar problems occur all the way down. Pretend you've never heard of Pokemon, and read through the article, and look at all the places where people might be completely bewildered. Good luck! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've already started, noting the areas mentioned and that Oddish, Shroomish and Sunkern are Grass types (leafy Pokémon). And Pokémon Ruby is mentioned about 15 times! ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the merchendise links. Raichu 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • Overlinking: stuff like flightless bird shouldn't be linked unless you have a source that claims Torchics lost their wings through an evolutionary process because they had few enemies. Also don't need to link to things everytime they appear, like "Grass-type". Generally, you should only link once, but in some cases, it's best to link more often - more than once in a top-level section heading is almost always inappropriate, I think.
    • "Players can choose a Water-type, a Fire-type, or a Grass-type Pokémon indigenous to the region" -- not clear what region is being referred to. "Indigenous" is another example of overlinking.
    • Major copyediting needed. Especially the plot synopses (i.e. the following is an incomprehensibly dense run-on The main character of Pokémon Chamo-Chamo ☆ Pretty ♪ (a Magical Pokémon Journey spin-off) is an adamant female Torchic who has just moved to a new town with her trainer Haruka; this Torchic interacts with a number of other main characters—including Pikachu and Clefairy,[27] as well as both a Poochyena and Mightyena brothers,[28] whom Torchic has problems dealing with (because of her hatred for Poochyena and her love for his old brother, Mightyena).[28]). For example, adamant isn't right here (one can only be adamant about something; a person who is adamant about everything is stubborn). It's present tense. A number agreement problem (both a... brothers). Plus it's absurdly long and goes off on too many tangents. If this is a plot summary, why not "Pokémon Chamo-Chamo ☆ Pretty ♪ stars a Torchic alongside her nemesis, a Poochyena, his older brother, a Mightyena, and a Pikachu and Clefairy." - the rest of it's superfluous (well, the whole thing's kinda superfluous, but we can at least minimize it). Tuf-Kat 02:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes. First of all, Torchic is based on a chicken, which means it is a flightless bird, it also says it hops rather flies. So at the least it can't fly considerably well. It has never been documented by an official (or even and unofficial) that Torchic's wings grew claws because of evolution in the Darwinian sense, since Pokémon don't evolve that way (which I explained the article). Generally, when a Torchic gets enough experience from battling other Pokémon, it literally changes form, like metamorphasis. There is now guide to fictitious Torchic evolution, since it is immediate.
I will fix the over linking, thank you. On the note of indigenous, if you look thoroughly at the article, you can quite clearly notice that Torchic is one of the 3 starter Pokémon of the Hoenn region. This means the only place you get them is at the start of the Hoenn region. Frankly, I'm not sure if many Pokémon fans (who aren't normally either in high school or well read) would know what "indigenous" means. As I noted, the region is noting to the Hoenn region.
I think it is less in need of a copyedit in some parts (it had one) but you not understanding the text. Adamant is a nature of a Pokémon, like it is has an Adamant personality, which affects it's battling and defensive power, but manga and anime work it in to deepen the plot on occassion. So that needs more clarification. (And I'll fix the paragraph)
Thank you for your comments Highway Rainbow Sneakers 09:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Righty, I've removed a bunch of double links (I'll go through it with a comb later), I've unlinked indigenous and clarified about the region, and I've cleaned up the manga bit (I just removed the Adamant section to remove confusion). Anything else? Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I grow them myself. </Chandler Bing> Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Nice article so far, but first I recommend going to the Bulbasaur page for further ideas. --

Slgrandson 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(bangs head off keyboard) No, because I killed last time for looking remotely like Bulbasaur. No offence, but what makes Bulbasaur better than this? It has all the problems you're mentioning but it remains on its lofty perch because it was nominated by a respected editor, and I get excreted on from a great height. Thank you for the suggestion, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try writing about something else? Any information lacking reliable references should not be included in a FA. - Taxman Talk 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't lacking "reliable references", it is just that certain things don't exist, and frankly, I don't really care if what I write about is "FA-worthy". I will write about what I enjoy writing about. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point: look at the characteristics section. If everything in that section has the same ref, you don't need to individually cite each sentence; just use one cite at the end of the paragraph. Anyway, I'm quite tempted to support this, but I need to think about it and look it over a bit more. Everyking 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be better than it is now? I would use different sources but they all have the same info. It's the developers that write it so they all have the same entries. Thank you for the note. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did it and I've left a note (in the invisible brakcets) to explain. I've also done some clarification and removed some over linking. Thank you, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the species vs. sigular thing was really annoying to me - so I tried to clean it up. I may have messed up everything though - sorry about that :). Anyway, I took and deep breath and read the article - I thought it was quite good actually!!!! RN 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much RN (I'll thank you on your talk page soon). Right the problems that have been fixed are -
  • plurals
  • merchandise links
  • double linking (I'm pretty sure I've done ninety percent of them)
  • original research
  • fixed characteristics refs

What's left is -

  • some explanation (It really would help if someone pointed some out)
  • secondary refs (don't exist)

Am I missing anything? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some of the sections which were confusing to me:
    • The "In the Pokemon anime" section seems to just be a description of a few episodes featuring Torchic. Maybe discuss the role that Torchic plays in the series (I realize you already do this somewhat, but more detail and less description would be good). Ditto for the "In the Pokemon manga" section. More context - how big of a role do Torchic play in these media? What is their importance?
Just saw this, sorry. I've expand the anime section to note Torchic's purpose (which is the only one that is more than the general one at the top. I've expanded the top one to note that it cover games, anime and manga, since all Torchic have that role, as a Pokémon. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of the opposite criticism as above: Do you need so much specific detail in the Video Game section? Can you give us an impression of the importance of Torchic in these games without having to tell us so much about the games? It's a bit of information overload.
I've made a few copyedits for grammar and clarity (hopefully), and if these few things are addressed, I'm inclined to change my vote to support. Cheers! The Disco King 14:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should I explain about the games that Torchic makes cameo appearances in? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main difficulty is with the section describing Torchic in the main games. It's still a little dense for my tastes, but I'm not sure what to remove, not being overly knowledgeable about the subject. Perhaps a little more information about the cameos would be nice, but since they're cameos, there can't be that much to say about Torchic's importance in these games. I would focus more on making the section about the main games as clear as possible. Good luck! The Disco King 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The entire article describes the character from the perspective of the games, stories, etc. Virtually nothing is given on evidence of impact or lack thereof outside the stories themselves. We need sales figures, marketing studies, market influence, etc, all of which should be the substantial portion of the article, not the current structure. Almost all of the sources are promotional materials or gaming sources which are essentially promotional also. There are few if any reliable sources outside that realm. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. If you want to write about fictional topics, you have to write encyclopedic information. So this isn't to discourage, but help you to focus future efforts so it won't be so frustrating. - Taxman Talk 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offence, but none of that exists. And frankly, if Bulbasaur can pass an FAC without it, I think it isn't fair to hold it against this article. That isn't an actionable objection, so there's nothing I can do about it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. At least some of that exists. If it didn't exist that represents a reason the article isn't comprehensive and thus shouldn't be a FA. But again, much of that information is out there, it's just not in the article. And Bulbasaur probably never should have been promoted, but it does have more out of universe perspective information if I recall. Additionally justifying based on one of the most contentious FACs ever is not exactly a ringing endorsement. - Taxman Talk 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bulbasaur has no more than Torchic. And if I used to justify because it is unfair that an article on one subject should pass with a flaw, and another article failed because of it. All there is is Ruby and Sapphire sales figures, which has nothing to do with the real world impact of Torchic. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is I thought there were enough substantial objections to Bulbasaur that I didn't need to pile on. That one article passed with a flaw is not a sufficient reason to pass another with one. - Taxman Talk 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't fair to treat articles on the same topic differently. That is what we call prejudice. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fair" isn't really an important consideration. Meeting the criteria is. The way to rectify the situation is to improve Bulbasaur, not promote another article with flaws. Your efforts would be better spent rectifying the flaw with this article. Trim the in universe information, and add the encyclopedic, out of universe information. - Taxman Talk 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't exist! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy that, but if that's true then I doubly object, because if a topic doesn't have verifiable out of universe information we shouldn't have an article on it, much less a FA. - Taxman Talk 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, I was looking forward to an AfD warning! Wee. I wish you the best of luck. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (starts new line) It doesn't exist because the only "Torchic-only" product you could gauge is merchandise specifically of Torchic. Any success of the game can't be primarily linked to Torchic, and it is impossible to measure ratings of stuffed toys. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I shall end with a quote from the FAC front page -[reply]
    • I'm going to agree with HighwayCello here. Any discussion about the impact of this particular Pokemon is going to encompass a discussion of the impact of Pokemon generally, with very few exceptions. From what I can tell, this article is comprehensive in that it covers all of the available information on Torchic, and if one was to insert a discussion of the impact of Pokemon here, one would have to insert a nearly-identical discussion on every Pokemon page. Perhaps a link to Impact of Pokemon or some similar page would be appropriate, but really, insisting on the inclusion of information which doesn't exist as a reason for objection isn't reasonable. The Disco King 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored."
It's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Both because I still don't believe there's nothing out there (toys have sales figures) and that if there isn't, WP:V says there shouldn't be an article on it, so delete. That's something that can be done in principle. I'm not going to waste my time on AfD, but it's a perfectly good reason it doesn't meet the FA criteria. - Taxman Talk 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I had the same feelings regarding Hurricane Irene. Raul654 disagrees with that position. See the discussion I had with him about it here. If you think it should be deleted, AfD it before or after it's featured, if it is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's different. That's saying the article in principle would pass AfD. I don't really care too much if it does. But Highway is arguing there is no out of universe information available from reliable sources about the importance and impact of the subject. If that's true then it should make for a pretty easy AfD if people voted based on policy. They don't, but lack of information that would be needed for a FA is still a valid reason it shouldn't be one. - Taxman Talk 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't an actionable objection. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference, Taxman. The upshot, here and at Hurricane Irene, is that "this shouldn't be an article" isn't a valid FAC objection. Wrong venue for the question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because as I said, that's not my objection. My objection is the lack of any verifiable out of universe information. For purposes here I don't care if it should be an article or not. And the actionable objection bit has lost it's usefullness. I was part of creating that and we used it before there was a verifiability policy to forestall objections about a topic being too obscure. Now that we have the verifiability policy we can make it much simpler: only an article that has enough verifiable information to be comprehensive can be featured. We all know that without verifiable out of universe information this article isn't a useful one and shouldn't be featured. Let's let common sense decide, not rules lawyering. - Taxman Talk 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the lawyering; I'm just having some trouble seeing the distinction between this case and Hurricane Irene, which, while real, had very close to no verifiable real-world impact. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So since this article doesn't have a number that completely makes no difference to the quality of this article, it can't be an FA? Okay, I'll make one up! 4. They sold 4. Perfect! ¬_¬ I'm sorry, I'm just trying to join you on the obnoxious scale. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's different, it's a Hurricane that did damage. This is a chicken! A fake chicken. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well as the page summarizes - "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I don't see anything about sales figures for toys. Hasbro doesn't gauge its products. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm agreeing with HighwayCello here. I don't think that people should be rude to HighwayCello just becuase. If Bulbasaur passes an FAC then so should this, as it is way better then the Bulbasaur page. Raichu 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a really good article. For starters, it's definately sourced (while secondary sources would be nice, they aren't reqired and if they don't exist, there's not much we can do about it). It's written well, in an encyclopedic manner. Seems understasndable to non-fans (though I don't qualify as one of those). Nice pictures and the article looks balanced overall. It's my pleasure to support. --Celestianpower háblame 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positive Comment This is article is very well referenced. It appears to use all avaliable resources possible in order to cite information. Additionally, there are already Featured articles about fictional things that are very encyclopedic, as this one is, and do not incorporate sales figures or the like. The aforementioned Bulbasaur, as well as Link (Legend of Zelda), Lakitu, and Wario are all fine examples, and Torchic is referenced much better than just about all of them. If something is fictitious, an encyclopedic entry will reference the fictitious material, since it is, after all, fictitious in the first place. -- Natalya 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary Sources
  • I'm still slightly unclear, how many "secondary sources" does Torchic need? I've added some more, (I'll go check now) but is there an acceptable figure? Certain things, like the anime and manga stuff, can't be sourced with secondary refs, since it's mainly just the games that are analyzed and reviewed. Anyway, I wouldn't mind some clarification. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Five if you count reviews and magazine reivews. Does Hasbro merchandise pages count? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Support - I feel like enough has been done to address the problem of in-universe perspective, I think that the sources used are perfectly acceptable for this type of article, and I feel that this is as good as, if not better than, most featured articles on fictional characters. Good work. The Disco King 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Object - I was neutral in the last FA because of in-universe perspective issues. I now believe all of those have been cleared up, to the great credit of the article. I would support now eagerly, except for one thing, which unforunately is diametrically opposed to an objection above. Sorry! Basically my issue is with some of the prose, in which there are too many explanitory clauses in a single sentence, making it hard to follow. Example:
However, Torchic is the only Fire-type Pokémon, a group of Pokémon with pyro-technic abilities, available between Littleroot Town, the first area of the game, where one can be obtained from Professor Birch, a Pokémon expert, and Fiery Path, a mountainous region around a violent, active volcano several hours into the game.
A bit heavy on the explanations within the sentence. I can agree that it's a good idea to inform readers unfamiliar with pokemon with the terms, but this is a little much. Perhaps for organizational purposes, you could put the explanations in parenthesis instead of using commas? Or is there any way you could put the explanations in a seperate sentence? Because this mangled peice of prose is really awkward... Fieari 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting this, I have changed the text to -
However, Torchic is the only Fire-type Pokémon, a group of Pokémon with pyro-technic abilities, available between Littleroot Town, where one can be obtained from Professor Birch, a Pokémon expert, and Fiery Path, a volcanic area several hours into the game.
Is this better? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Support. Fieari 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Pokémon world viewpoint
I've changed the Characteristics paragraph to -
In the Pokémon universe, all Torchic are covered with a fluffy coat of down. Their small wings are said to be useless for flying; but, as a Torchic evolves into its later forms (Combusken and Blaziken), claws slowly protrude from its wingtips, making it a potentially vicious fighter. The Pokédex describes Torchic as disliking darkness because it prevents them from seeing their surroundings (regardless of proficiency with fire techniques). Before its legs fully develop, a Torchic stays with its Pokémon trainer, following behind with unsteady, hopping steps as it learns to walk properly. They are said to have a sac filled with churning fire deep within their stomach, allowing them to give literal "warm hugs" to their trainers. This powerful fire would also serve as a Torchic's ammunition in battles; when attacked, it would retaliate by spitting fireballs (at temperatures of over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), often leaving the foe scorched black.
Is this sufficient? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThis is almost a perfect article. No reason why it should not be an FA. I'm also agreeing with HighwayCello here. I don't think that people should be rude to HighwayCello just becuase. If Bulbasaur passes an FAC then so should this, as it is way better then the Bulbasaur page. Raichu 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; extremely well referenced. One minor point though. Why does the link to Pokémon Chamo-Chamo Pretty have the strange unicode symbols in it? They don't appear in the Chamo-Chamo article itself. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's what it's actually called in Japan, (they never released in English speaking countries) I'm not quite sure (it was one of the notes in the sparse section that would have been manga, so I don't know why the gibber is in the title. Should I remove it? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that these symbols are just decorations on the manga covers (visible here). So yes, I'd remove it smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm not quite sure "May's young Torchic was very playful and fun; but, because of its aesthetic appeal, May frequently avoided using it in her Pokémon Contests, contests similar to dog shows that test a Pokémon's appeal from a judge and audience" makes sense, as it seems to be saying that she didn't use it in Pokémon contests because it looked good. What is it supposed to mean? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. She didn't use it because she thought it was too cute, whether she thought it was weak because of it or because it would get dirty from battle. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the idea of Pokémon contests is that they are judged on beauty/smartness/coolness etc., rather than by whoever is weaker (like a Pokémon battle). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pokémon have to strong, stats and power come into it as well. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good job. Nice referencing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is well referenced about this article? Every one of the sources is biased, fan type material, and that shows in the article. I can't change the demographics of this project being heavily biased towards video games, but I can try to remind people of reality. HighwayCello is actually willing to claim there are no high quality sources of out of universe information. Under what definition can that be considered good referencing? - Taxman Talk 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for one it has over twice as many inline references as the already-featured Bulbasaur and most claims are backed up with something and the referneces there are basically as "bad" AFAICS. I realize your concern about the obscurity of the subject matter (and thus the "bias" of the sources that is often apparent in something this niche) but I think wikipedia tends to excel for whatever reason on "odd" subjects such as this. RN 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So the number of low quality references matters now? And more low quality sources makes a better article? I've never said anything about it being an obscure topic, but with absolutely no reliable references, that should be a clue the article is too fluffed up with unreliable material. It would be better as a 5k or less article of only reliable material. "Torchic has appeared in X, Y, and Z that have sold a collective $___.", etc. If it was a short article of only reliable material, that is something I could support as a FA. As it is this is an example of the type of thing we get laughed at for, and for good reason. This is exactly what people were worried about when we instituted the references requirements. With only low quality sources, again, how is this excelling in anything? - Taxman Talk 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well-written article.--Zxcvbnm 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Here's one that, if promoted, should not be featured on the homepage: it's trivial and short. There are problems in the prose; for example:
    • What is a "definitive type advantage"?
    • "One of the things consistent among most of the Pokémon games"; do you mean: "One of the consistent aspects of most Pokémon games"?
    • Do we really want to hold up this kind of snake as "among Wikipedia's best"? "Torchic evolves, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,[13] (known as "levelling up") into its Stage-1 form, (the Torchic's middle form) Combusken, at level 16, and evolves into its Stage-2 form, (the Torchic's final form) Blaziken, at Level 36."
    • "Torchic are described as sharing many qualities with a chicken"—Clash of number.
    • "they have also starred in the unpopular Nintendo GameCube game, Pokémon Channel, as well as Pokémon Colosseum and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness. It also featured as ..."—Redundant alsos, and "as well as" should be the unmarked version ("and").
    • "are a meta-series of adventures separate from those in most of the Pokémon video games"—What do you mean by "separate"? Vague.

It's very listy and very blue; not good enough yet, IMV. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? Tony

I believe "Torchic are described as sharing many qualities with a chicken" is correct, as Torchic is a noun that can be singular and plural at the same time. Type advantage can have a link pointing to the relevant concept, indeed, and I'll try to fix one or two of the others, but some of the issues you bring up don't seem like a problem to me. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you don't get it: use "chickens" plural to match the plural of "Torchic". Have you got someone else to sift through the entire text to fix it? Tony 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article's sourcing is good, and the writing is great. I believe that this article is easily as good as the Bulbasaur one, which, as if anyone needed reminding, is already an FA. Personally, I see nothing to object to. The Halo (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much better than last time. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well-written article Jaranda wat's sup 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have to agree with Tony; the writing is just not there yet. Here are some examples:
    • The switch between singular and plural to describe Torchic is still not sorted out. "The Torchic . . . is one of the 395 fictional species . . . " (why "the"?), but "Torchic are famous for being one of the three . . . ."
      • "why "the"?" - Torchic is a species, so "the torchic" refers to the torchic as a species, I believe. RN 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's confusing in this case because Torchic are not real and because the article also switches to singular "Torchic" to refer to a specific character. It would be better to change all singular "Torchic" to plural when referring to Torchic as a species. — BrianSmithson 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words like "wild", "tamed", "warm hugs", and "Starter Pokémon" should be removed from quotes. I have the feeling that the first three are being used as scare quotes, while "Starter Pokémon" should be italicized since it's describing words as words.
    • ". . . it is noted to have the ability to spit scorchng flames at enemies from deep within the pit of its stomach." What's deep within the pit of its stomach, the enemies or the flames? Antecedent problem.
    • In many places, the article makes pseudo-quotations in passive voice and without attribution. For example, "Their small wings are said to be useless for flying . . . " (said by whom?), "They are said to have a sac . . . " (who says?), and "Choosing one as the player's starting Pokémon is considered more difficult . . . " (considered by whom?). Recast in active voice and say exactly who said these things.
    • Bits of the article are written from an in-universe perspective (i.e., the perspective of the fiction itself). Try to ground these with real-world language that makes it clear that Torchic is not a real creature. For example, "Before its legs fully develop, a Torchic stays with its Pokémon trainer . . ." becomes "As depicted in Episode 27 of the anime, a Torchic stays with its Pokémon trainer before its legs develop . . . ."
    • "This powerful fire would also serve as Torchic's ammunition in battles; when attacked, it would retaliate by spitting fireballs . . . ." Why this odd shift to using "would"? Always describe fiction and gameplay in the present tense.
    • "Grass-type Pokémon . . . are very popular early in the game . . . . " Very popular with whom? Players? Characters in the game? Make this clear. If you mean to say "common", say "common".
    • ". . . it was never grouped as a Flying-type Pokémon . . . . " Do you mean " . . . it has never been grouped as a Flying-type Pokémon . . . "?
    • "Although Torchic is described as having many chicken-like qualities, including weak wings, it was never grouped as a Flying-type Pokémon, making learnable Flying-type moves such as Peck and Mirror Move not particularly powerful compared to its Fire-type attacks, since Torchic is a Fire Pokémon, its Fire attacks would be stronger than other types of attacks." Whew! This is a run-on sentence and a comma splice. Break this up into digestible chunks.
    • "the unpopular Nintendo GameCube game " and "the more popular Pokémon Colosseum". Popular or unpopular according to whom? This is the type of statement that needs to be backed up with a source citation.
    • The name Pokémon should be italicized throughout when it is used as the title of the media franchise or game in general.

That is what I found after reading the first page of a four-page printout (and note that fixing these specific problems is good, but it will not address the larger problem of the rest of the article). The article needs some fine-toothed copy editing if it is to make Featured status. — BrianSmithson 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per BrianSmithson and Tony. This article is certainly one of the better Poke-articles, and probably could be fixed up without too much work, but still needs the prose to be cleaned up a bit. In addition to the specific points made above, some minor points:
    • In the "other media" section, the lines about Torchic being portrayed as attractive seem to belong in the video game and anime section
    • May is described as Ash's "female companion from the Hoenn region ownward". It would be better to describe this in terms of what seasons she was on the series for, rather than in terms of the regions they travel through. Also, "female companion" is ambigious -- couldn't she just be called a "travelling companion"? Is there something important about her being a girl?
    • The trading card section needs to be better explained for someone who's never played the playing card game before. What does it mean to "knock out" a player's cards? What's a basic type, or a stage-2 pokemon? What do EX "Ruby and Sapphire, EX Dragon, EX Emerald and EX Team Rocket Returns" mean? What's a star card?
    • Torchic have both been featured widely in Nintendo's marketing campaigns for various Pokémon video games as well as being one of the leading choices for Pokémon memorabilia. This statement should probably be sourced in some way, with an inline cite. I can recall seeing lots of Pikachu products in the world, but is Torchic super-popular for merchandise? Don't they all have a lot of merchandise? I'm definately not an expert here :)

Basically, a lot of little stuff that needs to be cleaned up, but this could reach featured with a little work. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tried to address some of Brian's critiques (hopefully I didn't screw anything up :|). I'm out of time at the moment (work :)) but have yet one more note - it says "Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal" but seems to ref it to a pokedex entry, which doesn't seem correct. RN 05:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now that the article seems to have shed an in-universe perspective, and is addressing the copyediting issues, the last issue I see is the reliability of the references. Now IGN and Gamespy and Hasboro are reliable, that I know, but what reassurances do the authors of this article have to give that these various Pokemon websites are reliable primary sources? I would like to know to know which way to go on this article. Thanks, Judgesurreal777 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, from someone who doesn't know a lick about Pokemon. I spent a good twenty minutes reading through this, and the reviewed the changes made by User:HighwayCello. It is well written and very well referenced, and even I was able to understand it without any knowledge of the subculture. Little tweaks as above, but I think the article is a winner -- Samir धर्म 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Day Afternoon

edit

The article went through a very uneventful PR, has been labelled as a Good Article, and even has photo content from Brooklynl (a witness to the original actual robbery). I feel it meets FA requirements and submit it to the FAC process. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I now Support fully. RyanGerbil10 01:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Also in the lead, I don't think "inspiring" is the proper word for the article "The Boys in the Bank". Reword to: "The film was inspired by the article "The Boys in the Bank"[quotes only, no italics per WP:MOS-T], which told a similar story of..." - The Catfish 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to both Expanded lead. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Criterion 2a. Here are some examples.
    • "which told a similar story of John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturile robbing a Brooklyn bank." "tells" would be more vivid. Agent plus "ing" verb is ungrammatical, strictly speaking, unless an apostrophe is used, which is a little old-fashioned nowadays. Reword as: the robbery of a Br bank by a and b.
  • Done
    • "recieved"—misspelt.
  • Done
    • "The film has recieved generally positive reviews, with some noting the film's anti-establishment tones." The old "with" additive is tired and the last resort when attempting to link clauses. Try: "some of which referred to the film's ...".
  • Done
    • "Pacino's "ATTICA!" line from the film has gone on to be referenced in other works." Can you use a better word than "referenced"? What does it mean, exactly?
  • Done
    • "going to go"—yuck!
  • Done
    • "As the film begins, Sal enters the bank as it is closing. Sal's accomplices Sonny and Stevie follow shortly after. Sal quietly threatens the bank manager as the other two wait for the remaining customers to leave." As ... as (the first one is ambiguous, anyway — = because or while — apart from the unfortunate repetition). "follow short after"—surely there's a better wording; stubby sentence. As for a third time. Are Sonny and Stevie customers? (Why "other" customers?)
  • Reworded

Which issue of Life was the source article in? (Serious omission in the first sentence.)

  • That seems like a inane detail that does not belong in the main article. However, if you take two seconds it is in the reference for the article. "September 22, 1972. Volume 73, Number 12." I can include that in the main body, but it seems like a tiny detail.

I can't bear to read further. Please get someone else to sift through it thoroughly. The whole thing. Tony 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've copy-edited the top (see [[31]]). The prose is awkward, I'm afraid, and needs further work below the sections I've done, which themselves need your input in response to my inline queries. And can you delink the dictionary terms: we're meant to know what terms as "police" and "hostage" mean; inviting your readers to follow those very general links will diffuse the impact of your text. Tony 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the remaining hidden comments have been addressed (all relatively minor language issues), count me in for a support of a very good article. Harro5 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I now support the article. It's looking good! Tombseye 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cast table needs to be moved. Most of our film articles leave that information from the end, and in its current position it's squished sideways by the infobox, making it longer than it needs to be. Also, the "actual event" section contains spoilers too. Some things seem overcited... you don't need to cite the cast list. Night Gyr 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The plot summary is far too long. Re-telling the story at length is not encyclopedic; the plot section only needs to say what the film is about and give enough material to understand the rest of the article. HenryFlower 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against the style set by every other featured article on a film. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The DDA summary is 913 words; Casablanca's is 570 (and could do with a bit of trimming yet). Re-tellings of plots are huge temptations to bad and over-writing. Example: rather than After realizing they cannot make a simple getaway, Sal reminds Sonny that the two promised each other they would either escape or kill themselves. Sonny decides to use the hostages as leverage to get transportation to a jet that will take Sal and himself out of the country, offering one hostage each time a demand is satisfied (Sonny also demands his wife be brought to the scene and asks for some pizza). While waiting on the demands a tactical team approaches the bank's back door that had been barricaded, and Sonny fires a shot through the window to push the police back. Moretti claims that those police were a separate unit that he was not controlling., all you need is Sonny demands transportation to a jet to take them out of the country. When a tactical team approaches the back door, he fires a shot to warn them off. (Incidentally the tactical team wasn't waiting on the demands - the robbers were). HenryFlower 15:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed that bit as you were absolutely right, that was unneeded detail. However, the rest of the plot is neccessary to fully understand what happens (you need details on the police movements to understand Sonny's reactions, you need to understand the conversation between Leon and Sonny to understand their relationship and at the very least learn that Sonny leaves Leon money in the movie to reflect the real life movie royalties given to Ernest Aron, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could do a lot more of the same. Another example: Sonny is called outside and finds the FBI has brought his mother to the scene. She tries to get him to leave the bank peacefully, saying she talked to the FBI and they "understand" and it will be "all right" if he comes out. He refuses, sending her back home, is a very long-winded way of saying Sonny's mother unsuccessfully tries to persuade him to give himself up. HenryFlower 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binary star

edit

When Srikeit approved the Good article status of Binary star, he remarked that it was almost ready for a FA nomination. I therefore tried to overcome the last difficulties in other to achieve that, and I think it's quite ready now. Nick Mks 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would gladly support this article but the following is missing:
    • The reference shoud go right after the final punctuation mark.[1] <- like this
    • The article could use more pics, and a lot of them are PD so that should not be a problem
    • The classification part is a bit short and could be expanded with at least some wording and pics
    • Examples should IMHO be more detailed. How about Epsilon Aurigae, which is one of the most fascinating doubles? What about 61 Cygni? What about Sirius and Procyon with their white dwarf companions? What about novae and supernovae resulting from doubles orbiting around a neutron star or a black hole? All those fascinating things should at least be mentioned.
That's all I can think of at the moment... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Comment second all that Grafikm has said so far, in addition: I would drop the use of the word 'interesting' in the lead and find a suitable alternative. Also, I'm not sure I'm keen on the current format of 'Binary stars in popular culture'; maybe there is a better way of doing this than a series of single-sentence paragraphs. --BillC 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, now that so many of people's comments have been taken on board. BillC 07:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have tried to take care of most of the above remarks (I however have found no solution for the 'popular culture' section). Thanks for the input! Nick Mks 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. As soon as the popular culture section is dealt with, I'll lend my full support. Good luck, RyanGerbil10 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: does anybody have any suggestions on how to rearrange that section? I really don't know what to do but to create a list as in comparable articles. Nick Mks 20:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I revamped the "popular culture" section, renaming it to "Binary stars in science fiction" (which is really what it was about, except for a blurb which belonged in a disambig notice). Hopefully it reads a little better now. I would also like to know if the italicized passage under "Terminology" — "a real double star; the union of two stars that are formed together in one system by the laws of attraction" — is a direct quotation from somewhere. If it is, it should be enclosed in the proper marks and attributed. Anville 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points have been addressed so support now.Oppose - several problems.
    • Fundamental things are missing - nothing about how binary systems form, nothing about novae and supernovae in binary systems, and only an extremely brief mention of eclipsing binaries.
    • Some things are hinted at and then not explained, such as the distribution of periods of binary stars having a log normal distribution. That sentence starts with 'Remarkably...' but doesn't offer any justification for the use of the word, and is also unsourced.
    • Quality of sources is also a concern - I don't see any scientific papers used at all.
    • I think writing quality needs work - examples of problems include the majority of stars is comprised, Odds are though, that a double star is probably a foreground/background star; also avoid lists where prose can be used, such as in the whole 'examples' section.
    • Inaccuracies that concern me include without [them] it would be impossible to compute the mass of any random star - even if no binary stars existed, solar physics would provide a basis for determining the physics of stars. And as you note later on, it's only eclipsing binaries that permit a direct determination of the mass, avoiding the sin i term. Worldtraveller 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much improved - very well done. I have some more concerns though:
    • Care should be taken not to confuse binary stars with optical double stars - this seems a very preachy sort of wording, and probably not something that needs to be in the intro. You should just note that optical doubles are something different without instructing the reader to take care not to confuse them.
    • Binary stars can either be optically distinguishable (visual binaries) or only by indirect techniques such as spectroscopy - poor grammar here.
    • Binary stars are also instructive as it is possible for the companions to exchange mass - this sounds odd to me. Suggest 'The components of binary star systems can exchange mass' as simpler and clearer.
    • The most famous examples - opens cans of worms. Best to avoid this kind of claim.
    • No real need for the Introduction sub-heading - I'd get rid of it and make 'terminology' the first sub-heading.
    • When they can be resolved (distinguished) with a powerful enough telescope (with the aid of interferometric methods) they are known as visual binaries - this implies that it's only when interferometry is used that they are called visual binaries, which is not the case.
    • In other cases, the only indication of binarity is the Doppler shift of the emitted light. These systems.. - 'Systems in which this is the case' would be a more accurate way to phrase the second sentence. I am not convinced that sentence really explains what's happening either: relatively close pairs of stars such that the spectral lines in the light from each one shifts is misleading in that it implies that it's the closeness that makes the spectral lines move. Doppler shifts can be observed in visual binaries too - it's the inability to resolve the components that makes a binary spectroscopic.
    • Astrometric binaries, for example, - 'for example' seems redundant and I don't see why 'astrometric binaries' is italicised.
    • an object that does not emit visible light, or in fact any electromagnetic radiation - sounds very verbose. You could just say 'an object that does not emit any electromagnetic radiation.
    • In some instances, one can make a strong case - how about 'In some instances, there is strong evidence'? At the moment it sounds a bit too sciency.
    • the mass of the unseen companion is about nine times that of our sun - probably best to insert a cautionary 'believed to be' in there.
    • At present, binary stars are classified... - makes it sound like this might change, which is unlikely.
    • Any star can belong to several of these classes - insert 'binary' after any.
    • The brighter star of a visual binary is considered the primary star - not really 'considered' the primary - it is the primary!
    • with reference to the primary on a plane perpendicular to the line of sight of the observer - suggest replacing 'reference' with 'respect' and everything from 'a plane...' onwards with 'the plane of the sky'.
    • Determining the orbit of a spectroscopic binary is done - 'is done' sounds odd. Suggest rewording this in the passive.
    • Consider whether the equation in 'astrometric binaries' is really necessary. Stephen Hawking suggested that in a piece of popular science writing, each equation halves the number of people who will read the whole article.
    • Various facto. Space telescopes - something's gone awry here.
    • Another three-category classification - previous system described wasn't three-category.
    • I think you need to explain the term 'Roche lobe' on its first use.
    • the stars eventually coalesce - is this really so? Could do with a reference here.
    • unless something unusual happens - 'unusual' should be defined here.
    • Some binary stars might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars - I believe this is vanishingly unlikely, even in very dense stellar regions. I'd phrase it in a different way to make this clear.
    • It has since been shown - since what? I don't think the subsequent few sentences are terribly clear. Also a <ref> tag is missing.
    • An extensive simulation for the Algol system is available at North Carolina State University - move this info to external links.
    • Runaway stars can also originate in supernova explosions. I think there's a ref in the runaway stars article that suggests about half are disrupted binaries and half are 'kicked' by supernovae.
    • A more recent supernova event having dramatic consequences on a binary is that in the LS 5039 system - this needs more explanation. What is the significance of this system?
    • During the past 200 years a large amount of research has been carried out on binary stars leading to some general conclusions - this is pretty redundant.
    • the mass can only be inferred in a statistical sense. - you could do with explaining what's meant by 'statistical' sense here.
    • Perhaps the Dogon legends surrounding Sirius B are worth mentioning?
    • Other interesting double stars that could be mentioned are SS Lacertae (eclipsing binary which stopped eclipsing) and V907 Sco (eclipsing binary which stopped, then started, then stopped again).
    • Algol is the most famous eclipsing ternary - does the third component also eclipse? If not, it's probably more accurate to describe it as an eclipsing binary still.
    • Everything in the see also section is already linked, so that section is redundant.
    • I hope you don't mind me giving this such a detailed review. I have been extremely thorough because a) I'm an astronomer and therefore very fussy about astronomy articles and b) this could well end up being the 1000th featured article so it's worth paying special attention to. Well done again for all the work you've done on it so far. Worldtraveller 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't mind at all, in contrary. I'm a (future) astrophysisist myself, so I know how important accuracy is. I've carried out the minor changes right away, those needing extra content are for tomorrow. Nick Mks 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to attend to the remaining problems, though in some cases I opted to remove some content in stead of adding, as I felt that some parts (not written by myself) hinted at something which is too complicated to explain here in full. Nick Mks 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've done an excellent job here. If it was me writing I probably would miss out the equation, but that's nothing to oppose over so I support. Hope to see lots more astronomical articles from you! Worldtraveller 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I considered dropping the equation, because I personally feel the same about it as Hawking, but my theoretical friends tell me the opposite. And it's not too bad, there are no differentials or integrals in it. Nick Mks 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite: You need to tighten and provide more certainty on how many stars are in binary systems. You have:

"Recent research suggests that the majority of stars is part of a binary (or multiple) star system" in the lead. [This research], from this year, says no. "It is believed that at least a quarter, and probably more than half, of all stars are at least binary systems" contradicts the previous (a quarter is not a majority) and is syntactically confusing ("all stars are at least binary systems"?) I realize you can read a lot of vague often contradictory numbers on this (much like the % of Red dwarfs) but for this to be FA, this point should be nailed down as tightly as possible. Other things: Do you think you could work in a sentence or two about binaries and habitability/habitable zones? See here.

  • I deliberately kept the sections about the different kinds of binaries short, because otherwise the seperate articles become useless. Are you proposing we should merge them?
  • I admit that there are little to none references to scientific papers. However, I do think that the references provided are reliable enough, and I'm not sure how an article for a general audience could use specialised references. What kind of papers do you have in mind?
Once again, thaks everybody for the input. Nick Mks 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the information in the subarticles can be easily included in the main article without it being too long, then merging could be the way to go. As for references, I think it's preferable to use scientific papers. Press releases and general public websites already interpret and simplify somewhat, and taking that as the basis for an article can introduce errors. To read astronomical papers, use the Astrophysics Data System: [32]. Worldtraveller 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've proposed a merge of seven short articles on the different classifications. Let's see what the others think. As for the references, I'll try to pick something up from ADS without getting too specialised. Nick Mks 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I have incorporated all ideas now. I did carry out the merge, provided references for those sections, and also linked to some (general) scientific papers for the most advanced subjects. Nick Mks 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: "Binary star systems are very important in astrophysics: most of the properties of any star are deduced from observations of binary star systems." What exactly does this mean? Marskell 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the properties" is much too broad. It implies that for non-binaries, we can't deduce information. Marskell 07:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this now. Good work taking care of things Nick. Marskell 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Definitely an FA class article. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now as issues were addressed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was going to quibble about a few little bits, but I just fixed those myself. As a complete know-nothing when it comes to astronomy, even I found it interesting. Proto||type 09:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On such a broad and heavily researched topic, this article is not and could not hope to be the definitive reference work. However, from my non-specialist perspective, it is well-written and interesting, and deservinf of FA recognition. UltimaThule 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Overall, this is an excellent article. I liked how the difference between optical, visual, and spectroscopic binaries was explained as this is often confusing for those new to astronomy. The only thing I would suggest is a few changes to the Runaways and novae section. I noticed that there is no internal link to nova (although I could just be missing it) even though the process is described. There is also no mention of the Chandrasekhar Limit. Otherwise, the references are great and this article is definitely worthy of featured status, Great work! -Nebular110 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were shockingly right about the nova link. That one must have been lost in the process. I'm not sure though where you want to refer to the Chandrasekhar limit, I don't really see where that is useful. Nick Mks 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would go in the third paragraph of the Runaways and novae section. The white-dwarf must accrete enough mass from it's companion to pass the Chandrasekhar Limit before the star becomes unstable and the supernova (type I) that destroys the entire star occurs. It's not necessary to include it, I just thought that it might be a useful bit of information. -Nebular110 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen

edit

This is a good article. It is stable, and it describes a seminal work in comics in a clear, concise manner without sacrificing information. (This is technically a self nomination, though my contributions to this article have been minor.)--DCAnderson 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
  1. Lead is too short
I added a bit.--DCAnderson 03:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Short quotes shouldn't use blockquote
  1. References in other works should be prose, rather than a collection of sentences about the same topic
I don't understand.--DCAnderson 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Fixed.--DCAnderson 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. All fair use images need source information and fair use rationales, some of the fair use images are unnecessary as they do not add signiicantly to the article.
I've given a rationale for the use of all images.--DCAnderson 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Discussion of the art seems to be lacking
Started a section for this.--DCAnderson 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would suggest merging the film adaptation into the merchandising section since a since these two sentences do not require a section of their own
  1. Has there been any academic commentary on the Watchmen?
  1. Ex links should follow the references according to the MoS.
Moved.--DCAnderson 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Peta 01:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"some of the fair use images are unnecessary as they do not add signiicantly to the article."

Examples?--DCAnderson 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radioactive man.--Peta 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gone--DCAnderson 02:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allright Peta, I think I've taken care of most of your concerns.--DCAnderson 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should take care of it.[34]--DCAnderson 02:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. Jkelly 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite ready to support. I did some quick copyediting. I'm a little confused by the pirates section. I understand that the pirates section is a comic book within a comicbook, but how important is it? Jkelly 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty important, almost a quarter of the narrative is throgh that comic.--DCAnderson 20:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, well now that I'm flipping through, "a quarter" might be an overestimate on my part, but it is still a pretty big part. Out of a 12 issue miniseries, the story of the Black Freighter plays a prominent role in issues 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11. So almost half the issues. There is even a four page article in issue 5 about the fictional author of the Tales of the Black Freighter. The "author" even plays a small role in the plot of Watchmen. I know it seems kind of weird, but that "story within a story" is a big part of Watchmen.--DCAnderson 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll give it another read-through. Jkelly 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks :)DCAnderson 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Counterparts" section of "Characters", is that us making the comparison? I looked at the reference given, and it gives a one-to-one relationship between the Watchmen characters and the older characters, but we have this "...with elements of..." material in there. Where did that come from? Jkelly 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it seemed to be Original Research which I've now removed. The rest can be traced to an Alan Moore interview that I added as a cite.--DCAnderson 23:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for being so responsive, and for the good work. Jkelly 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to see what I can do, but from what I've been able to get from the talk page, this has been a problem in the past, as it is hard to find secondary sources who have analyzed the themes in Watchmen. So far it seems that when a themes section is created, it usually gets deleted as Original Research. I'll work on something though.--DCAnderson 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
still needs to be fleshed out: the themes should be alaborated on more, and only one pgraph on determinism? additionally, article contains some poor writing e.g. "Such graffiti occurs in the Watchmen universe upon the proposition of The Keene Act, depicting the change of public opinion towards the practice of vigilantism.". needs an outsider to copyedit whole article. plot summary should not go beyond 5 pgraphs. "keene act" section should not exist - should be merged into plot summary (without going over 5 pgraphs). headings should not be wikilinks. break artwork section into at least 2 pgraphs. why the big gap between "reception" and "criticism" sections? why is there a hardcoded colour in the infobox "creative team" of the infobox? lead should summarize the entire article. there are too many sub-sections, making the TOC daunting - try merging the many one-pgraph sections together into larger multi-pgraph sections. fairuse images do not have fairuse rationale. dont capitalize heading either ("Reception and Acclaim"). in Editions, give dates for all the releases from the 12-part comic onwards. there should be more on the process of authorship: when did alan moore start writing it, how long did it take to write, how was the writing experience, the drawing experience? finally, what about the smiley face becoming the acid house logo? other works that were inspired by watchmen? did moore ever go back to the themes explored in watchmen in later work? Zzzzz 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I believe your issues with the themes section have been addressed as I added information on hero worship, fascism, and expanded the determinism section and mentioned the running themes throughout other books Moore has written. In addition, I believe DC has addressed the other problems with the article. Tombseye 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak Strong Support--The article seems more extensive than a lot of other featured articles and is pretty complete and I obsessively read Watchmen and Watchmen-related stuff myself. The only criticism I can think of is that the references could be longer and more extensive. Tombseye 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. First three paragraphs (in header) all begin with the same word. Some minor formatting issues. Also, a professional encyclopedia article would paraphrase rather than uses execcess of block quotes. Certainly better than many other Wikipedia articles, but still not quite FAC quality ready. --FuriousFreddy 06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some variation to the first three paragraphs. Could you be more specific as to what the "minor formatting issues" are? I'll look into paraphrasing some of the quotes.--DCAnderson 13:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased some of the less interesting quotes. Do you think we should try to get rid of all the quotes? Are there some which you specifically think we should address?--DCAnderson 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to get rid of all of the quotes, or, at least, not use such large blocks of them so often. The "minor formatting issues" involve images being used that are positioned so that they distort or interrupt the flow of the page. Also, the chart i nthe middle of the page about who the Watchmen were based upon should be converted to prose. --FuriousFreddy 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table is probably for the best, because in prose form we would get a really repetitive "A is based on B, C is based on D, E is based on F" kind of thing. I'll check the other things.--DCAnderson 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've played around with the images, and they seem to look ok on my browser in a "small" window. I'll start digging into the quotes.--DCAnderson 16:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more blockquotes now.--DCAnderson 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A key to good writinhg is variation; taking a paragraph with sentences that could be formatted as a "repetitive 'A is based on B, C is based on D, E is based on F'" thing ,and making it not that. I copyedited that paragraph some. Changing vote ot 'Support; although I must note that the sub-article Chapters in Watchmen is in dire need of cleanup and rewriting (in fact, it may not be needed at all). --FuriousFreddy 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Support. This article has improved markedly in quality since the FA process started, something which makes me wonder if it's quite there yet (is it really stable, does it still have a lot it could improve rapidly?). It's just good enough now for me to support it, but with some reservations as to the structure and quality of the prose. In particular, I think some more attention needs to be given to the (new) Themes section:
  1. In places the prose is too conceptually dense and hard to comprehend (too many psychology references, not enough clear English explanations)
  2. In other places it just plain needs some careful rewriting to make it "brilliant" (I found the start of the section — As previously noted, Nite Owl asks, during a riot, "Who are we protecting them from?" to which the Comedian responds "from themselves." — to be quite clumsy, there surely must be a better way of introducing the section).
  3. I'd recommend sub-sections for each theme to break this section up into a more easily-digestible structure (e.g. Determinism, Megalomania etc as sub-sections).
Much kudos to the significant editors on this one, you have and are continuing to do a wonderful job. — Estarriol talk 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix the clumsy sentences. We tried the subsections which others didn't want so we went with how it currently stands. I'll reduce the psyche references as well. Thanks. Tombseye 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed the sentence (and others I could find) and reduced psyche references and dense material as per request. The article's not unstable so much as we've (DC and I) been trying to address people's concerns about the article to make it the best featured article it can be. It has no history of instability and has not been the subject of edit wars or anything of that sort. Hope that clears things up. Thanks. Tombseye 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet more excellent work, Tombseye. The themes section is, for relatively small cuts and changes, now much more readable — and brilliant — prose. I take your point on stability, thank you for reminding me why that is sometimes a concern, and when it is not. Strong Support now – this article isn't perfect, but perfection is not the requirement, every article can always be improved. This would make an excellent front page article on one of the most historically important and groundbreaking pieces of modern literature, from a central figure of the modern writing scene. Superb work. — Estarriol talk 09:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is definetly one of the most comprehensive and well written articles on wikipedia about a Graphic Novel. In my opinion, many of the previous concerns about themes, scope, and copyediting, etc, have been addressed to an acceptable level during this FA review. Good stuff.--P-Chan 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Upon making a fine-tooth inspection, I've noticed copyedit issues that still need to be addressed. (Thus, I've downgraded my rating down to Weak Support. Once these are solved, I'll switch back to support again. Sorry about the switch guys.--P-Chan 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some major edits and copyediting to fix the article. Let me know if are okay. Thanks. Tombseye 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're good. I'll change my vote back to support.--P-Chan 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Midway

edit

This is a self-nomination by Jon Parshall. I have worked a great deal on the article to improve accuracy, citation, and usage of contemporary sources representing the current best scholarship on the battle. -- User:Jparshall 14:14, 30 May 2006 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: This request was incorrectly filed on May 30. I happened across it a few moments ago and noticed this, so I have taken the liberty of correctly filing the request and have placed it here just now. My time stamp has the correctly filed date on it, and should be used as the proper refernce for the FAC request. TomStar81 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I should mention that I'm most grateful for the assistance in correctly filing the request. -jon parshall-
  • Weak Oppose for now. The article needs some fine tuning before it recieves an FA star. For starters, some of the claims in the article do not cite sources, leaving them open as POV statements. Also, the spelling and grammar ought to be looked at more closely; while I admit that I have no real room to brag on this issue, I did notice that some words had erronous spellings. Lastly, I feel that the overwhelming use of the book Shattered Sword to cite material is questionable, given the amount of info that ough to be avaliable on the battle. TomStar81 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Tom: I would be happy to add additional citation where needed if you'll provide me with specific claims that need buttressing. Regarding the usage of "Shattered Sword", I'm obviously in a somewhat delicate position, having literally "written the book on the battle" and then having turned to a rewrite of the Wikipedia article as well. Your comment that additional citation material from other sources ought to be possible "given the amount of info that ought to be available on the battle" would hold true under many circumstances. In this case, though, "Shattered Sword" is, legitimately, the first book to have made extensive usage of the Japanese primary sources on the battle. As a result, some of the assertions in the article I have written will not be found in the other standard works on the battle -- "Miracle at Midway", "Incredible Victory", etc. -- because those prior books didn't use the same sources. So, the upside is that you're getting an article that benefits from the "state of the art" in the topic matter, but the downside is that citation in many cases will rely heavily on "Shattered Sword." Would it help to cite using the primary sources that *we* used? I have noticed that much of the citation in Wikipedia articles tends to be secondary sources (i.e. the well-known books on whatever topic.) However, I can very easily move to the primary sources if need be (i.e. "Akagi action report, CAP kodochosos", etc.), if you think that would be helpful to the reader. I myself wonder if such primaries would be useful to a non-specialist, but I'm cool either way. -jon parshall-
      • I won't presume to speak for Tomstar81, but IMO, you should add in the primary sources; it would make it more clear that the article draws from a variety of perspectives. Just be careful that you only use the primary sources to relay facts, not draw conclusions from them (save those for the book). However, I would like to see more sources used in ==Impact on War==, from what I can see, it relies very heavily on your book. I would rephrase it as: "The importance of the battle is the subject of some debate. Some believe it was a major turning point....[cite][cite]. Others believe that while important, it wasn't absolutely critical...[cite][cite]. The Japanese themselves saw it as foo [cite]." Would the Schlesinger source (currently in external links) be able to add a perspective? Incidently, I think it's wonderful that you have decided to contribute here. The more experts opinions on Wikipedia, the better. - The Catfish 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is essentially what The Catfish has adressed; my concern over the use of using one primary source is that I fear that it may lend an impression that someone drew exclusively from one source to write the article. In this case specifically my concern is that the "no original research" policy could be used against you since, in your own words, you have "...literally 'written the book on the battle'...". The solution to this problem would be to add other points of reference for the inline citations, which is what I am asking for. TomStar81 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are all good points. Give me a day or two and let me see if I can't address some of those concerns by elaborating on the citation and, in the case of some of the more controversial areas, perhaps using primaries from the Japanese sources. I will take a close look at the 'Impact on the War' section. Bear in mind that that is a very complex subject--it gets an entire chapter in my book--and is not easy to unravel, or describe in simple terms. (But hey, that's what makes it fun!) -jon parshall-
            • Thanks for the quick response. I just have a couple points of clarification. Ideally, if a claim is directly supported both by the primary and secondary source, I would prefer the primary source to be cited. Citations of Shattered Sword would be for claims that draw conclusions from those sources. I think this would help diversify the notes quite a bit. Also, no worries about WP:NOR: "If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." - The Catfish 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • We'll let others decide whether Shattered Sword is a reputable work.  ;-) Although I will (humbly) note that the book's only been out for six months, and yet the U.S. Naval War College has already bought a thousand copies and added it to their Strategy & Policy curriculum. (Stoked!) In any case, I added a number of citations last night (5 June), in some cases fleshing out secondaries, in others adding "derived from..." primary citations for the Japanese source works. I would note that I don't think we want to go too far down the primary source path--most encylopedia readers aren't going to go and read the individual unit reports, for instance. I think our overall goal should be to point readers to additional reputable secondary sources, so that they can do further reading if they want. Frankly, I don't want to be responsible for citing, say, "Prange page blah-de-blah" and then have to figure out from what primary source he got his information from (although I could do it)(and certainly have in the past)(but it's way tedious). Rather, I think primaries, particularly in the Japanese source works, should be used to buttress potentially controversial points, particularly those that cut against the grain of the current conventional wisdom (the correcting of which was the reason Tony and I wrote the book in the first place.) In any case, I think we're on the right track. More soon. -jon parshall-
                • I have now substantially fleshed out the citation for the article, in many cases pointing to Japanese sources. I feel that at this point it should be diversified sufficiently to deflect any perception of the citations being too 'Shattered Sword-centric'.
  • Support Now that other sorces have been provided for the inline citations (in addition to Shattered Sword) I feel better about the sourcing for the information presented. My ohter complaints have been adressed accordingly. TomStar81 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Very nice article but problems I can see that miss the FA standard are
*Overwhelming use of one reference source as perTomStar81. This is a very widely written about conflict and there needs to be visability on a more balanced view.
  • See above comments regarding sources. -jon parshall-
*Unreferenced POV comment in the opening paragraph arguably the most important naval conflict since Nelson's victory at Trafalgar
  • I have re-written the lead paragraph to try and make it more concise, better supported, and perhaps less controversial. -jon parshall-
  • some grammer issues (I too am awful at this) - the first sentence does not read well.Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. -jon parshall-
  • Support - after the changes the opening paragraph reads much better. I've also spent some time reading a some other references and I can see the point of using the newer book - all of the older ones I have read are very pro-US. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — the article is a good read. — Ravikiran 06:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article, especially after changes. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very nice article. One question, though: is it really necessary to have that monstrous link-farm template at the bottom? Most of the stuff there has a tenuous link to Midway, at best. Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • dunno what the story is with that--it seems to be a standard WWII template that's stuffed at the bottom of such articles. Granted it adds some additional length, but I don't think it's a bad thing, and it helps set context around the events as a whole. I don't think I'd want to remove it. -jon parshall-
  • Support Fine article, and I like the template at the bottom. Rlevse 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm putting these comments here to avoid mixing them with the discussion above:
    • ==Discovery== and ==Movies== are both extremely short; they should be either expanded or merged to make the prose flow better. The paragraphs within these sections suffer the same problems and require the same remedy.
    • References and Further Reading/External links should be separate sections to differentiate between works referenced and those that merely provide additional information.
      • Done. 6/6/2006 -jon parshall-
        • Still not quite right. To clarify, there should be two sections: ==References== should contain all the sources that were used as references and the notes refering to them; and ==Further Reading==, containing books and external links not used as sources, but usefull for finding out more. - The Catfish 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Blech. Do other Featured Articles do it this way? What's the value-add to this approach? As I look at it, the list of books we have is a good cross-section of the standard works on the topic. Yes, I could list some of the Japanese sources; that's fine. But I think the distinction between 'References' and 'Further Reading' is artificial, unless this is standard practice for Featured Articles on Wikipedia. Lemme know. 6/6/2006 -jon parshall-
            • Randomly picking three recently promoted FA's (Football (soccer), Operation Auca, and Pashtun people), all three separate References and Further Reading/External Links. Separation helps to clarify exactly which sources the information came from. - The Catfish 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did some reading on Wikipedia's style practices, and in Wikipedia:Citing_sources it does indeed state the following: "Maintaining a separate 'References' section in addition to 'Notes': It is helpful when footnotes are used that a References section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used." Fair enough. I will take care of that, hopefully tonight.
  • Another thing I just noticed. The general practice I've seen when citing multiple sources for one claim is to split up the note for each source (so Note 1 would become four separate notes, one each for Dull, Willmott, Prange, Parshall & Tully) (Incidently, a book written by a person named Dull doesn't sound like a very fun read!) 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Pushing back. We did not do it this way in Shattered Sword (i.e., we had multiple sources within a single citation), and all the scholarly types were just peach with that. Furthermore, you have to take into account the medium. In my opinion, disaggregating the footnotes 1) unnecessarily lengthens the scrolling length of the article (which is already darned big) and 2) would also make the article a nightmare for further editing, as you'd have <ref </ref tags *everywhere*. It's already getting difficult to navigate. I don't think the value add is there. -jon parshall- P.S. Dull was apparently a riveting lecturer, from what I've heard. Terrible name, though, I admit.
      • I believe it is standard practice as each of these recently promoted FA's use multiple notes for single facts. The advantage, I think, is that it makes the article seem even more reliable, which is important on a project such as this. - The Catfish 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) PS: Thanks for being patient with my seemingly never-ending requests.[reply]
        • No problem. This one is really bugging me, though, (for reasons I've stated above). Consequently, I have spent some timing reading about Wikipedia's stylistic conventions and footnoting principles, under both Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, and Wikipedia:Citing_sources. In general, the usage of Harvard inline partial citations, embedded links, footnotes, and MLA are all acceptable. However, neither of these pages says anything about this particular issue (i.e. forming multiple citations around a single statement.) The 'Citing Sources' page does, though, state the following: "Editors should not switch from one citation system to another without checking on the talk page that there are no objections. For example, editors should not switch from footnotes to Harvard referencing, or vice versa. If no agreement can be reached, the system used by the first major contributor to use one should be deferred to.[emphasis added]]" I humbly submit that 1) I can see no reason to prefer the usage of individual citations versus consolidated citations, 2) simply adding individual citation "thud factor" for the purposes of "seeming even more reliable" doesn't really cut much logical mustard with me, 3) the fact that these other Featured Articles articles used individual citations isn't really in conformance with any Wikipedia stylistic conventions (because there are no Wikipedia stylistic conventions on this particular point that I can see), and therefore 4) these other articles shouldn't really sway the discussion one way or t'other, (i.e. the way they did it is just fine, for them, but their usage shouldn't be taken as gospel) 5) I am the first major contributor to the citation of this article, 6) my citation style is explictly in conformance with the Chicago Manual of Style (as evidenced by my usage of citation in Shattered Sword), and therefore, 7) my stylistic choice regarding usage of multiple citations should be left the heck alone. And I mean that very nicely.  ;-) [Grant me, at least, that I've done my homework, and that I've been cheerfully responsive on the other objections raised so far. This one, though, I'm digging my heels in, I guess...] Anyway, comments back, Mssr. Catfish?
  • Support Excellent article. I'll just mention that I also prefer the primary source to the secondary source. Maybe list the primary source and then have a "(see also Shattered Sword pp.##)" at the end somehow? Best of both worlds then.--SeizureDog 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, the "Categories:" list is awfully small. Surely it can go into more than 2 categories.--SeizureDog 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • indeed it can, and I added several. 6/6/2006 -jon parshall-

Iranian peoples

edit

I wanted to nominate this article as it has been written with some extensive referencing, withstood and evolved with various disputes that are now resolved and I believe it can make it as a featured article. Any and all criticism will be taken seriously. Thanks for your consideration. Tombseye 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded considerably. Tombseye 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: my comment was met. - Tutmosis 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because some users were uncomfortable with it as Iranian peoples are rather an ethnolinguistical group than just one big ethnic group --K a s h Talk | email 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because the article is more of anthropological study of various ethnic groups who share some common traits, both cultural and otherwise, rather than being a single ethnic group. That was the rationale as is the case with Germanic peoples and other similar articles.
  • Object—Riven with redundancies, and thus fails Criterion 2a badly. The opening five sentences don't augur well for the rest.
    • (1) "The Iranian peoples (also Iranic peoples) are a group primarily defined by their usage of Iranian languages in addition to other traits." You've said "primarily", so "in addition" is redundant. It would be much stronger, right at the start, to remove the last five words, since you don't tell us on the spot what those other traits are. Leave it for later in the article, if at all. I've already inserted "The" to fix the grammar of the first sentence.
    • (2) "They speak various Iranian languages, which were once found in a much larger area throughout Eurasia from the Balkans to western China."—Can we get rid of the "V-word", which is usually redundant? And since from the Balkans to western China is a much larger area, why not remove the redundancy there too? "They speak Iranian languages that were once found throughout Eurasia from the Balkans to western China".
    • (3) "... whose linguistic contributions have survived the test of time". I find this a bit laboured; can it be expressed more simply? I mean, why wouldn't a language group survive for thousands of years? Most have. And what do you mean by "contributions"?
    • (4) "The Iranian peoples are traced to a particular branch of the Aryans, known simply as Iranians or Proto-Iranians." It's idiomatic to say "can be traced". "Particular" is redundant. "Simply" is redundant.
    • (5) "Of these early Aryans little is known other than their languages and various cultural traits largely identified through archaeological finds." A few commas, here and throughout the article, would assist the readers. It's not clear whether it's the languages and the cultural traits, or just the cultural traits that have been identified. Probable redundancies in the V-word and "largely". Aren't you overstating the first point by saying that we know the languages of the early Aryans? To "know" them as one knows modern French or Mandarin would be a tall order.

The article needs hours' work by a good copy-editor who is not familiar with the writing of this article. Tony 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made good changes suggested. I will do a go-through and do some further editing of the article and reduce the redundancy. Any further help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Tombseye 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update-did further copyedits and removed redundancy. Tombseye 21:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References now formatted properly as per advice. Thanks! Tombseye 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football (soccer)

edit

This article is well-written, comprehensive, and detailed. I think that this would make a fine FA. Raichu 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got rid of the sub sub levels and moved the history from within Laws of the Game to its own section above. I've added something about pre-19th Century games but still need to tidy the section and copyedit it thoroughly. Oldelpaso 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted two of the lists to prose, and I'm working on adding more references. Oldelpaso 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other lists still need converting to prose, the article fails FA criteria 2a. — Wackymacs 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 2a does not state that an article must contain no lists whatsoever! Sometimes lists are the best way of presenting information. The article only uses a few short lists, so I don't see what the problem is. — Dan1980 11:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, it does not say that. But it does say the prose must be "... compelling, even brilliant" - this isn't what I call compelling or brilliant, sorry. The lists are not the only problem, the overall context needs copy-editing. — Wackymacs 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuyvesant High School

edit

Because it is a good article collab, and all the issues brought up in the last 2 noms have been cleared up, I would like to re-resubmit this article.--Zxcvbnm 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous nominations

here
and here.
  • Oppose Support I feel bad doing this, as I know how hard getting a school through an FAC is, but this needs work. First off, slow down a bit. This nomination should not have been listed before the Good Article Collab tag was taken out, and by manually archiving the previous nom your name was very mis-timestamped (I'm restamping it with this edit). Bullet pointing my points:
  • Second, I think the History and Enrollment sections should be switched in position, with "School facilities" and "9/11" taken out of the general History section.
Fixed--Zxcvbnm 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third, large sections of "History" are still unsourced, such as the first two paragraphs of the section (that make some large and specific assertions) and some later paragraphs. Ditto for the first paragraph of the facilities section.
Fixed RossPatterson 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you objected last time that the naming of the school was unsourced. I have added a reference for that as well, although it wasn't easy to find. I guess those of us who studied there just took it for granted, based on the life-sized portrait of Peter Stuyvesant in the lobby. RossPatterson 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why not source things at least with the material they cover, such as some of the academic details with the course catalog, info on the sections of student publications with a copy of a student publication, etc.
Fixed - there's a link to a copy of the Math Survey in the Publications section, and a reference to the Parents Handbook section on graduation requirements and to the course catalog in the Academics section. And there have been student publication cover shots in the article for a long time, although it was in an odd location (since moved). RossPatterson 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, "Political Fire" and "The Broken Escalator" get full subsections for one sentence of text?
Fixed--Zxcvbnm 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records for sports teams in this year do not warrant a spot on wiki unless they were notable as champions of one kind or another.
Fixed, by Zxcvbnm at 14:09 on 28 May 2006 RossPatterson 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - You're right, it wasn't up to the standards of the rest of the article. I've done as you suggested. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I agree with the above. Additionally, the lead section needs to be expanded as per the manual of style... three to four paragraphs, not two please. Also, there are {{fact}} tags in the article which need to be taken care of. Furthermore, Bishonen's objections from the previous FAC have not been fully addressed, in that there are unexplained, potentially US-centric terms used with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with them. Fieari 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede will be improved soon - several of us are working on it. It had been up to par, but Occam's (or somebody's) razor intervened and it got smaller. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - There were only a couple of {{fact}}s, and they were easily dealt with. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen's comments during the last nomination were very useful in improving the article. Her objections were heard and were acted on, many of them during the nomination, although that didn't save it at the time. Her comments then (summarized by me (RossPatterson)) were as follows:
  • You need to try harder to avoid speaking to a US audience exclusively. ... assuming US practices ... American cultural specifics ("varsity") ... acronyms for government bodies (EPA).
  • Fixed, maybe - Several of us have worked on this, but it's hard for American eyes and ears to spot these things. If there's anything left, I'd appreciate specific identification of them. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instance, there's a section about "feeder patterns" (a non-obvious phrase to most non-Americans, surely, but that's a side issue), which turns out to be about the fact there there are no such patterns. At least remove the first "paragraph" in this section. But preferably the whole, because it's weak: it's too short to be a top-level section, and consists of too short paragraphs, and the claim that students "often" use deceptive pracices to get into the school is simply impressionistic—how on earth can I verify it? Source it, please (not from somebody's blog).
  • What is "the international FIRST competition"? What's PSAL? Feel free to link or explain words like varsity etc, preferably at first appearance (I just found FIRST linked further down, but that's sort of unhelpful).
  • [H]ere's the big one, over which I am opposing: the many dead or irrelevant links in the references section. The authors seem to be aware of them, dubbing them "Unknown, offline", but, uh, you can't source things in the article to a dead link just because there was one there in January 2005. Links are going to always keep deteriorating, and the idea is that you keep updating them, if you want the article to be one of Wikipedia's best. Please find the new URL, if it exists, or another source, or remove the info in the text. Or at the very least remove the null "reference", but if you take the last option, I think the Reference Police will get you.
  • Oh, incidentally, the account of the centennial celebration is incredibly uninteresting to the general reader. Please keep Stuy Struts and gala dinners and their guest speakers to the inner circle, don't put them in an international encyclopedia.
  • [T]he movie Hackers should only be mentioned in one place.
  • Hm. When I said Bishonen's complaints weren't covered, I had some specific locations in mind, but now I can't find them. Ah well. I guess the have been convered for the most part then. Still waiting on the lead of course. Additionally, I'm also concerned about the 9/11 section, in particular, the memorial part, since WP:NOT specifically states that wikipedia isn't a memorial. Are those names really encylcopedic for this article in particular? The proximity to the towers and the asbestos fear might be considered notable (though it could be debated), but the names? Fieari 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I de-listified the 9/11 memorial list so that it's less intrusive and in paragraph form, and expanded the lead to include 9/11 (someone cut off the lead before and I don't know why). The asbestos fear was a HUGE debate (everyone against this one guy who kept vandalizing the article with asbestos conspiracy stuff).--Zxcvbnm 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As if there was any doubt from the foregoing. RossPatterson 04:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm reserving my judgement at present, as the oppositions are being cleaned up quickly and thoroughly, but as Fieari points out, the lead and the memorial list in the 9/11 paragraph are holding this article back. I'd love to support, and when these matters are dealt with I will not hesitate. On another note, I wait to see how Hopkins School appearing on the main page tomorrow wil affect the nom. Harro5 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and well done to Zxcvbnm and Ross Patterson for this high-qaulity article with lots of great pics. I don't really see the need for the "self-segregation" section, as going on the info of the school paper isn't the best reference, but unless others have an issue with this I'm OK with it. Harro5 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This shouldn't evenm be an article. This school isn't notable. And don't give me the "But there have been four Nobel Prize winners that went there," I don't care! The school itself isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter111344 (talk • contribs)
    That's not an actionable objection, as subject matter is not part of the FA criteria. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a little bit Oppose. This article is really getting there! But since my ears are burning anyway, I'll keep up the tradition and keep complaining, if minorly. What's a double session? And the paragraph beginning "In 1972" is pretty incoherent. I know we're always getting told to avoid short paragraphs, but it's no solution to crowd natural one-sentence items together to make non sequitors like this: "Admission to LaGuardia High School is by audition rather than examination, in keeping with its artistic mission. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, at least four Stuyvesant teachers died from AIDS. In 1992, a new, waterfront building was constructed to house the high school." That's not prose, it's a list laid out as prose. Also, am I alone, and sick, in getting inappropriate associations from the claim that "approximately 43% of the total student body is female"? (Would it be possible to not use the word "body"?) Bishonen | talk 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Fixed How does using the word "body" prevent this article from becoming featured? I will fix the "list paragraph" thing.--Zxcvbnm 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As was suggested by Staxringold above, please let the people who have made objections decide whether to strike them out. The word "body" won't prevent the article from becoming featured. I just thought you might want to avoid the associations to partial gender reassignment surgery (not that there's anything wrong with that). Bishonen | talk 04:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Since I fixed all your objections (except the "body" thing, that's just ridiculous) is there anything else?--Zxcvbnm 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The objections to the article are withdrawn. I repeat that I'm the one that's supposed to strike them out. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support a great article, very informative and its also very well referenced--Childzy 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructivism

edit

Peer Review

Notable movement in recent architecture. The article underwent a major re-write in April, and has been through a peer review, accessible above, and most of the points were met. Self-nom, with collaborators. DVD+ R/W 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I love architecture, so I object reluctantly. There are not enough inline citations, and some of the paragraphs are too short, only having one sentence. Other than that, the article is high quality and is close to FA standard. If these changes are made, I would love to support. RyanGerbil10 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per RyanGerbil - also I'd prefer "Architects associated with deconstructivism" be merged with "See also" as well since it is just a collection of wikilinks. RN 21:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but weakly object - while most of my issues with the prose have been taken care of (see the peer review above), more inline citations are necessary. Some other suggestions:
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Combine architects w/ see also section, as noted above.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • Double check for typos like .[1].
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 02:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a few more notes, formated the notes, merged some short paragraphs, expanded a section, and merged the architects associated with deconstructivism section. Are you ready to take another look? DVD+ R/W 03:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice job, a few things about the footnotes though: there is a {{citation needed}} that needs to be referenced, I would prefer if there were at least 1 footnote per section, and the web footnotes (like 5+8) be cited according to WP:CITE/ES and/or {{Cite web}}. Also, if possible, please provide page numbers for the books under the footnotes section. AndyZ t 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've moved around some of the images and templates near the top because having an image on the left at the beginning of an article is highly distracting to (an English-speaking) reader. I know virtually nothing about the subject, so I can't speak for the article's accuracy, but it seems detailed and well-sourced. I would prefer the use of {{cite book}} for references, but I won't make a big deal of it. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:16 UTC
  • Support Although I agree with Andy that more inline citation would be good. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    • Article has only two major sections (leaving "See also", etc.). This looks awkward and I suggest that the sub-sections of "History, context & influences" can be made full-fledged sections.
    • The sentence in the lead: "It is characterised by ideas of fragmentation, non-linear processes of design, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin, and apparent non-Euclidean geometry, which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture, such as structure and envelope." should be broken into multiple sentences. More importantly, it is unclear whether the italized part (done by me) is a qualifier for non-linear processes of design or a separate characteristic altogether.
    • In the last sentence of the first paragraph, use some alternative for "stimulating" as it looks like passing a judgement on the subject.
    • In the last paragraph of the lead in "Deconstructivist architecture exhibition", italics should include "exhibition".
    • It is unclear why postmodernism's return to "historical trappings" are sly and ironic.
    • "With its publication, functionalism and rationalism, the two main branches of modernism, were overturned as paradigms according to postmoderist and deconstructivist readings, with differing readings." - confusing.
    • "Rather than Separating ornament and..." - why is the "S" capital?
    • If possible, try to get at least stub articles on the red-links mentioned in the article.
    • Wikilink of "Grid" leads to disambiguation page. Fix it. Same with "Locus". Find others and fix.
    • "...own Santa Monica residence, (from 1978), has been". Use either braces or commas. Not both.
    • What is "erasure"? Provide context (or link to definition).
    • "Lin's 1982 project for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with its granite slabs severing the ground plane, is one." Ending looks abrupt. Copyedit for better flow.
    • "1988 MOMA exhibition" does not justify being a separate paragraph as its seems of very less significance as the other broad topics. Either make it stand out or merge with some other.
    • In the same section, the quote and the image overlap in 800x600 screen resolution. Fix it.
    • The sentences in "Computer-aided design" need to be re-ordered/re-organized so that context is present in the beginning, and not in the middle.
    • Provide link or context to "exigence".
    • "The two aspects of the critical, exigence and analysis are found in deconstructivism." I think the word "regionalism" is missing after "critical".
    • "The Wexner Center brings vital topics such as function and precedent to prominence and displays their urgency in architectural discourse, in an analytical and critical way." How?
    • Make sure that reference links are after punctuation marks, not before. At many places, a space is missing after the reference link.
    • "Critics of Deconstruction see...". Why is "of" capitalized?
  • This looks enough for now. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of planet

edit

After working on this article for years, I feel I have finally managed to remove all traces of POV and subjectivity, and I think it has reached its final, presentable state. Its topic is a relevant one, as its implications have recently been debated in the media since the discovery of the "tenth planet." Let me know what you think. Thanks. Serendipodous 19:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To start off, the lead section is much too short. It should summarize the entire article, not simply present the subject. For an article that size, the lead section should be at least 2-3 paragraphs with 3-4 sentences each. Also, the sources are not properly cited. See WP:CITET for the proper templates to use for each source. --BRIAN0918 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following minor problems should be cleared up:
    • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
    • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
    • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
    • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
    • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per above. Also, the tone is somewhat informal and there is some second person ("we") use. In discussing the chronology of the thought process, perhaps key dates can be made into non-TOC subheadings, e.g. ;1808 so-and-so happens; ;1828 so-and-so happens. Having to fish for dates in the text was a bit cumbersome. Otherwise, nicely written and an interesting read! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen dates being made into non-TOC subheadings in a single featured article before; articles generally are expected to remain in prose (not list) form. Thanks, AndyZ t 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Can you delink the trivial chronological items (decades, years without a date), as per WP policy?

It needs a copy-edit. Here are some random examples.

    • I noticed 'dividing line' (better as 'boundary') several times.
    • remove 'obviously'—if it's obvious, don't bother telling us.
    • "however, we can contrast bodies that are, allowing for topographic variation, generally ellipsoidal with irregular bodies whose limbs do not show smooth curvature, such as Neptune's moon Proteus." Who's "we"? (This occurs a number of times in the text—it's not an orally delivered paper.) Clumsy nested phrase. False comparison—insert "those of" before "Neptune's".
    • The table: please insert spaces either side of x (which is supposed to be a multiplication sign, not an ex—can you locate the code for it?). Insert a space before each occurrence of "kg" and "km".
    • "An object's density"—reword to avoid apostrophe in a formal register; however, I notice "Pluto's orbit" elsewhere, which seems OK to me (except that "were" should follow it, not "was").
    • I looked at one caption and didn't quite understand it: "The relative sizes of Earth (on the left) with (from top to bottom) the Moon, Pluto and its moon Charon, Sedna, Quaoar, and Ceres on the right."—Moon singular?

Tony 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a good point. This article was written long before the discovery of Pluto's new moons. I edited the line to make Charon Pluto's largest satellite. Serendipodous 12:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've revised the article according to your recommendations. What do you think?Serendipodous 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good, interesting article. One point: superscripts (citation numbers) should follow one pattern, either before or after the punctuation mark (preferably after). In this article, both styles have been used. Please srick to one style. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, WP:FOOTNOTE says citations should follow punctuation. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done, after months of shuffling around. Lovely pic to finish off the page. Marskell 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think there is a need to rephrase the caption of Image:2006-16-a-full.jpg. How can we say that IAU "should" decide by September.... According to the section adjoining the image, a more appropriate adjective would be "will".
    • I'm afraid I have to disagree with that; given the IAU's past record on this issue it is quite likely that, even if they claim they will release a final definition in September, they will find some way to fudge it and postpone it should a split vote occur again.
This wonderful little anecdote by Mike Brown, the discoverer of "Xena", beatifully captures his confidence in their ability to come to a conclusion:
The official decision will come from the International Astronomical Union. We had hoped for a timely decision but we instead appear to be stuck in committee limbo. Here is the story, as best I can reconstruct it from the hints and rumors that I hear:
* A special committee of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) was charged with determining "what is a planet."
* Sometime around the end of 2005, this committee voted by a narrow margin for the "pluto and everything bigger" definition, or something close to it.
* The exectutive committee of the IAU then decided to ask the Division of Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society to make a reccomendation.
* The DPS asked their committee to look in to it.
* The DPS committee decided to form a special committee.
* Rumor has emerged that when the IAU general assembly meets in ::August in Prauge they willl make a decision on how to make a final decision!
So when do we expect a decision? Back in August 2005 I used to joke that the IAU was so slow they might take until 2006 before deciding. That was supposed to be a joke. Now I joke that I hope there is a decision by the time my daughter starts grade school and learns about planets in class. She is currently 9 months old.[35]Serendipodous 10:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins

edit

Partial self-nomination. 1980s rubber monster movie. When I first started editing this the trivia section was the longest. That information has been reorganized and the article has been expanded and referenced. Has undergone a peer review and most concerns were addressed (the music section is still a bit short, but unless unreliable sources are used it's about as big as it can be). CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object For the following reasons:
    • Peacock terms should be avoided in preference of compelling writing. Example:
      • Accomplished filmmaker Steven Spielberg was the film's executive producer. Accomplished is an unnecessary adjective.
    • The plot to Gremlins is extremely simple. The Plot section does not need this much exposition. It should be trimmed to the following outline:
      • Billy gets mogwai.
      • Mogwai gets wet.
      • Mogwais eat after midnight.
      • Slapstick violence ensues.
      • Gremlins get blown up, Spike disolves in a pile of goo.
    • The Pre-production section doesn't disclose very much compelling information, and what it does have, it doesn't expand on. Why did Spielberg oppose the McDonald's scene?
    • The Casting section is badly worded and confusing, especially the second sentence.
    • The same goes for the Special effects section. Three sentences are used where one would suffice to explain that many puppets were used for Gizmo and they were unreliable.
    • The prose throughout is pedestrian.
    • Many of the referneces link to the wrong footnotes. Many of the references don't seem to be about Gremlins.

In conclusion: it's not ready, it needs work. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I read it in order, the casting section makes more sense. Perhaps it does need tweaking though. RN 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The plot is detailed because much of the information there is necessary to understanding the rest of the article. We need to know who Mrs. Deagle is to understand Ebert's review, we need to know a gremlin got zapped in the microwave to understand PG-13, etc. Spielberg, as far as I am aware, did not oppose the McDonald's scene. The special effects, I thought, was something people would be interested in; it goes beyond the puppets to talk about the giant head. Unreliable how? Information is provided. All references lead to the right footnotes. Perhaps you are confused because the references are combined- thus, "2" appears throughout the article. Many references are not about Gremlins because a search with both JSTOR and Academic Search Premier brings up the articles I used in this article. This article reflects the fullest extent of the academic discussion, which may not be much, but scholarly opinions are important. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Auca

edit

Something I've been working on for awhile, and no, it isn't about welding. Initially there were some NPOV concerns; I believe they have been taken care of. Not too many images here; in response to the peer review, I drew the map, and prior to that I had succeeded in getting the airplane image, but I haven't heard from any of the other people I've contacted. As for references, I've attempted to use as varied a selection of sources as possible, but unfortunately the only sources I've found that include the details of the attacks are works by people related to the missionaries, though one of them is based on Hauorani eyewitness accounts. Comments? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great point. I went through and added a number of links, though for some sections I had trouble finding words worth linking. In some cases, the organizations and schools mentioned were so small that they probably don't warrant their own articles (such as the School of Missionary Medicine), so I haven't linked them. However, I'll try to do more research on some of them to see if they still exist and potentially deserve an article. Thanks for the suggestion! --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I voted quickly before you turn every other word wikilinked ;) IMO, no need to wikilink violence, martyr, chanting and dancing and common words like that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just removed a bunch of frivolous wikilinks - The Catfish 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dates should be linked so that user preferences take effect, as per WP:DATE. Thanks for getting the other ones though. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 05:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Nora (1997)

edit

This minor self-nomination is on behalf of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and all the people who worked on it. This is a Good Article, has been assessed, and covers all information about this hurricane. It meets all of the criteria and deserves to be a featured article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support. One thing that should be fixed is the long storm history. Some parts are a little too long, like the reference to Linda. Also, the writing isn't particularly great. For example, paragraphs shouldn't start with However. "Urged on by a trough to its northwest" also isn't well-written. The impact section should be broken up by area, not by storm effects. Every other storm article has an intro to the impact section, followed by impact by area. All in all, though, good article. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the blurb about Linda and changed the sentence you mentioned from "At landfall, Nora was accelerating, urged on by a trough to its northwest, causing it to cross the peninsula at speeds of up to 30 mph (50 km/h)" to "At landfall, a trough (meteorology)|trough]] was accelerating Nora northwards, causing it to reach a forward speed of up to 30 mph (50 km/h).". Is that better? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes. The impact section should still be separated by area, and the storm history should be shortened a lot, preferably from 7 paragraphs to about 4 paragraphs. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The impact section is now seperated by area. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I still think the storm history should be shortened a few paragraphs. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Storm history section has 457 words in it (excluding captions). Compare this to the FA Hurricane Gloria, which has 479 words in its storm history section (again excluding captions). Nora does have more paragraphs (because they are shorter) but its length by word count is shorter than another hurricane FA's. Should I remove some of the exact measurements? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably it. Could some of the paragraphs be combined? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In storm history, there is now one paragraph on formation, two on the life at sea, and one on landfall and post landfall. I took out one picture to ensure that there wasn't too much crowding of text. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why not? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed all the ones I could see, question though - should nbsps be used in "30 billion dollars"?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say definitely between "30" and "billion". I'm not so sure about between "billion" and "dollars". —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:09 UTC
See WP:DATE#Units_of_measurement. It implies that one should only put &nbsp; before abbreviations of units, but it's not a big deal. Just don't do 30&nbsp;billion&nbsp;dollars, because of how long that is. I wouldn't argue with $30&nbsp;billion though. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks - the MOS is a little ambiguous in that case. I've got all the ones I can see now (may have missed one or two).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Nora was still off the Pacific coast of Mexico when the SMN issued the warnings in the paragraph, and then it hit Baja California, and that's what the sentence is trying to say. I'm trying to think of a way to make that clearer, and I come up empty. :( I'll try to expand the lead more, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

edit

The article has changed very significantly since it was first nominated, rendering many of the objections (most of them filed early) moot. I'm restarting this one. Old nom here. Raul654 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support. There are a lot of one sentence paragraphs, but otherwise, this is an excellent article given the topic. RyanGerbil10 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great example of how wikipedia can cover unusual topics. 08:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - here are my objections which still stand, from the previous nomination, with comments by RN from there also.
    • There's lots here that's not really relevant to the article. For example in the intro, Before Colbert's presentation, Bush mocked himself with the help of a celebrity impersonator, Steve Bridges is a non sequitur with the previous sentence and is hardly something that needs saying in a concise overview of the article.
      • I think the information is indeed relevant to the article, as throughout the article the event is often compared to the bush vs. bush one by the media, so a little context helps here. RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a non sequitur where it is. A bit more explanation should be given there, or better, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro but only in the main text. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed, it's already duplicated now, I'll remove it from the intro and only mention it to note the difference in audience reaction between Colbert's and Bridge's performances. --kizzle 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Early press coverage', 'Media blackout' and 'Praise and criticism' all deal with the same thing, and organisation is a problem here. You could substantially trim what's here because much of it takes the form 'On such-and-such a date, so-and-so said this'. You need to have a paragraph with an illustrative brief quote which explains the point of view behind the quote, rather than just giving a slightly random list of who said what, when.
  • still Object This line needs reworked and prices need to totally go away, it's advertising: "On May 20th, 2006 Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner became the #1 download ($1.99) at the iTunes Music Store and #6 at Audible.com. C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." " Rlevse 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One could do this, but it may be just a style change - I'm unsure if one would want to trim anything here :). RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why the prices are mentioned is not to advertise, but to give context to the fact that only a couple thousand DVDs were sold while somehow the much-cheaper online version became the top seller at iTunes. I tried to remove the prices and put a qualifier at the end, but it felt like original research because I had no one to specifically quote that that was the reason behind the difference in sales. Thus, lets just make sure the readers know the difference in prices and let them come to their own conclusions, but the vast difference between the C-Span DVD (24.99) and iTunes download (1.99) definetely should be mentioned. --kizzle 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • copies of a DVD of the event, priced at $24.95 - the price is irrelevant and looks like advertising. There's also still a link to the C-SPAN store. We shouldn't be promoting or advertising. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the DVD price is removed, and the citation needed tag(s) are gone. Otherwise, a fine article. If my requests aren't met, consider this an objection. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support incredibly well referenced and is a different type of article, wiki needs more like this. As mentioned above it needs the 1 sentance paras worked out of it.--Childzy 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further opposition brought from old nom:
    • This article presents facts without enough context to make them meaningful. To wit: 24 words and a footnote about people thanking Colbert en masse without explaining why they were thanking him or what they were thanking him for. Further to wit: Not knowing the history of the word balls as Colbert's catch-word or whatever makes the Daily Show reference uninformative
    • This article is bloated with overuse of direct quotes from sources where they are not warranted.
      • C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." (and why give the cost?)
      • why the Washington Post's article about the dinner "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say,"
        • Urm, it says right after the quote, doesn't it :)? I agree that wording needs to be tweaked slightly though :). RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The information is justifiable. My point is that "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say" is a wordy way of saying "did not cover Colbert's performance" or something that effect. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Google searches for "Colbert", "Stephen Colbert", "Colbert Bush", and "Colbert dinner" don't really need to be listed -- none of those are surprising and are perfectly predictable. That doesn't give any more information than just "surge in Colbert-related searches"
        • I lightly disagree with this - we're trying to show it was an "internet sensation" and this helps it - just saying that cspan hits went up probably isn't enough. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has been significantly improved in this regard, but I still see a number of direct quotes that are unnecessary. Compare:
        • Calame said the fact that the Colbert speech had been mentioned in a later article "didn't explain why Mr. Colbert didn't make The Times in the first place". - this is perfectly ordinary, straightforward English that could easily be reworded.
        • CBC columnist Heather Mallick wrote, "Colbert had the wit and raw courage to do to Bush what Mark Antony did to Brutus, murderer of Caesar. As the American media has self-destructed, it takes Colbert to damn Bush with devastatingly ironic praise." or even Colbert's performance "landed with a thud" among the live audience - both are idiomatic and expressive quotes that could not easily reworded.
    • Many paragraphs are longer than they need to be. e.g. Time columnist Ana Marie Cox called.... Neither of those quotes are particularly useful in and of themselves. That could easily be trimmed without losing anything: "Cox called the allegations of a deliberate blackout a "fake controversy" because Colbert's performance got coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major wire services. Fellow commentator Kurtz concurred, noting that he had played two clips on his own CNN show, and the video was carried on CSpan and available online." (not meant to be an exact suggestion) This does not lose any information, presents and connects all the relevant opinions, without original research. (I don't agree that "I didn't get the memo" needs to be a quote; it's not very illustrative and may be difficult to understand for people who aren't native English speakers. But I can live with it.)
      • While you are right that it doesn't lose much information - I don't really see it as improving anything. Rather, it seems like a change from a more immediate direct quoting style to a more passive one. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not appropriate to quote a source unless quoting is necessary to impart information to the reader. There's no reason this can't be summed up in our own words. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many sections of the article read like random jumbles of facts.
      • Chicago Sun-Times TV Critic Doug Elfman... exclusive rights to retransmit the video. (these two sentences share a paragraph despite a lack of any explicit connection between them, AFAICT)
    • Aside from the lead, there is virtually no introductory text. The sections are largely laundry lists of direct quotes, and are not in WP:SS. This objection is actionable and is fixable without including original research. For example, take "Allegations of a media blackout".
      • Take one paragraph to summarize who alleged a media blackout, and why they believed it. This would not be original research because is merely restating the cited opinions expressed by others.
      • Take another paragraph to explain the opinions of those who deny the media blackout.
      • Create a section for the allegations and one for the denial. In each, restate briefly at the beginning why people believe what they do. Then give the details of who exactly believes what and why.
      • That section has been well-fixed, and much of the rest of the article has been cleaned up significantly too. Do the same kind of thing to "Praise and criticism for Colbert", and put a sentence or two introducing "Early press coverage". Tuf-Kat 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clips of Colbert’s comic "tribute" remove the scare quotes over tribute; probably just change the word "tribute" to "comic performance" or something. Tuf-Kat 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed the scare quotes. However, the article already uses the word "performance" 18 times; "tribute" only appears 4 times. -- Brian.fsm
  • Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three things:

#I agree about the non-sequiteur in the first paragraph - maybe integrate it into the first section on the performance?

#The price has to go. It adds nothing to the article and looks like advertising.

#Comedians don't "play" events. They perform at them. Al Franken didn't "play" the dinner twice, he performed at it twice.

Other than that, as before, I'm an enthusiastic support for a great article. The amount of effort that's been put into dealing with the various objections brought up is very impressive. Cheers!The Disco King 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously. --kizzle 16:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Startlingly well-balanced and NPOV for an article on a polarizing subject. Talk page indicates a high degree of collegiality and civility amongst editors. The subject might not be the most important in the world, but to my knowledge that's not a factor for FA. The quality of the article is an example of how Wikipedia should approach articles on controversial pundits. Kasreyn 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken (struck?) my complaints above, as they have all been dealt with, so I'll just reaffirm my support. Cheers! The Disco King 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several people above who have objected solely on the basis of the price being include with the C-Span DVD... since that has been rectified, could you please change your vote to support? Thanks :) --kizzle 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It was freedom of speech in it's worst hour. A captive audience, sneering insults right in the face of a sitting President, he might as well have just stood up there and said "Fuck you, Mr. President". But the article is well written and Colbert is a zero of a comedian...he's about as funny as pink eye.--MONGO 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in other words, you weren't a fan ;) --kizzle 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, the greatest amusement was not Colbert's outrageous performance, but the reactions of the audience. The performance wasn't aimed at Bush. If you thought it was aimed at Bush, you missed the point entirely. Remember, Colbert is playing a satirical character. His remarks may have been about Bush, but they were aimed at the people he was facing - the White House press corps. And by the uncomfortable expressions on many of their faces, it appears they took the point quite well. (Helen Thomas up on on the dais, by comparison, was practically cackling with glee at their discomfiture.) It amazes me that they didn't tar and feather him. Kasreyn 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support pending removal or resolution of the last "citation needed". I have the feeling that this article is at a local maximum: little changes one way or another won't make it noticeably better (though somebody could go through and make the footnote/period placement consistent all the way through, nag nag). A massive reorganization might make it really great, but that's like saying changing lots of notes in "Hollaback Girl" will give you "Hey Jude". In other words, it's not necessarily a meaningful statement. Anville 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Comprehensiveness. The one thing that I think this article really needs is some context. If you could add an introductory section (in the article, after the lead) that brings some more context to the issue, that would be enough to change my vote to support. Describing more what the event was supposed to be about (I understand that another comedian was also invited; was having a comedy night the purpose of the dinner?), stating some facts well known today but potentially not well known in the future, such as that this is Bush's second term, all time low approval ratings, etc. This contextual information doesn't need to be very in depth (so long as it links to other articles), but I believe strongly that it needs to be there. Fieari 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fieari makes a good point here, with very good examples. This should be done before featured status is granted. As another example, reference should be made to reports of Bush as insulated and of his aides normally shielding him from criticism - there are several newspaper articles that have discussed this, and it provides significant context. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding context where appropriate, but I think an introductory sentence is the wrong way to go here. In fact, I might change my vote to oppose if one was added. Such sections inevitably become crufty and repetitive. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but after some serious thought on the subject, I still can't bring myself to say this article is ready for featured, for the following reasons:
    • 1) Context and comprehensiveness, per Fieari's objections in part. This article should have information about the nature of the event where the speech occured, as well as Colbert's character from The Report. Also, there's really no serious discussion of Colbert performance as comedy, despite the fact more than a few sources have written about his unique satirical style.
    • 2) Some citations lead to unacceptable sources. The in-line cite for "his jokes were mostly met with awkward silence" leads to a blog entry by a self-described "teenage fangirl" watching the event on c-span (because Stephen Colbert is "hot"). Newshound is apparently a self-published, anti-FOX blog.
    • 3) Some quotes are used misleadingly, like Richard Cohen's criticism of Colbert, which was actually a bit more substantial than saying Colbert was "lame", "rude" and "a bully". The way Brian Calame is quoted also seems misrepresentative, even to the point of being possibly disingenuous.
    • 4) Prose which falls short of "compelling, even brilliant", with excessive use of scare quotes, some disjointedness, and quotes that don't add anything essential to the article (like saying so-and-so called Colbert "unfunny" and "bad"). I do appreciate that this article is improving. However, I think right now it's still being edited heavilly, and it shouldn't be up for featured just yet. Greater stability than this is probably needed to achieve the compelling prose criterion. And techinically, stability is a requirement too. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since our (probable) goal here is to raise the quality of the article to that of featured status, as with any other article, why don't you make some edits that help put the article in tune with your objections? Looking back at the last 500 edits on the article, it has basically been RN, Brian, and me answering objections on this page by people who haven't touched the article at all or not in a while. I'm not sure how you would accomplish #1 without delving into original research, as I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's duty to evaluate and analyze the efficacy of Colbert's humor. Colbert's character has been plenty explained in The Colbert Report, which is linked to almost immediately in the article's beginning. If you find any citations that lead to unacceptable sources, please just take 5 minutes to google new ones, or remove the citation and put a "citation needed" flag up on the sentence, as your request shouldn't take longer than 10 minutes. For #3, if you believe that Cohen's criticism was mischaracterized, please rephrase it to better reflect his opinions on the matter. Finally, since you have provided no specific examples of scare quotes, disjointedness, and only one example of extraneous quotes, why don't you just go through the article once and do a quick copyedit to make it flow how you would like it to read. I look forward to seeing your edits which might make this article featured sometime soon :) --kizzle 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our "probable" goal is to rasie the quality of the article? Try to assume good faith. :) With regards to discussion of Colbert's comedy, I see you've asked variants of this question before, and I'm sorry I haven't been around to chime in. It is quite possible to include criticism of Colbert's speech as a piece of humor. Please check out some articles in featured status on the movies, or major written works. Criticism isn't automatically original research; just find reasonably good sources and cite your critics. You've already applied the process to discuss opinions about the media's reaction and the newsworthiness of the event. That process needs to be applied to a criticism section related to Colbert's humor specifically, which is extremely revelant to this piece. As for Colbert's character, I'm not saying you need to reinvent the Report article, but this article currently mentions that the speech was given in the Report character, without a word of explanation as to what that means. This article must assume that the audience is not automatically familiar with the character. Wikilinking exists to allow the reader to explore related topics as they see fit, but articles are supposed to stand alone. A short explanation of what it means to perform in this character is warranted. Also, you haven't said anything about the request for context regarding the nature of the event; but I'll re-iterate that I think that's pretty much essential background too.
Finally, on your invitation to fix what I see wrong with this article -- respectfully, I must decline. I appreciate that you're using this page as I guideline to try and fix up the article, but let us not forget that this is primarilly a consensus-building discussion on whether or not this article is ready to be featured as-is. As it happens I don't have the time or the ambition right now to tackle the revisions necessary to this article, but I did feel I had to make it clear that serious objections still exist to this article's featured status. I stopped giving specifics about halfway through my above list of objections mostly because the list was getting dreadfully long. Since these long diatribes really have a way of breaking up the page, I'll clarify any objection you want in the order you're interested in dealing with them. But point one is substantial enough to qualify a serious "object", in my estimation. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, I meant (probable) in the sense exactly what you said, not that you didn't want it to see gain featured status, but that you didn't have time to do it yourself. I think there is plenty of criticism of Colbert's humor in the piece (did you read Cox's piece? Yikes!), I don't think anyone else is pointing to a lack of NPOV as the problem getting this article to featured status, but rather the quality of the prose the article uses. Subsequently, I can't understand for the life of me what is preventing you to simply make a 5 minute pass, adding, contextualizing, and editing what you see as bad prose and make it into good prose. Just spend 5 minutes, one non-minor edit, and I'll be happy. I don't think that's too much to ask. For instance, your point about Colbert's character is a good one, I'm going to try and make the change now, and I expect it should take me about 2 minutes to make a stab at it. Just a little bit of effort is all I ask rather than simply pointing out easily rectifiable flaws and leaving Brian, RN, and me to do it. --kizzle 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objectors are under no obligation to fix any part of the articles they comment on. It is the burden of people who want the article to become featured to make the necessary changes. Tuf-Kat 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Read my comment as more of a friendly appeal rather than citing some obligation, especially considering the good work Lee has already put into the article. --kizzle 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kizzle, I know this is an annoying response, but I'm honestly not interested in editing this article any more than I already have, at least not for the moment. I may jump in at later junction. And anyway, I haven't had time to go through the massive list of citations for this article and individually evalute each one, so I've offered up an examples of how some citations are problematic. I could fix the one's I spotted easilly, and declare the problem solved, but that would be taking the five second out rather than carefully going down the list and examining each individual source for this article, which probably should have been done before this article went up for featured. In any case, my edting habits are probably a subject more suited to my talk page. If it makes you feel any better, if those 2-second citation fixes still need doing after my more substantial objections to this artcle are addressed, I'll gladly take care of it. :)
Meanwhile, with regard to the queston of criticism of Colbert, I don't mean the "two thumbs down" kind of criticism. I mean specific critical discussion. Cox's piece is primarilly attacking the mentallity of people defending Colbert. It doesn't say anything of substance about the humor itself. I agree that you've quoted some people who have opinions about whether or not Colbert was "unfunny", but mostly these remarks aren't substantial with regards to the Colbert's humor. Colbert is a comedian who was hired to do comedy at political function. This claims to be an article about his performance, but the best you could really figure out from this article is that Colbert made some jokes about Bush which were maybe out of line, maybe not. Discussion of Colbert's comedy as comedy should be at least as relevant as reporting on Colbert's comedy as political action, but for some reason, no one here seems to be interesting in writing about this angle. Still needs doing. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not annoying, not all of us have free time :) Just when you get some free time I'd value your contributions to the page. --kizzle 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee, it's not that some of your criticisms aren't valid. By for those of us who have been working with you since this article was but a wee stub of the Stephen Colbert article, I think it seems that you have an entirely different vision for the article, and you want other people to write that article for you. I point to your comments here, here, and here.
As for "discussion of Colbert's comedy as comedy," I've read everything I came across about Colbert & the dinner and have seen nothing on this topic that isn't already included.
Regarding the TV Squad cite -- TV Squad is notable enough, I think, for the fairly benign claim that Colbert's jokes were met with silence (which Colbert himself admitted on his show). Feester ranks it #3 on its list of important blogs. It is one of the top 10,000 web sites according to Alexa, and is ranked higher than many daily newspapers. Annie Wu, who wrote the article, is ranked #8 on the TV Squad site and appears to be their primary writer on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Also, TV Squad is a site dedicated to TV, and this was an event broadcast on TV, so it does seem a relevant source. -- Brian.fsm 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus (moon)

edit

I belive that for it's excelence in acurately describing Saturn's Moon, that this article should be a Featured Article. It is clear that there has been much research into this article, that it is extensive and among the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Tuvas 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Sorry, but this is too technical for a non-scientific individual (like me) to get through. The language should be edited to make it more readable by a broad audience. Also, there's somthing wrong with the footnotes - why is the first one an 8? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what your refering to with the first footnote being #8. I'm seeing it just as would be expected, the first one being 1. ^ a b Celestia Solar System Definition File. Retrieved March 22, 2006.
I understand now, the first seven footnotes are in the infobox. A bit confusing; is there any way to address that? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no, that's how this system works. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If all that info is mentioned later in the article, then you could just cite it there, in the body text—it's doesn't necessarily have to be cited in the infobox. Everyking 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this issue, if you want, you can use {{Ref label}} like Rabindranath Tagore uses. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Full Support. RyanGerbil10 15:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's almost there, but there's still a little work to be done. The lead section neads to be longer, and the named surface features section needs to be expanded and converted to prose. Perhaps the article is a bit complex for non-scientific people, as well, but that's hard for me to deduce because I'm a very technical person and I understand everything. But I'll take the guy's word for it above. bob rulz 22:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to clean up some of the technical language contained within the article. I guess one problem with working on this subject is that it is a bit difficult for me to distinguish technical language from non-technical. After a re-reading, I have replaced some of the less need technical language with less technical wording. In some places, technical language is used, but is quickly explained for the general audience. I have expanded, a bit, the section on named features. This section is usually standard stuff in most planetary articles, and is rarely expanded upon. I'm not sure how this can be made further into prose, or expanded. I've edited the Cryovolcanism section to make sure that the points that are most important points are not buried deep within the prose of that section. Finally, I have edited some of the imports from the French FA to make them fit with the style of the rest of the article.--Volcanopele 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now as the article was changed. Oppose :( Sorry, but it's not quite there yet:
  • The lead must be expanded per WP:LEAD
  • A few sections must be added based on French article that is already FA.
  • Some pics must be enlarged and some added (like this one)

Overall, this article deserves FA but needs further work. A lot of extra info can come from French article. I'm gonna put this one on my to-do. Drop in my user talk if interested. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deferred support. This article has the makings of greatness, but needs to have everything that's in the French article. Prose problems mentioned above seem largely to be the result of too-literal translations of French ("Chronology of Exploration of Enceladus" might work OK in French, but is rather awkward in English. And who exactly decided the French adjective terrestre was best rendered as "Earth-located"? They should be smacked over the head with a copy of LaRousse.

I will be going through this later to try and smooth out some of the post-translation problems. But I think we should put off promoting this until, as per WP:ECHO we have everything the French article does. Daniel Case 21:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who exactly decided the French adjective terrestre was best rendered as "Earth-located"? Me. And I have a hard head, so go for the Larousse. :)))
I'm sure there is a bunch of things like that left on the page, but that was a first version, and like I said on the talkpage, it needs to be copyedited
needs to have everything that's in the French article. Yes, yes, and yes. However, the section named "Cryovolcanism" is in fact two section in the French version, and they're quite difficult to split. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"needs to have everything in the French article" I should add to grafikm_fr's comments on this issue. In the French article, there is a section on Enceladus' "atmosphere". I believe such a section is now completely unneccessary and is not needed in this article. The atmosphere found in early 2005 was later found to be a volcanic plume, a plume that is fully covered in the cryovolcanism section. Now my French is admittedly a little weak (despite four years of it in high school...), but I think we have sufficiently covered what is said in the French "atmosphere" section. I don't see the need for covering the details of the UVIS stellar occultations.Volcanopele 23:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are a professional astronomer working on the subject, I believe you :))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean to add that that section was probably redundant (in fact, the French article could be cleared up on that score).
I like what I'm seeing more now (I appreciate someone noticing, and changing, the commas in numbers to decimal points. Only remaining issue: consistency of unit and system use. There are sentences where "kilometers" and "km" are used within words of each other. All references should be to km.
Also, in some places English equivalents are given in parentheses. Our stylebook, however, says SI only should be used in scientific articles. This seems to be how it's done in the other articles on Saturn's moons, and I believe it should be done thus here. Unless someone has a good reason otherwise. Daniel Case 16:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted kilometer references to km (except in the lead section) and convert the prose part to SI only.--Volcanopele 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I don't believe it's too technical. I do think it's a little heavy on images, and as a result, the formatting goes a little awry in places. I would think that, for example, one of either Figure 2a or 2b could go without losing anything. --BillC 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me now. Changed to support. BillC 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC). Add: I see that something's a little amiss around Name & Exploration of Enceladus. I'll assume someone will fix that. BillC 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination would be to drop 2b since the format of that image doesn't fit with the style of the rest of figures used in the article.--Volcanopele 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All great. Support! Worldtraveller 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Oppose, though more on style grounds than on on the article's contents which look excellent. I hope these things can be corrected because I'd like to support.[reply]
    • Length is a bit of a concern at 49kb - try to summarise a bit more. Mercury (planet) is 35kb long and is a featured article so it can certainly be done.
    • Please capitalise section headings in accordance with the style manual.
    • Aesthetic issues - Image:Enceladus orbit 2.jpg covers a region extending well beyond Enceladus's orbit, which appears as empty black space on the small inline version. Could the image be cropped? Also, image placement in the orbit section is cluttered. Over the whole article, several different image widths are used - generally, you should try to use just one common image width.
    • Named surface features is very short, and doesn't read terribly well with repeated mentions of 'Arabian Nights'.
    • 'Name' section is very short, and could be merged with the history of observations section following it.
    • Nothing wrong with citing a paper you've authored or co-authored (I cited one of mine on Cat's Eye Nebula), but I am not sure if citing your own work so many times is desirable - about half the inline citations seem to be to papers co-authored by User:Volcanopele, one of the main contributors to the article. I think this makes the selection of sources seem a little narrow. This may or may not be something that concerns other editors though. Worldtraveller 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments:
  • Perhaps 'Named surface features' and 'Name' can be combined. Still wouldn't make for a very long section, but IMHO is most desireable. There really isn't a way to lengthen 'Named Surface Features' without even more redundances.
  • The length has always been a concern for me as well, but I admittedly have had trouble decided how to condense the material in the main article so as to put the information in a daughter article. A few sections that could be condensed (and would make perfect sense to condense), would probably be the 'Cryovolcanism' and 'Exploration of Enceladus' sections, I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
  • As to being a co-author on a few of the cited papers, unfortunately there isn't much alternative. The ISS paper on Enceladus is a primary resource for information on Enceladus geology and cryovolcanism as seen by Cassini, there are no alternatives to this. I would understand if I had a paper that discussed a small sub-set of Enceladus science, then cited that paper for basic facts. But as it is, I don't see any alternative citations (except perhaps citing press releases if possible).
  • Section capitalization fixed
  • The image issue has come up before. My first inclination is to remove Figure 2b, but I have just implimented a possible solution. I've enlarged (or shrunk) all images to 250 px wide. This improves their visibility per a reviewer's request above. I have moved and shrunk Figure 2b (now Figure 14) down the 'Interaction with E ring' section, where I think it fits in a better, and with its current size, allows the article to flow better. The issue with Figure 2a, can be resolved by cropping it down to just beyond Dione's orbit, which is mentioned in the article. This should fix that objection.
Thanks for such detailed comments. These really help and hopefully with the fixed I have just added and will add tomorrow, I can change your object vote to a support vote.--Volcanopele 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response - further comments of mine:
  • I think merging those two sections would be great.
  • You may find that addressing any concerns about technical language could also help to shorten the article. One part I found that was perhaps over-technical involved the designations of the types of cratered terrain - these designations probably aren't of great interest to a non-astronomer and the section outlining them could be somewhat shortened by omitting them and just saying that there are terrains of varying ages.
  • As for papers, much better to cite peer-reviewed papers than press releases - my concern was not really anything serious but just something I thought might perhaps be undesirable. If alternative citations do not exist, then no problems!
  • Something I just noticed: Crater counts using Cassini images have suggested ages for Sarandib Planitia of either 170 million years or 3.7 billion years - surely the latter age is a mistake?
  • Image placement looks much better now.
  • Once the orbit image is cropped and the two short sections dealt with I will certainly support this nomination. Worldtraveller 15:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The orbit image has been cropped and the 'Name' and 'Named surface features' sections have been merged. Regarding the age estimates, currently there are two different theories regarding the impactor flux in the outer solar system. When you apply these theories to the craters counts found by Cassini, you arrive at two vastly different answers. For now, there is no consense on which theory is correct so, both are included here, though I have added a note to explain this difference.--Volcanopele 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the differences should be noted within the text rather than as a note? Even I was puzzled by it, and I know a lot about astronomy. bob rulz 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-4 Phantom II

edit

Considerably rewritten and expanded, addressing all concerns raised in the Peer Review and previous FAC attempt and more. A detailed overview of history and service of this Cold War icon. This is a self-nom of sorts as I am the primary contributor to the current revision. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a great article on great fighter. Just two points from me:

  • Is it possible to have a table of contents please? Those list-like entries are kinda creepy :)
  • I would appreciate a section/paragraph/whatever on the Wild Weasel variant. If memory serves, these aircraft were completely "undressed" and modified in order to be converted. Plus, it is a role which is slightly different.
  • I'm not convinced by "comparable aircraft"... Mig-21 is 2 times lighter and much smaller than the F-4, so while they may fulfill similar roles (just as all fighters do, they're not really in the same category). Just a thought, maybe I'm wrong so I don't insist :)

Overall, a great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I went to the list-like entries because the TOC was gigantic. I think this is much tidier. The Wild Weasel is discussed briefly in the Gulf War section and I made it a separate bullet in the variants summary. All variants are covered in more detail in F-4 Phantom II variants. In truth, there was nothing directly comparable to the Phantom when it came out. MiG-21 and EE Lightning were the closest in mission and performance. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object:

  • The "Operators" section is redundant with the entire "Phantom in foreign service" section, no? I can't see any reason to give the same list of countries twice.
  • Footnote 6 seems misplaced. I'm assuming it's meant to apply to the entire section; but footnotes are usually placed after the relevant material.

Other than that, great article! Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, support from me now! Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article, but I object until formatting and a few other issues are fixed. This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers. In the first level 2 section, use perhaps "Origins", "Testing and production", and "Records". Also, no bold outside of the first sentence of the lead please. Citations follow punctuation,[1] like this.[2] As for units, I've fixed the lead to comply with WP:MoS, try to make the rest similar (abbreviate only the conversion, and use &nbsp; between the number and the abbreviation). "Contemporary United States dollars" needs to be defined (what year was the book published that says those numbers?). Also, the F-4 in fiction section is lackluster; anything to add there or can it just be removed? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will work on making those improvements. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all of your recommendations. Please re-evaluate and comment. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, but I think there are now too many subsections (the table of contents is quite long considering the size of the article). Perhaps the subsections for each individual country could be changed to subsections for each region (Europe, Asia, Middle East, Australia), and a few of the subsections in the development section should be combined. Is there a way to combine Nicknames and The Spook? They're both short and somewhat related, but I can't think of a good section name that would cover both of them at the moment. Also, there is still alot of bold within the prose; that needs to be removed. If something needs emphasis, use italics, but it's almost always unnecessary. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Related content" should be renamed "See also" and moved above the references as per WP:MOSHEAD. Its subsections should be eliminated as well. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason why I was using bold words rather than == tags which produced a very compact TOC. Then you came in and expanded it back. Now you don't like it. Please make up your mind. The TOC is an optional element and can be turned off if users don't like it, so I would prefer to stop messing with the headings altogether. Check the box in your Preferences if it bothers you. Combining sections and compromising clarity and organization for the sake of shrinking the TOC is an absolute no go. The Spook, the nicknames, and all the separate countries are distinct elements and should not be clumped together because Wiki TOCs suck. I'll work on the bold text. The Related content section is per WP:Air MOS, template-encoded, and will stay. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I think the use of bold is appropriate to highlight the first mention of a new variant or a special project. It improves legibility and makes it easy to find the appropriate text segment by quickly scanning the page. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been perfectly consistent. I said "This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers." You turned all your bold headers into subsections, and now complain that I'm having difficulty making up my mind. Did I miss something? The TOC is visible to virtually all users, and must concisely note the key components of the article. Level three sections that are only several lines long are not key components. Everything I have suggested is in line with WP:MOS and is identical to what I suggest on all articles that look like this. And please take a look at WP:CON; terms like "absolute" and "will stay" have no place around here, especially when the things they refer to are not commonly accepted practice. Since my opinions are apparently not of any more use to you, I'll quit commenting unless you ask on my talk page for more input. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shrink the TOC again. Your other recommendations contradict the consensus-derived WP:Air MoS, which differs from the general WP:MoS in order to provide better subject-specific coverage. As for "absolutely," I stand by my words -- it makes no sense to collapse distinct sections of text into a run-on heap for the sake of a shorter TOC. Sorry I upset you and thanks for your feedback -- it is sincerely appreciated even if not followed to the T. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overall a very well done article. Coffeeboy 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support My only suggestion for improvement to this excellent article is that the 'Phantom in foreign service' section be re-named 'Phantom in non-US service' to remove a minor US bias (though the F-4 is, of course, an American designed and built aircraft which was used in the largest numbers by the US military) --Nick Dowling 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I'll implement it. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun people

edit

After months of editing the article and getting lots of input from various editors, I thought it was time to see if the article could be accepted as a featured article. It contains extensive information, references throughout, and is written with neutrality in mind.

I added extensive information to the culture section including sections on language, literature, poetry, performance arts (including dances, music, and films) with copious citations. Tombseye 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it now. It's a huge topic, so I'm fine with so many subsections. I'll go out on a limb and Support. RyanGerbil10 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Per summary style, when you link to another article containing more information, you still need to place a summary of that article in the main one. In this case, the Culture main heading needs to be a summary, where currently it is nothing but a link. Furthermore, the lead should be expanded to at least three paragraphs, as per WP:LEAD. Fieari 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Thanks for your great observations. Please let me know what you think of the changes. Ciao. Tombseye 09:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Object -- There are too many subsection. Merge small subsections under a parent section and summarise the same. A copyedit is also reqd. eg. It states simply that if your father is not a Pashtun, neither are you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism noted. I'm going to copyedit the page and I've eliminated 2 subsections, while keeping the rest as it is no bigger than another featured article Tamil people, which I've been using as a kind of inspiration of sorts. And the subject is a pretty big one that can't easily be parcelled out to other articles. I'll do what I can though. Thanks. Tombseye 18:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, copyediting done. Shouldn't be any more problems. Cheers. Tombseye 19:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The heading titles need to be more terse: eg. Who is a Pashtun? can be changed to Definition; Pashtunwali, the traditional code of honor --> Pashtunwali and so on. 7.1 can be eliminated and history can be summarised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, very good suggestions. I changed the titles that were too long and simply rendered the last section as women as per your suggestion. I left the history and origins section as it has some things that are fairly specific in what they describe. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Tombseye 16:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more suggestions: 1) 'and/or' could be changed to either one; 2) soccer is not the commonly used term there. For the first instance use football (soccer), use football from then on. 3) I have a problem with this: ...ways akin to Christmas celebrations in the West -- comparison. Avoid comparisons that are tailored for specific audiences. Instead, focus on the magnitude of the celebrations. 4) Pathans were known be be money-lenders , and traders in dry fruits in India. can this be added? 5) Afghan Women's Network and Aurat Foundation needs to be wikified. Inform me once this is done and the fair-use pic status is clarified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made good changes suggested. I don't think we can add info. on Pathans in India more than we have as that would be outside the scope of this article which is about Pashtuns who speak Pashto (and I know many have moved to India historically) today. Probably another article on Pathans in India/South Asia would more appropriate, but I have tried to at least mention the Pathans of India/eastern Pakistan as much as was possible. I have wikified both the AWN and Aurat Foundation. The pictures will be up as soon as I talk to Khoikhoi on the matter and get thigns resolved, hopefully with Steve McCurry's manager. Thanks. Tombseye 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just heard from McCurry's manager who says that his pictures CANNOT be used at wikipedia, so the Afghan girl is sadly now gone. Will talk to Khoikhoi regarding other images. Cheers. Tombseye 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of trying to get permission to use the picture. I contacted the photographer and he may allow it's use according to his manager. If it's not allowed, then it'll be changed. Thanks. Tombseye 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very well written! =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - Make sure all images have fair use rationales and sources. Judgesurreal777 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to use Mr. Pathan in the article, but the article is more or less about Pashtuns who speak Pashto, rather than about Pathans (sometimes the same people and sometimes not depending upon context as the article explains). He would be a great addition to an article on the Pathans in India/eastern Pakistan though. Also, as Nichal is alluding to, some people claim Pashtun descent and thus his ties to the Pashtuns can't really be verified unless he happens to speak Pashto as well. If it's the case that he speaks Pashto, I'd be glad to add his picture though as it doesn't matter where he resides etc. Oh and sentence has been fixed. Thanks! Tombseye 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for fixing the sentence. Regarding Pathan, I wasn't aware of the extent of inclusion. Even in Tamil people, we only made a single mention about descendants of "tamil people" who no longer speak the language. Perhaps we need to mention specific people like Chitty there. Pashtun shall inspire us to improve that article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks man. Tamil people being the only featured article on an ethnic group pretty much made your article the one to compare to! Tombseye 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2006&oldid=441900997"