Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2007

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

September 2007

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

The article was promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Israel

edit

(Self-nomination) This article has undergone a heck of a lot of changes since the beginning of July and I am now confident the article is ready for its close-up. It meets every criteria for featured article status (I know this sounds self-promoting, but I have to say it), detailing the State of Israel and its history, government, economy, demographics, and culture (and more). The simages complement the written content of the article as they depict a variety of aspects of Israel. Israel evokes a few hot-button issues in some parts of the world today, but this article has been able to settle down and largely remain quiet (albeit not without tribulation along the way). The prose is great compelling astronomically superb and deserves to be among the ranks of such iconic articles as exploding whale. -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have wasted hours – and most certainly days – of my life over the past few months attempting to bring this article up to featured status. I have endured frivolous attacks of POV, claims of ownership, and repetitive insults on my writing abilities – all while I myself have graciously undid the mistakes of others and otherwise did my best to contribute to the article. But I'm sick and tired of this now. I'm no Israeli, no Palestinian, no Arab, and no Jew. I'm not here for anybody or anything, no cause expect to prove that some of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia can also become some of the best. But alas, this is all a pipe dream. Indeed, this article has improved as a result of many good-faith comments here, but I can no longer support an article that has been, and I'm sure will continually be, assaulted by those whose idea of a good article amounts only to one that promotes their agenda. I have better things to do with my life than wrangle with people who think everyone but them is biased. Shalom. -- tariqabjotu 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fewer people than you imagine think everyone other than themselves is biased, Tariq. But apparently more people than I imagine consider all of their actions in undoing the efforts of others to have been done graciously. Tegwarrior 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even know what I'm talking about, Teg. I was not talking about reverting other people; I was talking about fixing grammar and citation errors. You're beginning to cross the line between a mere POV warrior and a troll; at this point, the prospect of anyone taking you seriously is infinitesimally small. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to be credited for graciously correcting grammar and citation errors, with no mind paid to concurrent instances of your revert-happy episodes? I must admit that I tend to be the hero of all the stories I tell, too. ;-) Tegwarrior 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Comments on what I've read so far:

  • The numerous links in the lead following the mention of "overall human development" are unecessary. Two of those links actually talk about economic freedom.
  • Jews living in the Diaspora have aspired over the ages to return to the Land of Israel and Zion. The link to Zion seems to indicate that it refers to the Land of Israel. Is it uncessary to include both, or am I missing some subtle distinction?
  • Arab opposition to the plan culminated in the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish defense organization known as the Haganah, from which the Irgun and Lehi split off. It reads as if Arab opposition culminated in the formation of Jewish defense groups; consider rewording.
  • In 1982, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to destroy the bases from which the Palestine Liberation Organization launched terror attacks against the northern part of Israel. The wikilink to the intervention doesn't match up with this statement, neither about the cause of intervention nor the actions of the Israelis. Consider clarification.
  • The caption under the picture of Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shaking hands seems to indicate they signed the Oslo accords, while the text indicates otherwise. Need to clarify.
  • Not entirely sure about this issue, but I will raise it. This website [1] is an Israeli government website. If the material supported uncontroversial facts such as economic statistics, that would generally be ok. But historical information? I would be a little uncomfortable. Suggest finding alternate sources. Recurring dreams 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to your points in order:
  • I removed the two superfluous links.
  • As far as I know, they're basically the same place. In my opinion, Zion needs to be mentioned somewhere to provide the context of the concept of Zionism. Would an or instead of an and between the two places make it clearer that these are talking about the same place?
  • I've reworded this in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the sentence.
  • The link seems appropriate to me; it links to an article about both the actions of the Israelis and the cause of the intervention.
  • I have altered the caption to remove the incorrect statement.
  • I disagree. The website is used to refer to the history of the region well prior to the State of Israel. I honestly do not believe the conflict of interest extends that far back. -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with your reasoning on the website (you would know more about the reliability of the sources than I do). Bu with the link to the 1982 Lebanon War: the statement in Israel article reads as if it was small scale retaliation at Palestinian forces, while the main page says it was a full scale occupation that involved fighting against numerous countries. I'm not trying to introduce any bias, but as a first time reader of the history of Israel the discrepancy between the two pages was jarring. Otherwise, I offer my support. Recurring dreams 03:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Zion" usually means Jerusalem. It's one of the city's many names. okedem 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - Overall, great article! Seems comprehensive, well-written, properly sourced, and is of an appropriate length. However, I'd suggest getting rid of some of the wikilinks as the sea of blue makes the article unreadable at times. See Only make links that are relevant to the context. This article definitely has more significant items to link than many articles due to its broad nature. Having said this, it is still over wikilinked. Here are some examples of wikilinks that should be eliminated: judge, jury, civil rights, freedom (political), square mile, square kilometer, fruit, vegetables, drug, software, etc. And that was me quickly going through two sections. Take a look at the rest and get rid of everyday words that are linked. Also, don't over wikilink the same items multiple times in the article. Traditionally, the first time is sufficient although there may be cases where it may be appropriate to do it more than once. For example, Egypt is linked about 6 times. It is notoriously difficult to get controversial articles to FA status; so, if you do it, consider it a great accomplishment! I'm sure there will be somebody who thinks the article doesn't meet NPOV standards (that is, it doesn't meet his or her personal POV), but I personally couldn't find much bias in it. -Bluedog423Talk 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ummm, that seems like a contradiction." No, it's not... there were a few extra links that we could do without, but, in my opinion, there weren't so many that they hurt the article or qualified as a "sea of blue" or "[made] the article unreadable at times". The distinction was the degree to which it was a problem, but ultimately it's not a big deal to me whether you believe that's a contradiction. -- tariqabjotu 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, we're mostly arguing semantics and it doesn't really matter in the large scheme of things, but...I understand the fact that, in your opinion, the extra links did not contribute to a sea of blue, etc. The contradiction comes from the independent statement, "I don't agree it's overlinked" since you don't qualify it. If it read, "I don't agree that it's overlinked such that it is a sea of blue..." then I'd agree there's no contradiction since it'd be a degree issue as you stated. The comma (as well as the "or") makes it an independent item in a list such that it should stand on its own (if the conjunction was "and," it'd make sense). "I don't agree it's overlinked" = there are an appropriate number of links. "There may just be a few unnecessary links" = there are too many links => contradiction. Anyways, doesn't matter. Please don't respond, and we'll just agree to disagree. ;) Good luck with FAC! Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some stand alone years linked in the "History" section and some that are not. There are several instances of this in the rest of the article also. Is it really necessary to have those links? They don't seem to provide relevant info on the article subject. The same goes for wikilinked centuries. --Victor12 23:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Although well written, I have a few concerns with this article being FA.
    • First off all, the article is far from stable (for obvious political reasons, unfortunately), as is exemplified by its full protection at the moment (reason given: edit warring) [2].
    • Also, in its current form, I feel the article is avoiding and simplifying the current problems in Israel too much. I understand that statements about the problems can give rise to edit warring, but leaving it out is not an option for an FA article. Ofcourse you want examples of this. One of those "simplifications" is the statement that "After the collapse of the talks, Palestinians began the al-Aqsa Intifada." Full stop. Nothing more about it. I know there is a dedicated article, but given the impact of the second intifada on both Israel and the palestines, more information should be provided (e.g. what triggered the Intifada). Another examples is that the article completely avoids explaining that many Israel settlements are controversial and also does not discuss the palestine attacks on israel. In summary, this article cannot do without a summary of Israeli-Palestinian conflict to become comprehensive (which is a requirement for FA).
    • A disclaimer because of the controversial article/POV/NPOV statement above: Yes the article has a neutral point of view at the moment, but this is largely accomplished by completely avoiding any heated issue. Another approach for neutrality is to include both points of view, rather than no-ones. Given good arguments that the current approach is more appropriate, I might change my view here, though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first point, the article is no longer protected. Even still, I don't think it breaks the metric of stability (especially not to the point of being "far from stable"). Prior to today, the article had been largely stable for weeks, with minor or otherwise basic improvements being the only edits to the article. The recent events, in my opinion, were merely a scuffle and although they meet the technical definition of an edit war, edit warring is not a persistent problem. The FA criteria refer to the article changing from day to day as one sign of instability; that has not really happened on this article. As was mentioned during the Jerusalem FAC, the provocative nature of the article's subject cannot be used as a reason for claiming instability. If that forms part of your rationale for instability (I can't really tell), the objection is inactionable.
As for the rest of your point, I disagree to adding much more about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned, but the conflict is far too complex to go into the why (or, more appropriately, the numerous whys and theories of why) here; the Israel article is long enough as it is. Pieces of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are mentioned throughout the article – the Palestinian exodus, several peace treaties, multiple wars, riots and insurgencies prior to the establishment, objection to the Jerusalem Law, and the two intifadas are all, for example, mentioned in the article. However, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not all there is to Israel. It is important, of course, and that's why events related to it are mentioned in the article, but "comprehensive" does not mean everything there is to know about the subject needs to be included in this one article. For those who are truly interested, the article directs readers several times to other articles where they can find more information about specific aspects of the conflict and Israel. Those articles, not the Israel article, are where the intricacies of the conflict belong. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point we agree. I have no objections to a provocative subject becoming FA. I just noted that, at the time I looked at the article, it was fully protected. If it was incidental, and the article is normally stable, than that is fine with me. One the second point I am not convinced. Obviously, there is more to Israel then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But for many people outside Israel it is the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about Israel. Referring to article size is not a convincing argument. The article for example contains a large section about culture, where also six specialized articles are mentioned for further reading. A similar thing could be done for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explaining the main issues that are the cause for the dispute between the parties. At the moment, the article (except for the infobox) does not even link to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. Also, stating that summarizing would be impossible is hard for me to understand. The article I just mentioned also contains an introduction that summarizes the conflict. As many things in that introduction are already present throughout this article, it could be trimmed down significantly to leave a short summary of the conflict. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, stating that summarizing would be impossible is hard for me to understand. I did not say that was impossible to do; I was saying it would be difficult to summarize the causes of particular events such as the Second Intifada (which you used as your example) because there's far too much to discuss for this one article. That, as I understood, was your concern – that the article did not contain enough information about the causes of particular events, as evidenced by your suggestion that we "include both points of view". On the other hand, I'm quite certain summarizing the conflict itself, sans the nuances, is possible because it has already been done. The History section (except for the "Early roots" part) is talking about the conflict perhaps 75% of the time. We may not say "oh, by the way, this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" but it is definitely discussed extensively; I noted examples of these mentions in my previous comment. In fact, at one point two people voiced their concern that we were talking about the conflict too much. As for your complaint that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only linked from the templates, from where do you believe the item can be appropriately linked? (Actually I think I know a good location and will proceed to add that now). -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it is clear that you have given this issue a great deal of thought and have chosen to deal with the issues in this particular way for good reasons. Although I personally would have done it differently, that should not stop others from getting credit for excellent articles the've written in the way they see fit. Therefore (and because I like the short statement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you've added), I've struck my oppose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed. I have a feeling it had something to do with a reference written with the entire URL spelled out. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- While by no means a regular contributor to this article, or someone who is well-learned on the subject of Israel, I stopped by the talk page on several occasions and contributed to the article on different occasions. My major concerns, and my major objections at the time, were the continued insertion of POV-slanting language into the article. Most of this revolved around the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I would say that on either end of that debate there were repeated attempts to slant the article in a way that better promoted a particular POV.

As someone who viewed the article as objectively as possible, I am pleased to say that most of these problems have been alleviated. I would like to commend, in particular, the work of User:Tariqabjotu for his efforts in creating the current article, and in preserving the status quo. This is not an easy issue to navigate, and Tariqabjotu has been on the receiving end of much criticism. Yet on the whole, I believe he has taken the reigns in navigating both sides effectively, and in presenting an article that touches on sensitive issues without placing too much emphasis on them (there is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, to myself in particular, more to Israel than the conflict) and without letting any one particular POV dominate.

I believe that this article deserves to be featured. I do, however, have one reservation. If featured on the main page, it will become unprotected, is that correct? In that event, I expect that we can see major and multiple attempts to disrupt the current status of the article. I don't expect this to be too much of a problem (Jerusalem, after all, survived its time as an FA intact) but I do worry that an front page feature might disrupt what I see as an article currently deserving of FA status. I would appreciate if this concern was addressed. SpiderMMB 05:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the article will be unprotected if it reaches the Main Page; Islam, for example, wasn't unprotected when it was featured July 1. Jerusalem is not an analogous example because it was not under indefinite semi-protection when it hit the Main Page and it is not under that state now. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article was heavily edited in the past few months to bring it up to FAC standards, and the result speaks for itself. (I've been a minor contributer to the article, mainly just reverting vandalism, and engaging in discussions on the talk page). okedem 10:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional oppose Several fixes needed
Comments by Victor12 on style already addressed
  • The article needs to comply with WP:DASH as requested by SandyGeorgia. For instance, hyphens need to be replaced by en dashes in page ranges.
  • As I said above stand alone years and centuries provide little or no additional context to the article, they should be delinked.

  • It might be a good idea to put "Bibliography" as a separate section instead of being a subsection of "Notes and references"
  • Spelling needs to be consistent with either American or British English. Currently the article uses spellings such as "organization" as well as "organisation". There might be other cases of this.
    • The only time Organisation is used is within proper nouns. From Simple English Wikipedia: For English, NATO uses British English spelling. This is said in its online frequently asked questions (FAQ): "Q: Why do you spell 'organisation' with an 's' and not a 'z'? A: By tradition, NATO uses European English spellings in all public information documents...". However, this is either completely wrong or no longer the case, as evidenced by NATO's website. So, I'll fix it. "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" is also a proper noun, but I'm not going to change that; "Organisation" appears to be correct. -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), articles should be omitted from the beginning of headings. Thus, "The first fifty years, 1950s–1990s" and "The 21st century" should be corrected.
  • BTW it might be a good idea to merge this two sections as the on the 21st century has only one paragraph.

I have some issues with content also, but I'll post them later. --Victor12 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore invocation of WP:DASH unless a case can be made that this is the difference between a good and a great article. Similarly, while The first fifty years, 1950s–1990s is clumsy, First fifty years, 1950s–1990s is unidiomatic; better to recast. Twentieth century Israel, perhaps. I look forward to substantive comments. (I would be reluctant to oppose for spelling inconsistencies; this article will always have them, if only because Israelis write both dialects. But do clean them up this once.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I though compliance with WP:MOS was a requirement for FA status. Anyway, here are some in-depth observations which need to be fixed in my humble opinion:
Comments by Victor12 about the History section already addressed
  • It doesn't seem like a good idea to use the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a source for the History section for POV reasons. I know it has been used as a reference for some ancient history facts but even so it should be replaced by scholarly sources. The historical presence of Jewish people on the modern territory of Israel has political implications in that it supports the right of existence of the modern state of Israel which is a contentious issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, it would be better to back up this sections with scholarly sources, that is, properly referenced books by historians or archaeologists.
  • In the sentence Nevertheless, a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine was maintained, although the main Jewish population shifted from the Judea region to the Galilee; the Talmud, one of Judaism's most important religious texts, was composed in the region during this period, does "composed in the region" refer to Palestine or Galilee? It is not clear.
  • The sentences stating that "some Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 made their way to Israel" and that "During the 16th century large Jewish communities were established in Jerusalem..." need references to back them up.
  • The sentence The Jewish diaspora always aspired to return to the Land of Israel (or Zion); this was articulated in the Bible[28] and the Jewish prayer book needs some reference other than the Bible as it deals with a quite long period, from the 2nd century up to the 18th century. In other words, the reference needs to prove that through all this years Diaspora Jews aspired to return.
  • The "Zionism and the British Mandate" section needs an intro that actually explains what Zionism is as it is the main topic of the section. One sentence should be enough, readers can look for more details on the main article.
  • The sentence While the first wave of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews, the second wave were largely socialist pioneers who established the kibbutz movement. needs a reference. Also, this paragraph is very short. It would be better to merge it with the preceding one
  • The First Intifada is mentioned right after a sentence about Ethiopian Jews; it might be a good idea to explain what the word Intifada refers to.
  • The sentence Over the following six years, more than a thousand people were killed in the ensuing violence, much of which was internal Palestinian violence needs a reference as the last clause might sound contentious to some readers.
  • The sentence about the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin comes right after a sentence telling how Israel was struck by a wave of attacks from Palestinians. Thus, any reader without prior knowledge of the assassination might conclude that Rabin was assassinated by Palestinians which is not true. That needs to be clear in the text.
    • I agree 100%. The phrase "by a right-wing Jew" was recently edited out, but I just put it back in. 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There's are several cases of parenthesis in this article. This doesn't make for compelling prose in my opinion.


  • The following sentences smell like POV to me: During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel. Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands. It implies Arabs fled (for unknown reasons) while Jews were persecuted. Reading the 1948 Palestinian exodus article one could make a compelling case that Arabs were also persecuted by Jews. The text needs to be better balanced to comply with NPOV.
    • I am not going to address this. If one wants to see bias in that, they can, but we can't be addressing things that kinda sorta look like bias if you look at them from a certain angle on Tuesdays. For example, one might say mentioning the number of Arabs that fled Israel without mentioning the number of Jews that fled Arab lands is biased against Jews. No, that's not bias; that's sentence variation. The definition of the word fled does not exclude the possibility that Arabs in Israel were persecuted. -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it does not exclude but it also does not imply persecution. So while stating that Jews fled persecution it does not say whether Arabs were also persecuted or not. We need more opinions on this. Maybe a RfC? --Victor12 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still disagree and I'm not ready to make the change myself. I get the impression (not from the article; I mean in general, from outside sources, as well as wiki pages written on the relevant subjects) the Jewish exodus was more directly and unarguably the result of persecution and antisemitism (which still persists to this day) whereas the cause of Palestinian exodus is disputed, with the theories of persecution being more muted. I don't think we should say the two events were caused by the same type of thing when that is not the case. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence These exoduses became a vital component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the fate of Palestinian refugees today remains a major point of contention, "today" is redundant.
    • Not necessarily. Without it, it could mean "remains a point of contention [for some period of time we're not saying]". For instance, if it had remained a point of contention for twenty years, a long time, it would still be reasonable to say it "remains a point of contention" (although that's unclear). Whereas the tense we want here is present tense, it could equally mean relative present tense (not sure if that's the right tense). Anyway, I believe "today" removes the ambiguity and clarifies that it remains a point of contention even until today, sixty years later. -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you reasonably use "remains" for something that has ended in the past? That's a flagrant contradiction. Something that was a point of contention for several years is said to have "remained" as such, not that it "remains" so. --Victor12 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the History section for now, I'll try to continue with the rest of the article tomorrow. --Victor12 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following MOS, as a guideline should be followed, is a criterion; but worrying over dots and dashes is putting the means before the end. Is the millimeter difference between an endash and a hyphen going to make this into our best work, or if left alone, prevent the article from being our best work? Probably not; but if the difference is that important, fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I though that Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. Anyway, please let's stop here, as you said this is a minor point and I think I have looked at several issues besides MOS while reviewing this article including content, POV and sources. Besides the article now complies with WP:DASH, and I didn't do a thing :-) --Victor12 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Copy-edit needed throughout. It has promise if fixed up.
    • Remove "located" in the first sentence.
      • This is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, for instance, the word located separates two similar phrases Southwest Asia and southeastern edge nicely. -- tariqabjotu 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything is "a matter of opinion". If I see that removing a word leaves the meaning unchanged, I advise the writer to remove it. Please state why it's useful to separate those phrases: I can't see why it would be so. Tony 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority." Please don't start a sentence like this with "Also". Every sentence, in any case, is an also (although I see a good use of the word in "also home" lower down). And mixing geography (the pre-existing theme) with politics/administration so closely is awkward; at least use a semicolon: "The West Bank and Gaza Strip are adjacent; they are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority." Seems to need a little content added to make it smoother (partly by the PNA, and partly by Israel? It's stubby as is. And I see that the West Bank is excluded from the red bit on the map, yet it says that Israel's borders were "expanded" in the sdw—seems inconsistent).
      • I have removed also from the beginning of the sentence, per your request, but "mixing geography... with politics/administration" here is almost unavoidable. If we omit that Israel is adjacent to the West Bank and Gaza, someone's going to say the article is just establishing that those areas are part of Israel. If we were to say those two areas are adjacent, but omit that they are partially administered by the PNA, someone will say the article is (wrongly) implying that those two regions are autonomous countries and/or neglecting that Israel has something to do with them. This wording may be imperfect, but we may not be able to do much better for an introduction. The introduction was among the most-discussed portions of the article, so I think it's safe to say this generally works fine. As for your last sentence... the intro (the only time "expanded" is used in the article) discusses the borders being expanded during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not the Six-Day War. That fact is indisputable. -- tariqabjotu 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When is a national capital not its seat of government?
    • "many of the neighboring Arab countries"—no, "its".
    • "Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians." I hope that's going to be referenced further down.
    • MOS: no period unless caption is a proper sentence—Check through them; the "David BG" one is at issue, at least. And there's another I see.
    • "The first fifty years, 1950s–1990s"—See MOS on initial "The" in titles. Uncomfortable use of comma rather than parentheses.
      • The use of "the" is just about unavoidable as "First fifty years, 1950s-1990s" sounds very odd. If you have another name for the section that removes the year system altogether, I'd love to hear it. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "These years were marked by mass immigration of Holocaust survivors"—Check through for missing "the"s.
    • Are you really insisting on spelling out all numbers? Even the huge ones? Easier to read as numerals.
    • Grammar: "and agreed to enter negotiations over an autonomy to Palestinians".
    • For such a highly militarised state, I find the section on "Military" laughably short. Tony 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Israel is considered one of the most advanced countries in"—Just get rid of the "considered", which adds nothing. A reference is provided, anyway.
      • "Considered" was placed there (after complaints) to avoid siding with that opinion, since it's not really a fact, but depends on how you measure development. okedem 10:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um ... who's doing the considering, then? It raises that question and doesn't solve the original issue. If you can't bring yourselves to make the bald statement, it shouldn't be made at all, or its status should be explicated properly. This fuzzy "considered" just weakens the authority of the text. Tony 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 53rd-highest GNP per capity at PPP sounds way low on the food chain. I guess you've checked it.
    • Why is a common word such as "pharmaceuticals" linked? Delink please, so as not to dilute the important links. Tony 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can take the invitation above to "igore" MOS as you like, but the fact remains that FAs need to follow it (Criterion 2). Please note that Anderson is conducting her very own war against MOS, and coming up against quite a deal of resistance in the process. Dashes are important to good writing. Tony 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is Tony's take on MOS, which he has been attempting to use to revise the English language on such matters as Socrates's. He has severe ownership problems. The comment above, however, was to opposition over endashes, which has been deprecated here and elsewhere. I am pleased to observe that the present discussion appears to be over the substance of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rather incomplete. It ignores some of the most important issues that have shaped the state and its conflict, and it oversimplifies the things that it doesn't ignore. Where is UN Security Council Resolution 242 in this? What about the significant concession made relatively recently that the Munich retaliations were not executed only against those directly responsible? There are a hundred omissions and distortions like this. Who wrote this? Any actual scholars around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.109.39 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't condense all information about a country into a single article. This article is just the basis for further reading, in the many linked articles. okedem 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

edit
  • More comments Most of the comments I've made above have already been resolved, though some remain. More comments follow:
  • What's up with the two templates in the History section? Shouldn't they be placed on the History of the State of Israel article? You can replace them with pictures.
If you do have some pictures in mind that could be useful in place of the templates, please present them. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer examination, it seems to me the Aliyah template is quite useful and it links to this article. However, I'm not sure about the second one, as it is not about Israel but about the region as a whole. It should link to History of the State of Israel IMHO. In its place it would be useful to have a pic of one of the Arab-Israeli wars. There should be several of those available. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Geography" section the distinction between the "sovereign territory of Israel", the "area under Israeli law" and the "total area under Israeli control" is not clear. Some rewriting might be useful
  • Why is the section named "Geography and climate"? Geography includes climate so just "Geography" would be better.
Okay; that's your opinion. You are aware of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, right? Trivial arguments over the preferences of certain editors distract from the real items that need to be address (which, as of now, a few and far between). -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware. Just making an opinion. No need to get angry. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement The Israeli Coastal Plain on the shores of the Mediterranean is home to seventy percent of the nation's population seems to belong under "Demographics" not under "Geography".
Again, a simple preference. I'm not going to act upon this. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demographic info under "Demographics" seems pretty logical to me. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence East of the central highlands lies the Jordan Rift Valley, which forms a small part of the 6,500-kilometer (4,040-mi.) Great Rift Valley, through which the Jordan River runs from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, the lowest point on the surface of the Earth has too many subordinate clauses which make it confusing. It currently seems to imply that the Jordan River runs through the Great Rift Valley. It would be better to split this long sentence.
I've rephrased for clarity and accuracy (the river doesn't originate in the Sea of Galilee). okedem 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the makhteshim, the article claims they're unique to Israel and the Sinai, however, that's in contradiction to the Makhtesh article. Also it says they're similar to craters, that is, they're not craters, but then they are called craters, one of them being the world's largest natural crater. If they're indeed craters, the word "similar" should be deleted. What's a natural crater anyway? Also are they important enough t deserve two sentences? This seems like WP:Undue weight.
Makhteshim are a very interesting natural phenomenon. They're "erosion craters", as opposed to most craters, which are "impact craters". That sentence should probably be tweaked. okedem 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence From May to September, rain in Israel is rare it would be useful to add that those months correspond to the summer season.
Oh c'mon. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everybody lives in the northern hemisphere. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even those who don't can see that Israel is, and can understand when summer is. Let's not insult our readers. okedem 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Government and politics" section why are there so many see also links? They are quite specific so they should be linked in the text and not in this prominent position at the start of the section.
Okay; that's your opinion. You are aware of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, right? I like the X arrangement better than the Y arrangement is not a good reason. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement the government can dissolve itself at any time by a no-confidence vote seems contradictory. Is the no-confidence vote made by the government itself? If not, it can't "dissolve itself".
The parliament members that make up the government (or the coalition) can vote against the government, thus dissolving it. Maybe "The Knesset can dissolve the government at any time..." would be better. okedem 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented my suggestion. okedem 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The third and highest court in Israel is the Supreme Court, the word "third" is problematic as it implies there are only three courts in Israel. Maybe reword as "the third type of court" or something like that.
How about something using "third tier"? okedem 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented my suggestion. okedem 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this sentence necessary? Israel's civil liberties also allow for self-criticism, from groups such as B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization. Self-criticism seems implied in the preceding text by mentioning Israel as a free country. Also, is B'Tselem important enough to be mentioned in this article?
B'Tselem is a very well known human rights organization, so I do think it's important enough. okedem 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Okedem. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the see also link for "List of cities in Israel" necessary? It should be moved to the text below or removed.
Okay; that's your opinion. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about metropolitan areas might confuse some readers with the distinction between metropolitan areas and cities. Is it really important or can it be removed.
So what if it might confuse some readers? There's a distinct difference between a metropolitan area and a city, and it is not our fault if some don't know that. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently, the city article suggests this clear distinction is primarily limited to the United States. I'm not sure how this can be avoided. -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this article should only mention info on cities and leave metropolitan areas to the main Demographics of Israel article. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Foreign relations" subsection the bit on the United States, Germany, Turkey and Iran is confusing as it is written in past tense and does not specify to what period it refers. The whole subsections speaks about Israeli foreign relations in the present so why mention Iran as an ally in the past? Also the role of the United States as an ally should be adequately emphasized. It still provides major military and financial aid to Israel as well as an important "diplomatic aid" at the UN and other international forums. This subsection needs some rework.
  • The bit about "enemy countries" should be moved up, right after the mention of the Arab League, so as to keep all Arab countries together. Also, isn't Iran considered an "enemy country"?
No, Iran is not considered an enemy country, as it was never at war with Israel, and never declared war. okedem 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence has been moved. okedem 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Military" section, the see also links should moved to the text or removed in my opinion.
Okay; that's your opinion. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement The Israeli- and U.S.-designed Arrow missile is one of the world's only operational ballistic missile systems is a mistake, the Arrow is not a ballistic missile, but an anti-ballistic missile system
Fixed. okedem 10:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is 1984 given as an example for high defense expenditures? It is just one year so it does not prove anything. It would be better to have an average for a decade or so. SIPRI might be a good source for this, check its database at www.sipri.org
Okay, that's your opinion. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here I do see a problem because one year doesn't prove much and it is not very useful as an example either because the reader doesn't know how representative of a trend it is. It would be better to have an average for a decade or so. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • US military aid definitely needs to be mentioned here.
And it is... -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the section only mentions arms imports from the US and American cooperation in the development of the Arrow missile. US aid is much more important than that. Israel receives lots of money and weapons paid for by the American government. That seems pretty important. --Victor12 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Economic aid from the U.S. is also mentioned in the Economy section. Also, I'm going to attempt to fulfill your request to expand the foreign relations section (not by a whole lot; probably just a paragraph). I'll wait to see your response after that is completed. -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant military aid, lots of info about that on this article: Israel-United States military relations. It can even be argued that US military aid saved Israel existence during the Yom Kippur war, check Operation Nickel Grass. As for foreign relations, drop me a note when you're finished and I'll check it again. --Victor12 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. An article on Israel in which no mention is made of the charges of ethnic cleansing in the foundation of the state is not encyclopedic. This is not an article on Switzerland, but rather on a country that has a lot of issues. Wikipedia should not take a position on any of these issues (another matter that needs work); but it is just silly and uninformative to pretend that they don't exist. Tegwarrior 05:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was much discussion about this on the talk page. I, as I'm sure many, have opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I don't refute the arguments of others on account of whether they agree with my views or now. Tegwarrior, on the other hand, has reduced responses to his requests to include "ethnic cleansing" (and other disputed language) in the article as certain editors, including myself, being "blinded by pro-Israeli bias". You can read talk page yourself, but I'm not going to give into Tegwarrior's bullying. -- tariqabjotu 12:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Bullying," Tariq??! I think I've made a lot of effort to address the concerns of people who disagree with my changes, but in response I mainly get a lot of uncommented reverts, including some in violation of the three revert rule. I'm sorry if you and okedem and Jossi and now Squash Racket feel like you're surrounded by me! I can't even get a POV flag kept on the page! Tegwarrior 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tegwarrior, you seem to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. When you make a controversial change to a stable article, and it's disputed, you don't just re-insert it (in fact, you probably shouldn't even make such changes without discussion). The stable version remains (without POV tags), and we discuss the issue on the talk page. That's what we've been doing for a very long time, and the phrasing you now see is usually (especially in the case of the intro) a result of careful, months long deliberations, designed as a middle-of-the-road compromise between the engaged editors, in an attempt to reach NPOV. I can't say that attempt is always 100% successful, but it represents a lot of work, and is probably better than what any one person can reach, despite what they may think. Coming in and changing it to a version you think is better, and complaining when the consensual version is restored, is not the way it's done. okedem 16:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I last time tried to use Britannica in an article, I got this answer: 'encyclopedias are not secondary but tertiary sources and as such may not be cited as a reference'. Britannica is cited in this article a few times. Is that OK or not? Squash Racket 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I know what you're talking about. I thought that was the case as well, but I believe the secondary/tertiary source piece was deprecated during the Wikipedia:Attribution shakeup earlier this year. Regardless, the Britannica sources could probably be avoided (in fact, the three uses of the Encyclopedia are citing different parts of the same sentence). I still have to attend to the request farther up to add more to the Foreign relations section and I plan to get to that first, once I find the time. -- tariqabjotu 12:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid that it is the case that Israel is the sort of article that the wiki format will never do a good job on. I had thought that maybe with some minor work, the article might at least be more neutral, but I now doubt very much that that can ever happen. Israel probably should never be a featured article. Tegwarrior 16:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been watching the article's progress during this FA period so as to see if major gaps in coverage of important issues in the name of WP:NPOV have been addressed and filled in. They have not. Even simple suggestions made to link to articles that have more detail have not been implemented (See for example this archived talk section. The link to Martial law#Israel was never made.) I don't think an article can be featured when it fails to cover significant domestic legislation like martial law or the Defense (Emergency) Regulations or provide information or links to articles on significant populations among its citizenry like Internally Displaced Palestinians. I also don't think the wording is NPOV in many of the brief summaries that are in place. I've watched good-faith editors get slapped down trying to introduce balance and can offer that the article has enjoyed some stability largely because people get triple-teamed when they try to make changes that introduce nuance, subtlety or multiple points of view and lose the stomach for the battle. As a result, we are left with a robotic, and rather pedantic and misleading account of a country with an incredibly unique and fascinating history which does no one any justice, least of all our readers. I think it would be an incredible shame if this article was featured in its current form. It certainly would indicate how low Wikipedia's standards can fall. Superficiality is no substitute for substance. Tiamut 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Israel article is not expected to have all there is to know about Israel. That being said, I can't speak to the "major gaps in coverage" of which you speak. I have seen no indication of what you could have in mind, except for the items you mention in your comment here. But essentially, you're argument has whittled down to "the article is not talking about X, Y, and Z, so it's a bad article". Well, I have news for you: it's also not talking about A, B, and C. There is a significant amount of stuff that paints Palestinians in a positive light and Israelis in a negative light that is not included, but there is also a significant amount of information that paints Palestinians in a negative light and Israelis in a positive light that is not included. Sadly, we have some here, on both sides of the spectrum that are disoriented by tunnel vision and only see that their perspective is not adequately covered.
Your assertion saying, "I've watched good-faith editors get slapped down trying to introduce balance and can offer that the article has enjoyed some stability largely because people get triple-teamed when they try to make changes that introduce nuance, subtlety or multiple points of view and lose the stomach for the battle" is completely unfounded. As any outside observer ought to be able to tell, complaints from certain editors have resulted in extensive discussions on the talk page. However, while they start off being discussions regarding the merits of certain content, they have, at times, ended with the minority position making claims that the majority position is biased. People who resort to baseless attacks like those should be ignored. That's not to say every person complaining about point-of-view is making baseless attacks, but when they do, it hurts their position greatly.
As you obviously have not noticed, the article has taken into consideration the comments of quite a few people here. That some of yours have not been addressed based on their merit is not an indication of a poorly-written article. Unfortunately, some here have taken the fact that their items have not been addressed (or what you for some reason term "triple-teaming") to mean that some biased cabal is out to get them instead of the more probable explanation – that they are wrong. -- tariqabjotu 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The points I've raised have very little to do with Palestinian actually. I've asked for coverage of Israels' domestic situation in the years following independece. Specifically, I've asked for there to be mention of and a link to Martial law#Israel which discusses how there was martial law in effect for Israel's Arab citizens from 1948 to 1966 and for their to be mention of and links to the Defense (Emergency) Regulations and Land and property laws in Israel. That you keep dismissing my specific suggestions with generalities about how this article is not about Palestinians shows how little you are paying attention to what is actually being said. These are domestic laws affecting citizens of Israel. How is this not relevant to an article on Israel? I've also asked that Internally Displaced Palestinians (i.e. Arab citizens of Israel who were made interal refugees as a result of wars) also be mentioned in the article. I've also pointed out that the article is very Ashkenazi-Jewish centered in its perspective and could use more on minority groups in Israel. If you want to keep pretending that my interest in these improvements comes from some kind of axe I like grinding with Israel, you can. But you'd miss the point and the opportunity to collaborate to actually improve an article that still falls far short of being a feature. Again, the superciality and evasion of the issues in the text leave it lacking in substance and complexity/nuance. Tiamut 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The military administration - Adding that would entail adding the details of why it was enacted. It would take a lot of space, which we don't really have, the article being long as it is. I've already said if you could come up with an succinct NPOV phrasing, doing justice to both sides, I'd support it.
Internally Displaced Palestinians - Same problem (lots of Jews lost their homes too, by the way).
Defense (Emergency) Regulations and Land and property laws in Israel - not important enough.
Ashkenazi-Jewish - I've asked you what the basis for this claim was. It is Jewish-centered, as it should be, Jews being the majority, and Israel being a Jewish state, but perhaps too much - why don't you suggest something for the Culture section, for instance? But Ashkenazi-centered? How? okedem 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

edit
  • Indictment. I'm guessing that "indictment" is an unusual header for this sort of project page, but what I have to say here goes beyond commentary and into accusation. Normally, I would make such complaints on the article talk page, and indeed I have discussed a couple of these items there. However, a few editors there are, in my opinion, too pig-headed to take seriously any suggestion that there are serious bias issues with the article. So here, unless someone decides he can censor and obfuscate this page as well as the Israel article and its talk page, are some glaring bias issues with the article:


1. The introduction is almost eerily silent about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This complaint was raised but then summarily dismissed prior to my involvement in the matter on September 13: [3]. The intro mentions adjacent territories administered by the Palestinian National Authority, with a link for the PNA but no further explanation of what it is; without knowing the background already, I would be tempted to think this was an organization that managed mass transit or sewerage, which is what most of the "Authorities" in my part of the world do. Later, the bizarre comment, "... efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians," is made. Now, hopefully to everyone reading this text, this does not seem like such a bizarre thing to appear in an article on Israel; the problem is, "the Palestinians" have not been mentioned heretofore in the article, nor has any matter over which there could be a need for a permanent accord between Israel and them been mentioned. Anyone who might get any real use out of this article - that is, anyone who doesn't already know probably more of Israel's facts and history than are presented in the article - will likely view this as a sort of contract violation by the article: you do not write of geography and foundation history of a country before glibly mentioning the ongoing, existential war any more than you put the renter's obligation to dispose of the body in the trunk at the end of a car rental agreement. I may speculate that the glossing over of "those whom we do not name if we can help it" follows informal Israeli government policy, but in any case the result is simply crap.


2. The "History" section of the article has several subsections, including "Independence" and "The first fifty years, 1950s–1990s." (Maybe the numbers, which at best really indicate the second through the fiftieth year rather than the first fifty years, should be eliminated, but never mind that.) The "Independence" section includes the passage, "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel. Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands." While I will comment further on these sentences later, for now I will concentrate on the second of them. A comment on the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, the earliest major portion of which began in May 1949, a year after independence,[4] simply does not belong in the "Independence" section. The exodus of Jews from Arab lands was quite simply a phenomenon of the 1950s and later more than of Israel's independence.[5] Iraqi Jews began migration in 1951,[6] Egypt's Jews mostly fled after the Sinai War in 1956, Algeria's Jews mostly fled after Algerian independence in 1961 (ditto Tunisian Jews), etc. There are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. So, big deal, right? The sentence could be in a better place; why not just move it? Well, because every time it has been moved it has quickly and summarily been moved right back to where it was, with "but this one goes up to eleven"-style arguments (if any are even given) for why that is where it belongs. It might seem odd and a bit stupid, without just a little piece of outside information: there is another informal Zionist policy that whenever the Palestinian refugees are mentioned, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands should also be mentioned, with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) suggestion that these two atrocities cancel each other out.[7], [8], [9] Now, with just a little thought, this is a stupid position: that Jones steals Smith's car is not made okay by Jones giving the car to Black, who has had his car stolen by Brown. But I suppose it makes even less sense if Black hadn't even lost his car at the time that Jones steals Smith's car, so I may speculate that this marginal little bit of "less stupidness" is intended to be preserved by pretending that the exodus of Jews from Arab lands was an important matter in Israel's independence.


3. Back to the two sentences, "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel. Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands." Even while these are, whether coincidentally or by design, describing somewhat parallel events, the sentences are not particularly parallel: the Arabs simply "fled," but "Arab persecution ... precipitated" the Jewish exodus. Part of this complaint was raised but then summarily dismissed prior to my involvement in the matter on September 10: [10]. Efforts at both adding a cause for the Arab "flight" and for not stating as fact a single and disputed cause for the exodus of Arab Jews have been met with strong recalcitrance at the article, and no real change has resulted. Now, it is bad enough that the appearance is given that these excitable Arabs just left for no apparent reason while it was only Arab wickedness that forced the Jews to leave, but it is really worse than that: the causes of the flight of the Palestinians, which are not mentioned in the passage (and probably only barely if at all in the entire article) are directly part of the history of Israel (remember Israel? there's an article about Israel ...), while the causes of the flight of the Arab Jews are at most indirectly part of the history of Israel. And yet, which gets into the article?


4. The "first fifty years" subsection mentions nothing of the Palestinians, in spite that Israel was in a constant state of international condemnation over them after its independence, until (following a pattern similar to the introduction) a paragraph that begins, "In the early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks against Israeli targets around the world, including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics." Huh! Again those excitable Palestinians going all crazy for no reason! A similar complaint was raised but then summarily dismissed prior to my involvement in the matter on September 9: [11]. It's a bit like the bible, explaining how the Canaanites are all going to be destroyed and then they keep showing up through the next seven books, and, as with the introduction, this effort at (I speculate) avoiding any mention of any wrongs that may have been committed against the Palestinians by the Israelis, but capturing a full sense of the opposite, results in a broken, inconsistent narrative: crap.


5. There is no mention in the article of the matter of land confiscations by Israel; approximately 18% of the territory of Israel was confiscated by the government through means of dubious legality, and this is a matter over which Israel has faced constant criticism and demands that at least compensation should be paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tegwarrior (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What land are you referring to? -- tariqabjotu 15:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 18% of the land that became Israel that was confiscated from private Arab owners after the 1948 War.[12] Tegwarrior 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This results from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Palestinian exodus, which are both mentioned already. You forgot to mention that the land Israel "confiscated" came from people who left during the events I just noted. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, Tariq, while you apparently do not even recognize it, your understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is informed almost exclusively by the Israeli position. You really are not qualified to impose neutrality on the article. Tegwarrior 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No... I'm merely looking at the source you presented me. -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you see some significance in the fact that they "left." I left my home this morning; would that make some sort of difference, morally or legally, if I found myself barred from my own house when I returned? Why do you focus on the word? Tegwarrior 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem determined to find bias in everything I say; I'm not falling for it. I'm merely pointing out what the source said and what you neglected to mention. You leaving your house to go to work or on vacation or something similar is not at all like leaving or fleeing in the midst of a war (please don't be silly). I can tell you for sure that if I see what I believe is an imminent threat from another country, I'm not going to first make sure I sell my home to the enemy government; I'm going to get the hell out of there and move on. As I mentioned previously, this exodus (and the ceasefire with the Green Line) is already mentioned. I see no reason to rub it in with "yeah, they took the land vacated during the war". Uh... yeah... thanks Captain Obvious; that goes without saying... hence, the Green Line. -- tariqabjotu 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem determined not to find bias in anything you say; maybe you've fallen for something. What is not obvious is how much land was taken; if, in the US, area equal in size to Washington State, Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada combined had been confiscated from private owners, would that not merit some prominent mention in an article about the US? If 100,000,000 Americans were displaced today by some conflict, do you not think that that would be a very significant thing to mention about the US even a hundred years from now? These are, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations are correct (and I'm pretty sure they're not too far off), representative of the scale of the issues of the Palestinians at the time of the founding of Israel. And now you'll probably make some clever comment to rationalize your position that they still should not be mentioned in the introduction, nor emphasized anywhere in the article. Knock yourself out. Tegwarrior 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may add more to this later, but hopefully this is sufficient to demonstrate that the article is very badly broken, it resists improvement of even its most glaring bias problems, and it has no business at this point in time becoming a featured article. So ... J'accuse!

Tegwarrior 05:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just give a few brief responses. I can't understand what your point is in your first paragraph, so I'm going to have to skip over it. Each of your points, however, appears to be supplemented by a claim that other's points are "summarily dismissed". No one has dismissed anything. People may have disagreed with proposals for changing such things, but they were never summarily dismissed. This follows the string of seeing only what you want to see. I can't speak for others, but the only time I will slam the door in someone's face is when they are being blatantly troll-like, incivil, and unproductive.
In #2, you appear to complain about the presentation of the exoduses, but then proceed to explain why it's not necessary to rearrange the sentences. No one is saying that one exodus justifies the other. However, readers are free to come to their own conclusions. I'm sure that many, like yourself, will say that two wrongs don't make a right and just take the items at face value – that one exodus occurred first and another occurred in part due to persecution that arose due to the establishment of Israel. On the other hand, others will look at the pair of sentences and say that two wrongs do make a right. This is still left up to reader. Just as you have prevented viewing one tragedy as justifying the other, others will be able to make their own conscious decisions based on information available.
Your point in #3 was discussed at great length on the talk page, where you failed to present a quality source to back up your alternative explanation. Meanwhile, you advocated terming the idea that Jews were persecuted in Arab lands as just a "claim". It does not matter if you think you know better; Wikipedia relies on verifiability, based on reliable sources. Regardless, Okedem (talk · contribs) even proposed a rewrite of the sentence, which you didn't seem to care much about.
In #4, the link is not related to what you are talking about. You are suggesting that the article is mentioning Palestinian attacks too often, while Tiamut (in the link) is advocating that we mention the institution of martial law. Perhaps the mentions of Palestinian attacks could be cut down or balanced out with something else. Okedem (talk · contribs) noted (in Talk:Israel/Archive_22#Controversy) that he thought it might be a good idea to talk about the territories (although not necessarily the whole conflict); I'm curious if he's going to continue to act on that. But you can't come in guns-ablazing about that; you have not brought this up before. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just address one clear misstatement of fact: I did not advocate "terming the idea that Jews were persecuted in Arab lands as just a 'claim'." I advocated making clear that it was not an undisputed fact that Arab persecution precipitated the exodus of Jews from Arab lands, which is how it is presented in the article. If you want to discuss anything further with me, restore the POV tag that I and now Tiamut have been unsuccessfully trying to put on the article until complaints are actually read for comprehension and addressed. Tegwarrior 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a discussion can only take place when a POV tag is in place, you are sorely mistaken, and understand nothing of Wikipedia. okedem 14:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if I cannot even get it recognized that there is an ongoing dispute about bias in the article, there is little reason for me to imagine that I can get any of the matters of bias that I see addressed. I won't waste my time trying to polish a turd. Tegwarrior 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a dispute in some matter in such controversial topics. That doesn't mean we need tags. There have been plenty of discussions in the talk page, and they didn't need any tags. When you insist on tagging things, I understand your interest is probably more in causing a riot, than fixing any actual issues.
If dealing with this article is a waste of time for you, please - leave. okedem 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. You might want to think about making more comments on the talk pages of articles before you revert people's changes, just as a matter of simple civility and of assuming good faith. Tegwarrior 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to TegWarrior's comments about the lead section - it is 2140 characters as I write this, of which 714 characters - 33.3% (In 1947 ... accord with the Palestinians.) are about the Arab-Israeli conflict. So TegWarrior's claim that it doesn't adaquently cover this are without merit. Raul654 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, my claim was that the introduction does not adequately cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is related to but distinctly not the same as the Arab-Israeli conflict, mostly because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is between a state and a mostly unorganized indigenous population from the territory controlled by that state while the Arab-Israeli conflict is mostly between states. The conflict between the state of Israel and the mostly unorganized indigenous population has been an ongoing matter with repercussions basically every day in Israel and the Occupied Territories, repercussions that have profoundly affected the history of Israel. The inter-state conflict gets played out mostly through diplomatic scheming and the occasional border dispute and infrequent war, and probably has had a much less pronounced effect on Israel. Secondly, I question your method of deciding to count particular characters as being about even the Arab-Israeli conflict: that "the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab" is about the Arab-Israeli conflict is a bit of a stretch - how does this, on its face, indicate a cause for conflict? Are you certain, Raul654, that you are knowledgeable enough about Israel to dismiss with any authority my comments as being "without merit?" Tegwarrior 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction spends a third of its length covering the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, which includes the Palastinians. Claiming it doesn't adaquently address the Palastinians (who, in point of fact, played a more-or-less negligible role in the conflict prior to the Yom Kippur War) is hair splitting. As far as the UN partition - yes, I am counting that sentence as being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because it's impossible to talk about the causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict without mentioning it. Raul654 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the accusations of ethnic cleansings, the property confiscations, these things that are particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that are not mentioned at all in the introduction nor much at all in the entire article, these things that are central to the founding of Israel as a Jewish State and that have been the subject of dozens of international condemnations are not worth a separate mention in the introduction? It is likely that without the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the confiscation of their property by Israel, Israel would have been unable to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants that it welcomed in the couple of years after the 1948 War; how do these events play only a "negligible role in the conflict?" Tegwarrior 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Improving. There are still little things to clear up, such as the following, which are only random samples: "comprised primarily of Zionist volunteers" is wrong ("composed"); no hyphen after "-ly". "administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status"—over the status of the UN? Apparently Americans don't like superscript 2 on their units (it's inconsistently applied here). "4,040-mi."—MOS says no dots for abbreviations, nor hyphens. "40 km (25 mi) by 8 km (5 mi)" --> "40 × 8 km (25 × 5 mi)"? "Membership in the Knesset"—wrong preposition. "and the two countries have had a long history of economic and military cooperation despite Arab pressure. [126]" Errant space and vague statement: pressure on whom? For what?

And more. Tony (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Rachel Carson

edit

previous FAC

This article has been improved considerably since its first ill-fated FAC a few months ago. The lack of illustrations is regrettable, but all the images of Carson I know of except the government photo at the top are unfree.--ragesoss 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nowObject the big quote in the lead is distracting and as the lead is a summary the quote is not a summary, the ref format-especially in web refs is inconsistent (ex; retrieval dates are there/not there, are linked, not linked, etc), section titles start with The/A, and section titles unnecessarily have her name in it. Overall, while Silent Spring is indeed her biggest work, it seems rather little attention is paid to the rest of her life.Rlevse 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the quote in the lead, I'll remove it if most others agree, but I, along with the other main contributors to the article and a handful of others who've commented, think it's appropriate. Obviously, quotes in leads are rare, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
    • Regarding the balance between Silent Spring and the rest: it roughly parallels the balance of coverage in the main scholarly biography (Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature), shifted somewhat because of the large amount of other writing specifically about Silent Spring. If you think a particular aspect of pre-Silent Spring work needs to be fleshed out, I can try to address that, but overall I've tried to make the text reflect the sources.
    • I've fixed the reference formatting and access dates.
    • I removed the one "The" in a section title, and trimmed "Writings by Rachel Carson" to "Writings by Carson". The other uses of the name in section titles are essential parts of the titles: "Rachel Carson Papers" (the title of her manuscript collection at the archive) and "Rachel Carson Centennial" (the title of the celebration).--ragesoss 03:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "Rachel Carson Papers" and "Rachel Carson Centennial" look like you simply made the terms up is that they are upper cased and you don't use the terms in their sections. It's akin to having a section on Silent Spring and never using that name in the section, just alluding to it. Standard practice is to wikilink full dates, including refs, as in May 11, 2007. I'll look over the rest later. I still think the quote needs to go, but we'll wait on that one.
Standard practice on linking access dates is just silly. The date a website was accessed has nothing to do with the content of the article. I changed the section titles to "Collected papers and posthumous publications" and "Centennial events".--ragesoss 13:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment on standard practice and wiki policy from an admin. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes, esp the 3 lines near the end beginning "*Plunkett, John..."Rlevse 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not confuse standard practice with policy. The citation guideline doesn't even mention anything explicitly about linking access dates, it's just in the example. That aspect seems to me like simply a case of overzealously applying the guideline on linking full dates (which is a good thing within an article's prose) rather than a fully-thought-out recommendation for citations. I've brought this up at the guideline page. If someone can explain to me, here or there, why linking access dates is a good thing, then I'll change it. In any case, we use a wide variety of citation formats; it's consistent within the article, which is the main thing. (And being admin is no guarantee of knowing, much less agreeing with, every aspect of the style guidelines. Many admins know little of the evolving style guidelines, since they don't do much writing.)--ragesoss 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support This article is an enjoyable introduction to Carson and Silent Spring. I learned quite a bit from reading it. However, I feel some slight reorganization and rewording are needed at points:
  • I am uncomfortable with the quotation in the lead as well. None of the biographies of major or minor writers that I have seen so far on wikipedia use quotations in this fashion. Because there is no analysis of the quotation, it is unclear what the reader is supposed to glean from the quotation. Is this quotation frequently cited, for example? In other words, I think the reader needs to be given a reason to pay attention to this quotation. (See A Vindication of the Rights of Men for one way to do this.)
  • The quote is quoted frequently, but I don't know of any particular significance except as a clear statement of Carson's own conservation ethic. I see it basically as a summary of Carson's worldview (which is why I think it's appropriate for the lead). Regarding JayHenry's related comment below: it was published in her lifetime (perhaps more than once in similar form, I'm not sure), just not in her books. It was republished in the source that was given in the footnote (Lost Woods: The Discovered Writings of Rachel Carson). It has been used frequently by the environmental movement, from well before its recent republication, both as a tribute to Carson and a clear statement of the sentiments of other environmentalists. But I don't know how to convey that concisely (and most of the above explanation is technically original research, anyhow; I don't know of any explicit analysis of the quote). So since it doesn't stand on its own (which I and some others I've asked think it does, but you three—Rlevse, Awadewit and JayHenry—along with the Good Article reviewer think it doesn't) I've removed it.--ragesoss 04:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's used that frequently, certain someone reputable has said "this quotation encapsulates Carson's worldview" or somesuch? That way the quote could be included with that explanation, which I would fully endorse. Awadewit | talk 04:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead feels a little repetitive at the moment. The emphasis on SS in the first and third paragraphs was what led to this impression, I think.
  • I rearranged it so that Silent Spring isn't mentioned until the third paragraph. Normally I would expect it to appear in the first sentence, but it's a pretty concise lead so I think it works out.--ragesoss 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • was an American marine biologist and nature writer whose work is often credited with having launched the global environmental movement. - This sentence implies that her work as both a marine biologist and as a nature writer helped launch the environmental movement. I don't think that is quite correct, is it? Perhaps "whose books are often credited.."? Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about adding a few phrases describing her other books in the second paragraph? Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She especially enjoyed the St. Nicholas Magazine (which carried her first published stories), the work of Beatrix Potter, and the novels of Gene Stratton Porter, and in her teen years, Herman Melville, Joseph Conrad and Robert Louis Stevenson. - Do any of your sources say why she enjoyed these authors in particular? I see a thread of authors interested in nature, which would of course be relevant for her later writings.
  • Yes, Lear talks about the connections: basically everything she liked had to do with the natural world, and by her teens years, particularly "the ocean and seafaring". I've made the connection explicit now.--ragesoss 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the urging of her undergraduate biology mentor Mary Scott Skinker, she settled for a temporary position with the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries writing radio copy for a series of educational broadcasts entitled "Romance Under the Waters". Based on the research for the series, she also began submitting articles to newspapers and magazines. - Could you say anything more about these radio shows and articles? It is not entirely clear what they were about.
  • Carson's supervisor, pleased with the success of the radio programs, asked her to produce an introductory brochure on fisheries bureau - This sentence needs to be fixed, but I wasn't sure what it was supposed to say.
  • I feel like the last two paragraphs of "Early career and publications" need to be reworked; they are rather stubby and don't flow. The last sentence of the paragraph third from the end is "Instead, her interests were turning to conservation" so the reader expects the next paragraph to be about conservation. However, it begins "Family tragedy struck a third time.."
  • The information on Carson's relationship with Freeman belongs in the "Life and work" section somewhere; it is not really part of her "Legacy" (current location).
  • I had it within "Life and work" originally, as the final subsection, but it's as much or more about interpretations of the relationship (i.e., her legacy) as about the relationship itself, and everything else within "Life and work" is chronological while that section doesn't really work chronologically. I'll move it back to the end of Life and work; let me know if you can think of anything better.--ragesoss 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carson and Freeman knew that their letters could be interpreted as such, though they would not have described it that way - Pronouns need to be clarified.
  • Shortly before Carson's death, they destroyed hundreds of letters. - Not terribly clear in context who "they" is. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Posthumous honors" feels like a list - perhaps best to make it one?
  • "Posthumous criticism" should be worked into the "Legacy" section where topically appropriate. "Criticism" sections in general do not help readers easily see all sides of the issue as they separate the sides. See also WP:NPOV#Article structure.
  • I moved that section wholesale to immediate follow the environmentalism section (since it basically picks up from there) and retitled it "Reactions to environmentalism and DDT restrictions".
  • I would urge you to include the criticisms when the relevant topics are discussed or to structure the "Reactions" section chronologically, charting the legacy of the book more clearly. Right now, the section feels a bit like a list of reactions. X group says A, Y says B, and Z says C; the section doesn't have any real narrative or analysis for the reader to grab hold of.
  • Why are all of these differing opinions included? Why, for example, is Human Events, used as the representative example for the conservative viewpoint in the opening paragraph?
  • I'm also not sure how the third paragraph is a "furthermore" - it seems like part of it might be a contrast to the previous paragraph.
  • "Recently" is not that precise - does it mean the 1990s? the oughts?
  • You cite Monica Moore from PANNA, but that is an organization dedicated to fighting pesticide use - does she have any other credentials?
  • Perhaps you could find the original for the Bate quote? Seeing it out of context like this is not very enlightening. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is tough to deal with in terms of balancing topicality with long-term significance (and I mostly rearranged what had already been worked out before I started in on this article, since much of it is too recent to be discussed at length in the books I used for the rest). In terms of chronology, this does pick up where the previous section leaves off; it's about the wave of anti-environmentalism that began in the 1980s and stretches tot the present, and it basically consists of discourse about Carson's more direct legacy (environmentalism and the EPA) in the 1960s and 1970s—the legacy of Carson's legacy, if you will. On the specifics: I tried to make the whole section into a better narrative, and fixed the specific style issues you point out. I also removed the Monica Moore paragraph, as I don't really a good answer to why that is significant and it somewhat redundant because of the initial framing in terms of attacks on Carson as a means to broader anti-environmentalism goals. I don't have a great explanation for why the specific opinions are included, except that it fleshes out what would otherwise be weasely generalities, and that's what the previous rounds of intense editing (before I got involved) had come up with.--ragesoss 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the "References" use a more standard style such as Chicago or MLA? They are hard to read right now.

I have placed my minor comments regarding prose on the article's talk page as they do not affect my support for the article. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much closer to support. You might have someone read over the article - I keep seeing little typos as I read. Or read it aloud - that is the easiest way to catch the kinds of typos I am seeing: extra words, dropped words, extraneous letters, missing possessives, etc. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support my little concerns were addressed. I gave it a careful read through and made some minor changes. Some of it was nitpicky stuff and feel free to revert if I got anything wrong. --JayHenry 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Jay
  • Leaning Support with a few comments:
    • I don't think there's too much emphasis on Silent Spring (as there's quite a bit on the rest of her life as well). It's not that Carson did nothing else, but she is important for primarily one reason, and it is this book. That said, the article on Silent Spring is actually a bit sad. Some of the information in the biography should probably be moved to the article about the book.
      • I did my best to keep the Silent Spring discussion in this article focused on Carson as much as possible; if and when I tackle Silent Spring (which will actually be a much more challenging article to do right, I think), it will have a different focus than the Silent Spring material here.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first graph of posthumous honors needs rewritten in prose. The next graphs both begin with "a number of..."
      • The two paragraphs that start with "A number of" were written that way intentionally to provide some parallel structure for the parallel content; the second intro sentence ends with "as well", which was meant draw attention to the similarity and mitigate the possible awkwardness of repetition. Apparently it failed. I'll try to come up with something better.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about centennial events. I guess since this is sort of a current event it's okay, but once these events are over, I think the whole centennial could be covered in a single paragraph back in legacy. Such centennial celebrations are nice, but generally have little significance.
      • I pretty much agree; if it was 2008 already, I would probably have removed most of it. I've condensed it to a single paragraph, but it's still a separate subsection of "Posthumous honors". I need to think further about how to deal with this honors stuff better; it's tempting to drastically trim it and replace it with some generalities about many awards, but that would run the risk of original research.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really sure why her relationship with Dorothy Freeman is in the legacy section (is it because their letters were published posthumously?) but I think it needs to be in a section about her life. It's okay for the biography not to be rigidly chronological, and the bit about posthumous letters can be mentioned when the relationship is dealt with.
    • Convention seems to be for putting "references" below "notes" sections. This would be helpful; right now works by Carson sort of bleed into the works used to write the article. (I'm not advocating convention for the sake of convention; rather, this time the convention is also better.)
    • As for the quote, I concur with Awadewit. Is there any significance to this sentence, elevating it beyond the millions of other sentences that Carson uttered and wrote in her lifetime? It's not a quote from Silent Spring, but rather some sentence she dashed off in a writing she never bothered to publish in her lifetime.
  • So some work needed, but we're very close. --JayHenry 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Dartmouth College

edit

A renomination. The FAC listed above was, for some reason, closed after only two comments. The only unaddressed suggestion was citing the sections more thoroughly, which I have done. I've also expanded the "Campus" section and improved the writing. I definitely think this is a great article, and deserves to be promoted.

However, I'm sure there is room for improvement, so feel free to suggest things. A note to admins -- please don't close this discussion prematurely, as was done last time. I intend to address all objections until it is promotion-worthy. Kane5187 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Though s/he didn't list them here, User:SandyGeorgia brought up a number of style issues through edit summaries, including WP:MOSBOLD, WP:ITALICS, WP:HYPHEN, a danging <ref> tag, {{cite}} tags lacking "publisher" fields, and style in section headings. I've addressed them all. Regarding the reliability of Jonathan Good's pamphlet as a source, I submit that as a professor of history who has written professionally on this very subject (see the other cited pieces from the Dartmouth College Library Bulletin), a pamphlet by him (which one can clearly see from the scans was published and distributed) can be considered reliable. If anyone has objections to this, let's discuss it. Kane5187 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I know what you mean, but I figured you had gotten to the page through this FAC, so I kind of interpreted them as necessary steps for the FAC. Sorry -- I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Kane5187 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a fantastic improvement to a GA-class article. All the gaps have been tightened and it's been reinforced with a load of new sources. I had a qualm before about the Athletics section, but I see it has been addressed. I've made many contributions to this article, but nowhere near the number Kane5187 has made. In my opinion, it qualifies for FA status; nice job. - DMCer 04:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a lot of work to be done. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues:
  • 1.) Infobox - Campus, it states: "Rural town, 269 acres (1.1 km²) — almost 50,000 acres (200 km²) total." What does this mean? As I reader, I shouldn't have to decipher a meaning. Is the campus 269 acres in Hanover, but 50,000 acres somewhere else?
  • 2.) Infobox - NCAA Division I-AA? I-AA doesn't exist anymore - it's the FCS or Football Championship Series. I shouldn't be catching things like this at this stage.
  • 3.) Lead - If you had only 7 sentences to describe the most important things about Dartmouth, would one of them include a quote of what Booz Allen Hamilton thinks of Dartmouth? If you answer "yes" to this, clearly the focus of the article is out of whack. Even if you do believe this (which would be kinda crazy, in my opinion), the lead is supposed to summarize the article (i.e. eveything in the lead should be included somewhere else in the article). The lead is not supposed to add any new information.
  • Comment I think that is an important lead-in to the history section. It puts Dartmouth's past in perspective and that's part of how the college defines itself today.-DMCer 06:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with DMCer -- it's a good, general setup that establishes both Dartmouth's importance as a whole and the tone of its history. Its inclusion where it is may not follow the letter of the law, but I believe that in this context it is best for the article. Kane5187 13:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (something else occurred to me) -- also, the thrust of that sentence is the challenges in Dartmouth's history and the devotion of the alumni, which are discussed later on. I think that introducing a particular fact that illustrates that point is/should be acceptable, even if the fact itself is not repeated later. Kane5187 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still strongly disagree with you guys. You suggest it is an "important lead-in" and "general setup" - well, that is not the point of the lead. A lead is supposed to summarize an article. See WP:LEAD. At the very least, it should be moved to the history section if want want to mention Booz Allen that badly. -Bluedog423Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I still think that being named among the "world's ten most enduring institutions" is notable enough to be in the introduction. Other FA university articles have the US News ranking numbers in their intros and that's only a US POV. I think many other sections also speak to Dartmouth's adherence to its founding principles, so I view that sentence as a helpful summation.-DMCer 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't realize until looking at the source, that this is a list for institutions in general, and not just academic institutions. Being one of only two academic institutions in the list, is, indeed, more notable. -Bluedog423Talk 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4.) Lead is too short for an article of this length and the focus is odd. There are 7 content oriented sections. Only three (history, academics, alumni) are mentioned in the lead.
  • 5.) History - has only one sub-section. What are you dividing if there's only one sub-section? Either should include 2 or more, or none.
  • 6.) History - lists are bad. Convert list of presidents to prose or eliminate all together.
  • 7.) Academics - Avoid academic boosterism. Phrases like "[it] is one of the most selective educational institutions in the world" tells us absolutely nothing. You could say, "Princeton Review ranked Dartmouth as the Xth most selective school in the nation in 2007" or "Darthmouth's 15.3% acceptance rate was the Xth lowest in the country." Stick to facts and let people interpret it themselves.
  • Much better. However, I still think the second sentence in the Academic reputation section contributes next to nothing - it's just somebody's opinion and 11th is pretty damn good anyways. I'd eliminate the Academic reputation sub-heading and just move the two remaining sentences to the intro portion of Academics. -Bluedog423Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed: [20]. Now that you mention it, you're absolutely right -- "Academic reputation" is a pretty unnecessary categorization. I've rolled it into "Academics" and rephrased the sentence in question. Kane5187 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8.) Academics - give exact numbers. Don't give vague values when you should be able to get more precise figures. e.g. "little over 1,000 places" (I'm sure admissions says they target a certain small range), "within the low 700s," "about 90%."
  • Reply: I've done this when possible, but all the vague numbers you cite are direct reflections of the sources: [21][22] The SAT scores are given as the range of the median 50%. I removed "about" from 90%, but I gather from the site that it is not an exact 90.00% we're talking about. As for the class size, it varies every year due to the yield on the ~2,000 accepted students, anywhere from 1,050 - 1,100; there is no hard-and-fast slot count, so it's impossible to be more precise than it is already. Kane5187 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9.) Don't start sentences with numbers (e.g. "30%" should be "Thirty percent"). Follow other standard writing rules.
  • 10.) Errant commas - "30% of the members of the Class of 2011 graduated as valedictorian, and 10% as salutatorian." Why a comma? This suggests the entire article needs to by copyedited.
  • Addressed: [24]. After rewriting the necessary sections (per your suggestions), I'll follow through with an intensive copyedit of the entire article. (I did so before nominating it, too, but I guess a few things slipped by). Kane5187 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11.) Other incorrect punctuation - "Integral to the undergraduate college are three graduate schools, Dartmouth Medical School..." Comma the proper punctuation mark? Again, suggests this entire article needs to by copyedited.
  • 12.) More grammar problems - You need to take a close look at every sentence before nominating. "In 2007, Dartmouth was ranked eleventh among undergraduate programs at national universities by U.S. News and World Report" At?
  • Reply: Doesn't seem like a grammatical problem to me. Yes, "undergraduate programs at national universities." They're "at" the university -- they're a type of college located at a larger institution. Kane5187 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I misinterpreted "national universities" in the sentence. Sorry! I was thinking it should be "among undergraduate programs classified as national universities," but that doesn't make much sense in hindsight. My mistake. -Bluedog423Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13.) Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-06-23 Sherman Fairchild Physical Sciences Center.JPG is not appearing on my monitor, for some reason after continually refreshing it. A problem with my computer? Probably. Maybe a problem with the size of my monitor. It's not large enough and the unnecessary quote box in the next sentence makes it so it doesn't appear? I could be wrong about this, though, as to the reason it isn't rendering properly. But the quote box is unnecessary.
  • Reply: Regarding the image, see my response to #19 -- I think that's a Wikipedia issue. As for the quote box, why is it unnecessary? The sentence inside it is the mission statement, and since that's the title of the section, I would think it should be set off and given its own little part of the page. It seems like if it were to be embedded or something that both its impact would be lost and the flow would be disrupted. (How would one introduce that in prose? "Dartmouth's mission statment is:" ?). Kane5187 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular image is still is not appearing on my screen several days later. Is it on yours? I'm thinking it's more than a wikipedia server issue and might have something to do with the layout, but I'm not sure. Speaking of the layout, it'd be nice to rotate the placement of the images more often. Most are right-aligned. Regarding the quote box, I was just going off that I was expecting some amazing statement, and instead it's just a generic statement that every other university in the entire world also has something similar to, in my opinion. "Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge." Wow.....This doesn't set it apart from other universities. Why mention it? -Bluedog423Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14.) Mission statement and core values and Honor Code sections should be combined and shortened. Don't have bulleted lists! Is it really necessary to mention every single Dartmouth core value? Most schools have codes like this, so I don't find it particularly interesting.
  • Reply: I'm sure you know as well as I do that whether something is "interesting" has no bearing on its inclusion on Wikipedia. We're talking about the guiding, fundamental principles of the institution at hand; how could this not be materially important to understanding the school? The fact that other schools also have mission statements and core values doesn't seem relevant to me. Other schools also have campuses and alumni and presidents, but we discuss them all anyway. Kane5187 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Also, the core values as an original document is a bulleted list ([26]). It doesn't seem wise or helpful to convert it to prose. Kane5187 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, but I lean towards its removal as well - not because it's "uninteresting", but because the article should be what's important to Dartmouth and about Dartmouth. Does the mission statement, and particularly the core values, actually affect Dartmouth? My response would be "no". It's true - every school has a mission statement and core values, and they all say pretty much the same things (so it's not a unique thing at Dartmouth). They're just part of the propaganda machine. Yes, propaganda can be important to report, but perhaps the question is whether that propaganda has actually affected anyone either outside of Dartmouth or anything major that Dartmouth has done (and wouldn't have been done without those guiding ideas). --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15.) Board of Trustees - "Dartmouth is governed by a Board of Trustees. The board includes the College president" -> "Dartmouth is governed by a Board of Trustees that includes the..." Topic sentences like that don't give me confidence in the professional standard of the prose.
  • 16.) Campus and landholdings - waaay too many short stubby sections. Do we really need an entire section about the Dickey Center for International Understanding? Scientific research facilities is only 3 sentences long.
  • Addressed: [28]. You're right, this was sort of a mish-mash of only certain campus facilities (and the Dickey Center isn't even a physical building, it's an institution). I've revised this into a review of all of Dartmouth's physical spaces, which makes it both more comprehensive and more accurate. Kane5187 04:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better, but, to be honest, still not my favorite section. I guess I am just not a fan of having 7 consecutive sections with one or two short paragraphs (except athletic facilities which has 3). But combining just to combine is not wise either...-Bluedog423Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can appreciate your concerns. Is it that the coverage is too thin, or is it the way it's divided? If you think it would help, I'm sure I can add a few sentences to each section and flesh them out a little more. Kane5187 01:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't add unimportant sentences just for the sake of filling out sections. The sections should just be consolidated. In my opinion, the subsections under Academic facilities should be eliminated entirely. Just have 1 paragraph for each subsection, so 3 paragraphs total. A new paragraph serves as enough separation - the reader doesn't need a heading for each paragraph they are going to read. Topic sentences are sufficient. However, you may need to add some better transitional phrases, but this is not too difficult and would improve the organization of the article. Combine Housing facilities and Student areas and dining facilities too. Could rename to "Housing and student life facilities" or something like that. Also, I noticed that in housing facilities a sentence begins with "3,300 students." I said to correct this above. Please check throughout the article to see if everything has been addressed. To be perfectly honest, I haven't even read the vast majority of the sentences in the article. The majority of my comments are organizational items and noticed on a cursory look at the article. -Bluedog423Talk 05:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17.) Athletic facilities - too many details and again a bulleted list! Convert to prose.
  • 19.) Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-06-23 Robinson Hall.JPG doesn't appear on my computer again. Now I'm thinking there's something wrong with my computer or the server or something. When I click the link it does open it up, though.
  • Reply: Yeah, I think it's a server thing. Wikipedia was running a banner a few days ago about how some images aren't showing up. "Robinson Hall" has been spotty for me as well, as with "Flag icon of the United States." It's not particular to this article. Kane5187 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20.) Traditions - bulleted list again.
  • 21.) Alumni - This is nowhere near an FA-quality section. Short list of alumni. Please expand majorly. See current FAs for how to do it.
  • 22.) Seal - waaay too many details. Quotes? Unnecessary.
  • Reply: I don't think it should be removed entirely. I agree, and have felt for a long time, that it should be cut down significantly, but I think it is important enough to have something about it in there. Also, perhaps a small section on this would be the place to mention the debate over the translation of "vox clamantis in deserto", and some things like that. Anyways, I think it's an important part of the Dartmouth propaganda, and does have a lot of history attached to it - certainly, it's at least as important as the mission statement and core values. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Agreed; it had some important historical facts in it. I think parts of the seal section should be included, or perhaps summarize it and give the seal its own separate article (which might not be necessary, this one sure isn't [35]).-DMCer 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I still feel like it was given very undue weight. How about creating a section about the symbol, the seal, the mascot, the nickname, the alma mater? I can't think of a good title, but I think all those things are tied together by the same element -- official and unofficial representations of the College. Kane5187 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Dylan - yep, that's basically what I was trying to suggest. I wish there were something good we could do with all the information in that Dartmouth Seal section - it's really well-written, well-cited, and great research - but it is just too much detail to really do much with a lot of it. DMCer - the section was a result of AfD on the standalone article that it used to be - I don't think it can be made into its own article again. But yes, I think summarize it down, and make a section for perhaps "Insignia and other representations" or "Hallmarks of Dartmouth" or something like that. I can't think of a good title either... --└ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good, I'm not saying it's not, but it has a long way to go to be FA quality. You have to ask yourself, if I had only 2,000 words to describe everything there is to know about Dartmouth, what would I say? If something is slightly unnecessary, delete it. Too many details about random things. Organizational problems, in general. The TOC looks very messy and there are many short stubby sections, particularly under Campus and landholdings. This was a review without really reading the article and its prose. I'm sure there are many prose issues and other content issues. These problems are just noted from a cursory glance at the article. Good luck! -Bluedog423Talk 02:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! That's a lot of work to be done. Thanks for the suggestions, I will begin addressing them. Kane5187 10:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum:
  • 1.) History - "founded the nearby Noyes Academy 1835" - please copyedit the whole article
  • 2.) In Popular Culture - "alma mater for a number of fictional characters, including [...] two leading characters of the 2007 film Superbad." Can you consider a school somebody's alma mater if they haven't even attended it yet? They're high school seniors in the movie. Minor quibble, but was just curious.
  • 4.) Dead links. Go through all the references and make sure they're all active links. 25 is a dead link and I have only clicked 3 of the links. -Bluedog423Talk
  • That's... gonna be a problem. The Dartmouth is a heavily-used source in this and other Dartmouth-related articles, but when they redid their website this year, they quit providing an archive beyond 2006. Wayback Machine doesn't have anything on it. ...what can be done about that? Kane5187 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the only thing that can be done is just kill the links. It's great if we can find some replacement, still active online sources for some of the things, but those that we can't, then we can just cite them like books - there are physical archives in the library, and the article already cites some of the Dartmouth College history books that I'm sure aren't very available outside of the Dartmouth libraries. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good -- I was afraid they would somehow become inadmissible as references. Great. I did what you suggested ([39]), maintaining the old URLs in the markup (invisible to the reader) on the off-chance that The Dartmouth puts them back online. Kane5187 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been watching and doing mostly organizational edits of all the Dartmouth College-related articles for a couple years now, and have seen this article improve dramatically to what I believe to be a first-rate article. Now that the suggestions by BlueDog423 have been [mostly] addressed, I see no more real specific things that need addressing. My biggest problem is more on the general level (and I know I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here by writing this here and not just editing the article myself - I apologize) - the comprehensiveness of the article. I think we need to take a step back from the article now, thinking about what is really important to Dartmouth and what is not. Especially, what things are not included in here that really should be (or are only briefly mentioned and should be elaborated)? A lot of information has been merged in to this article over time (especially from small AfD'ed articles), but not many major additions have been made focusing on this main Dartmouth College article itself. As an example of what I'm referring to as problematic -
The only reference to Dartmouth being a liberal arts college is in one sentence in the second intro paragraph. Why is this kind of thing not even mentioned in, say, the "Academics" section? The academics section seems disproportionately short and very not comprehensive to me - perhaps it should include some information on, for example, how many departments Dartmouth has, how many classes are offered, what specific departments may be known for major accomplishments, how much faculty publish and in what kinds of journals, etc. Also, the D-Plan - it's only mentioned briefly in the "History" section, and it's one of the defining things about Dartmouth's academic system! Surely it's more important than the Honor Principle and Mission Statement? --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum One minor thing - since the list of presidents of Dartmouth were deleted from the article, I think we do still need some reference to them in there somehow. Ideally, that might be to a devoted "History of Dartmouth College" article (which I think would be valuable in the long-run, especially given the huge history of this place, but it's not holding back from any FA status), but it should be maybe a link to a list, or at least mentioning some of the more important ones in the main history prose. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm really glad you've brought this up, because I never would have noticed it (having my eyes so close to this article for so long now). We don't have anything on degrees granted, academic departments, requirements for graduation, popular majors, etc. -- really, the fundamentals of any college. I'm working on adding this stuff in now. Thanks for mentioning it!
  • I've been thinking about History of Dartmouth College, too, and I'd like to see it emerge at some point -- the material is definitely there. As far as the presidents go, their names are noticably absent from the History section. The Office of the President website gives a good overview of what each president did during his time in office, so hopefully that can be used both to expand the History section and incorporate their names. Kane5187 05:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current tasks Just consolidating the remaining tasks so it's easier to follow:

  • Revise lead, turn into a more even summary
  • Deal with Honor Principle / Mission Statement sections as discussed above
  • Template:Dartmouth College
  • Verify that all external links are live -- they are, now. Kane5187 13:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorporate presidents into History section
  • Improve organization of Campus and landholdings section

Kane5187 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good to me. I'd add "improve organization of Campus and landholdings section." I'd also like someone who hasn't looked at the article so frequently (always good to have fresh eyes!) to perform a thorough copyedit, if possible. Rather than just tell you to find somebody else (which many people do), I'll try to do it (hopefully) tomorrow. If there are some issues I cannot address, I will post them here. -Bluedog423Talk 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More issues to resolve just from the lead and history section. I have copyedited the lead and (most of the) history section. Although I'd still like the lead to be expanded by a few setences - I just didn't want to be responsible for those chosen. I'll try to get to the rest of the article later today...But we'll see. I have made some comments within the article using <!-- --> so you can see those comments if you click edit, but I have also outlined them here:
  • Addressed (omitted): [40]. I don't know where the 7th figure came from, although someone possibly got it from here: [41], which states that Dartmouth's endowment is increasing at the seventh-highest rate. At any rate, it's probably best to remove this statement, cited or otherwise. The calculation depends entirely on who you include in the list; the Chronicle of Higher Education includes institutions and conservatories with relatively small endowments but student enrollment only in the hundreds, which spikes their calculation. Depending on criteria, Dartmouth could be anywhere from tenth to thirtieth, so why bother? Kane5187 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.) So, did Eleazar Wheelock establish Dartmouth on his own (as stated in the lead) or with major help from John Wentworth (as stated in History)? Please be consistent.
  • After reading the cited article, I have since discovered that Wentworth actually established the royal charter (not King George III). Wheelock approached him for it. So, what was written in the History section was factually inaccurate. I have majorly revamped the History section, which had many misleading statements and contained several factual errors (at least, errors according to the History lesson article you had cited).
  • Reply I haven't extensively compared your revisions to the original version, but I think there's some level of nuance here in language that isn't necessarily misleading or factually inaccurate. Wheelock is considered the out-and-out "founder" of the College[42] (as originally stated in the lead), but I hardly think that precludes the participation of others in its establishment. The original ([43]) never said he did it alone. The original version also stated that King George III "granted" the charter, which is indeed true, even though it was signed by Wentworth -- Wentworth executed the charter on the King's authority, as royal governor (and as was normal practice for the time). I'm pretty sure that in normal parlance, decisions made by or documents signed on the authority of a reigning monarch do not need to be specified as having been executed by an intermediary.
  • Also, a couple of your revisions and rephrasings have led to factually incorrect statements. For example, I worded the sentence thusly: "During the 1990s, the College saw a major academic overhaul under President James O. Freedman and a controversial 1999 initiative to abolish single-sex Greek houses" because Freedman only presided over the academic overhaul, not the Greek initiative. Kane5187 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, sorry about that. I wasn't aware that was the case, and I'm not immune to errors obviously. Please feel free to improve my prose in the history section as well and check for grammatical errors. -Bluedog423Talk 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.) If Nathaniel Whitaker and Samson Occom both raise funds for its establishment, why is Whitaker ommitted in the lead? Also, when doing quotes please use brackets if anything is changed, even capitalization (e.g. "[Y]outh of Indian").
  • 4.) Why was Occom dejected and betrayed? Not explained at all...and I don't see it in the linked article.
  • Addressed: [49]. I actually don't know, either -- I wasn't the one who composed any of that section, so I didn't know off-hand. As it turns out, Wheelock never really intended to Christianize anybody, and Occom was "dejected and betrayed" by the trajectory of the new school. Kane5187 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5.) "Dartmouth's governance structure and membership in the Board of Trustees has been the subject of significant controversy. " What is the controversy?
  • Addressed: [50]. Is that clearer? I want to keep it succinct -- in the 250-year history of the College, this really doesn't merit more than a sentence, so I figure it's not necessary to explain the full history of the conflict. Kane5187 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, much better. I agree it's not necessary to explain it in more than a sentence, but stating that is has been controversial without stating what that controversy is would be confusing to the reader. Anyways, thanks for the clarification. -Bluedog423Talk 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Bluedog423Talk 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some responses to your edits:
  • According to WP:HYPHEN, the hyphen in things like "five-acre field" is correct as long as "acre" is spelled out.
  • I'm pretty sure phrases like "Class of 2010" don't need capitalization. Could just be a style preference, but it strikes me personally as odd and out-of-place.
  • I noticed you inserted some "&nbsp;"s in places that already had a keystroke space ( ) present. Is there some reason for that? Does it render differently on some systems? Because on mine, it would render the same. Just curious.
  • For the sports/clubs thing, that's a good point that 150 additional sports is unlikely. That count might include PE sports (spinning, aerobics, kickboxing, mountain biking), of which there really are a lot, and definitely includes club sports. So 35ish varsity sports plus maybe fifty of the each of the others, I could see it. The other thing is that student organizations come in and out of existence so frequently that the two counts were probably taken at different times. Both are strongly reliable (i.e. official) sources, but even despite that, would you recommend sticking to one number/calculation simply for clarity's sake? It wouldn't hurt the article to simply omit the one or the other. Kane5187 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, doesn't really matter about the number that much. I'd just leave it how it is. I, too, didn't think "Class of 2010" etc. was capitalized, but I was just going off of the Dartmouth Admissions site statistics page (http://www.dartmouth.edu/apply/generalinfo/quickfacts/quickfacts-admissions.html), which capitalized it. In regards to the rendering of having a space or a "&nbsp;", it usually wouldn't make a difference, but it depends on your monitor size. If the two words are at the very right end and a "&nbsp;" is used, the two words will appear on the left side on the next line. This is often used with measurements so as to not separate the number from the unit. However, most of the time, there's no difference just because of the low likelihood that it appears on the very edge. -Bluedog423Talk 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of the lead now? I've been working on it bit by bit, and I feel it's a bit more even and summary-like. The only thing it excludes in major body sections is "Insignia," because it seems hard to summarize that in a sentence or two (what can you say about the seal, motto, song, mascot, etc. in that short a section? That Dartmouth has them?). Kane5187 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely much better and more representative of the entire article. Good job! The article has improved greatly overall, and I'll withdraw my objection and perhaps even support it shortly. ;) I didn't look at the Insignia and other representations and Alumni sections closely, but they look fine to me. It might be nice to add a picture or two (free ones of course) of alumni. -Bluedog423Talk 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Isle of Portland

edit

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

edit

This article's last FA nom was something of a train wreck, but I can't think of any more ways to improve it. A subsequent peer review went nowhere, so I'm nominating it again, because even if it doesn't win I'll have some idea of where to go from here. Serendipodous 10:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of little mistakes - two mispellings, an ambiguous they, two names should have been linked that weren't, the &^%#$ing Microsoft Word punctuation - ‘’“” instead of standard 8-bit ASCII ones. I debates over the Harry Potter series&diff=156675272&oldid=156639302 fixed them, but I'm sure there are more. Raul654 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? Serendipodous 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not got a worldwide point of view. There's a full paragraph about US schools and nothing about the rest of the world. The wicca thing doesn't warrant mentioning at all in the intro.--Nydas(Talk) 08:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've edited it. Serendipodous 09:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US paragraph is still too long and detailed. The book challenges warrant no more than a sentence. Anyone reading just the intro would get the feeling that Harry Potter is some hot-button political issue in the US.--Nydas(Talk) 10:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Most "moral panics" become hot-button political issues in the US, at least for a while. Regardless, reduced US to one sentence and combined it with following paragraph. Serendipodous 10:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are presidential candidates taking sides on this issue?--Nydas(Talk) 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of them would dare it. Wrad 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
plays harry potter card.html Obama said he liked em. And he got burned for it.Serendipodous 16:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't get burned by anyone important, just a YouTuber dedicated to slagging him off.--Nydas(Talk) 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what this has to do with anything. The lead has been adjusted. Is there anything else that you want to say about the article, given the changes? Wrad 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says there have been calls to ban the books in American schools, but doesn't adequately express the miniscule impact that these calls have had in a country with 75 million schoolkids.--Nydas(Talk) 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source that statement? We can source ours. It's all about the sources. If they make a big deal out of it, then we can try to tone it down, which we have, but we can't say what you just said without a source. That is OR. I fail to see how merely saying that "there have been calls to ban books" is misleading in the way you seem to see it. The fact is, there have been. It's 100% true. If someone stuck the word "widespread" in there, then maybe I'd have a problem. Wrad 17:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced in the article. Only 7% of Americans have a negative view of Harry Potter. The article should be built around this fundamental fact, rather than treating it as an afterthought.--Nydas(Talk) 11:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of Muslims worldwide are members of Al-Qaeda? What percentage of Catholics are members of the IRA? What percentage of those against abortion murder abortion doctors? Yes, a small minority of people are against the books, but that small minority has had a notable impact on the books' history and how they are perceived (I can back this up: 17 percent of Harry Potter related Google hits also refer to religion or Christianity, compared with just 14 percent for Lord of the Rings and 21 percent for Narnia, both Christian allegories). The real issue here is that you do not consider this topic notable, and that's your perogative. But if you feel that this topic fails on notability grounds, nominate it for deletion. I doubt you'd get far. Serendipodous 12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though you are saying that you feel the article highlights anti-Potter religious sentiment too much, and needs to make it clearer that it is only a small group. I would support adding the 7% fact to the lead, and possibly highlighting it more in the beginning of the Evangelist section. Wrad 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the lead to reflect religious conservative rather than merely Christian conservative opposition, since the lead, and the article, is not only about US Christian opposition. Since that statistic refers only to US Biblical literalists, it should not be in the lead. Serendipodous 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to address the major problems pointed out in the last FAC. Doesn't blush to report what the sources say about what is a notable cultural phenomenon and a notable theme of the Harry Potter series. Doesn't have POV issues. Unless there are minor things I'm missing, this is an FA. Wrad 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think mention of the US views unbalances the article. The thing is, most of these religious debates (at least the verifiable ones) have their roots in the US. -Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is what I found just by reading the lead:
    • "Religious debates over the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling stem largely from a number of Christian conservatives who assert that the Harry Potter stories contain occult or even Satanic subtexts." "a number of" is completely redundant.
    • "The most obvious opposition to the series has come from the United States, where calls for the books to be banned from schools have led occasionally to widely publicised legal challenges, usually on the grounds that witchcraft is a government-recognised religion and that to allow the books to be held in public schools violates the separation of church and state mandated by the United States Constitution." "most obvious"? What do you mean by that?
    • "Even Christians have claimed that the magic in Harry Potter bears little resemblance to the magic of "real life" witchcraft or occultism, and more to the mechanical, fairy-tale magic of Cinderella, Snow White and other fairy tales, and also to the works of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien, both authors frequently endorsed by Christians." The word "Even" seems to suggest a POV.--Carabinieri 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead edited. Serendipodous 14:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Overall, the article actually looks quite good. These issues still need to be taken care of, but I think it's close to FA:
"Accordingly, Harry Potter has been the subject of at least three local book burnings" Accordingly to what? The sentence immediately preceding this one is about someone who defended Harry Potter, so I think the "accordingly" sounds kind of odd, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.[done]
""It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly." (translated from German)" I don't think the part in parentheses is necessary. Wikipedia often uses translations without identifiying them as such, especially if the they come from reputable sources.
That source is lifesite.org. They were the first to translate that letter into English, and it seems all other sites just took that translation from them. But a native German speaker on Wikipedia complained that that translation wasn't accurate, and inserted that line as a qualification. I've removed it, but I would prefer a source that gave a better translation. Serendipodous 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"According to a spokesperson from the education ministry of the UAE government, the books' fantasy/magic elements were contrary to Islamic values." The Manual of Style discourages use of slashes as it "suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how". Wouldn't a simple "and" do in this case? [done]
I'm assuming the "KidSPEAK!" section is included in this article, because this superintendent removed the books on religious grounds. This should be stated explicitly to justify the section's inclusion.
The earliest citation I can find does not really specify the reasons the books were restricted. zeeland.html Later responses, however mention witchcraft as the reason. It's all a bit vague, and the only way I could solve it permanently would be to find the December 10, 1999 edition of the Holland Sentinel, which, seeing as I live in London England, is not likely. Serendipodous 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On her website, she states, "Harry Potter is being used to teach and promote witchcraft, Wicca, a U.S. Gov't recognized religion, in our schools, classrooms, and to this entire generation."" I would replace "Gov't" with "[government]", since abbreviations like that seem kind of odd in encyclopedic writing. [done]
"Schoeffer has cited the books' treatment of divination as an example of what she considers their innate sexism, for in the Harry Potter universe, "the entire intuitive tradition of fortune-telling, a female domain, is discredited."" I don't know if that's really important for the religious debates.--Carabinieri 00:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [done][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Eadbald of Kent

edit

Another Anglo-Saxon king. Best comparison FA is his father, Æthelberht of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm nearly done copy-editing this; most of the prose flows in an acceptable manner, and I think it's on par with Mike's other FA's. HansHermans 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Comment I started to copyedit this, but I probably won't be done for a few days. Here's one sentence that didn't quite make sense to me:[reply]

  • Britain had become fully Christian by the time the Romans left, but the Anglo-Saxons were both illiterate and pagan.

Does this mean that the Romans brought Christianity to the island, but it still wasn't accepted by most people living there? --HansHermans 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans brought Christianity, and it is thought to have been widely accepted in England, though I'm not sure about Scotland. The Anglo-Saxons had not arrived in Britain at that time. When the pagan Anglo-Saxons came from the continent and conquered the island, Christianity was essentially erased -- Wales, Ireland and Cornwall remained Christian, but England became pagan again. At the end of the 6th century Rome sent missionaries to convert the Anglo-Saxons again; they landed in Kent. So then there was a wave of Christianization starting in Kent, and an existing church to the west that had become disconnected from Rome's authority. Does that clarify it? Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recall no evidence for Pictish Christianity. But all this should go in the article. How about Roman Britain had become fully Christian, but the Anglo-Saxon invaders were both illiterate and pagan. (Although presumably they had futhark.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used your rewording; I agree it's clearer. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It may be the lateness of the hour, but I can't actually find a single issue to comment on. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a few minor copyedits, but overall this is an excellent article. Karanacs 14:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines

edit

(self-nom) This is the national airline of Bangladesh and I have dedicated considerable time over the past 6 months to take it from a stub to GA status and now believe it meets the FA criteria. It has had an A-Class review and, more recently, a peer review which was much more fruitful with invaluable help from User:Aditya Kabir and the League of Copyeditors. Hoping any final niggly bits can be ironed out during the FAC. → AA (talk) — 08:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article has gone through tremendous review while going for GA. It was later reviewed by quite a number of editors, and most issues discussed were resolved. Finally an extensive peer review led to the addressing of most possible issues. The bright sides of the article include - (1) elaborate wikification per MoS; (2) extensive coverage of the subject from multiple angles; (3) meticulous neutrality; (4) reliable and verifiable references sources cited for almost every little bit on information; (5) and wonderful organization. Very stable, and prose flows appreciably too. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fantastic work on the article! Here are some comments on what I've read so far:
  • Since no page on "Troll Air" exists, can we have a short phrase describing where the carrier is from?
  Done
  • However, with the rise of private domestic carriers in Bangladesh, Biman's domestic passenger count in 2005–06 was just over 162,000, a 35% drop over the previous ten years. Doesn't quite follow. The count in one year should be a 35% drop compared specifically to another year, not ten years. Each of those ten years had different passenger numbers I presume?
Does it make any more sense now (copyedit is not my strong point)? → AA (talk) — 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous Managing Director, M. A. Momen, was appointed the CEO as well as MD in the new organisation. Could you possibly find his full name somewhere?
  Done

Recurring dreams 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a final couple:
  • Although Boeing proposed to arrange finances to buy the aircraft seeking a guarantee from the Bangladesh government; After bureaucratic delays and a perceived lack of commitment from the government, Boeing lost interest and the plans were cancelled.[91] Needs fixing.
How about now? → AA (talk) — 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the first incident of bird flu in Bangladesh. Ideally should be sourced.
  Done
  • The restaurant was opened by the Bangladesh national cricket team and earned its owner, an expatriate Bangladeshi from the United Kingdom, a meeting with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The former Prime Minister? (I think the source itself makes this error)
  Done. I guess she was Prime Minister at the time but not anymore.
  • The strike, lasting 9 hours, stranded more than 1,000 passengers at Zia International Airport, which was maintained by Biman.[112] Is that sentence saying that Biman maintains the Airport? If so does it still do, in which case it would be "is" rather than "was".
  Done

Cheers. Recurring dreams 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the feedback. I've addressed the "easy" ones. → AA (talk) — 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh. I got it later down the article. Have corrected the link.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Peterborough

edit

previous FAC

I believe this article has improved significantly since the last nomination. Many of the comments made in that discussion have now been taken on board. Chrisieboy 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good article, but I do have some comments:
  1. Coat of arms image is non-free
  2. The article has very short paragraphs (for example the Modern History section), making it difficult to read. Try combining paragraphs and generate a more natural flow of text.   Done
  3. Quite a few paragraphs actually are or contain lists (Places of interest, Geography, Affiliations). Most of them would be better off in normal text.
  4. Given its size, some more images could be nice, perhaps a map (or satellite image) of the city or of the city with its surroundings   Done
  5. The geography section also discusses the accent spoken by the people (which would be more suitable under demographics)
  6. References 8,9,11,12,100 and 103 are obscure. What are they referring to?   Done
  7. The style of the references is very random, which could be avoided by moving them all to the Category:Citation templates system
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for taking the time to read the article and comment. In response to the above:

  • 1. I'm not really sure what can be done about this. A common feature (rightly) of the infobox for all UK cities/ local government districts (aswell as counties) are their armorial bearings. In the UK, arms are granted to the city/district or county council as body corporate, rather than to the city/district or county in itself and are therefore protected under Crown copyright. These interpretations have been obtained with permission and, to illustrate the subject in question for encyclopedic purposes, constitutes fair use here. I have added a rationale to this effect.
  • 2. The last two paragraphs in particular are brief (both two sentences), but they are self-contained units each dealing with a distinct point.
  • 3. Places of interest is written wholly in prose, maybe the symbols are misleading but I think they contribute significantly to the readability aswell as the asthetics of the article; Geography includes a list of areas/ villages, but is otherwise in prose. I think it's important to include this list of wikilinks collectively; and similarly Affiliations is in the common format insofar as it lists twin towns with national flagicon, but is otherwise written in prose.
  • 4. Another picture or two would be good. As it stands at least the majority of printed pages have an image.
  • 5. This could be moved, although it does refer heavily to local geography. See geographical accent at Accent (linguistics)#General discussion.
  • 6. These citations refer to opus citatum (the work cited) and ibidem (the same place), page numbers are given where different. They comprise only six of the 106 references given.
  • 7. The references are consistent and presented according to established academic practice. The use of citation templates is contentious and therefore optional. ( A seperate alphabetical list of sources might be helpful though.   Done )

Chrisieboy 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation then:
1. I understand the difficulty, apparently its used similar in other FAs dealing with cities, so this is not a real problem I suppose.
2. Yes they are self-contained units, but many self-contained units after each other do not automatically make a good flowing text. An article reads much better if there is a logical flow of reasoning and text, rather than a lot of seperate self-contained units.
3. Same reasoning as for 2.
5. Yes its related to geography, but not it is not geographical information
6. Make them full references then, or use references more then one time, which is common on Wikipedia
7. No they are not consistent: sometimes the pages numbers are between brackets, sometimes at the end; books are missing ISBN numbers; some websites have accessdates, others do not. The use of cite timeplates might be contentious, it helps getting concistency.
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the London Gazette edit for consistency, all page numbers appear in brackets. Each source gives a date, either of original publication, in which case any link is complimentary, or of retrieval in the case of internet sources. ( I can add ISBNs, although these are not required.   Done ) Cheers, Chrisieboy 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I read in the manual of style somewhere (but can't immediately find it) that op cit and ibid were generally deprecated on Wikipedia. Look at this way, most people are unlikely to read through the whole reference list, they may check for one or two specific points, and since the footnotes are (basically) ordered as they apepar, cites from the same work can be widely separated, the user then has to work their way through the list until they can find what the op cit actaully refers to. Even if ibid is used for two references which are initially adjacent to each other, the order of paragraphs may be chagned, or an additional citiation introduced, which breaks this up. Better to fully cite each entry. I did previously spend some time converting all the references to use the "cite" series of templates, for the very reason of consistency. However, User:163.167.129.134 seems dead-set against them for some reason. If you look at template talk:LondonGazette you will also see that I've been slowly trying to get DavidCane (talk · contribs) to bring it line with the cite templates. David Underdown 09:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to change the six ibid. /op.cit. refs. In terms of templates, at the very least I think we have to change all 100 other refs. (a major task) or none. Chrisieboy 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no vested interest in the use of citation templates but the list as it stands does seem a bit ragged. You seem to be resisting the use of cite templates for references on the grounds of the work involved but are claiming that they are contentious. The citation templates of WP:CITE states "citation templates should not be added against consensus" but a consensus does not yet appear to have been reached - the discussion with David Underdown at Talk:Peterborough#Citation templates back in March does not seem to have reached an agreement one way or another and the comments of Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) above also promote the use of citation templates. Also, by reverting the use of the {{LondonGazette}} template you have reduced the information available - the page numbers are no longer given.--DavidCane 12:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no consensus to use them. If the two Davids want to help perhaps we could look at 1/3 each. I personally don't think that this stands in the way of FA status though. The information is all there and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates clearly states that the use of templates is contentious and therefore optional. This issue aside, would the two David's like to express support or opposition for the nomination overall. Chrisieboy 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not using the cite templates indeed does not stand in the way of FA, but a ragged, inconsistent reference list does. FA is not only about making sure the information is there, but also about presenting it well. Apart from that, I am afraid this FAC does have more chance of passing if you are a bit more willing to make changes that are suggested by others. For example, issues like the use of ibid and op. cit. also were brought up in the earlier FAC discussion but not dealt with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a past contributor to the article, I don't think I should do more than comment. As I say, I did put at least some references into "cite" form earlier in the year, going back through the history would posibly save a bit of time in putting these together. The issue should be raised on the article talk page again, and on User talk:163.167.129.134. David Underdown 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the edit history, you put two into cite. That leaves the other 104! 84.64.199.128 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I am not asking for the references to go into the cite templates, I am asking for a decent, consistent references list (and several other things as detailed above). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) you'll find a few more than that if you go back to march, plus I found a number of actual articles on the ET website where previously the reference just said "Peterborough Evening Telegraph". If I hadn't been over-ruled in my previous attempt to standardise on the use of templates, then the majority of references would either have been added in that form, or immediately converted. But that's all water under the bridge now. David Underdown 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has not received much attention lately, the issues raised have been addressed, either in edits to the article (where marked   Done) or in the above discussion. Additional material has also been introduced since nomination. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, this article has the following attributes:
  • 1a. It is well written, the prose is engaging and of a professional standard.
  • b. It is comprehensive, the article does not neglect any major facts or details.
  • c. It is factually accurate, claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. They are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a section in which sources are set out.
  • d. It is neutral, the article presents views fairly and without bias.
  • e. It is stable, the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day.
  • 2a. It contains a concise lead section that summarises the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections.
  • b. It contains a system of hierarchical headings that is not overwhelming.
  • c. It contains consistently formatted citations using footnotes where they are appropriate.
  • 3. It contains images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images (ie. armorial bearings) meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
  • 4. It is of appropriate length (72 kb), staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.
I continue to believe therefore, that it meets the criteria for a featured article and strongly support its promotion. Chrisieboy 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the issues raised have been addressed, as I disagree. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One image was added (Image:Cecilsr.JPG) with the vague caption "Lord Paramount of Peterborough". The term "lord of paramount" is not explained in the article, nor does the article or the caption explain who exactly the person in the image is.
    • References are still quite random and still contain "ibid" and "op. cit."
    • The section "Media" is hardly referenced"
    • The section "Places of interest" still reads almost like a list (Burghley House is...; Longthorpe Tower is...;Flag Fen is..; etc...)
    • Dialect is still discussed under Geography
Response Two commons images have been added to the article and two have been enlarged. I take exception (see above) to your claim that the references are "still quite random." You did not previously mention inadequate references and I do not accept that this is the case (the article contains 111 in total). The (fairly short) section you mention contains two, the remainder is not contentious and does not require referencing. You state "The section Places of interest still reads almost like a list", but it is not a list? Although they may not be to your preference, icons are provided on Wikipedia presumably for use in articles. Accent (not dialect) is still discussed under Geography for the reasons given above, I have not moved it because I do not believe Demographics is a more appropriate place for it, however, I would be more than happy for you or another editor to make a RfC. The dynamic nature of Wikipedia and the subject-matter means that the article will evolve even with FA status, I do not believe that any of the objections you raise stand in the way of promotion. Which of the criteria specifically do you feel is not met? Cheers, Chrisieboy 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. (a) "Well written": Although certainly not horrible, the prose is far from professional. Examples include the very short paragraphs and list-like description of the places of interest (I have no objections to the icons, but there are other, better, ways to start sentences than with "XXX is...")   Done
1. (c) Claims are supported with specific evidence: Many statements (sometimes almost complete paragraphs as explained above) lack citations. Those statements might not be contentious, but are certainly also not general knowledge.   Done
2. (c) consistently formatted inline citations: Web citations lack last accessdates and still use of "op. cit." and "ibid"   Done
3. It has images ... with succinct captions: The "lord paramount" image has a caption that hardly explains who and in what function he is seen in the image.
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to comment, but I do disagree. Please review the above discussion, so we do not keep going over the same ground. As I have previously stated, each source gives a date, either of original publication, in which case any link is complimentary, or of retrieval in the case of internet sources. All claims are supported with specific references (111 of them), please see Wikipedia:When to cite. You state "Although certainly not horrible, the prose is far from professional," which is a little unfair and (again) something you had not previously mentioned. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and if you can improve the standard of English, please do so. I would be interested to hear what other editors feel as this discussion is not moving forward. As it is, I stand by my comments — the dynamic nature of Wikipedia and the subject-matter means that the article will evolve even with FA status, I do not believe that any of the objections you raise seriously stand in the way of promotion. Chrisieboy 09:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the opinion of more people would be wanted here, but I disagree that I brought a new aspect regarding prose. Please see point 2 and 3 of the first comments I made on August 22 (and no, I do not agree point 2 has been fully fixed yet), these are the exact same points I gave now as rationale for criterium 1a (you asked me for pointing to specific criteria, which I didn't do in my original comment). With regard to the references, the links are in most cases not complimentary. Lets take some examples: ref 69: exclusive on-web reference, but no accessdate; ref 55: either this is an exclusive on-web reference, in which case the accessdate is missing, or it has been published elsewhere (paper? tv?) and the reference is lacking the details of that. Anyway, I'll refrain from commenting hereafter as we are waiting for input from other people. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly there is a problem with your browser. Ref. 69. gives a published date of 22 February 2006; Ref. 55 a published/ broadcast date of 20 May 2004 20:01 BST. Cheers, Chrisieboy 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about nr 55, I struck it above. But ref 69 does not state any other publication then online, only gives the publisher (the university), hence, it is an online only reference. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a press release, not an "online only reference," so you may want to strike that out too. Cheers, Chrisieboy 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the offending ibid. and op. cit. as per Wikipedia:Footnotes, multiple refs. are now used in cases where page nos. are not different. You learn something new every day! Chrisieboy 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) For information (taken from Wikipedia, six refs. cited) language geography is the branch of human geography that studies the geographic distribution of language or its constituent elements. There are two principal fields of study within the geography of language: the geography of languages, which deals with the distribution through history and space of languages and linguistic geography, which deals with regional linguistic variations within languages. Demographics, on the other hand, refers to selected population characteristics as used in government, marketing or opinion research, or the demographic profiles used in such research.

Accent should therefore stay where it is; at the very most Geography could be renamed Geography and linguistics. Cheers, Chrisieboy 15:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, you are right, there are other, better, ways to start sentences than with "XXX is...". I have now reworked Places of interest to avoid this. I have also added further media refs. on ownership of the press (these have retrieved dates as they are online only) and history of Emap. Cheers, Chrisieboy 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Sorry, because a lot of work's clearly gone in, but I chose to start with the History section and had so many problems with just the first few parags ([52]) that I have concerns that this FA is premature. I recommend going back to PR and getting these sorts of things ironed out before returning here. Sorry again. --Dweller 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the points you have raised, Wikipedia:When to cite clearly states If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence, unless the material is particularly contentious. This is not contentious. I have however added a ref. for the Antonine Itinerary, although I was not logged-in. Chrisieboy 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have also added ref. for the Peterborough Chronicle. I hope this, and comments at Talk:Peterborough#Recent citation requests, negate your concerns. Chrisieboy 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel all reasonable suggestions have now been actioned (incl. those outstanding from the previous FAC) and that, in the absence of any further objections, this article meets the criteria set out for a featured article and should be promoted. In its current form I do not see how this article can be improved further. It is consistent, both within itself and WP, and uses the available resources (templates, categories, wikilinks etc.), integrating well into the encyclopaedia.
  • 1a. It is well written, the prose is engaging and of a professional standard. Short paras. have been consolidated where possible.
  • b. It is comprehensive, the article does not neglect any major facts or details. It contains a disambiguation link and a see also section linking to articles giving further, more detailed information on politics, local government etc. and wikilinks to many other Peterborough-related articles eg. the Cathedral, college.
  • c. It is factually accurate, claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. They are supported with specific evidence and external (dated) citations; this involves the provision of a section in which printed sources are set out alphabetically complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
  • d. It is neutral, the article presents views fairly and without bias.
  • e. It is stable, the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day.
  • 2a. It contains a concise lead section that summarises the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections.
  • b. It contains a system of hierarchical headings that is not overwhelming.
  • c. It contains consistently formatted citations using footnotes (currently 118) where they are appropriate. Instances of ibid. and op. cit. have been replaced with multiple refs. in keeping with Wikipedia:footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once.
  • 3. It contains images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status (commons, public domain). Non-free images (ie. armorial bearings) meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly as fair use.
  • 4. It is of appropriate length (81 kb — exactly 10 pages of readable prose, excl. footnotes and bibliography, when printed), staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. This is the max. recommended, but appropriate for an historic and growing UK city.
Can User:Dweller and User:Reinoutr please specify precisely which of these criteria they continue to feel is not met or withdraw their opposition. I am, of course, willing to address the concerns of other editors aswell. Chrisieboy 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23rd September issues

Much improved and pretty close to FA standard - a credit to all concerned. I do have some marginal niggles - I get the feeling some of the text has been lifted wholesale from the out of copyright source. Maybe that's why the "Soke" is mentioned 6 times before any Wikilink is used (and an implied defintion is given) and the anachronistic term "gaol" used.

The OED states In British official use the forms with G are still current.
Fine, if idiosyncratic. Please though explain the Soke the first time it's used.
First occurance now wikilinked.
Thanks. Struck.

Other minor problems:

  • "The local topography is notoriously flat and low-lying, and in some places lies below sea-level." exact same phrase in Lead and main body. Not so concerned with that, but if it's so notorious, at least one source should be found.
See Ref. 116 Brown, Chris State of the Environment Report 1998 Chapter 11: Physical Background (pp.301-306) Cambridgeshire County Council (retrieved 19 July 2007).
Great. Please cite.
It is, see above (ref. 116). As we have already been over, Wikipedia:When to cite clearly states If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence, unless the material is particularly contentious.
Need not. But When to cite also says "Not every statement in an article needs a citation, but if in doubt, provide one." And this is FAC. For Featured Articles. The cream of our work. It should aspire to the highest possible standards. I'm not picking on you - this is what every FA I've worked on has had to produce. And it's hardly difficult. I don't know why you object to it. --Dweller 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object, because it is not required and I honestly believe that rather than improve, it will diminish the article.
  • "The city council's master plan running to 2012 draws focus on the £1 billion regeneration of the city centre and immediately surrounding areas" Ugh. Is this lifted from a political website? It's horrid. "Master plan" is tremendously POV. An opponent of it could use a different adjective. If it's an official title (eg "The Peterborough Master Plan") it should be capitalised and in quotes or italics
The OED defines master plan as a large-scale or comprehensive plan of action.
Comprehensive is POV. Unsure about "large-scale". Either way, it would be better in quotes or cited.
Disagree. That is your POV.
Also, the language is tortuous - is this ([53]) someone ripping off your copy? Please change it - it actually doesn't make any sense - the master plan "draws focus" on the £1bn regeneration - isn't the master plan a plan for the regeneration, rather than something entirely separate?
I will have a look at this.   Done
  • "Prayers for the opening of the fair were said" - the text says the Fair still exists, so why not present tense?
Prayers are no longer said.
Super. Please clarify.
It is clarified by the use of the word were.
If it was clear, I wouldn't raise it. When you say something exists and then imply it doesn't it's confusing. Why so resistant to suggestion? If you're not interested in improving the article to the highest possible standards, don't bring it to FAC.
I am interested in improving the article (see above discussion), but this does not mean blindly implementing everything you say. I have given an explanation for not implementing your changes in every case where I have not implemented them. You can be wrong sometimes!
Lordy... I'm frequently wrong. And happy to admit to it when it's pointed out, as in the occurrence you point to. --Dweller 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted anyway. Chrisieboy 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was the Great Northern Railway's main line from London to York, which opened in 1850, that transformed Peterborough from a market town to an industrial centre." is a claim that requires citing
See Ref. 11 Davies (pp.26-27).
Great. Please cite.
It is, see above (ref. 11).   Done
  • "The area was the UK's leading producer of bricks for much of the twentieth century." cite
See Ref. 11 Davies (pp.26-27).
Great. Please cite.
It is, see above (ref. 11).
  • "From 2006 to 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place." presumably this is under way, so the future tense makes it seem out of date
Started in 2006, will last until 2012. Most major developments are yet to happen.
Please amend the sentence, because saying "from 2006... will take place" doesn't work.
I will have a look at this.   Done Chrisieboy 10:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The two "2005"s in relation to Mawhinney are a little clumsy.

Sorted. Chrisieboy 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers
Thanks. Struck.

will continue here. --Dweller 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state precisely and specifically which of the criteria (listed above) are not met. As these are only "marginal niggles," I do not feel that they stand in the way of promotion. Would you like to withdraw your opposition at least, if not actually lend your support to the nomination..? Chrisieboy 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let's clear the air here.

  1. I look forward to lending my support, once all the marginal niggles (and I've not even finished going through the article) are settled. What's the rush? The point is to deliver a FA quality article.
  2. Every good faith contributor to FAC wants the same thing.
  3. Don't perceive detailed constructive criticism as someone stubbornly blocking the progress of the article to FA for no good reason. You were incorrect and in breach of AGF to characterise me on Raul's talk page ([54]) that I won't review my oppose.
  4. I have a major and well-founded concern over the use of citation throughout the article. I understand that you believe you are within the terms of WP:CITE that you, erm, cite, but cannot understand why you won't do something that would be easy for you to address and would bring the article to the highest standards. In a case where the source materials you are citing are not easily accessible, it is very hard for anyone to verify what is and isn't presented as sourced within any paragraph. Furthermore, interpolations of new material by future editors will make it impossible to see that anything is cited, other than the sentence immediately preceding the reference. However, it could be I'm being too harsh. I've already asked one FA regular to review my comments here. I'll ask a couple more. If they disagree with me, I'll happily admit I'm wrong (as I always do).
  5. I have found multiple trivial copy issues wherever I've looked (I repeat, I've not even finished reviewing the article). Each individually would not stop me supporting any article for FA, but combined, make a fail on WP:WIAFA 1a. I contribute here in hope we can address all of them and I can knock this on the head.

I know FAC is stressful. I've been here before (six times). Contributors make you jump hoops. But all in the name of making the article truly excellent. You may find some of the advice I (and others) wrote here User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates useful. Yours, in a spirit of good faith co-operation --Dweller 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dweller is apparently taking a short wikibreak.

I agree with Dweller that the article improved significantly, but although I would gladly see this article up to FA standards, I unfortunately also do not understand the reluctance of the nominator to change some issues that are really minor to change, yet important (in at least my opinion) for the article to meet FA criteria. I've mentioned these (multiple times) before, but as the nominator asked, here we go:

  • It fails 1a, as the prose, although not bad, is not yet up to professional standard. Its getting better all the time, but at this time still fails to provide a good flowing text in significant parts of the article.
  • It fails 2c, as large parts of the text are still unreferenced (yes the information might be non-contentious, but it certainly is not obvious information). Examples of completely unreferenced sections are: 2nd paragraph of "Media", 1st paragraphs of "Geography", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "politics" and 1st and 2nd paragraph of "Public utilities".
  • It fails 3, as the captions to images (most notably the "lord paramount" image) are insufficient or even not explained or discussed in the text itself.
Please see Early history, which states In 1576 Bishop Scamble sold the lordship of the hundred of Nassaburgh, which is coextensive with the Soke, to Queen Elizabeth I, who gave it to Lord Burghley.... Chrisieboy 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if a serious effort is made to address the issues with the article, I'd be happy to support it. Also again, I am not gonna argue about these issues anymore. I am only replying because the nominator specifically asked me to do so above. What we need is the opinion of independent editors. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choppy paras. now consolidated wherever possible.
"notoriously" sticks out as a bit of an odd word in the lead. I'm presuming it's there becasue the area is notoriously flood-prone? If so this should be explained. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left it in the lead but removed the second occurrence and expanded under Geography. Chrisieboy 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given there is no history of ... subarticle, I'd put a few extra sentences on bronze age and roman stuff, what artifacts were found, what's at the site etc. This bit looks sketchy.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is elaborated under Places of interest. There are (linked) articles on Flag Fen etc. Chrisieboy 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By putting the Flag Fen stuff in the Bronze Age section, that stubby bit is bolstered, a bit of repetitious text removed and a long listy things to see section is shortened a bit.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, which is coextensive with the Soke, - is ungainly, why not "which adjoins/is adjacent to/adjoining." or some similarly clear clause —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is coextensive or conterminous with, not adjoining or adjacent to. Chrisieboy 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"lies alongside" or "shares a boundary with" then? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words it is coextensive. I am not going to change this, it does not "lie alongside" and I do not understand how this clarifies rather than confuses the statement. Please see the OED. Chrisieboy 17:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is in the OED, it's just a highly unusual word - clear prose is about not using unusual words when commoner plain ones will suffice. However I'll concede this is not a deal-breaker.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. - this sounds like advertorial, is vague and doesn't mean anything but that there's an overriding long term plan. This needs to be more specific about how the town centre is planned to evolve or otherwise remove.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It outlines the plan, without going into too much detail. Chrisieboy 17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it doesn't outline anything except come across like advertorial statement basically stating there's a plan. (what plan does it outline exactly ??) I really feel this bit is unencyclopedic and needs to be reworded or excluded. However, to be fair I'll see what others think.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to Oppose on the basis of this sentence The Plan outlines a new vision for the city centre,identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15-20 years. - being lifted out of the city's glossy advertorial plan here. Please rewrite in non-advertorial format or remove. I'll happily support once this section addressed cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are opposing promotion to FA on the basis of ONE sentence in an 82kb article, although you previously said you would see what others think! How would you re-word it..? Chrisieboy 09:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - replace "Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progressing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development." with "The resulting £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounds is scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2012; currently focussing on the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter. - and thus rid the advertorial fluff and mixed development waffle.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to indulge you (although I do not agree with you) in order to get you to support this nomination. However, what you have written does not make sense. You want to replace:
  • Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progressing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development with
  • The resulting £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounds is scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2012; currently focussing on the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter. Chrisieboy 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have toned down the contentious sentence, taking out the waffle about a new vision for the city centre (although I was not logged-in at the time). Chrisieboy 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You (a) missed the other contentious sentence and (b) didn't address the fact that the section came word-for-word from advertorial council fluff-piece. I am now happy to support as is. I am not sure how to continue discussion but right this second you now have consensus to promote, ok? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding some criticism before the second ref., but had an edit conflict. Will you consider a compromise..? I think:

  • Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progressing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development. (ref.) Whilst recognising the reconfiguration of the relationship between the city and station is critical, English Heritage found the current plans for Westgate unconvincing and felt more thought should be given to the vitality of the historic core. (ref.)

reads better. Chrisieboy 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you have linguistics in the Geography section (?) - may need a subheading?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this, please see the above discussion. Chrisieboy 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dweller has changed Geography to Geography and linguistics. Chrisieboy 17:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Chrisieboy just indiscriminately reverted my good intentions to improve the captions of the images in the article [55] to help him get this up to FA. The captions he reverted to do NOT explain the images shown. What is the "butter cross"? What is a lord paramount? (I even started a stub article on that topic for explanation, the link to which he also removed.) I continue to fail to understand why he is so resistant to any good faith help and suggestions with article and I am starting to have WP:OWN issues here. My oppose stands. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See diffs. These captions are way over the top. Good captions should be succinct; the images are all referenced in the text (where I moved your link to lord paramount) Some of yours were largely lifted from the text, all were badly written, eg. "Peterborough Cathedral, seen from the west side" rather than the (correct) The West Front, Peterborough Cathedral; "Minster Precincts of the Peterborough Cathedral" (tautologous). Full stops should not be used, unless the caption is a complete sentence. Sorry, Chrisieboy 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in general the expanded captions were good - we should remember that people may well glance at the images before reading the article, so it is helpful to give a bit more context, rather than expecting them to read the article right away. The exception is the change made to the image of the West Front of the Cathedral. West Front is a specific architectural term, simply saying "seen from the western side" is not (in my view), nearly so descriptive. David Underdown 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further (sorry about the deletion - I wasn't warned about an edit conflict as usually happens). Specifying that the Minster Precincts are around the Cathedral is only tautologous if you understand that the Minster and the cathedral are the same thng - the Minster precincts are the only time that that equivalence is made in Peterborough, unlike e.g. York where the cathedral is universally referred to as "the Minster". Yes there were things to pickon, and they could have used some tidying, but reverting them out of hand was unhelpful. Putting people's backs up is not a good way to get the article to featured status. David Underdown 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment David. I agree that some captions needed a bit of tidying and I was not aware of the West Front naming, so sorry about that. But indeed the very short captions are not helpfull for readers inexperienced with some of these subjects, which is exactly why I added some more information. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also Chrisieboy, for having now changed the captions to be much more descriptive [56]. You certainly did a better job than I did myself, but please remember I was just trying to help you with the article. Image concerns are dealt with and have been struck in my comment above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportКруто --Miwanya 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having another look at the current version of the article, I think that the prose has significantly increased since I first commented here (the paragraphs now form real paragraphs instead of seperate sentences) and at least part of the unsourced statements have been addressed. Also, the air appears to have cleared as far as I am concerned. If enough other editors agree that this should become FA, my previous objections should not stand in that way. My comments above and my oppose have been struck. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Lung cancer

edit

Self-nomination. I have been working on this article for about six months. It is accurate, comprehensive and well-referenced. It may still need a little work on criteria 1a and 2a. Thanks. Axl 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed - I agree, a quick glance shows it needs a copyedit. I feel there'd be too many examples for me to list out here. I am happy if you'll permit me to go through and massage teh text a bit. As well, there needs to be more prominent mention of the fact that just about all primary lung cancers are carcinomas (i.e. arise from epithelial tissue), also the incidence of Ca lung is much higher with contact with asbestos. On the plus side, it does look comprehensive on a quick view. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All help appreciated. :-) Thanks, Casliber. Axl 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—the article is very comprehensive and well-referenced. However, on a quick glance, many sections seem...a bit too concise :) Summary style is a good thing, and I know the article is already at 60 kB, but—I can't believe I'm saying this—most paragraphs seems strangely short!
Anyway, some more actionable comments:
  • "Signs and symptoms" could use more references, particularly for the third paragraph; it's uncontroversial information, but it would still be nice to attribute it to a source.
I have added three extra references. Axl 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon my asking, but is there a strong enough link between viral infection and lung ca for it to be mentioned along with the "main" causes?
That's a very reasonable comment. Currently, the article contains two (well-referenced) sentences at the bottom of the "Causes" section. I am happy to take consensus on this; it's certainly not essential to the article. Axl 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few inconsistencies in the references; e.g., reference 94 doesn't use the {{cite journal}} format, one or two references may still have hyphens where en dashes would be appropriate (quick fix :)
That reference ("Adler") was inserted by SandyGeorgia. It is unusual because the reference quotes a different paper, hence the odd format style. I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but would be grateful for suggestions. Axl 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of months ago, SandyGeorgia advised to me to ask someone to run a dash-fixing script. Unfortunately I forget who runs that script. :-( If someone can remind me, I'll ask the script owner to run it again. Axl 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Brighterorange (talk · contribs) ;) I don't think there are many, though; probably just a couple. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I get it. I've formatted it for consistency with the others and added the OCLC ID number for the Adler book. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • could you find the ISBN for The Nazi War on Cancer?
I've fixed it. I had the "isbn" in capitals in the reference. Axl 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read more thoroughly later, but I'm really pressed for time—sorry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • "People with these polymorphisms are more likely to develop lung cancer after exposure to carcinogens." (reference?)
There are three references in the previous sentence ("Engels", "Wenzlaff" and "Yin"). Axl 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Asian state of Bhutan has a complete smoking ban since 2005" (reference?)
I have added one. Axl 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have added them. Axl 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, and I deleted some of them again. They don't rise to the level of highly reliable sources, and they should be in the DMOZ link anyway. We don't need to expand External links for the sake of expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, it's a comprehensive, well-written article. When it doesn't contain any citation needed template and these references are added to the article, I'll support it! Well done, Axl! NCurse work 06:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't another one on Wikimedia Commons. I don't actually have an account on Wikimedia Commons, but I could possibly upload one directly to Wikipedia. Axl 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get one -- Samir 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant risk factor for developing lung cancer is long-term exposure to inhaled carcinogens, especially tobacco smoke. - while strictly true, this seems to be a case of soft-peddaling. A risk factor is, by definition, a corrolation; whereas it has been proven beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt that cigarette smoke (including passive smoke) is an active cause of lung cancer. This sentence should be reworded to make it clear that cigarette smoke isn't just correlated with higher lung cancer rates, but actively causes it. Raul654 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. How about "The most important cause of lung cancer is exposure to tobacco smoke." Axl 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, although you may need to change the reference at the end of the sentence too. Raul654 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done it. Axl 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Raul654 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment comprehensive article, but I think it could benefit from splitting it up in two articles: small cell and non small cell lung cancer (with perhaps a shorter general lung cancer article). --WS 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The article is not overly long, and I think such an arbitrary split would be detrimental. Raul654 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not as arbitrary as you might think. Pathogenesis, staging and treatment differ considerably between the two types. It is hard to cover both in one article and not generalize from one type to the other. Medical resources such as emedicine and uptodate also have separate articles. Most of the studies found on pubmed focus on one type. --WS 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My take is on how the public perceives it, which is that lung cancer in common parlance = Ca lung, with some comments on secondary tumours and quick mention of the very rare ones, so I think the main article has the subject and organization right. Nothing to stop subarticles later..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections "Signs and symptoms", "Causes", "Diagnosis", "Prevention", "Epidemiology", and "History" are the same for both NSCLC and SCLC. Differences arise in the sections "Classification", "Pathophysiology", "Treatment", and "Prognosis". In my opinion, the similarity of sections outweighs the differences. More importantly, most people who read this article do not have detailed medical knowledge beforehand; they are unlikely to appreciate the difference between NSCLC and SCLC. I have informed many patients that they have lung cancer, yet very few have subsequently asked me what type. Hence it is preferable to keep most of the information in a single article. Axl 06:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed, sorry to be late to this, Axl, been traveling. Some random things I noticed that need attention; I don't think the article is quite ready yet:
  • Undefined acronym, IARC, pls check all acronyms throughout.
Okay, done. Axl 15:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can do better on the awkward formatting of this sentence: Studies from the U.S. (1986,[34][35] 1992,[36] 1997,[37] 2001,[38] 2003[39]), Europe (1998[40]), the UK (1998[41][42]), and Australia (1994[43]) have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke. Perhaps eliminate the years and use a combined ref format like on Tourette syndrome?
Done; I have removed the years. Axl 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I furthed edited to change the unsightly string of ref tags to one ref tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two-sentence sections (like Viruses, Emerging treatments and Non-small cell lung cancer prognosis, as examples only) are not ideal; can short sections be expanded, or merged?
"Viruses" expanded. Other sections merged. Axl 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:MOS, avoid the use of e.g. and i.e. (use prose instead).
Abbreviations removed. Axl 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reveiw all of your wikilinking to help out layreaders; for example, I noticed no link to differential diagnosis. I also encountered lobectomy and wedge excision. Laypersons don't know these terms; stubs should be created and wikilinked, or the terms need definition.
Links & stubs added. Axl 21:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MEDMOS suggested sections, not sure why Screening is under Prevention rather than separate (MEDMOS accepts variation, but is there a reason?)
There is a reason: MEDMOS recommends "Prevention" or "Screening". There is no guideline on the use of both headings in an article. In any case, I have separated "Screening" into its own section. Axl 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of redundant prose: have a look at Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s exercises to reduce prose redundancy, needed throughout. One sample: Randomized controlled trials are underway in this area to see if decreased long-term mortality can be directly observed from CT screening. There are also some throw-away sentences that need tightening up, example: The treatment of lung cancer continues to evolve. Furhter prose tightening needed throughout, for example: About 10% of people with lung cancer do not have symptoms of it at the time of diagnosis; these cancers are usually found on routine chest x-rays. How about, About 10% of individuals with lung cancer are asymptomatic at diagnosis ...
I'm not sure that "asymptomatic" is appropriate for lay readers. In any case, I have trimmed that sentence. I have tried to ensure that the grammar is technically correct and the spelling is accurate. I accept that more work is required to achieve criterion 1a. I have read Tony1's essay. However I am reaching the limit of what I can achieve. Perhaps I should hand this over to someone else? Axl 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Axl, please keep at it and don't be discouraged. Articles make it to FA usually because of the commitment of one passionate editor. You can eventually fix everything here, but sometimes you need distance from the text to see the prose issues. Take a few days off and then read a printout, maybe, and work on developing your own resources on Wiki; unfortunately, I've not found that posts to the Medicine project about FACs or FARs are often likely to result in direct help, so you've got to seek out the people who will help and who are strong in prose. You're very close, so you shouldn't give up now. (I haven't yet had a chance to review your wikilinking, but would rather do that after you've made another pass at the prose.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:DASH, no unspaced emdashes on Wiki, and endashes on date and number ranges.
  • See WP:MOSNUM, ... with 1,35 million new cases per year and 1,18 million deaths, ...
Numbers fixed. Axl 08:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are uncited statements, for example: Primary lung tumors themselves most commonly metastatize to the adrenal glands, liver, brain, and bone.

Followup on size: I noted Fvasconcellos' comment above about the use of summary style. At 22KB prose, this is perhaps the shortest medical FA, and you have much room to expand some of the content if needed (for example, see Tuberculosis). It does seem a bit over-summarized in some places; I won't object on this because others say it's comprehensive, but in the event you want to expand some of the stubbier sections, the article could double in size and still be within WP:SIZE guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still rough going.

  • I'm not sure why this sentence is stuck in where it is: When NSCLC cannot be subtyped, it is assigned SNOMED code 8046/3. There's no mention of any other codes, and the SNOMED throws a layreader. Why do we need a code here and not in other cases?
  • Here's a sample of the kind of linking still needed. I linked bronchus and cavitation, but it still seems the passage could be made more layreader-friendly, so they don't have to click on cavitation: Accounting for 31.1% of lung cancers, squamous cell lung carcinoma usually starts near a central bronchus. Cavitation and necrosis within the center of the cancer is a common finding.
  • I don't know what to do with the word neurosecretory, no link. These are the kinds of medical terms that need to be linked or defined.
  • I don't know what this sentence means, it's not layreader friendly and none of the terms are linked: The "oat" cell contains dense neurosecretory granules which give this an endocrine/paraneoplastic syndrome association. I think this is defined later in the text (Depending on the type of tumor, so-called paraneoplastic phenomena may initially attract attention to the disease), so I'm not sure why it can't be explained on the first occurrence.
  • I shouldn't still be finding unlinked terms like carcinogen and comorbidity (they should be linked on first occurrence).
  • British or American throughout, not sure? Radon is a colorless and odourless gas ...
  • I only got as far as pathophysiology. This series seems choppy, and that it could be merged into sentences that flow better:
    • Mutations in the K-ras proto-oncogene are responsible for 20–30% of non-small cell lung cancers.[52] Chromosomal damage can lead to loss of heterozygosity. This can cause inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. Damage to chromosomes 3p, 5q, 13q and 17p are particularly common in small cell lung carcinoma. The TP53 tumor suppressor gene, located on chromosome 17p, is often affected.[53]
  • Looking over the edit history and talk page, I see two edits from WS, some input from Casliber a few weeks ago, and no other indication that the Medicine Projects have given you a hand here. That's frustrating. I feel the prose still needs attention, but if the Projects aren't going to lend a hand with all your hard work, Raul may as well promote it as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --> mild oppose; surely someone can lend a hand to smooth out the choppiness and fill out the history and developing-world sections?—1a, not comprehensive.
    • "This distinction is important because non-small cell lung cancer is sometimes treated with surgery, while small cell cancer is not. Also, small cell lung cancer usually responds better to chemotherapy." Please do not start a sentence with "also". Integrate the ideas smoothly and logically into the sentences.
Text changed. Axl 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most important cause of lung cancer is exposure to tobacco smoke." Wouldn't it be more direct to say "The most common cause ..."?
Okay, I have changed it. Axl 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "less than 10% of cases"—ungrammatical: "fewer".
Done. Axl 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "surgery" linked on second occurrence, not first? I'm unsure a link is necessary, since it's not to what I'd hoped: an article on a particular type of surgery; too general to bother the readers with this common dictionary word.
I have changed the link: now the first entry links to lung cancer surgery. Axl 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Insert "only" before "14%; that is the point you're making, isn't it? What does "overal" mean here?
I have removed "overall". I haven't included "only" because that is value-laden (in my opinion). If reviewers consider it appropriate, I'll add "only". Axl
    • In the first caption, the white area is "cancer"? Can't it be more precise? Cancerous tumour? "Cancer" is the disease.
I have changed the captions. Axl 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "non-small cell (80%) and small-cell (roughly 20%) lung cancer"—One is exact and one is rough?
Different sources quote slightly different rates. Most sources quote NSCLC at about 80%, while SCLC quoted rates vary from 15% to 21%. I have looked through the seminal epidemiological study (SEER, summarized by Travis) from 1995 and I added a couple of tables indicating rates of lung cancer types. Axl 07:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very" is usually very redundant. Use "critical" or "major" is you have to.
I have removed "very". Axl 07:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we find out whether those rarer forms are non-small or small cell, since you've just categorised all into an 80/20 division? Good way to fill out the stubby para. And what about the rates per 100,000 annually for those rarer ones?
I have included that info in the tables. Axl 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's first-world centric. Why just US figures for smoking? China and India are the time-bombs, and the locations of the greatest human suffering from smoking. Not a mention.
    • Not comprehensive; too short. The History section is a joke far too short. The are certainly enough footnotes, but not enough meat hanging off them. Tony 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Axl. Still concerned at the lack of information on the developing world (hasn't the WHO got some stuff there?). And history could be fascinating if three times the length. The tables do now look intrusive—they're very large and early in the piece; see what other reviewers think. BTW, there's a "3" that probably should be "3.0". Generally a choppy read. Tony (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has adjusted the tables and improved the layout; thanks Sandy. Axl 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to revert it if you don't like it; if you do like it, you can see more color/features that can be added at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, my sincere apologies for neglecting this FAC; I have been distracted on the Asperger syndrome FAR and didn't have time for FAC. I promise to review tomorrow or the next day. On a quick glance, I just saw another undefined, unlinked term (Stage IB cancer—as a layperson, I have no idea what Stage IB is and I don't find it defined in the article, but I may need to review more closely). I'll place any further review on the article talk page later today or tomorrow, as I don't like to fill up the FAC page with such items. I appreciate your patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The staging system is seen at non-small cell lung carcinoma staging. Perhaps I should move this information to lung cancer? Axl 07:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Audioslave

edit

I've worked on improving the article in my free time during summer; I've completely rewritten it, added more useful sections, reliable references to everything dat can be challenged, added images with fair use rationale, and sound samples with fair use rationale. I think it is comprehensive, accurate, and - I hope - neutral. The biggest problem is grammar, I guess, as English is not my first language. It is also currently undergoing a peer review. Gocsa 11:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking pretty good. I just gave it a copy edit, per WP:WIAFA here are some thoughts: I'd say it easily complies with 1b-e. If it's not already at 1a it's very close. Probably some awkward sentences I missed. I'm still learning the mammoth MOS, but the lead section is good. The article is quite well-cited. I was a bit wary of some of the citations to the Audioslave Fan Forum, and it appears that some of those are repostings of articles from other magazines (ZeroMag or Guitar World). From what I understand, Wikipedia has no policy on convenience links (just this essay Wikipedia:Convenience links), but we definitely can't use those links if the forum is posting copyrighted material without permission. I haven't look at images yet. The article is probably a bit long. Perhaps a lot of the information on each album could be moved to the page on that respective album? --JayHenry 00:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Audioslave Fan Forum links are OK, I think, one of them is an article written by a member of the Audioslave Fan Forum itself, with her permission (the 'Audioslave: Pushing Forward Back'), the other is just a short news article, and there is a concert review written by another member. The only copyrighted material was the 2003 Total Guitar magazine interview with Tom Morello, and I've changed that reference. Gocsa 10:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for addressing that. All the images are freely-licensed or have detail fair use rationales. I'm not convinced, however, by the rationale at Image:AudioslaveMorelloAxisofJustice.jpg — an image of Morello and some volunteers at an information tent. This image is easily replaceable, as Morello still actively does this. I would suggest just removing this image, the article will not suffer. My biggest concern is now the length. Would it be possible to move some of the recording information about each album into the article for that respective album? I'd be happy to help with this, if you'd like. I think following the suggestions at Wikipedia:Summary style, we can get this to a more manageable length. --JayHenry 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the image, but still, it'd be nice to use it in the article, so I've sent an e-mail to a webmaster, requesting the use of the image, I hope I'll get an answer, and the right one. I kinda knew that the article turned out to be long in the end, but I really didn't know, and still don't know what to delete, so I'd be glad if you could do that. Just weed out every irrelevant information, you can move them to the album pages, if you will, and you can delete/move other things too. Thank you for your help in advance. I really appreciate it. Gocsa 18:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I haven't forgotten, but I ended up spending more time than expected at RFA this week, and haven't had a chance to make these edits! I promise I will finish shortening this tomorrow. After shortening a bit, I think I'll be prepared to support this FAC. If we could leave this open just a few more days, I think we can address whatever needs to be addressed. Apologies again for the delay on my end! --JayHenry 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been pretty worthless trying to shorten. Not as much to merge as I thought. I ran it through a word counter and the body text is actually only about 15% bigger than Smashing Pumpkins now, so I'm comfortable that the length isn't out of control, and that was my only significant concern to begin with. --JayHenry 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox logo isn't permitted under fair use, as it's not criticised in the article. Also, it makes sense to make the band's name in the infobox as easy to read as possible. Otherwise, I'll give it a copyedit as part of prose review. CloudNine 09:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got rid of the logo. Gocsa 09:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that bad, it certanly does the job. Gocsa 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job KoMuNeRo MaG 16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

  • Some very long sentences. Take this one at the top, which I had to read three times to disentangle:
"Although during the early stages of their career the band was often described as an amalgamation of two bands, Rage Against the Machine and Soundgarden,[1] or Rage Against the Machine's fractured parts fronted by a different vocalist,[2][3] by the time of the release of the second album, Out of Exile, most critics agreed that Audioslave was more than just the sum of its parts[4][5] and members were getting closer to finding their identity as a cohesive band.[6][7][8]". Search through for others that would be easier split by a period or a semicolon.
  • Use "with" as a clause connection only in desperation. Here's an example of two "withs" that perform different functions, causing a hiccup for the reader:
"As the three were busy with reunion performances and with Morello and Cornell both releasing solo albums in 2007, Audioslave was officially disbanded."

Tony 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've taken a second look at the article (actually, printed it out and looked through it), and I've come across several issues:
CloudNine's addressed comments
  • The first paragraph should be rephrased. The first sentence is too long and awkward for my liking. Here's an alternate version of the lead that may flow better:


  • I don't think the second paragraph of the lead is needed. It should be obvious to the reader that Audioslave was effectively an amalgamation of two bands (anyway, the second part of that sentence seems to state it in a different way). "Sum of its parts" sounds a little clichéd to me. Perhaps this paragraph could be shorten and merged with the first? (First paragraph could explain the band's identity and makeup perhaps?).
  • Can you help me with this part? I'd like to shorten it and merge it with the first paragraph, but I kinda can't find the appropriate words to express what I want:) The meaning of that part is how critics deemed the band only a supergroup at the time of the first album, and how they broke out of that stereotype by the second (and third) album. Can you rewrite it or help me in some way? Thank you very much. Gocsa 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you choose not to address the previous comment, "by the time of the release of the second album" could be shortened "By Audioslave's second album, ...".
  • You may want to be consistent with numbers through the text (i.e. eight is preferred to 8)
  • Apparently a citation is needed for the Cornell quote in the fourth para of the lead.
  • The first sentence of the Formation section feels like a run-on sentence to me. I suggest rephrasing the first two sentences, and adding the band's breakup to the second.
  • "Several vocalists jammed with the band at this time, [...], but they.." is a little confusing on first read. Try "the three" instead for clarity?
  • "The second sentence of the "Name" section may confuse some readers, as it's not too clearly phrased. Here's my attempt:


  • This shortens the para, so you may want to merge the first and second paras together.
  • My own personal preference, but you may want to move the citations in cquotes to after the colon (i.e. "as follows:[1]")
  • Spotted a "they" and "their" in the first sentence of ===Audioslave=== when you're referring to Audioslave. You may want to check for more of those. Replacing it with "the band" should be fine. (Just being picky! :))
  • There's a bit too much detail about individual singles (esp. "Cochise" and "Show Me How to Live") and albums in general. I'll attempt to summarise things soon.
  • I've removed an unnecessary sentence from the "Cochise" and the "Show Me How to Live" paragraphs, what else do you think should be removed? I think this much of info is needed as both were important singles, "Cochise" being the very first song released, its video is also relevant, while "Show Me How To Live" was banned, so it deserves 2 sentences. I guess some album infos can be moved or deleted, but I really shouldn't do it, as I'm more of a fan of the band, I don't know what to remove, what to keep:) Gocsa 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the more I read those paragraphs, the more important they appear to be. It's quite hard to find text to move, although some of the album reviews could be shortened a little.
  • "Only months after the break-up of the band did Cornell reveal that he appeared in the "Cochise" video in the middle of his 30-day alcohol rehab spell, and after the shoot was over he was driven back to the institute." This seems like a minor detail that would be better suited to the "Cochise" article, as it's not directly related to the band itself.
  • "and sometimes overshdowed the re-united headliners, Jane's Addiction". "somtimes overshadowed" doesn't make much sense (although I know what you're trying to say here). I'd remove it, combine the two sentences, and leave the commentary to the sources themselves.
  • "It is also one of the few Audioslave songs to have a very radio-friendly, poppish tune, and is probably one of their most well-known songs." I'd remove from here to the end of the paragraph, as it's better placed in the "Be Yourself" article.
  • Also, the paragraph beginning "The music video for "Be Yourself" debuted in late April.." isn't really related to the band; my advice would be to remove it.
  • What's a spring club tour? It's not clear.
  • The sentence beginning "While on their previous tours behind the first album they never" is long and unclear. I've not seen "behind" in this context. I'd suggest splitting it up into one or more sentences.
  • ref #3 can't be found.
  • I've been bold and removed the information about "Original Fire" (as again it's not directly related to the band).
  • The news about Cornell's departure doesn't flow well; the end of the previous paragraph talks about Audioslave's various appearances in games, and then it switches to his departure. I'd rephrase it and perhaps merge it in with another paragraph (I'll attempt it soon).
  • I've just changed the order of the paragraphs/sentences, maybe it's better now. I switched the song appearances and the news about Cornell's departure, and also made a new paragraph about the marketing of Revelations, by adding the video game and movie appearances infos to the Audioslave Nation part. Gocsa 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to shorten the paragraph of Revelations reviews, and keep it down to a minimum.
  • "The Rage Against the Machine reunion at Coachella was said to be a one-off, but it turned out differently" seems a little informal to me. You may want to rephrase this.
  • One remaining general problem with the article: Spring, summer etc. shouldn't be used to refer to times of the year (as for our readers in the Southern Hemisphere it's quite confusing). Early, mid and late <year> should suffice.
  • "Audioslave mixed different genres in their music" doesn't sound formal to me (and it's a little general). I'd remove it, as the following sentence sums up Audioslave's musical style more accurately.
  • The sentence beginning "This unique mix.." is a little long. Perhaps move the information about Cornell's lyrics to a separate sentence? Here's a version that may be a little clearer:


  • You may want to remove their first names from the above quote, as it'll make it a little clearer to read.
  • I'd explain why the band included the statement "All sounds made..", as it might be a little unclear to the reader.
  • Your choice, but you may want to change the title to "Campaigning and activism" or "Politics", to be consistent with other articles.
  • Just noticed: "After releasing three highly successful albums, receiving three Grammy nominations, selling more than eight million records worldwide and becoming the first American rock band to perform an open-air concert in Cuba, Chris Cornell issued a statement" makes it sound as if the band in question is Chris Cornell. It's a well-written sentence otherwise, so perhaps mention Audioslave towards the start of the sentence?
  • "While Rage Against the Machine's music was politically influenced, Audioslave's originally was not, as Chris Cornell said he did not want to become the new singer of Rage Against the Machine or be in a political band, but he would play any benefits the other band members want to." is hard to follow, and appears to be a run-on sentence. You may want to rephrase or split it.
  • "the debut album in the form of". "Audioslave's "Set It Off" should suffice, and read better.
  • "The latter" doesn't apply when you've listed three or more items previously. I'd replace this with "Wide Awake".
  • "anti-Iraq war" might be better phrased as "against the Iraq War"
  • "president" should be "President" in this context I believe. A second opinion is welcome.
  • The sentence beginning "While in Cuba, Cornell said.." runs on a little bit. You may want to rephrase it.
  • "He added that he feels" also reads a little awkwardly.
  • "ultimately culminated". "ultimately" is redundant here.
  • Moving onto Solo projects: "...politically in his music, Audioslave being a completely non-political band". The last part doesn't seem to flow from the rest of the sentence.
  • To reduce the article's size (and make it quicker to load), you may want to remove the reference names, as they're only required when you want reference the same thing twice or more. (Pearl Jam has roughly the same amount of prose, yet is much smaller in total size). CloudNine 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Victoria Cross (Canada)

edit

(self nom) This article is one of the Victoria Cross medals featured topic. This article follows the same structure as the featured article Victoria Cross for New Zealand and Victoria Cross. This article is currently a good article and it has passed a good article review fairly recently. In case you were wondering about its name, it is complicated. In Canada this is the Victoria Cross, in United Kingdom it is referred to as the Victoria Cross, for Canadian military personnel. The Canadians did not use the suffix "for ..." unlike New Zealand and Australia. That being said, I think it is worthy of featured article status and i humbly submit it to you all. Woodym555 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Truthiness

edit

Previous FAC

Since the article was last nominated for FA status last year, the article has been dramatically improved. I believe that this article is now worthy to be of such status. ISD 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support Subject obviously has had relevant cultural impact and coverage since Colbert popularized it. However, currently it seems to have too many sections that are arranged more in a time-line fashion than an article fashion. So, support on the grounds it is notable, but I wouldn't mind seeing a restructuring. The Clawed One 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on the grounds it's notable seems sketchy. If it wasn't, it shouldn't have an article at all... Featured articles are not about the subject, but about the article quality. - Mgm|(talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This a great article, it has all the information anyone would need on Truthiness and has great citations. "Truthiness" should be used as a model for other word articles. Voot42 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments:
  • First, the prose in the first few sentences of the "Origins" section sounds very stilted: "Stephen Colbert did this. He did this. He used the word here." I'd like to see it flow a little better in more compelling, coherent prose. (Should only require some minor restructuring).
  • The Wikipedia section seems to exhibit to me the bias of authors writing about it in Wikipedia -- that is, I feel its authors are forgetting that not everyone is a Wikipedian. I see this particularly in the last sentence in that section, which deviates entirely from the subject at hand (truthiness) and simply discusses Colbert's history with Wikipedia, which is entirely irrelevant. I would say this of the entire closing paragraph, but if the elephants thing was directly linked to truthiness -- i.e., "You should change it because it makes it truthy" -- I suppose it is okay. (Was it linked in that way? Because there's nothing about elephants in the excerpted monologue, and no citation supporting the fact that "This lead [sic, fix] to Colbert encouraging his viewers to vandalise the Wikipedia.") In that continuing vein, concepts like an article being protected should either be explained better or wikilinked to the relevant sections of the article Wikipedia or the relevant policy page explaining that practice.
  • The article's organization seems a bit off: only two main body sections. "Popularity and widespread use" seems like it's trying to take too big a bite out of the material. I would recommend splitting that material up into one section dealing with the history of the term, post-first-episode -- how it took off, its trajectory and media coverage, its getting Word of the Year, etc. -- and then another section on "Applications" or "Instances of use" or something -- like the James Frey controversy, Colbert at the WHCA dinner, and Colbert's further discussion of wikiality, all of which are really post-phenomenon events still relevant to the subject.
I don't have time now to give this a thorough reading-through, though I intend to later today or tomorrow. At any rate, I will give my overall impression, which is that I'm reluctant to support -- I'm not sure this article is ready yet. I realize that's not helpful to you trying to improve it, though, so when I come back, I will have specific objections that can be addressed, as per WP:FAC. Dylan 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being improved in response to your comments. ISD 06:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Uranus

edit

Previous FAC

This article may have some issues with length, but other than that I think it is now ready for FA consideration. Serendipodous 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I was hasty in my support last time but it looks alot more polished. congrats. make sure there are no short paras like in the Planetary rings section - para 4 could go on para 1. There are some others. back later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed km/h to m/s. Ruslik 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Frederick Russell Burnham

edit

Burnham was an American scout, explorer, adventurer, and Major in the British Army who was also one of the prime inspirations for Scouting, the world's largest youth movement. We have steadily worked the last 1-2 months improving this article and we hereby nominate it.Rlevse 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is an excellent article - informative, fully cited, and well written. Good work by all those involved. --Xdamrtalk 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please copy edit. I found three spots that could be improved; there are probably more. A good pair of eyes that haven't seen the article before would be very useful. Please be brief and use the active voice; and avoid any turn of phrase you are used to seeing in print. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We took a shot at this. You might need to be more specific. Thanks for the edits.
    • If the assassination of Kitchener is Burnham's account, say so in the text. It's not the standard version.
      • It is Duquesne's account, changed to "claimed".
    • Did you really check the New York Times for 1910? If not, please use the source actually consulted, perhaps with a note citing the New York Times of April 17, 1910: "May import African animals to solve meat problem".
    • It would help to redo the footnotes to the standard method: one footnote per sentence, which may contain multiple sources. Since Richard Harding Davis, for example, is in the references, it is enough to say Davis, p. xx in each note. Please include page numbers for Davis, unless its all on p.192 (in which case the note should say so) or his index is better than we have any reason to expect; separate notes will permit this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll remove the reference to p.192 in Davis' book. However, this book is found online in both Project Gutenberg and Wikisource, so I'm not sure a page cite is appropriate -- online sources don't usually keep page numbers.
        • This is a real, if minor, problem. It is hard to verify references in an online source, even one presented in bulk as Gutenberg does, without some clue where in the text you mean; and some readers will check a hardcopy of the book. Chapter numbers would help.
For more details, see User_talk:Ctatkinson#Response_to_Septentrionalis_FAC_questions.Rlevse 10:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I meant the edit summary "not quite yet". This is an excellent article, copiously researched; it needs a copyedit by someone who hasn't seen it, but the rest are points of detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Omaha Beach

edit

Self-Nom. This article has been peer reviewed and has successfully completed an A-Class review by the WPMILHIST project, and I would now like to submit it for consideration for Featured Article status. Thanks. --FactotEm 12:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help - much appreciated. I've gone through the article and wikilinked as much as I could find of relevance as well as removing some duplicated wikilinks. Cheers. --FactotEm 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sumoeagle179 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another pretty impressive milhist article. I saw one "grievous" POV example, which concerned me that there might be more. Actually that example might not be grievous if the source supports or better yet uses that wording, but you can't tell from the current citation if it covers the paragraph or just the last sentence. Oh, and I must say the lead is particularly impressive, which is no small feat. - Taxman Talk 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your input. Where there is only one cite in a para it supports all statements in that para. In this case the source does not support the use of that word and I've replaced it now. I've checked through the rest of the article and do not believe that there are any further examples. --FactotEm 09:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a fine piece of well-informed and confident writing. I particularly liked the way you step back from the battle details every so often to provide overviews. It's good to read an article from someone who clearly understands ground and tactics. I thought the brief sketch of the beach as it is today added much. There were a few fussy typos/inconsistencies, which I've amended. Revert if you disagree. These in no way detract from the excellence of this article. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind. Thank you. I see no need to revert any of your improvements. --FactotEm 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magic. A whole lot better and I've replaced the original with it. Thank you.--FactotEm 05:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That area is pretty congested image wise and I can't work out a quick fix, but I'll have another look at it in the morning. Thank you. --FactotEm 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get some advice on this one? I have tried various reformats to eliminate this but they all seem to me to be worse than the current layout, and I don't think that any of the images should be removed. Is this a significant issue, or a 'nice to have if you can'? Also, does this extend to sandwiching text between a quote box and an image, or is that OK? --FactotEm 09:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Issy Smith

edit

This article is about an obscure yet highly notable subject. The primary editor, SoLando, has done an outstanding job in marshalling very limited reliable source material into an interesting, tightly-written, thoroughly-researched, comprehensive, and well-referenced piece. It became an A-Class article earlier today with unanimous unconditional support. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep rewording looks good (and so does the stub by the way!!! ;) The wording was only the slightest of changes, but it just didn't look good to me. It is a great article. Well done. Woodym555 16:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about size? It is comprehensive. it does not go into unneccessary detail and it is concise. What exactly is your objection please? We can't improve the article to meet your objections if we don't know what they are. Woodym555 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Woodym555. Could you elaborate, Mlwanya? There is no established minimum size; if such a standard existed, it is certain that it wouldn't be strictly enforced if an FAC was demonstrably comprehensive and factually accurate (which this article is). Irrespective of size, the article does meet FA criterion, 1b and 2a being most pertinennt to your opposition. There have been numerous examples of relatively short articles attaining FA status, such as Hurricane Ismael and Hurricane Irene (2005). SoLando (Talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mimimum size. As long as the article is demonstrably comprehensive, it meets the criteria. Checking through the sources available, it is clear that this is a comprehensive biography of the life of Issy Smith. Woodym555 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the paucity of original material, I suggest criterion 4 applies: "of an appropriate length ... without going into unnecessary detail". --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a few small things that need to be fixed.
    • Need a citation for the quotation in the lead (per WP:Lead)
    • You might want to wikilink to football, so that people won't get confused as to which variety of football the article means.
    • I don't believe you need quotation marks for ghetto and Second Ypres.
    • Cite your quotations at the end of each sentence, even if several sentences in a row quote from the same source. (In particular, the information about his Victoria Cross citation)
    • Some of the footnotes need to be reformatted. In particular, 11, 14, and 16 refer to books but have no publisher listed and the author's full name is not listed (and they aren't in references). Also, if possible, your citations from newspapers need to list the author of the article, and they need to be consistent on their date linking; some have the dates wikilinked and some do not.

Good luck. Karanacs 13:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Are there any specific statements you think still need referencing? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a fact tag in the one place that a sentence had a quote and no citation. If you'll fix that, I'll support. Karanacs 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Heian Palace

edit

Self-nominate The article has been through peer review (archived here) and then given GA status in July this year (GAR archived [article review/Archive 25#Heian here]). In the GA process a few reviewers expressed their view that missing page number references in notes were the only thing keeping the article from being of FA quality. Encouraged by the GA reviewers' comments, and having finally found the time to go through the article's references and to add the previously missing page numbers, I'm submitting the article as an FA candidate. Stca74 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Good article: phrase "foreign ambassadors were not received more most of the Heian period" (in Greater Palace (Daidairi), para 4) does not make much sense.--Grahamec 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Fixed that one. Thanks for pointing it out! Stca74 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Grahamec 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Upon review, it seems clear the quality of the article is among Wikipedia's best. I'd love to see someone get a hold of the Japanese sources, but I'm fairly convinced that it would lead to no or few corrections, based on the quality of the sources that were used. I hate to say it since it looks like a good article, but four references? I could possibly handle it if the were all scholarly, detailed, and focused on the specific topic of this article, but they just appear to be general works including a little information on the palace. Also you'd have to convince me that there aren't any other good sources of information on the palace and I'd be surprised if that were the case. - Taxman Talk 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that unfortunately the sources available are few, and to my knowledge there are no English (probably no non-Japanese) sources focussed just on the Palace. On the other hand, I hope you are not making a judgement based on just the number of references; instead of being "general works with little information on the palace" all four are scholarly and detailed works, written by recognized academics specialised in Hein period history and archaeology. I would, in particular, propose that you have a look at McCullough and McCullough (1980), where the 22-page section on the Palace qualifies as a sufficient source on its own. Further evidence supporting the status of the latter as the most comprehensive, and sufficiently recent, English source is that the Cambridge History of Japan (itself an approx. 3500-page 5-volume work considered to be the most authoritative English-language general history of Japan) uses it as the primary source on the Palace. In case this is not enough to convince of scarcity of the available sources, I would propose a detailed look at search results from Google Books: short (less than apage) passages discussing the palace, with no information available in addition to what is already in the cited sources. Another proposal is to go through the extensive bibliography of the Cambridge History, vol II (Heian Japan).
Second, I would like to point that what WP:FACR and WP:V ask for is verifiability against reliable sources, not any specific number of sources nor even that the provided bibliography is comprehensive (even though I think the one in the present article is). Moreover, by WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in original), and "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." As far as I see, these criteria are amply satisfied, unless someone is willing to challenge a statement made in the article, in which case a further footnote would be needed.
I hope this answers the points made in the previous comment. Finally, in case someone succeeds in finding a new source with new information that should be added to the list of cited references, I would be more than happy to do so (as well as to study the source myself). Stca74 07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're that confident of the quality of the sources is a good thing. No number isn't everything, independence and corroboration (or disagreement) would ideally result from more varied sources though. But you're right that they are just smaller parts not focused on the subject was the bigger piece. I also wonder why you described the primary sources (which is great by the way) but didn't cite those or list them as references. Those and perhaps the archeological papers mentioned would make for valuable augmentation to the article. I take it you don't read Japanese to use sources in Japanese as well? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just featured articles are the face of the project and I want to help contribute to high quality. You've clearly done great work in consulting the quality of references that you have. - Taxman Talk 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I do not unfortunately read Japanese, and that is one reason I have not attempted to review the Japanese original research articles referred to in the sources I have used (and I do not think that just copying articles' names without making own assessment of the content would be good practice). The second reason is what is stated in WP:V#Sources in languages other than English — I do believe the sources used do pass the test of being of sufficient quality.
In addition, I did a further search in Google Scholar, and got similar results as from Google Books — articles that mention the Palace in passing, or Japanese-language articles. What I found, though, is a quote from E. Seidensticker's review of McCullough and McCullough (1980) in Monumenta Nipponica 36:2 (1981) pp. 195–200, stating the following about the source used in the article: "... The two long appendices, on ranks and titles and on the Heian palace compound, are so thorough and authoritative that they are not likely to be superseded for ..." (unfortunately I do not have JStor access to retrieve more text, but I think the reviewer's point is clear).
Finally, as regards primary sources, using those as article sources would not appear to be in agreement with WP:NOR. This is what Wikipedia:WikiProject History#Sources says: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but with care. Don't misuse primary sources. Edits that rely on primary sources should make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Further interpretation of primary source material can be sourced to a secondary source."
In summary, I think that given the scarcity of English-language sources the article is currently as well sourced as can be expected. While I'm in principle open to the idea of listing Japanese sources (that someone else should then inspect), I think it would be first necessary to have the general discussion of whether WP:FACR does indeed require that in a situation like this; if it does, I'm afraid it raises the bar on what can be a featured article to al level where we can expect very few new ones (and a massive downgradings through WP:FAR). Stca74 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that dire. Featured articles are generally considered to need multiple high quality sources. Yours appear very high quality. I have asked for help from a Japanese speaker, and hopefully she can find someone familiar with the subject that can help out. I agree you shouldn't list references you haven't verified yourself. And though you do need to be very careful with primary sources, that doesn't mean they can't be valuable. I notice that both of the texts you described have been translated to English. If you could get a hold of those I believe that could help a lot. - Taxman Talk 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort you're putting into this. If your Japanese-speaking contact can provide us with further sources that can be verified, that's great. As for the primary sources, it took me a while to understand that you were referring to the three literary texts; yes, they've been all translated into English (Genji in fact three times). What's your view with regard to referencing? They have been wikilinked to their own articles, so I'm not sure we should have bibliographical references here as well (although Genji and Pillow Book articles need to be amended to have the bibligraphical data there). Finally, as for possibly quoting passages from these sources, I'm not sure we'll find too many good ones — I've read the three works, and they generally assume the reader is already familiar with the places, and thus nice descriptive passages are rare; instead, one needs to infer from what is said in many places in the text. And quoting a passage on an arbitrary detail would be, I'm afraid, just that: arbitrary. But I'll think it over. Stca74 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be possible that was the case with those texts. Yes, then citing them to individual statements would indeed be arbitrary and isn't a good idea, unless you find a really specific descriptive passage or something. But if they do support the material in the article then perhaps they could be listed as general references without individual citations. I'd like to see what other people think about that and the general issue. - Taxman Talk 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifications made: the only non-Japanese source in the footnotes to McCullough and McCullough (1980) is Ponsonby-Fane (1956), which I have now added in the Further reading section. This is a reissue of a 1931 Hong Kong book, itself a compilation of journal articles from 1925–28. It is also the English-language source referred to in McCullough (1999) (the Cambridge History of Japan section); this is what the footnote on page 97 in McCullough(1999) says:
The chief source for the physical description and history of Heian presented here is Kyoto-shi, comp., Kyōto no rekishi, vol. 1 (Tokyo: Gakugei shorin, 1970). A much older but still mostly reliable English-language study is R.A.B. Ponsonby-Fane, Kyoto: The Old Capital of Japan, 794–1869 (Kyoto: The Ponsonby Memorial Society, 1956; first published in article form 1925–28).
I hope this finally settles the question of available English-language sources. As for the main Japanese source mentioned in the quote above, its availability in English-speaking countries seems to be limited: I was not able to locate a matching reference in the Bodleyan (Oxford) or in the Harvard library system (HOLLIS catalogue). In HOLLIS there is a matching title (京都の歴史), but with different publishing date and publisher. Again, I would not like to add a reference which I cannot verify myself, let alone one that appears to be hard to veryfy at all in English-speaking countries. Stca74 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Further searches located the correct 京都の歴史 referred to above (10 volumes, published 1968–1976 in Tokyo by Gakugei shorin) in a few University of California libabries. Here's a number=031298&set entry=000007&format=999 pointer to the Melvyl catalogue entry. If there'ssomeone with reasonable access to one of these libraries a verification of the references could be made there for giving direct footnote references. However, I still think this would be an overkill in the English-language Wikipedia. However, having propre bibliographical data, I've now added this reference to Further reading section in the article. Stca74 08:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if Ivan Morris' World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan bbs sr 1/104-4438807-7787138?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190303187&sr=1-1 Amazon link might be of use to you. I remember it discussing the general design of Heian rather than the palace itself, but there is some discussion of ceremonial and leisure practice. Just a thought. Also, I think the article needs a close copy-editing: I've changed a couple of errors that caught my eye, but I there are more out there.--Monocrat 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyediting. I've done one more round of checking for typos (found a few more) as well as made consistent use of the definite article with the buildings within the palace (several were missing). As for the Ivan Morris book, I considered that, but there's really no important information there that cannot be found in the main references used. However, now that we have the "Further reading" section, I'll add the Morris book there. Stca74 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fine article, thoroughly researched, clearly written, nicely illustrated. Valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Fg2 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

White dwarf

edit

Self-nomination. Article on important astronomy topic. Currently stands at good article. Spacepotato 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, great article, not sure if method of giving page numbers to references (e.g.<ref name="fate">[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997RvMP...69..337A A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolution of astrophysical objects], Fred C. Adams and Gregory Laughlin, ''Reviews of Modern Physics'' '''69''', #2 (April 1997), pp. 337–372.</ref><sup>, §IIIA.</sup>) is the best way of doing this, or or doing something more Harvard would be better (ie to give the full reference the first time, and <ref>Adams and Laughlin, 1997, §IIIA.</ref> the next time.)--Grahamec 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Compared to the scheme you mention, the <ref ... /><sup>...</sup> method (also used by {{rp}}) has the advantages that (1) it does not require the reader to go to the work of looking up the author and date in a list (he can flip back and forth between the page number or section and the citation by going forward and back in his browser), (2) it's easier for the reader to find out how often and where a given reference is cited, and (3) rearranging article text does not require rewriting the references. A disadvantage is that, as with inline Harvard referencing, it makes the references more bulky. Spacepotato 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments -hi, I'm just starting to wade through the article and the prose looks good. I do have an issue with the composition of the lead. As it stands, it goes straight into a discussion of energy and genesis in some detail. I'd figure before this there'd need to be a couple of sentences on basic description - eg WDs are small, dense white stars of spectral type...(can put masses and diameters here), then maybe the lines "They comprise roughly 6% of all known stars in the solar neighborhood" followed by "White dwarfs are thought to be the final state of over 97% of all stars in our galaxy.", which could start a para describing how they're an end-point of star lifespan etc. A one liner saying when they were discovered and by whom and who coined the term would be good too. This should be straightforward and I do think this article should be able to pass first time found. I'll go back to hunting now...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the prose is tight and deals with the technical stuff well. It would be good to blue- the redlinks (even just a couple of stubby stubs is fine) and with the lead reshuffled a bit as above it'll be over the line. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have written brief articles on Arlo U. Landolt‎, the Blackett effect, Évry Schatzman, the General Catalogue of Variable Stars, the luminosity function in astronomy, and virtual black holes, and redirected other redlinks. Also, I have rewritten the lead with a new first paragraph as suggested. Spacepotato 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment — This is an excellent article that is essentially FA-worthy. It is much improved over the content just a few months back. Good work by the editor(s)! There are just a few little details that I would like to see improved before lending support:
    • The fifth paragraph of "Composition and structure" (beginning "Such densities are possible...") seems a little jargon dense to me. Perhaps some of these terms could be clarified, per Wikipedia:Explain jargon?
    • The "Composition and structure" section should give a modern value for the Chandrasekhar limit. (There is, for example, a solid reference on the Type Ia supernova page for a modern value of 1.38.) At present the value is only listed in the lead and down in the supernova section.
    • The extensive use of "we" (and "one") is not encyclopedic. Please re-write wherever these are used.
    • I would like to see some order of magnitude information for the cooling rates in the "Radiation and cooling" section. How long does it take to cool down to 10,000 K or 5,000 K, for example?
    • The "Type Ia supernovae" section should also mention the rare case of white dwarf mergers.
    • For a consistent format, the citations should all use the appropriate {{cite}} templates. Note #3 looks correct, for example, while note #2 does not.
      • The citations appear to be using the Chicago MoS bibliographic style normally employed for fine arts, literature and history, or something close thereof. But I'll let others address that.
    Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Taking your comments in order: (1) I have rewritten the paragraph in question; (2) The value of 1.4 solar masses for the Chandrasekhar limit is mentioned in the Composition and structure section; (3) we and one are used, as is customary in mathematics and physics, to lead the reader down the steps of a derivation. This is encyclopedic, as explicitly mentioned in WP:MoS#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one; (4), (5) I have added information on cooling rates and the double-degenerate model for type Ia supernovae; (6) I have put all references into a consistent format. Spacepotato 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - non-standard footnotes. If using footnotes, page numbers belong in the references, not inline. If a work is used more than once, multiple references may be necessary. See other featured articles for examples. Kaldari 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the benefits of this scheme (also used by {{rp}}) see my reply to User:Grahamec above. Spacepotato 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

John Frusciante

edit

Self Nomination Article archived Good Article status in late July, and has undergone a positive transformation since then. Article has undergone two peer reviews as well, the second of which was very recent and yielded virtually nothing. The article has also been submitted to several knowledgeable editors for copyediting; none of whom were able to raise any notable issues. No edit-wars, no currently disputed content. Substantive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Grim-Gym 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose: Sorry I missed the peer review; I thought I had the article watched since I worked on it a while back. My one comment so far is that it is lacking a decent description of his equipment. I consider this essential for an article about a instrumental musician. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A consensus was reached to remove the equipment section as it continued to become a disputed topic. People continued to contradict the actual stuff he uses, and I personally think it is unencyclopedic. NSR77 TC 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I read the discussion. However, something being disputed is not a reason to remove it completely. It would be more appropriate to reach a consensus about what should be included in the section. Plenty of sources are available for his current and historical rigs. The section need not be detailed and should not be a bulleted list like it was before. It should just be a paragraph of prose about what he plays and notable things he has played in the past. I don't agree that such a section would be unencyclopedic. Opposing for now until this is addressed. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truth be told, I have yet to find a way that an equipment section can be conveyed encyclopedically. Listing his equipment is so subjective that it's basically impossible to do this and simultaneously satisfy a majority (one person might think an item is not noteworthy, and another might disagree, causing an edit war). He's been documented using such a wide and exhaustive range of equipment that most items could be referenced down to the model number. As a result, there's no way to install a guideline determining what's noteworthy and what isn't. The bottom line is that there's really no way to include an equipment section that doesn't eventually turn into an exhaustive monstrosity. I feel that the majority of readers aren't musicians and probably don't care what type of equipment he uses. If someone does care, there are more than enough resources out there for them to find out. If you still object to the article for this reason, consider creating an article called John Frusciante equipment. If said article isn't speedily deleted, it would get the job done. Grim-Gym 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think really all that's necessary is if there's particular equipment he uses a lot (like a particular guitar or pedal) that should be mentioned. Definitely want to avoid just an infodump of every single piece of gear he uses. WesleyDodds 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. John uses a vast, vast array of petals and effects. So vast that there really isn't any one petal that's noteworthy above all others. He does have a few noteworthy guitars, such as the White Falcon, and that's the purpose of the "Notable instruments" section of the infobox. Grim-Gym 16:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indenting) Well, who am I to argue with consensus. I guess I will drop my objection since everyone seems to believe the section is unnecessary. One final note though - I don't think information should be in infoboxes that is not represented in the article. Essentially you should not have something listed as a "notable guitar" in his infobox unless that is also mentioned in the article with a source to back it up. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently searching for some sources to verify his 'notable' guitars and any specific effects pedals he feels affectionate towards. NSR77 TC 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've added a few sentences in the Musical style section explaining the notability of two of his instruments. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Grim-Gym 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly pertaining to his two most significant guitars. NSR77 TC 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: prose flows well and is good, only some minor niggles, though not deal breakers, as there are some funny adjectives - somber blood infection? (sorry I'm a doctor) - agree with comment above but overall very well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • "Frusciante supplies a strong mix of funk and rock music in his intricate rhythms and leads, which form a substantial component of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' sound." "Strong" is POV in this case. And the guitarrist is substantial in pretty much every rock band.  Y
    • "As a highly respected and influential modern guitarist, Frusciante ranked #18 on Rolling Stone's list of "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" in 2003." WP:PEACOCK  Y
    • "By age nine he was obsessed with The Germs, wearing out several copies of their album (GI)" "Obsessed" is not a neutral term.  Y
    • One of the images is up for deletion at commons.  Y
    • "For the duration of recording, Frusciante and Flea made few ventures into society, spending most of their time consuming immeasurable quantities of marijuana." "Immeasurable" is an exaggeration.  Y --Carabinieri 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed what I could, but we need a bit more input. "Strong" was removed; however I don't see a problem with "substantial" other than it possibly stating the obvious, as you said.
    I don't see how "obsessed" is POV in this case, it accurately and objectively describes his feelings toward the band at that time. I could replace it with a word like "infatuated", but that would cause more harm. If you know of a word that'll better fit here, please let it be known. I don't feel that rewriting the whole sentence to remove that word is necessary in this case though, so this issue could use some clarification from you.
    I removed "highly respected". That was a peacock term, thanks for pointing it out. I don't feel "influential" is peacock or POV, and is backed up by the Rolling Stone list. We certainly don't want to denigrate his importance either.
    The other points were fixed completely. Further input from you is required for the remainder.
    I realized that you didn't really raise any issues that couldn't be easily remedied; so I remedied them. Thanks for the review. Grim-Gym 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Let me first say I am very impressed with the article. While it is a testament to the efforts and dedication of a number of editors affiliated with the Alternative music and RHCP WikiProjects (the former of which I am a member of and which held a Collaboration of thw Week on this article that contributed significantly to), most of the credit belongs to NSR77 and Grim-Gym. Good work; I hope you two can do much of the same to other major RCHP band member articles.
Now, onto my minor objections, which I will not list as proper objects because I'm sure they will be rectified quickly and to the best of the ability of the major contributors. Firstly: Remove direct links to unauthorized reproductions of magazine articles on websites. This counts as violation of copyright. Obviously links to a reprint of a Rolling Stone article on rollingstone.com or a reprint of an article by a particular author on that author's website are fine. You merely need to delink links to unauthorized reprinting on fansites and such.  Y Secondly, and somewhat more difficult: the lead is somewhat weak. It's not as substantial as it could be and some of the prose is lacking. I'll try to help a little bit on that bit though.  Y
Once again, aside from those minor points, I'm giving my vote for this article to be featured. Good work, everyone. WesleyDodds 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I converted all of the reprinted links to simply the magazine article information and lengthened the lead a bit, though I'm sure you'll tweak it. Thanks for the great feedback. NSR77 TC 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the addition to the lead. I don't really see any glaring info that's been omitted from the section. Is this satisfactory or can you think of something that needs to be mentioned? Do you have any other issues with the lead? Grim-Gym 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to rewrite part of it tomorrow, when I have a more reliable internet connection available to me. WesleyDodds 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Grim-Gym 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did some reworking, will do more later tonight. WesleyDodds 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thoughts on the current version of the lead? WesleyDodds 10:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a light copyedit, but overall its great. NSR77 TC 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I think this article has just about hit its ceiling. Grim-Gym 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote to a full support now. WesleyDodds 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I like it, but I'm not sure if this is appropriate: "Although Frusciante's influences can appear ephemeral, they have each been incorporated, to some extent, into his style". I suppose you can say it's backed up by the preceding section, but then why write it at all? Hmmm. 86.137.127.139 11:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)  Y[reply]
  • Support Fantastic, very comprehensive, very well sourced. I adjusted a couple of awkward wordings myself (i.e. "zealously agreed" was odd), but on the whole, it's great. I do want to agree with the comment immediately above -- I think you might want to strike the last sentence, because it seems to partially undermine itself and it isn't verifiable. One other thing... the following sentence read strangely to me: "Through regular practice of vipassana and yoga, he discovered one of his most vital tenets—discipline." A belief in "discipline" is a little vague. Are you referring to a particular principle or practice of yoga? What exactly does this mean? --Melty girl 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great feedback. I removed the sentence in question and reworded the one regarding discipline. If there's anything else that strikes you do not hesitate to point it out. NSR77 TC 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get what you meant. I did think "implication" was the wrong word though. I adjusted that and a few small things, and now I think it reads well. Great article! --Melty girl 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your support and input—you've somehow managed to further improve the article, even after I said that it's hit it ceiling. This is what it's all about. Grim 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Freedom Monument (Riga)

edit

self-nomination I worked on this article in this spring, it was prometed to GA in June and hasn't changed much since then, except for few minor edits and new images I added recently, however I think it is good enough to have a higher status - I don't even see how its content could be further expanded without going into unnecessary detail. I submited the article to peer review, however it was reviewed only by bot and I've addressed issues that had been found. The article was copyedited in the spring by other users, but I'm thinking of requesting a copyedit for assurance (English is not my native language and I don't understand if few minor issues (like articles) are correct or not) ---- Xil...sist! 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: a really good article which deserves to be featured. SpeedKing1980 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: interesting read and comprehensive. You can cut down on the use of {{lang-lv}} though, it gets really repetitive after a while, even in parentheses, and I think we get the point that it's Latvian. Also, I blinked when I approached the 'significance' section; I think it should go first as "History" because I would like to know about why this is so important before the design details. But that is just my personal preference. ALTON .ıl 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure if what you say should be done - it might be confusing for some if they see something in unfamiliar language and it was in turn my personal preference to have that section last. I think of it as more of a important background information - information on the monuments importance and symbolical meaning as well as its own history is given in other sections ---- Xil...sist! 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well good luck! ALTON .ıl 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support well written, comprehensive with pictures. Maybe only sentence The Freedom Monument has always had political significance. should be referenced, but this is only minor suggestion. As I understand this article may be the first Latvian related FA. Good job, braliukas! M.K. 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice article.Sumoeagle179 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I have copyedited this article a number of times but have not contributed to the content). This is a very complete and well-researched article (and pretty much the work of the nominator single-handed - well done). HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still quite a few POV issues, a thourough copyedit would also be helpful:
    • "It is an important symbol of the freedom, independence and sovereignty of Latvia." That's POV. Although a bit weasel-ish, "It is widely considered an important..." might be more appropriate.
    • "During World War II Latvia was annexed by the USSR and the Freedom Monument was considered for demolition, but no such move was carried out, possibly because of the high artistic value of the monument." "high artistic value" is POV.
    • "In 1990 a section of the street around the monument, about 200 meters long, between Rainis and Aspazija boulevards, was pedestrianised, forming a plaza." and "Although in 1990 the area around the monument was pedestrianised, there are still three streets carrying traffic around it." Should be "pedestrianized" as the rest of the article is in American English ("organized", "mobilized", "criticized", "honor", "center").
    • "At the time of its erection the coup d'etat of May 15, 1934, was regarded as having a significant influence upon building works, thus glamorizing the authoritarian regime established by Kārlis Ulmanis after the coup." What kind of influence? And how did the fact that this memorial had an influence on other building works glamorize that regime?
    • "While they did not expressly call for the demolition of the Freedom Monument, the only way to restore the statue to its original position would have been to tear down the monument, the destruction of which is thus implicit in the suggestion." The last really is redundant.
    • "The Freedom Monument remained, but its symbolism was reinterpreted according to official propaganda." Use of "propaganda" here is POV. You also wouldn't call the meaning given to the Statue of Liberty propaganda. Or today's symbolism of the Freedom Monument, for that matter.
    • "Over time the propaganda also was toned down and by 1988 the monument was said, with somewhat more accuracy, to have been built to "celebrate the liberation from bondage of the autocracy of the tsar and German barons", although withholding the fact that the Bolshevik Red Army and the Red Latvian Riflemen were also adversaries in the Latvian War of Independence." I think "misinformation" is more accurate than "propaganda" in this case.
    • "This event, organized by the human rights group Helsinki-86, was the first time after the Soviet occupation that the flower-laying ceremony took place, as the practice was banned by the Soviet authorities at the time (in fact a running joke during the Soviet era was that the monument was a travel agency, because anyone who placed flowers beside it risked being deported to Siberia)." "At the time" is redundant - obviously the Soviet authorities aren't banning it today.
    • "The event evolved into a political conflict between left and right wingers, posing a threat to public safety." "Posing a threat to public safety" is also POV. "violent political conflict" will do.--Carabinieri 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • O.K. I think I have addresed most of your concerns:
      •  YIt is an important symbol of the freedom I added "considered"
      •  Y high artistic value Now it says Soviet sculptor Vera Mukhina is sometimes credited with the rescue of the monument possibly because she concidered it to be of the high artistic value.
      •  Y pedestrianized - corrected. Thanks for pointing out
      •  Y Ulmanis influence and always had political significance - deleted, so it starts after WWII
      •  Y the destruction of which is thus implicit in the suggestion - removed
      •  Y according to official propaganda - deleted, that part of sentence acctualy is not needed
      •  Y propoganda - changed to "misinterpretation of symbolism" as this sentence doesn't folow imediately after Stalinian era is mentioned it should say something that reminds what it is about
      •  Y at the time (in fact a running joke during the Soviet era was that the monument was a travel agency, because anyone who placed flowers beside it risked being deported to Siberia) - deleted
      •  NPosing a threat to public safety vs. violent political conflict - No, there hasn't been massive open violence, yet the conflicting sides have tried to attack each other, but were stoped by police, thus it's just "posing" as long as there is no harm done---- Xil...sist! 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

England national rugby union team

edit

This is an article on England's national rugby union team. They are currently World Champions and am aiming to have this FA before the end of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. It's currently a good article and meets all FA criteria; covers the topic comprehensively, is well referenced, and well written (was recently copy-edited by GringoInChile. Thanks. - Shudde talk 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now as I found quite a lot of issues.

  • Don't think you need to mention they currently hold the Calcutta Cup in the lead.
  • Don't need ref in lead as everything in it should be mentioned later.
  • Don't need to mention losing to Scotland in the lead.
  • "Following their 2003 Six Nations Grand Slam" not sure you need this in the lead and you need to explain what the grand slam is.
  • "England racked up their largest victory" "England recorded their largest victory" would be better.
  • "including a victory over the Springboks" who are the Springboks?
  • "England lost 45&ndash29." oops!
  • "suffered a humiliating defeat" POV
  • "England had the consolation of did winning the Triple Crown" remove "did" this doesn't make sence.
  • "England were one of the tournament favourites" why "one of"
  • "left the final score at 20-17" made isdead of left would be better and "at" is redundant.
  • "On 8 December, the English team greeted 750,000 supporters on their victory parade through London before meeting Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace." citation needed.
  • Very little about the last three years.
  • Why is Swing Low, Sweet Chariot a sub section in Twickenham?
  • Rename Twickenham section Stadium or Stadia and added something about other Grounds they have played home games at.
  • Nothing about the dramatic change to the strip in 2003.
  • Don't need other teams Six Nation records.
  • "They then defeated Wales in their quarter-final" "then" is redundant.
  • Not sure the Club versus country sub-section should be in the Training section.
  • Never liked see also sections. In this case it doesn't need Calcutta Cup, Six Nations and Triple Crown because they are all mention in the article so you can link them there. See if you can find a way to mention the rest in the article.
  • Ref #17 empty
  • Ref #18 #22 #23 #25 not dated
  • Not sure rugbydata.com being used as a source.

Buc 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've dealt with most things. Please strike what you are happy with. Some of your comments I disagree with though:
  • I think the Calcutta Cup should definitely be mentioned. It's been contested since 1881, and is very notable.
  • Grand slam is wiki-linked, so havn't removed references to it.
  • That South Africa are nicknamed the Springboks is mentioned earlier in the history section.
  • They were one of the tournament favourites along with the All Blacks. I'll find a reference for this and add it.
  • There is not heaps on the last three years because don't want to place undue weight. There is more information at History of the England national rugby union team.
  • Sweet low is there because it's a Twickenham tradition that has only more recently extended to away fixtures.
  • It's not derectly ralted to Twickenham. They don't sign it because they are at Twickenham. If you check the Twickenham article you'll see only a brief mention of it.
  • The Twickenham Stadium article is not the best source to determine if it's directly related. I'll quote the Rugby Football Union's page "the song that had now become synonymous with Twickenham and the England team" - it is directly related with Twickenham. Hence why it's there. - Shudde talk 02:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twickenham is their only home stadium. They have played their home matches there exclusively since it was constructed in 1913. This is mentioned in that section.
  • Then change the name.
  • They've played home matches there exclusively for 95 years! It is mentioned they played at other venues in the section, but what you are objecting to is the section name? I think Twickenham is much better, even though they havn't played there exclusively for their entire history. It's so much more notable then other grounds that having it as the section title is most appropriate. - Shudde talk 02:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What dramatic change to the strip are you referring to? I'll add it if you can give me more information.
  • The other Six Nations records are part of the template. It's the same format used in France national rugby union team which is FA. I think it's good, as it adds context, and allows comparisons with the other Six Nations teams.
  • I'm happy to move the club vs country section. Where do want it to go?
  • "See also" is a pretty standard thing. I've removed what I can.
  • Ref 22, 25 don't have dates i can add. And 23 is dated? I'm not sure if the numbers have changed or not. But there are none around that I can see that need to be dated that *can* be dated.
  • I think rugbydata.com is a good source, it's neutral, non-controversial. Any reason it wouldn't be considered acceptable?
Anyway hope this helps. Still have to add those references. Will let you know when I've done that. - Shudde talk 03:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those references have now been added. - Shudde talk 03:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Support - good work. The Rambling Man 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Oppose at the moment, several comments...here we go.[reply]

  •   Done There appears a general proliferation of parenthesised comments, this could be smoothed out into the prose where possible.
  •   Done "...spread the game..." don't like this expression.
  •   Done Why is Century capitalised?
  • Is it worth explaining something about the scoring in those early matches? Was it one point for a try? Especially since scores in the article range from 4-1 to 134-0!
  •   Done "...vanquish..." - bit POV.
  •   Done Any reason why New Zealand Natives is in italics?
  •   Done "three all" - I'd suggest it's just written "3–3".
  •   Done World War I should be referred to as First World War. Similar for WWII.
  •   Done Check references for placement in accordance with WP:CITE, e.g. [20].
  •   Done Presumably you mean a full stop after [21], not a comma, unless something's gone missing?
  •   Done Grand Slam or Grand slam or grand slam? Consistency required.
  •   Done "re-admittion"? admission I guess..
  •   Done Ensure all scores separated with en dash, per WP:DASH, esp. in World Cup section.
  •   Done "in pool play" - non expert wouldn't get this, e.g. is it something to do with swimming?!
  •   Done "<"RWC03Favourites">Paul, Gregor. "RWC 2003: The All Blacks peak too early", nzherald.co.nz, August 26, 2007. Retrieved on September 2, 2007. </ref>" - guess you're missing a "ref name=" there!
  •   Done "...England's heaviest ever defeat to Ireland." - cite it.
  •   Done "The first match to be played at the redeveloped Twickenham was the fourth on Sunday November 5, 2006 against the All Blacks." - not sure I understand this? ..was the fourth...?
  •   Not done "Currently the strip is manufactured by Nike and O2 is the shirt sponsor." - cite.
  •   Done Consider making all suitable tables sortable.
  •   Done Cite hall of famers.
  •   Done Trim external links per WP:EL.

Let me know if I can help with anything, and give me a shout if you need a re-review. Hope that lot helps. The Rambling Man 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I've addressed everything I can, and have a few questions/comments:
  • I've removed the parenthesis bits at the beginning of the history section. If there are any more you want me to deal with let me know.
  • Is there a specific reason you don't like "spread the game"? I think "promote the game" would be inferior as many of them weren't actively trying to recruit players/teams, merely trying to play the sport for their own benefit. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
  • You may be right about the scoring in those early matches. The scoring system did change a lot, and was even different in different countries. Maybe having something about tries scored would be better? So for example "they won by x tries to y and the final score was whatever". I don't really know the best way to go about this.
Hopefully thats it. Please strike what you're happy with. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Thanks. - Shudde talk 03:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, well you've covered most of my points well. I'm still not happy with the opening two sentences in the History section (for one thing, it doesn't read particularly nicely, two short sentences) but I can't, at the moment, think of a suitable alternative. The Rambling Man 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed these first two sentences in the History section to the following:
The expansion of rugby in the first half of the 19th century was impulsed by ex-pupils from many of England's private schools, especially Rugby, who, upon finishing school, took the game with them to universities, to London, and to the counties. GringoInChile 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. The Rambling Man 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cometstyles (talk · contribs)

Support - Its well written . well sourced (needs a bit more citations though) and well referenced and basically as Shudde mentioned, it is FA Worthy but to elaborate more:

  • Calcutta Cup should be mentioned at the top since it has been around for over 120 years making it one of the oldest competition in the rugby circuit
  • Explaining what Grand Slam or Springboks is a bit silly since the link is clickable and if someone wants to know more, they can do so by "clicking it"
  • Most rugby related articles are hard to cite because most sources are not print media and the organization in charge of keeping the records is doing a lame job
  • Yes as per WP:DASH , the points system has to be fixed but regarding the explanation of points given for tries and penalty is very important since that is the only way to tell people why the matches in the old days were seemingly low-scoring...--Cometstyles 21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from user Arachrah 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strip is incorrect. Either use the traditional all white or the current squirly monstrosity, but not the pre-RWC design. Is it worth mentioning that the white strip comes from School House at Rugby.

England have not won the six nations 25 times - as it only became Six Nations when Italy joined in 2000, some clarification is needed. The 25 refers to the entire history Home Nations, Five Nations, Four Nations, Five Nations and Six nations tournaments as described in the next paragraph.

I would start with the first test against Scotland. Mention Calcutta Cup there. Then put all the six nation stuff together

England have played two home games at Huddersfield - against Netherlands and Italy in the 1998 qualification tournament should this be mentioned here?

The Swing Low Sweet Chariot section is almost certainly wrong - but it has been repeated and written up so often that it has come to be true.

It had been sung in rugby clubs with actions since before my father's time let alone mine and was sung regularly at Middlesex Sevens towards the end of the day as the crowds got rowdier.

However, the appearance of several fast black wingers in the 80s - including the Middlesex 7s final featuring Quins Andy Harriman and Rosslyn Park's "Chariots" Ofiah (before he 'went North') lead to its singing being noticed by journalists and taken for racist. I think this was May 1987, but it might have been 1986. It was definitely written up with mention of SLSC in I think the Times.

There should be a short section on the A side - now branded England Saxons - and the England Sevens Squad. I know that there is a link in the Links section.

Arachrah 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the strip. As for your other comments. The Six Nations template is used in several articles, it does not have a title indicating that it is only referring to Six Nations titles, I do believe it is fairly clear because it lists the total number of tournaments (in the top line) that it is Six Nations, Five Nations, and Home Nations tournaments. I will add something to the template's talk page, and see if a consensus can be reached however.
  • I will add something to the Twickenham section about Huddersfield, but it's not very notable (they weren't major Tests) information, so it won't be much.
  • As for the Swing Low thing, the information that is in the article comes from the RFU's website, specifically the Rugby Museum's microsite. Some of what you have said is not directly related to Twickenham or England rugby, but could probably be included in the Swing Low, Sweet Chariot article (if an acceptable source could be found).
  • Can you please be more specific about "I would start with the first test against Scotland. Mention Calcutta Cup there. Then put all the six nation stuff together" I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
  • The England Saxons and England Sevens team's should not have their own sections in this article. This is consistent with other national rugby union team articles (see All Blacks and France national rugby union team). Those two teams are not the England team, and have no significant relationship with them that warrants inclusion. Why not include a section on England women's national rugby union team as well? What about age-group teams? The list could go on, but I really think they are not necessary. All these things should be mentioned in Rugby union in England where all representative teams can be included.
Thanks. - Shudde talk 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Raul - I believe I have addressed Arachrah's concerns. Although he didn't oppose the FAC he hasn't responded, and his last contribution was to this page. I've left a message on his talk page asking him to respond. - Shudde talk 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two weeks since Arachrah made his comments, and I replied within 36 hours. I don't know if it is worth waiting to much longer for a reply. - Shudde talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arachrah 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Sorry been away. Looks better. Still not convinced by the swing low story - even if RFU are peddling it - but cannot find any written references earlier. Everyone who remembers singing it was drunk at the time! So I may as well Support.[reply]

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

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Ramblin' Wreck

edit

Good Article, has progressed to become a very in-depth study. Also, has many references and uses citation templates. Self-nom, although the article's primary editor is Excaliburhorn (talk · contribs). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "History" paragraph needs more cites for many sentences. In particular, according to whom was it a "rite of passage" to own a broken down vehicle?
  2. Also in the History paragraph, the story about Johnson leaving the car to watch his son compete needs some cites (unless the whole story is included in the Griessman story).
  3. The "Reck or Wreck" paragraph has no cites at all.
  • Address these minor points and I'll gladly support, as it's an interesting article about a unique part of Georgia Tech culture. Anthony Hit me up... 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a couple of attempts to address your concerns. Take another look at the article and tell me what you think. I'm fairly certain that the whole story about Johnson is in Griessman, though I don't have the book in front of me to double-check. As for the cites in the rest of the history section, several notes cover claims made in two or more sentences before the citation's placement. Is it really necessary to repeat a note every sentence when the info in several consecutive sentences is covered by the same source?LaMenta3 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I wasn't looking for a cite after every sentence; just an explanation that the entire story was covered in the cite is all. Sorry for being a little vague on that, but now that you've done a great job of answering my concerns, I have no problems supporting the article! Anthony Hit me up... 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed:
  • Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent
  • "All of these vehicles mimic the look" – the "of" is redundant   Done
  • "all of the Homecoming festivities" – the "of" is redundant   Done
  • PDF sources should be labelled   Done
  • "There are also several replica or "false" Wrecks which are owned by alumni or which are used for display and do not run" - this sentence seem a bit messy   Done
  • "The team prevailed 24-0" - en dash needed   Done
  • "instant success within the Tech family" - I'm not sure if this is grammatical
  • "There is a military escort procession that leads up to the actual ceremony." - beginning a sentence with "there", when the "there" doesn't stand for anything, leads to wordy prose. Why not, "A military escort procession leads up to the actual ceremony."?   Done
  • En dashes needed in the "see also" section   Done
  • Sources should be accompanied by the author, publisher and publishing date. Epbr123 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any article opposed for such trivial reasons deserves support. On two of them I disagree:
    • All of these is better cadence than All these
    • Of course became an instant success within the Tech family is grammatical; it's a verb, a direct object, and a prepositional phrase. It may be that a different choice of preposition and metaphor would be preferable; but the obvious alternatives are among and community, neither better than the text.
    • Author, for newspaper articles which are linked to? A venial sin, at best.
    • I shall be removing "there is"; it would be useful to police the entire article for this mannerism. However, the real problem of the sentence is that military escort procession is ambiguous; is it, as now emended, a procession of a military escort?
    • If dashes are sufficiently important to refuse FA for, they are sufficiently important to fix. I don't think they are either of these things; but Epbr123 should put his edits where his !vote is.
    • PDF is a courtesy to the reader; I fixed both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Incorrectly and incompletely formatted citations, see WP:CITE/ES (also see WP:MOSCAPS#All caps). All sources need a publisher, websources need a last accessdate, and author and publication date should be supplied when available. See WP:MOS regarding punctuation on image captions (no periods on sentence fragments). See WP:DASH, I saw at least one score separated by an emdash rather than endash, and See also contains spaced emdashes. See WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT; common words known to most English speakers need not be linked. There is a lot of overlinking throughout (for example, the color black is actually linked, most readers don't need a definition of the color black). There's an external jump at ... the electrical generator with a more efficient Nu-Rex alternator. Please wikify Nu-Rex if it's notable, or convert the link to a reference. I noticed a citation need, pls review throughout: This gives the Wreck a unique level of independence that is atypical amongst college mascots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breaking SandyGeorgia's comment into tasks:
    • Incorrectly and incompletely formatted citations   Done
    • Incorrect punctuation on image captions   Done
    • Incorrect dashes per WP:DASH   Done
    • Common English words unnecessarily linked   Done if there are others that shouldn't be linked, let me know
    • Nu-Rex: wikify or convert link to ref   Done
    • Citation needed at "This gives the Wreck a unique level..."   Done added several refs to article
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an example of cite needed; pls check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that the article is perfect now, but I've attempted to address all of your concerns. (relevant edits) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few adjustments you missed (the PDFs were messed up and there was still some overlinking), struck my oppose, nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I don't remember seeing {{convert}} before, it looks pretty useful. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of the work I've done on this article has been post-nom, mostly to address the concerns of other reviewers and to fix a couple of things that I found wrong with it myself. Most of my fixes were really minor things dealing with moving references to more appropriate places in the text (they were all there, they just weren't always placed such that they showed that all of the information written was provided there). The article itself is a well-written, thorough study of the subject with more references than you can shake a stick at. After all of the nitpicking that has been corrected above, I honestly can't find another thing wrong with this article. LaMenta3 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Pearl Jam

edit
previous FAC

Article on the American rock band. It has been a collaborative effort between me, -5-, BP322, BGC, WesleyDodds and others. After a thorough peer review, I feel the article is well-written and comprehensive, and is much better than it was at the last FAC. I'm sure any objections will be quickly addressed. CloudNine 10:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some audio samples are missing fair use rationales. Also, I was told by an admin here yesterday that only around three audio samples are acceptable in an article for it to qualify as fair use. Epbr123 10:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd rationaled all of them. In progress. I doubt three audio samples is a hard and fast rule, especially when it comes to a band with a varied musical career, such as Pearl Jam. (I can't imagine The Beatles trimming down to three clips). CloudNine 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Turns out only "Daughter" was missing a suitable fair use rationale. CloudNine 10:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only file I looked at, so I thought it was statistically safe to assume there may have been others. Epbr123 10:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has come such a long way since the previous FAC. I think all of those mentioned above should be commended for their efforts on this article. Just the other day I was reading old talks from the previous FAC regarding the very small number of references at that time. Well as you can see there is a very large amount now. I'm so appreciative of all of your hardwork. IMHO this article certainly deserves a spot as a featured article. --MattWatt 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job everyone! --Esprit15d 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose: Pearl Jam is one of my favorite bands and you have done great justice (representing the good and bad) here very well. However, meeting WP/grammar criteria is another beast entirely. The article still needs a little work. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:[reply]

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • "Drummers that joined the band following Dave Krusen's departure included" - should be "Drummers that have joined the band following Dave Krusen's departure include"
  • "bands of the grunge movement" - Grunge should be capitalized
  • "21st century" - Century should be capitalized
  • "Gossard and Ament had begun playing" - "Gossard and Ament began playing"
  • "had been doing previously in Mother Love Bone" - Mother Love Bone can only be repeated so many time before it starts to grate. Take it out of this sentence since it's obvious
  • "out a five song demo tape" - five-song should be hyphenated
  • "film Singles, "State of Love" - that comma should be a colon or a double-dash
  • "Vs. included the songs "Daughter" (sample (help·info)), "Dissident", "Go", "Rearviewmirror", and "Animal."" - Why list these songs? Are they hits? Do they have some other significance or tying factor? "Daughter" is obvious, but the others need some justification, or the list should be trimmed or eliminated. Readers can go to the album page for a tracklisting.
  • "They declined to produce music videos" - say "any more music videos" for two reasons: (1) They had already released one (2) They had already declined one. So this is more of a clarification of their future stance than a general policy or new stance.
  • "He was replaced by Jack Irons, a close friend of Vedder and the former and original drummer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers; Irons had originally introduced Vedder to the members of Pearl Jam." - I think this statement should include something like "finally replaced by Jack Irons" or something to acknowledge that he finally agreed to join the band
  • "Irons had originally introduced Vedder to the members of Pearl Jam." - remove this redundant statment
  • "an homage to" - should be "a homage" (the first syllable in homage is accented)
  • " drummer Matt Cameron on a temporary basis;[37] Cameron soon became a permanent replacement for Irons" - kind of wordy. Just say " drummer Matt Cameron on an initially temporary basis,[37] but he soon became a permanent replacement.
  • The information in the Etymology section should be integrated into the last paragraph of the Formation: 1984–1990 section. Its current placement is anticlimatic and the section is awfully short.
1b. Comprehensive? Yes
1c. Factually accurate? Yes
1d. Neutral? This is particularly well done.
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Table of contents? I didn't really catch this the first time (apologies), but the TOC is crowded with the American Music Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, Grammy Awards, and the Esky Music Awards. Those do not need to be seperate subheadings. You might see John Mayer for table ideas, or even Alison Krauss for prose ideas. You could even just bold the text, instead of having them as headings.
2d. Sufficient inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Images all look good, but the samples at the end of the article - notsomuch. As much as it sucks, laundry list style sample sections are frowned on, and just about forbidden from FAs. Because they don't support discussion in the body, their fair use claim in tenuous. I saw several samples nicely integrated into the text of the artcle; I would keep those and delete that section at the end.
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Vedder is noted for his "poetic lyrics and Jim Morrison-like vocal growl." - This opinion is only according to DeRogatis, so it should be attributed to him. The way it is currently worded suggests this opinion is held by several critics. LuciferMorgan 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band’s latest album, 2006’s Pearl Jam, was cited as a return to the band’s early sound. By whom? Which critics cited this? Please name those who hold this opinion. LuciferMorgan 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Nirvana had brought grunge to the mainstream in the early 1990s, Pearl Jam quickly outsold them and became not only the most successful alternative rock band, but the most popular American rock band of the decade. Debatable this is, and I'm sure other critics disagree. How do you measure success? Different critics measure success in different ways, so it's hard to determine. It would be best to simply attribute this to Erlewine. LuciferMorgan 09:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed succcessful (agree, this is unclear) to popular (consensus on the talk page indicated that popularity was measured by record sales rather than critical opinion. CloudNine 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin said in 2001, "The group that was once accused of being synthetic grunge now seem as organic and principled a rock band as exists."[32] When quoting a magazine, it is best to name the writer and the publication they're working for. Different staff within the same magazine may have differing opinions, and sometimes this proves to be the case with retrospective views and so on. Essentially, a review is the opinion of the reviewer and not the magazine as a whole. LuciferMorgan 10:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Spin, the article with the quote is by "Eric Weisbard with Jessica Letkemann, Ann Powers, Chris Norris, William Van Meter, and Will Hermes," so perhaps that's sign of consensus in the Spin offices? Perhaps I should just state the primary writer, Weisbard? CloudNine 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How come so many people wrote one article? Something doesn't sit right with that. LuciferMorgan 11:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the article. It is strange though. CloudNine 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a collection of various quotes by the band and other people compiled for this piece. And I'm sure all of the authors listed were the people involved with different interviews of different people. Just look at all the various people they have quoted! Everyone from Dave Grohl to Cameron Crowe. The main author "Weisbard" was probably just the guy who picked all of these snippets and organized them into sections. So I'm not entirely sure how you would reference this, but I would just use the lead author. I used to read 5H a lot many years ago, but I never saw this. Probably because this was done in 2001. This is a really interesting read. --MattWatt 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed your point; I've cited Weisbard as the source of the comment. CloudNine 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wikilink decades, 1990s, but not solo years, 1990. A proper lead, being a summary of the body, won't need several footnotes, only 1-2, if any. See if you can rework it and move footnotes into the body.Sumoeagle179 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where I've wiki-linked decades in the prose. Could you point out an example? We need three citations at least in the body (for statistics and quotes), and some of the statements are controversial as well (see the talk page for the number of people who have tried to remove "Pearl Jam was the most popular American rock band..."). I would like to remove some citations, but I don't think it's a good idea at the moment. CloudNine 10:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said wikilink decades, you misunderstood. Just search for '0s' and you'll see. Wikilink the first instance of each. The first six cites are in the lead and 3-4 can be moved to the body, especially with a rewrite of the lead.Sumoeagle179 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion (concurrent with the general guideline) that only full dates need to be linked. WesleyDodds 08:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have as little citations as possible in the lead, but I don't think rewriting the lead is the right move here. CloudNine 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed
    • ^ Marks, Craig. "Let's Get Lost". Spin Magazine. December 1994.
    • ^ Pearl's Jam. Entertainment Weekly (1993-11-19).
  • Doesn't look professional; if you wikify the dates, they'll show consistently per user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Century" with the cap?
  • Per an above comment. My preference is lower-case, which I'll change to.
  • Done.
  • MOS breach in internal final punctuation for quote.
  • I'm concerned at the number of fair-use-claimed audio samples (ouch, SEVEN?) that are not the subject of critical, descriptive or analytical commentary in the surrounding text. I don't think they qualify. Tony 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As member of Alternative music WikiProject. Great work on this article! Had some issues with the lead though:
    • Is it necessary to mention each of the drummers associated with the band? From what I gather from the article, the likes of Chamberlain hardly did anything. It might be enough to mention just the current line-up in the lead.
      • Done.
    • "Formed in the aftermath of the demise of Ament and Gossard's previous band Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam broke into the mainstream with its debut album Ten in 1992, nearly a full year after its release." - Seems a little choppy to me. The sentence doesn't make any sense unless one reads about it further in the article.
      • Rephrased.
    • The 2nd para of the lead could be split into 2: the first dealing with the various albums and the second about their boycotts of videos and Ticketmaster etc.
      • I'm not sure there's enough content to fill two paragraphs; the current version flows quite well through their career.
    • "Most popular American rock band" is mentioned at least twice throughout the article, but although it is backed by a source, it should probably be added with a "according to All Music Guide" in the sentence itself.
      • Consensus on talk indicated that this statement was fine, as popularity is directly linked to record sales.

Tommy Stardust 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has occasional singular/pleural disagreement:

  • ...Pearl Jam(singular) was nevertheless criticized early on as being a corporate cash-in on the alternative rock explosion. However, they(pleural) became noted for their(pleural) refusal to adhere to traditional music industry practices as their(pleural) career(singular) progressed.
  • Since their(pleural) inception, the band(singular)...
  • No disagreement here: Pearl Jam(singular) has outlasted many of its(singular) contemporaries.Rosiestephenson 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding this sentence in general and the last word in particular: They gave former Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Jack Irons the demo to see if he would be interested in joining the band and to distribute to anyone he felt might fit the singing bill. I know what you mean by "...the singing bill", but I'd encourage using another word, rather than "bill". The sentence, as a whole, needs attention; for example, change the second half to something like: "...and to distribute the demo to anyone he felt might fit the..."Rosiestephenson 21:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your review. CloudNine 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good to me. Trebor 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't read the article and might not (this FAC doesn't seem to have a dearth of exposure); but a glance at the infobox shows me that the "Associated Acts" list is quite bloated, to the point of marked abnormality. Just to make sure, is everything on that list absolutely necessary? I'd recommend going through these one-by-one and excising all but the essential. If they're all essential then so be it, but it is quite bloated and is reflects somewhat sloppily. Grim-Gym 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Green River, Mother Love Bone, and Temple of the Dog should stay, since they feature multiple Pearl Jam members. The rest are less important. WesleyDodds 07:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the more minor projects of one member. I'm sure their membership can be mentioned in their respective biographies. CloudNine 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Grim 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark

edit

This is another in my running series of articles on Mary Wollstonecraft. I see the light at the end of the tunnel for my featured topic! This article is about a travel book she wrote late in life (one of her best works, in my opinion). As usual, I have had wonderful help from my peer reviewers. This time I have also had help from a wonderful cartographer, Kmusser, who designed the map. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Awadewit | talk 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eventually, yes, I plan to do the rest, but I thought that I could propose the topic with just MW and her works.
  • Henry Fuseli will require a bit of work, I think.
  • There is a new biography of Gilbert Imlay that I am waiting to get before proceeding with that article - it is the first full-length biography of Imlay to be published.
  • Joseph Johnson is well on its way. I have collaborated with WillowW on that article. We have plans to bring it to FA in a few months.
  • Fanny Imlay won't be that difficult since there is so little information on her and she committed suicide young. I am anxious to see what is in the Gilbert Imlay biography about her.
  • Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman should not be bad, either. Not much has been written on it.
  • Analytical Review should be a breeze once Johnson is over, since he published it. Again, WillowW has done a lot of work on that article already.
  • The truly momentous tasks are Mary Shelley and William Godwin. If you know anyone interested in working on those projects, or if you yourself are, please let me know. Completing those will take me years. I'm not exaggerating. (If, however, you want to remain in the science realm, I could always use help at Joseph Priestley - I have solicited a science peer review for that polymath). Thanks for your interest. (It's too bad about Stillusio.) Awadewit | talk 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about "An Historical and Moral View of the French Revolution"? Isn't this considered a work that would need to be in the topic? HansHermans 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think HMV needs to be included, for the following reasons:
  • There is next to nothing published on HMV, so the article would be sourced primarily to articles and books on other topics.
  • Wollstonecraft scholars say little about HMV compared to her other works, even texts such as Thoughts on the Education of Daughters and Original Stories from Real Life. (This is due to the fact that most Wollstonecraft scholars are feminist scholars and primarily interested in gender issues.)
  • HMV doesn't seem to arise in discussions of other topics, such as histories of the French revolution (at least as far as I am aware). Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, for example, arises independently of discussions of MW in scholarship regarding conduct books.
If you think this analysis is flawed in some way, I would be happy to reconsider it. Awadewit | talk 04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Full disclosure: I was one of the aforementioned peer editors. (As such, I feel bad that I've only just now seen this FAC.) As usual Awadewit has done some superb work here, balancing comprehensive context and analysis with the requisites of brevity and concision. It was a pleasure to help out with it. – Scartol · Talk 12:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously featured article quality. A few brief thoughts:
    • Did she die in 1797 or 1798? Her article says 97, though it says 98 in the legacy section.
    • Letters Written in Sweden is/are...? The article appears to treat subject as both singular and plural in different places. Singular in the lede, plural in letter, etc.
    • I'm familiar with Wollstonecraft, read Vindication as an undergrad, but didn't know the dates of her life off the top of my head. Perhaps a sentence or two more in biographical background, saying she was 36-years-old and had just done X and Y, and would die in two years, would help set the stage, for the casual consumer of Wollstonecraft. Was this her last major work, etc.?
    • I initially read "she had had an illegitimate daughter" to mean that she had had the child, but no longer had it. Meh, that's a minor minor point.
    • Was she rescued from her second suicide attempt by several passersby or one passerby? Is it known?
    • That opening of reception and legacy is a bit confusing. I think grammatically it might be saying that "the successful sales were prompted to publish."
    • Is "business correspondence" actually considered a genre? I mean, I guess it's a category of composition, but by that token txt messaging is also a genre.
    • The map of her route is a brilliant addition.
    • Did Godwin actually fall in love with her while reading the book, is what led to their courtship? Also, should the lead perhaps mention that he married her? It just identifies him as a philosopher.
      • Since Godwin and Wollstonecraft despised each other before the book was published, I think that the book had a lot to do with it. I tried to write a sentence for the lead that explained the whole Godwin scenario, but it just became unwieldly. Do you have any suggestions? I have wrestled with that sentence for a while now. Awadewit | talk 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think it's fine. I re-read the part about Godwin in the Mary Wollstonecraft article, and it seems that the book had some influence, but it's not exactly clear how much. I'd say it's dealt with well in both articles. --JayHenry 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I have only minor points (as you know the subject and I don't really, feel free to disregard comments that are of little use) and thus I happily support. --JayHenry 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another fascinating article from Awadewit, this one even tinged with adventure. I found it so interesting that I went and read the work, which provided an excellent evening's reading. I have made some notes and comments, but since none affect my unreserved support for this article's promotion, I shall post them on the article's talk page.qp10qp 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Lions

edit

Hey, I am nominating this article which has been coordinated by me but loads of others have chipped in. I believe it is comprehensive, has a lead summarising the article in 3 paras, is comprehensively referenced and the licencing for images is in order. The prose has been massaged by a few experienced copyeditors and is succinct (which it needs to be given the size of the article!). Drop my and let me know how I can improve it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length, I'm thinking that we could consider spinning "captivity" and "behaviour/biology" into subarticles. Those are the two main sections whose lengths make subarticles workable. Some stuff from "Cultural depictions" might be movable to the subarticle too. It's a very busy section. I'll try to review an convert the untemplated references at some point. Circeus 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky; luckily there is already a Cultural depictions of lions daughter article, though both sections you mention are already in a summary style as succinctily as I could make 'em. I'm wondering what could be trimmed without losing info. As a contrast for length, schizophrenia was a recently kept Featured Article, and Jerusalem a recent successful candidate, which are a little longer.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: My candidates for reduction would be the hybrid and man-eater sections.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: I did think the images did a good job of breaking up the prose and making it a more enjoyable read (3 featured pix in one article - woo hoo!) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style is when you have or create a subarticle and shorten the section in the original article, such as when treatment of schizophrenia, or diagnosis of Asperger syndrome were split to separate articles. Circeus 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching this article come together for some time now. Exhaustive...170+ refs...I checked about 2/3rds of them the other day and they appear to support the section cited. I'm not great at copyediting, but the prose looks fine to me. I see no reason to not support the promotion of this article. Nice work!--MONGO 06:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'The article looks good, but I do have a few comments, mainly regarding prose:
    • "Today only eight subspecies are usually accepted..but one of these..is probably invalid" - yet the section "recent" chooses to include only seven. You should be clear about whether there are 7 or 8 accepted subspecies. (Hopefully cleared that up - officially it is still 8, though the Cape lion is doubtful - I have returned it to that bit)
    • "are genetically different only minimally.., but are markedly different from.." - this is difficult to read, I would rephrase this sentence (ok, done - could have made it "genetically much more closely related" but i don't think the shorter way I've done it is any more ambiguous, however change if you feel differently)
    • "Besides these subspecies there are also some prehistoric ones." - so there still are a few prehistoric lions? Better rephrase this one to something like "Several subspecies of the lion have been know to exist in prehistoric times". (done)
    • "the couple frequently copulate twenty to forty times a day" - frequently is redundant with "twenty to forty times a day" and copulate must be copulates (done)
    • "Widely seen in captivity,[116][117][118]" - three references for such a obvious statement seems a bit excessive (done)
    • "They are considered an ambassador species" - the term "ambassador species" needs explanation (all it means is a key exhibit, I'll think of a good way to reword it)
    • more might follow later --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all input appreciated. It turned out to be a pretty long article (see note above), so I'm not surprised if folks need a bit of time to digest it :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I made some additions here and there, mostly relating to captivity, but I can't fault anything with the rest of the article. Circeus 18:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not sure if I am impartial enough to comment here, but I really feel that this deserves featured status. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose→Support - Great scot Cas, you've done a brilliant job! However, as per most times, there's a few things which need to be cleared up... 1) There are a few short paragraphs which should either be deleted, merged or expanded. They are in the "Naming and etymology", "Mane" and "In captivity" sections. 2) The picture "Lion pair2.jpg" is in the wrong place and hangs down over the following subheading - It should be moved to the top of the "Reproduction" section. 3) The paragraph at the bottom of the "Man-eaters" section - "The "All-Africa" record of man-eating generally is considered to be not Tsavo, but the lesser-known incidents in the late 1930s through the late 1940s in what was then Tanganyika (now Tanzania). George Rushby, game warden and professional hunter, eventually dispatched the pride, which over three generations is thought to have killed and eaten 1,500 to 2,000 in what is now Njombe district." - is unsourced and since it makes a fairly significant statement in regard to the section, it needs to be sourced. 4) I'd like to see the "Notes" section renamed to "Footnotes", since this seems to be more common, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So yeah, once these are cleared, I should be able to support. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, tweaked all - hope maneless para is long enough now - but have to run. Will find Rushby ref a bit later)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above↑ - I changed the notes thing, so that means everything has been completed! You truly have done an excellent job Cas - Personally, I never thought you could get it as great as you've gotten it. Anyway, I can now give me full support. Wonderful job Cas; you're really racking on the FAs now eh? Spawn Man 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I still would like to see an explanation of the sentence ""They are considered an ambassador species", as it does not define what they are an ambassodor for (Africa? Wildlife?). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously! It's only fitting that the King of the Beasts should be the King of the Animal FAs. (A word of caution: I'd encourage FAC not to mandate this level of comprehensiveness on all animals!) Casliber, I dare you to try tigers next. A stream of IP addresses have been warring over what species of tiger weighs the most for months, if not years. --JayHenry 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments
    • Can this sentence be stated in a clearer way? It also switches between lion/pantera leo. "The oldest fossil record of a cat closely resembling a lion is known from Laetoli in Tanzania and is perhaps 3.5 million years old; some scientists have identified the material as Panthera leo. "
    • What is "zoon material"? (I didn't put that in - I figure its a typo for zoo and have left a note for Circeus well I'll be..you learn something new every day. This might come in handy playing scrabble one day ;) )
    • "The male lions reach maturity at about 3 years of age and are capable of taking over another pride at 4–5 years old." - What about females? (good point. now entered, though if you can see a better place please move. Tricky as it is a bit isolated)
      • Hrm I see that whole paragraph is pretty much about males. I think the sentence is ok where it is.
    • "Females form a social unit in a pride and will not tolerate outside females." If males aren't allowed in and females aren't allowed in, how do prides form? (dunno how the first one formed way back when...see below)
    • Maybe a better question: How do prides form? Are females stolen from other prides? Are females"captured" or do they willingly form prides with lone males? (female membership is matrilineal - hope the extra sentence helps. I can elaborate more)
      • The sentence you added now excludes males taking over a pride :) I think taking a look at all the pride related sentences and consolidating into a paragraph might be the way to go. I think it's a unique and important part of Lion-ness that it should be well described. Also the pride sentence in he intro has different material than the body.
    • Are there any freely available lion sounds or video? (I haven't looked into this before on WP for any article but sounds like a good idea)
    • Is there any speculation about why the population declined after 10,000 YA? (There is speculation it was because of loss of megafauna. I have put it in)
    • Man eating lions should probably be a sub-article and shortened up a bit (sounds of much squirming) am considering that - is it a deal-breaker for you? I can cope with brutal honesty..)
      • Ok keep it, culture is much longer, and the article is under 100k.
    • Stray sentence - "The word aslan is Turkish for lion." ...(yeah, does stick out a bit - moved to subarticle)
    • The Barbary lion project seems to be dead Barbary_Lion#The_Barbary_Lion_Project. Is it still worth mentioning? Is it worth listing out the still existing lions? (Tricky. I feel that although the project looks dead for the time being it's still noteworthy that some of this subspecies may have survived in captivity. Would be great to get a reference for current status and I'm looking as we speak.)
    • Overall it looks pretty dang good. I'll probably re-read tomorrow and look for more stuff to tweak.
  • support great job Casliber and everyone else. I've been around seeing the last few weeks of edits and I think it's in great shape. --Cody Pope 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as good as the jaguar and cougar articles. igordebraga ≠ 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have Professor David McDonald's The Encyclopedia of Mammals, and the Lion entry is terrific, but nowhere near as comprehensive as Wikipedia's article (it's 8 pages compared to the roughly 24 pages on Lion; McDonald has no section on hybrids or etymology, but has a longer section on vocalizations). There appear to be no errors, and I went over the grammar myself. Great job, Circeus, AnonDis, Casliber, Claoquot, Altaileopard, and all others involved. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Ōkami

edit

Self-nomination - I and several editors have worked to make this article much better, and have gotten it through a GA status without major problems. I don't see any failures with the FA criteria, and I don't expect any major changes to occur to the content in the future. --Masem 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

History of Gillingham F.C.

edit

This article was originally forked off from the main Gillingham F.C. article due to its length, but I see no reason why it couldn't also reach FA status, so I've been working hard on it over the last few weeks, and would now appreciate feedback on whether or not it's reached the required standard.

Many thanks!!!!

ChrisTheDude 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Comment: Informative article, but there are probably some prose issues that ought to be addressed: and all of my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to be a common confusion in articles about sports teams whether to use the singular or the plural. "... renamed itself Gillingham F.C ..." "...Gillingham, now back in their earlier kit ...". "... the team scored a record total of 90 league goals on their way to finishing as runners-up ..." Which is Gillingham F.C./the team? Is it an "it" or a "they"? Whichever it is, I think it ought to be that consistently.
      • In British English the club as a whole is generally considered singular but the actual playing team plural, if that makes sense. I've fixed both the sentences you mention, let me know if there are any inconsistent usages
  • Makes perfect sense, but I just plucked a few out almost at random, to demonstrate the point. I think the whole article needs to be checked. For instance, I just found this: "In 1899 the team reached the first round proper of the FA Cup for the first time, where they lost ..." It does seem to be stretching grammar to have a singular subject and then a plural pronoun later in the sentence. But if that's the way that all football articles are written, then I'll have to defer to that common useage. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This remains to this day ..." Isn't "to this day" redundant?
      • Fixed
    • "... Gillingham played in the Kent League (not the same league that exists today) ..." Why provide a wikilink to the Kent League, if it isn't the same league that Gillingham played in?
      • Fixed - the Kent League article does now cover both incarnations of the league
    • " ... wrote his name into the record books ..." doesn't seem like encyclopedic language. --Malleus Fatuarum 2:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man
  • No need to make The bold in the lead, just "history of Gillingham F.C.".
    • fixed
  • Headings - you say "The Early Years"... WP:HEAD suggests not to overcapitalise, so it ought to be "The early years:..." etc.
    • fixed
  • "...the Gills are playing in..." hmmm, I know this is fact but the phrasing leaves something to be desired. Not sure what yet...
    • fixed (removed)
  • "Gillingham has traditionally been one of the league's smaller clubs..." - what does this really mean? Traditionally is a bit PoV/euphemistic?
    • fixed (removed)
  • Wikilink full dates, e.g. "September 2 1893" should be "September 2, 1893,"
    • fixed (I think - have I missed any.....?)
  • Oh, and "On September 2 1893, New Brompton's first competitive match took place on September 2 1893..." repeats the date.
    • fixed
  • Acceptance into the FA Cup etc was in the same year as the club's foundation? If so, make it clearer, if not, specify when.
    • fixed (removed - wording in the source is unclear)
  • It's probably a personal thing but I don't like stuff in parentheses when it's better either pipe wikilinked or written in the prose (i.e. "(1894–95)").
    • fixed
  • My usual pet hate - us Brits ought to propound the use of First World War ahead of its US prequel/sequel counterparts of WWI and WWII.
    • fixed
  • "Football League Division Three" - is there an appropriate wikilink for this?
    • where's that? it's linked the first time it's used, and further linking would be over-linking surely....?
  • "...but it was not enough to save Gillingham from having to apply for re-election to the league."- I know what you mean but it wasn't just that game that caused the Gills to be forced to reapply was it?
    • fixed (I think)
  • "...but it was a feat which could not be repeated and the team returned to struggling at the foot of the table once again.[15]" - is that applicable to the following season? If so, state it.
    • fixed
  • I've seen in other articles the Third Division South being referred to as Third Division (South). What do you think? In fact you link Football League Division Three South later. Hmmm....
    • fixed - I've changed it to "Third Division South" throughout, as that's how the appropriate WP article is titled
  • No need to overlink striker.
    • fixed
  • "...could have given him ten..." - not sure this is really necessary, if he hit the bar late on and had nine already, it's pretty clear he could have made double figures. I know what you're getting at though, so perhaps a careful rewording?
    • fixed (I think - let me know what you think)
  • "hot-seat" - non encyclopaedic term I'm afraid.
    • fixed
  • ref [35] & [57] aren't correctly placed per WP:CITE.
    • fixed
  • "...record total of 90 league goals..." - league or club record?
    • fixed

That's about it for now. Let me know if I can help with anything, and if you'd like me to re-assess. The Rambling Man 17:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "The 1934–35 season was marked by tragedy when, in a match against Brighton & Hove Albion on December 1, centre-forward Sim Raleigh, the club's top scorer the previous season and a player seen as a future star,[22] suffered a brain haemorrhage following a blow to the head." "Tragedy" should not be used per WP:WTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carabinieri (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

History of American football

edit

Currently listed as a Good Article and been through a peer review. The peer review received only one comment, which may mean the article didn't need much help, but probably means that no one cared. I think this is FA ready now. I humbly submit it for your consideration as a Featured Article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/weak oppose Neutral - from the first glance I'd say lead is long, especially third paragraph and I'm not very sure about Table of Contents. From this sentence "From time to time, other rival leagues have come and gone, but today the NFL remains, in terms of television viewers, not only the most popular version of the game, but arguably the most popular sport in the United States.", the word "arguably" doesn't fit plus the sentence is missing reference. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Per WP:LEAD, a lead should fully summarize an article. The length of the lead is long enough to fully cover each of the major sections of the article, without delving into details. I have never seen a guideline or a policy or any part of the MOS or WIAFA or any other thing that talks about length, only on completeness. The lead is adequately complete for doing the job that a lead should do, per WP:LEAD. The statement you question is referenced as the first reference, read the statement at the start of the article. However, I can see how such a statement, where it makes a superlative claim, requires specific referencing. I have add a reference and removed the word "arguably" from the statement. However, I still disagree on the length of the lead. It completely summarizes the article, and thus is as long as it needs to be. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)kody schlesner is cool.[reply]
Well, though I still think lead is bit long, if others will not say anything about it, the objection can be counted as discarded. Good for adding reference to superlative statement, though I had to fix cite template because "title" parameter wasn't specified. For now, though, my stance is neutral. MarkBA t/c/@ 09:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add another perspective. As someone totally ignorant of football, I found the lead a little short and hard to follow. It made total sense to me after I read the article, but not before. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some problems with the article:

  • In the lead:
  • First sentence is awkward.
  • the fact that pro football is the most popular sport is mentioned three times
  • "The popularity of the college game continued to grow" - it hadnt been established in the lead that college football even started to grow, or that there was even such a thing as college football, so to say it "continued to grow" is getting ahead of everybody.
  • "the college game" and "the pro game" should be reworded to "collegiate football" and "professional football", and all instances of the word "pro" being used should probably be lengthened to "professional", at least in the lead
  • The last paragraph is a little confusing. Though its set up in chronological order, it mentions the NFL, then says when professional football as a whole became popular, then continues on about leagues again, saying there was a rival league called the AFL. It seems to be out of logical order, despite being chronologically ordered. At the very least, it should be clarified what league to which the AFL was a rival, because the topic was changed between the mention of the NFL and the mention of the AFL.
  • "From time to time, other rival leagues have come and gone" little too informal in tone there:*"regional and national appeal" if it has national appeal it stands to reason it would have regional appeal too. Just say "widespread appeal"
  • "And/or" should be removed
  • In "the early years":

:*there is a lone sentence after the first paragraph that should be part of that paragraph.

  • "They played mostly among themselves early on; though they organized a team of non-members..." the semi-colon should be a comma.
  • Instead of simply saying that "the running game" or "the passing game" was invented, spell it out that it was "a rule that allowed players to run the ball forward..." or something like that. People who aren't familiar with American football will read this page and only people somewhat familiar with the sport will know what "the running game" or the "passing game" means. This problem might have to be fixed throughout.
  • The problem is that in the early sources, two versions of football were played. The "running game" is a game (not the running part of the modern football, completely different usage) that resembled rugby, while the "kicking game" resembled soccer. The "Boston Game" was a hybrid of the two. As this is pre-Walter Camp, these games bear NO resemblance to modern American football. This is actually EXPLICITLY explained in the text already. Could you reread this a little more closely and see if and what needs to be fixed specifically. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intercollegiate football:
  • Expansion (1880–1904): the last sentence has the word "is" when it is meant to say "his"
  • Violence and controversy (1905): " 62 schools met in New York City " - Don't start a sentence with numbers. While numbers greater than nine aren't spelled out, any number should be spelled out at the beginning of a sentence.
  • Other similar codes of football:
  • Rmv "other" from title - it isnt neccessary and makes it cumbersome
  • Rest of sections:
  • Well, I had it all typed out but then I lost it, so instead of going back through and finding all the problems again, I will just say that in the remainder of the article there are several problems with punctuation, typos and uneeded repetition in the wording of several sentences. If everything else mentioned here is fixed, I wil point these out one by one.
  • Throughout:
  • I toutched on it before, but some of the article seems to be written as if to assume readers know the rules of American football or how it is played. Try to keep the perspective that the reader knows absolutely nothing about American football.
  • Let me take a position counter to this. There are other articles, for example, titled American football where things like rules and the like are explicitly explained. Every article does not need to contain a complete rehash of information in other articles. If you think, I could add some "see also" templates at the start of sections that appear confusing, but to have an entire section where the entire rules of American Football are explained to a non-initiated reader kinda defeats the purpose of wikilinking and weights down this article with information belonging elsewhere. See WP:SUMMARY for the relevent part of the MOS that explains better what I am getting at here.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going to strike out the comment; most of it was based on the "running" "passing" and "kicking" game mentions, which, since you explained it above, I see the connection to the other parts of the text where it is explained. Saying the article was "written" like that was overstated anyway. So forget it. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS#Em Dashes - use Em dashes instead of parentheses to nest phrases. For example: "A rematch was played at Princeton a week later under Princeton rules (one notable difference was the awarding of a "free kick" for any player that caught the ball on the fly)."
  • Past events did happen. Don't say that they would happen. There are many instances of this.
  • 14 instances of the word "many" and a few less of the word "some" - see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
  • "To this day," - 5 instances of this. Its unencyclopedic, too informal and vague.
  • Picture captions should not have periods if they are not complete sentences. Also, they should have periods if they are complete sentences. There are instances of both problems.
  • Red links
  • No where does it say that a few red links should be objected to. 150 red links may indicate overlinking, but no where in the MOS or in WIAFA or in any other guideline or policy or anywhere does it say that no article should ever have a redlink. If you see a place where a specific red link is to a topic that should NEVER have a wikipedia article, let me know and I will remove it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I would never object to the article because of red links (nor would it be within FA guidelines to do so). Just a suggestion to improve overall look. Maybe by removing links to articles that may not be created soon, like A.E. Staley. Also, I think it would be fairly easy to create a small stub for the other two red links, as they appear to be fairly important and need some kind of article anyway. Again, not a requirement, just a suggestion. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article has promise, but as you can see, there are many errors or areas that need to be smoothed out. Okiefromokla•talk 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have attempted to fix the specific problems you pointed out. It is clear that a copyeditor will need to go through this. I will call in a few favors and see if someone with a fresh perspective and a good red pen can go over this and fix any stray errors we have missed. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some copy-editing is still needed, as well as fixes to the issues I didn't cross out yet. I do see much copy-editing has been done already. I'll stop by and read the article over one more time within the next few days and check up on the other fixes, then you can except my support! Great work on the lead too, it's much better. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one more thing. Try to get rid of one sentence paragraphs (I saw one more of these, and it looks like it could be part of a larger paragraph in that section by combining small paragraphs) and also limit the number of two sentence paragraphs unless the small paragraph doesnt fit at all with any other paragraph. Okiefromokla•talk 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After copy-editing the article and noting that Jayron has addressed issues I brought up on his talk page, I feel confident in the quality of this article. Lara♥Love 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now, there's still copyediting work to be done and some content issues. "Would" as past tense still exists in the article, and I've found some examples of run-on sentences and weasel words. In addition, a few things need to be clarified: in "1932 NFL playoff game", how were the rule changes connected to the game itself? Were they only approved for that game in particular, or did they apply generally and were only adopted that year? Another thing: nothing is said about high school football. Not much is needed, necessarily, but a brief section on its development might be helpful. I don't see the point of discussing rugby at the end of the article (it's relevant only as a parent of football; once that is established there's no need to cover how it continued to develop). Overall though, a well-done article. Not much more work to do! --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you just said and I feel the same way. Okiefromokla•talk 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has now been extensively copyedited by atleast 3 people who had not previoulsy worked on the article. I have also expanded the modern NFL section, as several people have requested. I think all objections to the article's quality have now been met. Could anyone who has objected please re-read the article and see if there are any further objections? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm switching to neutral; the prose is much better but I still would prefer to see discussion of high school football and less on rugby at the end. --Spangineerws (háblame) 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 3 sentances on rugby at the end of the article, and a few near the beginning as well. I am not sure how to cut that out, and still provide enough historical context. It is not as if the sport of football grew full formed from the head of Walter Camp like Athena from Zeus. It has historical antecedants, and the article cannot be complete if we ignore them. I will work on adding a section on High School football as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added a section on youth and high school football. I understand the high school section is rather short. The big problem is the lack of relevent sources on the history of the sport as it is played in high schools. While youth football (Pop Warner), college football (NCAA) and pro football (NFL) are all organized into large, monolithic, national organizations, high school football is not. It is highly decentralized. The national sanctioning body, the NFHS, does standardize the rules, and I have included as much as I could find on its history, but there is little information about the game at the high school level vis-a-vis important history (first games, how it was organized, etc) such as you find for the 3 other levels of the sport. While some states do have some excellent resources on the history of the sport in their states (Alabama has a great website, and I found some information on Texas as well) such highly localized histories don't have much place in this article. We don't need 50 little histories of high school football in each state, and that is all that could be added, since each state's high school football history is likely have developed independantly and unconnected to the others. Unless you are privy to sources I am not, please understand that I have put literally as MUCH about high school football (on a national level) as can be found. Please re-read this section, and tell me if this helps make the article more comprehensive. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The other alternative would be to go through and write about all the high school football rivalries over the years and every little thing about H.S. football... but H.S. football didn't really have anything to do with developing the game as far as I know, so that makes its importance less. I am satisfied with what has been put in the new section. Okiefromokla•talk 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, would it be possible to find a ref on the importance of high school football and its growth and popularity so there can be a little info added on that? I mean some high school football games do attract upwards of 40,000 people. Maybe its popularity in small towns and how that came to be. If something like that could be found it would add a lot. Okiefromokla•talk 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added another paragraph to the section that touches upon the recent history of the growth of HS football; I referenced a USA today article and the book Friday Night Lights, the landmark study of the trend. Does this help some?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its good enough for me. I already supported the article anyway lol. I did some general copy editing but other than that it's alright with me. Good job. Okiefromokla•talk 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'.
    • "Prep school" links to a disambigation page.
    • "Camp's new scrimmage rules revolutionized the game, though not always for the better." "Better" is POV. I think what you mean is "the way he intended".
    • "Camp became a fixture at the Massasoit House "conventions" where rules were debated and changed." Why is "conventions" in quotation marks?--Carabinieri 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got.--Carabinieri 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Full disclosure: I have copy edited this page.) This page is well-written, informative, well-researched, and, to the best of my knowledge, comprehensive. I think that the additions made to the modern NFL section are excellent; we shouldn't, I think, demand too much there, since this is a page on the history of football, not on the history of the NFL or on the NFL. As I know very little about football, I learned a lot reading this page; it was also easy for a layperson like myself to follow. Nice work.
This problem was part of a spate of vandalism today (see the page history). It has been reverted. Could you please reread the article and check this? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The newly restored lead is much better. I think that this is a good example of why we need the "viewable" version of pages, particularly FAs, that was being discussed. Awadewit | talk 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed there are still the many, many uses of the word "would" when describing past events. I hate to be anal retentive about that (lol)... Do the editors object to removing the "would"s? Okiefromokla•talk 05:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just not sure what your problem with the "would's" is exactly. I just did a quick check of all of them and about half of them look like the conditional to me (which would be difficult to change) and the other half look like the future (to put it simply). One could of course say that all of the future tenses should be past tenses, but from the context of the article, it could go either way. In a sentence situated in 1945, something that happens in 1946 is in the future, but still in the past to us, so would is appropriate. One can use the past tense there, but it is not required; that seems like a personal stylistic choice to me. Perhaps you know of a grammatical reason why those would's cannot be there? Awadewit | talk 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better writing - more consistent. Most of the article has the tone that events did happen (which is how it all needs to be), but when some parts of the article say something "would" happen, it makes it inconsistent. The best possible and most definitive wording should be used, as such is the goal for a featured article. We're looking for great prose. Okiefromokla•talk 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (disclosure: I made the sole peer review comments) Karanacs 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few reamining problems: instances of saying past events "would" happen makes the article less definitive and inconsistent with the prevailing tone that past events did happen, which is how the entire article should be written. (see discussion above) ... also see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I have a looser interpretation of this guideline than some editors but the article has quite a few instances where the word "many" and "some" can and should be removed for more definitive, better writing. Examples: "...most notably the many rule changes instituted by Walter Camp..." the "many" there doesn't add anything to the sentence. Remove it. "Although many observers held suspicions," ... same reason; and if you cant specify how many observers, simply removing "many" says that there were observers, which I don't see a problem with... I did notice just a couple instances in the article where the word "many" wasn't totally inappropriate, but there are editors who might object to them anyway. Sorry if I sound nit-picky, I just want to make sure the article is top-notch. Okiefromokla•talk 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

Carnivàle

edit

Self-nom. I've worked roughly a month on this article and used Lost (TV series) and Arrested Development (TV series) (both featured) as guidelines for structure and content. The article does not have GA status (although I think it would pass those requirements easily), but I did a check for User:AndyZ/Suggestions, and the article also received a private peer review by a longtime fan of the show who didn't find major fault with it (and neither do I), so I believe it's ready for FA now. Before it comes up, I want to note that everything plot-related (including character descriptions) is extremely spoilery for this show, so I deliberately moved most of the plot to sister-/sub-pages instead (Fictional universe of Carnivàle, Characters of Carnivàle) and provided links to there when appropriate. Also, I read about 15 show reviews and not a single one addressed the mythology of the show except for "Wow/Urgh, the show is deep", so I guess it's not possible to have a sourced section discussing all the show's mythologies besides what's currently written in the "Format" section. Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave the page a couple of look overs and I didn't find any faults with it. Overall its very concise and a lot of it is about stuff outside the actual show itself, so its not too in-universe. Hopefully this will get FA status. --CyberGhostface 19:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—It's a great topic and deserves a FA. But it's not yet sufficiently well-written to be promoted. I've had a go at the lead, which is good apart from the distracting overlinking and a tendency to integrate ideas into the sentences awkwardly. Please go further and find one or more copy-editors to run through the whole text. Oh, please read MOS on en dashes; see infobox. Tony 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC) PS I corrected "cancelling": surely it should be US spelling? Tony 06:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply and the quick copy-edit; "canceling" must have slipped through my British/US spelling check; I fixed the the dash issue. I know that I can't claim professional writing skills, but I've already tried my best on this article and don't find anything else to improve. I also don't know anyone else who might be interested in copyediting this article, so I put up a request at WikiProject League of Copyeditors and hope they can help. – sgeureka t•c 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update My outside copyedit request doesn't mean that I am unwilling to improve this article myself. Just fire away and I'll fix it (I'm already fixing minor issues whenever I notice them). It's just that at the moment I have no clue how good or terrible this article really is if no-one comments. ;-) – sgeureka t•c 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – With the recent improvements the article has become quite good. The only thing which I would rephrase is the following in the Plot section: "Certain that he is doing God's work, Justin expands his sphere of influence, not realising that Ben Hawkins and the carnival are slowly drawing closer to challenge him at the end of the series' run." In the beginning Justin is acting out of his belief that he's chosen by his God. But later on, more explicitly in season 2, his motives are selfish and certainly not religiously inspired. But maybe such an explanation is too spoilerish for a plot section. Anyway, this nomination gets my support.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maester mensch (talk • contribs)
  • I am unsure whether you would like to see this sentence rephrased because of (a) poor grammar, (b) incorrect plot or (c) giving away too much plot. I was intentionally vague when I added plot material that takes place after the first few Season 1 episodes, mainly because when I first came to this article, I hadn't watched anything of the show and just wanted to check out whether it was worth buying on DVD. (And I was one of those slow-witted viewers who did not get whether Brother Justin was the good or the evil guy until I watched the beginning of Season 2.) Anyway, I've rephrased this sentence now to only address the events of the first few episodes, and everything after is addressed as "two main plotlines that are slowly converging" and "Ben Hawkins and the carnival are slowly drawing closer", both too vague to know when (or even if) the confrontation between the camps will happen. I've also renamed the "Plot" section to "Plot introduction", making it clearer why it is so short and incomprehensive. Thanks for the reply. :-) – sgeureka t•c 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No fair use justification for the DVD images at the bottom. There is no critical commentary on them, so they do not satisfy the criteria. This is why there were removed for all the List of Episodes pages awhile ago. I'll have to look at the article more thoroughly, since I noticed the two articles you mentioned using as examples. As the those two articles have a lot of current issues, most notably Arrested Developments excessive non-use of sourcing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you mean exactly. The images already have detailed fairuse rationales at the bottom, and, as both the license template and the FU rationale state, the images are used for identification. I guess(?) the current Carnivàle article has enough detail about the DVDs so that the DVD section can be compared to a wiki article about a CD with an image of the cover although the CD article just offers a track listing. (The Lost (TV series) DVD releases article, which was my boilerplate for the DVD section, had all of its DVD covers removed two days ago, which I didn't argue because I have no attachment to the DVD images beyond "this is how the DVD looks so that I/you recognize it in stores".) – sgeureka t•c 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair use rationale has not effect on the article itself. I can write a fair use rationale for anything, but it has to be reflected in the article. All non-free images must have critical commentary within the article for use. If it was a season page, then a DVD cover can sometimes substitute the position of a poster, since most shows do not offer posters like a film does. If someone wants to know what the DVD coverart looks like, Amazon has images. It isn't hard to find. That section is nothing but a DVD features list, and not critical commentary about the DVD cover art. An article about a music album (when featured) has more than just a track listing. Also, i'm not too keen on having a DVD features section, as it's rather indiscriminate. The page shouldn't be out to promote a product, this just seems like advertising.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just checking: Turning the tables into prose like Lost (TV series) did would not be sufficient; critical commentary means having a section saying what reviewers thought of the video, audio, the features and the packaging. That's an interesting idea that I haven't seen in Featured articles; it shouldn't take long for me to come up with a replacement(?) section. – sgeureka t•c 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • DVD covers are touchy, in this case, since you are using it to talk about the DVD itself, I'd say that you'd need to find commentary about the cover art. Also, looking at the sources, there needs to be a consistent format used. I've seen some that are simply urls, and others that are using the citation templates. This needs to be cleaned up. You need sources for all the DVD region release dates as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Found commentary on the packaging [59][60][61] and much much more [62] so no prob. I was reluctant to use cite templates like {{cite web}} for data base querries as there is nothing to "cite" but only to "check for yourself" (but I can see why the formats should be the same so I'll fix that). Sourcing DVD release dates is always tricky as there are usually 15 or more separate release dates for RC2 alone. Recent attempts to use ref links to amazon led to "advertisement" complaints in other articles, and since both Lost (TV series) and Lost (TV series) DVD releases also don't source the dates except for DVDs that haven't been released yet, I decided to not source the dates. I'll do so now. Thanks for the suggestions. – sgeureka t•c 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Update. It seems the DVDs are just too darn good; I wasn't able to write a DVD reception section without sounding completely POV. My attempt in describing the packaging also appears like unnecessary fancruft to me now, so I departed from that idea and commented-out the images in the meantime. (If someone thinks DVD covers for identification still fall under fairuse, they can de-comment-out the images again; I don't care enough about them myself.) I've also removed the US-centric DVD information that didn't apply to my British DVD sets. All remaining reference formats are fixed, and references for the individual release dates are added now as well. – sgeureka t•c 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lost suffers from a lot of none citations, their entire awards sections is missing citations..so don't look to them. If you use Amazon, you need to use the basic url for the page. I've found out that when you copy the url, a specific code is attacked. Any Region 2 from Amazon will work in a Region 2 player...so, I would assume that the earliest date would be the date. Then again, you could just cite all of them if they are different dates. Check out the DVD information for Smallville (TV series)#DVD releases for a website where you can get Region 4 release dates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, serious issues with reliability of sources. Yahoo groups? Please correctly format all citations to identify all publishers; reliability is obscured because publishers aren't listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It's not Yahoo Groups, it's the creator of the show who just happened to be post regularly on a certain Yahoo Group (and AFAIK, you can't forge/spoof Yahoo accounts once one has been set up). The creator of the show is certainly reliable when it comes to inspiration and creative future of his show. If you're suggesting that some weird fan is just pretending to be him, then I'd like to point out that he must have certainly fooled Carnivàle fans for years with posts like this: [63] (mirrored at [64]), not to mention that he's a really good guesser when it comes to plot details for episodes that will only air one year later [65]. I included a forum link to the Baggage Forum as a service to those people who do not wish to sign up to that Yahoo Group to read what Knauf said, but I can remove them if those are too unreliable for wikipedia (but then you would have the please-don't-add-sources-where-you-need-to-sign-up problem). It's Daniel Knauf, no question. And as far as I can see, all publishers are clearly identified for each citation except for one that is currently only mirrored by a fan site, but that one reference is only used for why Carnivàle has exactly that name (a no-brainer, really), and as a second back-up reference for where the show was filmed (but they also said that in one audio commentary, so if you'd rather have this one source replaced with Daniel Knauf in the DVD audio commentary for the episode "The Road to Damascus" (which you can't check unless you got the DVDs), I can replace them easily). Note: I'll be on vacation for a few days and I can't reply to comments here in the meantime; sorry. – sgeureka t•c 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update I have compiled a list of the information that is referenced with Knauf's posts. If you want, you can have a look at it and tell me how I should precede. In my opinion, it's not really worth it to do anything about them. Because in the worst case that someone was just fooling the audience (extremely unlikely), the article as it is wouldn't really misinform the reader either. I'll still have a look whether I can back-up the information with other non-messageboard references, as it surely wouldn't hurt. – sgeureka t•c 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update 2 I've had a go at the forum posts in the article to reduce the perceived "dodgy"-ness of them. You can see a compilation of the results and rationales here. I removed or replaced some not-so-important forum references (they may find a new home in the Carnivàle subarticles); and except for one forum reference where I'm still trying to find a replacement, I feel all other forum posts/references need to be kept in order to not hurt the article in comprehensiveness and necessary detail. (I have also found an official comment of Knauf where he states that he is "read[ing] virtually every posting there";[66] surely he would have stepped in if someone was impersonating him.) – sgeureka t•c 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second look. Sgeureka, you've put a lot of commendable work into convincing us on the sources: I can't get comfortable ever with message boards (I also opposed Spoo), so I'm not sure what to do on that issue. There are a few other things to look at:

  • There's a fansite in External links (See WP:EL, WP:RS)
  • There's an external jump to CarnyCon 2006 Live! in Fandom; if that site is notable, it should have it's own article and that should be a wikilink, otherwise, it should be a referenced statement, with the link in the ref. There's another external jump at "The opening title sequence itself begins with ..." in "Opening title sequence".
  • In fandom, August 21 till 23, 2006 needs attention (see WP:MOSDATE, I'm never sure how to fix those date ranges).
  • There is some uneven wikilinking; for example Daniel Knauf is linked repeatedly, the word carnival is linked more than once, HBO is linked repeatedly, as is Los Angeles for example. The first occurrence of relevant terms should be linked (in very technical articles, some writers link uncommon terms again in subsequent sections, but I don't think words like carnival and HBO need repeat linking). Please review all of the linking per WP:MOSLINK.
  • Here's a hanging ref tag, be sure to run through the entire article looking for straggling issues like this: The carnival set itself was moved around the greater Southern California area, to movie ranches and to Lancaster, which were to replicate the states of Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.[8]</ref>[30]
  • More importantly, there are still many rough patches in the prose. These are some samples only, from the bottom of the article only, indicating the need for another copyedit:
    • (Do you file a lawsuit "to"? I'm not sure if one "originates the idea for"? The sentence seems long.) On June 9, 2005, Los Angeles writer Jeff Bergquist filed a lawsuit to the United States district court claiming that the creators of Carnivàle did not originate the idea for the show, but rather stole it from his unpublished novel Beulah, a quirky drama set amid a traveling carnival during the Depression that Bergquist had been working on since the 1980s.
    • (Did he really say "very" successful, which is redundant? The construction of this sentence is awkward, "did not divulge any further".) Chris Albrecht stated that Carnivàle was not very successful in foreign distribution,[17] but did not divulge any further.
    • (Further extended is redundant: extended.) The DVD releases of Carnivàle further extended the availability of the show.
    • (Did Carnivale grow and mature, or did it's fanbase grow and mature? Typical for or typical of?) As Carnivàle slowly grew and matured during its first season, the series gained a respectable following of dedicated viewers, as is typical for many cult television series.
    • (Very unlikely is redundant, the first sentence is typical of some clunky prose throughtout the article. "Considering to develop"?) As of July 2007, no news have been announced about HBO reviving Carnivàle, except for a February 2006 mediavillage.com article that stated that HBO may be considering to develop a movie or miniseries that would wrap up loose plot lines to be telecast in 2007, and possibly resurrect the franchise as an ongoing series in 2008.[44] HBO never responded to these claims, and a revival of the show seems very unlikely in the near future.
  • Even if the sourcing issue can be worked out, a copyedit is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All   Done, except for most of the the duplicate links. WP:MOSLINK says "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." which is how I had already applied it before. I've also replaced "took place from August 21 till 23, 2007" with "took place on August 21–23, 2007", but I don't know if that's proper English. – sgeureka t•c 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knauf had plotted the story's broad strokes from early on and knew where Carnivàle would be heading, including the last scene, but he noticed he had difficulties with the length of the script: With 180 pages, it was about twice the length of an average feature film script; at the same time," No cap after colon, and no semicolon after colon. Don't like "he notice he had". I agree with Sandy that a Yahoo group is dodgy. No reference to the doco of the making of Carnivale? I have it on my computer. Tony 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only understand the gist of your detailed punctuation comments, but I've changed the wording of these sentences now and hope this issue is fixed. You're right about the Making of Carnivale documentary – I had only watched it once and had then forgotten about its existence (it never came up when I browsed google and message boards for usable information). I'll see in how some of the forum post references can be exchanged for DVD references. Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewatched this documentary, and instead of making the message board posts superfluous, it gave some more detail why exactly Daniel Knauf chose the carnival plot setting (I could make one or two sentences from this and include it in the article - done) and some production notes about the period and the carnival setting (which may make a new stubby section together with [67] and [68], which were to crufty and unfocused to be used previously - done). I have also reread the message board posts by Knauf, and all but one are longish personal essays by him instead of in-passing references. It is surely unfortunate that Knauf chose a venue that is not highly regarded by wikipedia, but this article would suffer in a major way if his currently non-replicable posts can't be used in the article. – sgeureka t•c 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) I have also added two more Yahoo Knauf essay posts as something like "further reading" in-line references, although the paragraphs is sufficiently sourced even without those posts. – sgeureka t•c 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now:
    • "Certain that he is doing God's work, Brother Justin fully devotes himself to his religious duties, not realising that his ultimate nemesis Ben Hawkins and the carnival are slowly drawing closer." American English uses "realizing" and since this is an American show, AE should be used.
      •   Done. Negligence by me.
    • "The resulting story and its treatment of freaks was strongly informed by his experiences of growing up with a father who was confined to a wheelchair and who, as Knauf felt, was perceived as either a saint or a freak, but rarely as a human being, until people got to know him." "Freaks" shouls really be in quotation marks.
      • The word freak is linked to freak show, and at the top of the article freak, it says This article describes the modern definition of "freak". For the older meaning, see freak show. Knauf himself used the term freak without any quotation marks several times, and I think (could be very wrong here) that in relation to the 1930s, it's not unapparent that "freak" refers to the old freak show meaning. I've still added the quotation marks though now, so   Done. Edit: I confused that I had linked the word "freak" some whereelse, but didn't link it in this instance. I have still added quotation marks, and the word "freak" is linked to "freak show" two lines above this sentence.
    • "A last step involved stock footage clips being carefully compiled and digitally incorporated into the sequence." Although the use of "carefully" on Wikipedia is generally ok, in this context it simply seems to mean that it was done well, which is POV. I don't think the sentence would lose any meaning if that word was removed.
      •   Done, although very reluctantly at first (I know from experience that compiling and rendering has to be done with extreme care to produce anything award-worthy.) But I see that the Emmy award speaks more for the quality of the opening titles than this word, so I agree that it is not really needed.
    • Although WP:FLAG is still being discussed, I think the use of flag icons in this article is ridiculous. What is the point of the flags in the "International reception and broadcasters" section?--Carabinieri 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the cast section is supposed to prose, and not a list. The Lost and arrested dev example above were like that. Also, the plot summary sounds more like a teaser than a summary too me. Maybe because it's a "Plot introduction" instead of a normal Plot section, that's OK, I don't know. I haven't watched the show in a while, but maybe just a few more sentences illustrating that the two main guys eventually did have a confrontation, with the result being ... (I forget). If you have reasons for doing things they way they are, instead of the way I suggest, feel free to ignore comments. I don't believe that you should have to do everything people say on a FAC. - Peregrine Fisher 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for the comment, but I think I already addressed in the FAC nomination why I didn't do so, mainly for not giving away spoilers (and the whole show is basically one big spoiler). A more detailed answer (do not read if you don't want to be spoiled): If I even expand the cast section a little, for example "Clancy Brown as Brother Justin Crowe, a Methodist minister", sooner or later editors would come by and it would say "Clancy Brown as Brother Justin Crowe (Alexi Belyakov) {stabbed and left for dead—Ben Krohn Hawkins}, a corrupt Methodist minister; son of Lucius Belyakov; younger brother of Iris Crowe; Sofie Agnesh Bojakshiya’s father; Avatar of Darkness; Usher of Destruction" (see the article two months ago before I set foot on this article). Although all of this is a pretty good summary of the character, out of 24 episodes, this spoils episode 7 ("Alexi Belyakov"), ep 13 ("corrupt"; "Usher of Destruction"), ep 18 ("son of Lucius Belyakov"), ep 20 ("Sofie Agnesh Bojakshiya’s father"), ep 24 ("stabbed and left for dead—Ben Krohn Hawkins") (there was even a whole Mediation Cabal case for this last "stupid" plot detail). The show itself also never made it clear that he is the "Avatar of Darkness" (although most non-online viewers would think he is bad). Instead, those who wish to know more about the characters can follow the see also link to Characters of Carnivàle, where they (will soon) find everything that they're looking for. A plot summary would have almost the same problems, mainly that it would give away too much and that I dont know on whom and what to focus (there are 18 main characters, and the plot is pretty intertwined). Instead, the three links at the top of the Plot introduction will give the reader (who is interested in the plot) the information he is looking for, without having to follow the necessary FA guidelines of WP:RS too strictly ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; but IMO, in the case of plot in fiction, there are almost always only "reliable non-independent sources" and "non-reliable third party sources", making this guideline almost inexecutable for not-hugely-popular fiction topics.) :-) – sgeureka t•c 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP articles are supposed to include spoilers, see Wikipedia:Spoiler. - Peregrine Fisher 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. :-) And they are there, just in other articles because the plot's complexity would do a summary big disservice. The shortest plot summary would be what's already said in the Plot introduction. A more elaborate version of the plot would be similar to this old Overview section, whose "Season 2" section will just make the average reader go "huh?" because it can't explain all the necessary characters and concepts in short. I think List of Carnivàle episodes gives a good enough (more detailed) plot summary, and the article Avatars (Carnivàle) explains the whole overarching good-versus-evil plot [concept] much better (although, if you take away the show creator's forum posts and the interpretation of the media, there's not much left other than Original Research, which is not what an FA should include). If you have (other) suggestions, just shoot. :-) – sgeureka t•c 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were referring to the characters now (*oops*), so I'll just add that I still think a separation of spoilers is wise in this case. And as I said before, the spoilers are/will be there, just not in the main article (also because describing 18 main characters is too much, and I personally prefer a list to LOST#Cast_and_characters's example.) – sgeureka t•c 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—Can this decision be postponed for a few days? Unconvinced that Sandy's misgivings about the sources have been resolved. And although the prose isn't bad, in terms of our requirement for professional standards, there are strage things. For example, at random, I don't want to find:
    • "postponed the filming of the second episode for fourteen further months"—Spot the redundant word: this suggests that a radar for redundancies hasn't been applied, preferably from end to start to disturb the natural environment of the copy-editor. Serious matter.
    • "to take place over three cycles or books, each one lasting two seasons"—Hmm, good examples for my redundancy exercises in this article. One word too many. (Is that an equative "or"? If so, place a comma before it.)

I'd like to return in a day or two to ensure that the bits of flab have gone and the sourcing is right; would love to see this promoted after that. Tony 01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the sources (sorry for the length): I fully understand where you're coming from with using forum posts for sourcing, and I agree that they should never be used when other (better) sources are available. But writing an article about Carnivàle has two problems:

  1. It's a rather special-interest and obscure show (e.g. it never even aired in my country, whose article says it's "a modern great power"). The media was also not that interested in it, no books have been published about/for this show, so there aren't that many good (independent) sources to begin with. I must have read at least 90% of all highly-regarded independent online sources/reviews by now (I stopped at Google page 50; reviews in print are obviously hard to get in my country), plus dozens of often fan-initiated (non-forum) interviews with the DK and cast&crew. Most of them backed up what DK said in the forums, but unfortunately not all, or I would have already used them already. I have also watched all DVD features and listened to all audio commenteries again, to no avail. (It's of course possible that I missed something, and I will replace the old sources with the better sources as soon as I notice.)
  2. This show is extremely unusual in both plot and story style. (Quote Ronald D. Moore I think I can say without fear of contradiction this may be the largest and most complicated show on television., Season 1 DVD featurette). And no-one(!) other than Daniel Knauf knew what the story really was. (Quote Tracy Tormé: Everybody [of the writers] realized that Dan knew what the show was and had sort of this huge vision for what the show was. A lot of times, we would sort of take the attitude of 'We don't even fully understand it. We're only seeing sort of a small piece of a puzzle.' And we would sort of rely on Dan to step in at a certain point and say 'No, I don't want to do that,' or 'This doesn't fit.', Season 2 DVD featurette). At the same time, DK chose to reluctanty answer some of the many plot question from rabbid fans on Yahoo Groups and later on HBO forums (his comment on HBO forums) (Quote DK And that's why, though I have no problem answering nuts-and-bolts questions about story logistics (i.e. Who's the CoD, CoL, Usher), I prefer not to answer the "what does this represent" type questions. Because the only appropriate response, really, is "What do *you* think it represents?"[69]). But the media wasn't interest in fancrufty story logistics, and didn't seem to get the real plot answers they wanted out of him either (compare Mythology of Carnivàle#Interpretation by the media to the rest of that article, which was often backed up by DK's forum posts as sole available source). They also didn't have access to production costs except for where the HBO president made a rough approximation (but DK was more specific). Or they just didn't care enough to write about some Carnivàle issues. (see here for what information is currently only backed up by DK's posts.)

I do realise that it's generally standard for FA articles have extremely good sources, but that's usually because they exist for topics of general human interest. In this case, certain information is only provided by DK, who would be accepted as an authorative source if it wasnt for the channel he used. But personally, I as a reader would rather have these info pieces pointed out to me than to have them completely unmentioned because of unconventional circumstances in sourcing.
On the other hand, in my attempts to find better sources, I found some forum posts that suggest that DK commented on some of these things on the CarnyCon Live convention, which was released on a 4hour Fan DVD. But that DVD is pretty pricy at 50 bucks. I have asked around if someone who has this DVD can back up DK's claims but no-one has gotten back to me so far. I am also thinking of buying TV Zone backissues 168 and 187 but I'd be surprised to find anything new there. I wonder whether it is really advisable to try to obtain majorly obscure sources that the average wikipedian can never check when a simple forum post can do.

So, in the light of this, I see a few options options that I can implement in a short enough time for this FAC: (1) I could just delete every comment by DK, which creates apparent context holes in the article. (2) I resort to things like "The New York Times believes X, but only DK knows for sure." (3) I withdraw my nom and come back in a few months when or rather if the CarnyCon DVD or some other old TV magazines have helped in referencing. (4) I just leave the article as it is, and the FA promotion is not withheld on the ground of sourcing (see point three of "Supporting and objecting" of WP:FAC - Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the featured article director may ignore it.).

You can also comment here on which of the forum posts or rationales you don't agree with (never mind the Carnivàle article where I already removed the information but forgot to also remove some of the related <ref> tags). There is arguably some room for tweaking, but I'd like to believe at least most of my rationales there are pretty good.

  • Relevant update in sourcing So I searched all my sources again, and I also did another google search for sources that didn't come up there previously. See the positive result here (in green). As noted at the top there, I'd like you to tell me if the alternatives are acceptable, and if yes which. I'd also like to know in advance whether <ref>'s can still include an additional link to the original DK post each. Thanks for bearing with me. – sgeureka t•c 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I went ahead and implemented some of the alternatives. There is only one reference left where I'm possitive that I can acquire a replacement reference somewhere... I just haven't found it yet. A list of the changes is at [70] now. – sgeureka t•c 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I found a close-enough source for the last reference. I also found a more authorative source for the trilogy-of-two-season-each sentence (in French, but it's on a reliable website). This is the change in the article. I regard the sourcing problem as fully resolved now. Non-forum sourcing   Done – sgeureka t•c 13:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re copyediting: Copyediting of course remains a good reason to object but at least that can be fixed comparatively effortless with some help. I thank you both (Sandy and Tony) very much for pointing out what can still be improved, and I'll try to fix these issues as best as I can and as soon as possible. – sgeureka t•c 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article looks good at the moment. I think the text is up to FA standard. I've copy-edited today and found a few minor errors in referencing that I have corrected. My two major issues are:
  1. The external link in the text in the opening title sequence section - this either needs to be in external links or cited and in the footnotes as per MOS.
  2. The awards section needs references for each award/nomination.

I would also prefer prose for the list of characters as a bulleted list tells the unfamiliar reader very little about each character.--Opark 77 08:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply The external jumps are removed. The awards section has been given additional references although there there already was one imdb reference (I don't know if their award pages are as reliable as their actor archives). Since you're not the first to suggest prose for the cast section, I tackled this suggestion. Because of the number of actors, I still think that this move makes the cast section somewhat more confusing, but I've found a way that does not give away spoilers yet still describes the characters shortly and sufficiently. This section was written in not much time and I couldn't gather all my sources that fast, so it's likely that it requires another copyedit (by me or others), and that I will add some more sourced overview information later. Thank you very much for your copyedit and your comment. It is much appreciated. – sgeureka t•c 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work on the cast section in such a short space of time. All of my issues have been addressed so you have my wholehearted support. Good luck!--Opark 77 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work on making all the changes. Personally, I prefer lists to prose on character sections too, but it's more important that we standardize all of our TV FAs. What would be a nice addition but doesn't effect my support is a free image, that way it can have an image on the main page. Normally this would be an unactionable suggestion, but it looks like someone took pictures at CarnyCon and put them on flickr under a license we can use. Here is the group of photos. This one might be a good one. I don't know a lot about creative commons licenses, but since we have Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0, I think these images are OK. - Peregrine Fisher 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I browsed Flickr for CC2.0 Carnivàle pictures several weeks ago, but no photos were marked as such at that time. And since those new photos have a maximum of two actors of the cast (and aren't that great either), I'll leave the current promo image in the article. I'm also trying to gather extra sources for a new marketing section (my current poor attempt), which specifically mentions this promo image. Although I have no plans to go live with that new section any time real soon, having the promo image somewhere in the article would be an additional bonus for the reader then. (Your Flickr note prompted me to add some of those Flickr pictures to the articles of the cast&crew though, so thanks. ;-)) – sgeureka t•c 22:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be fussy: I've copy-edited "Conception" (was it?) to find quite a few glitches, including unclear statements and issues of logic. I still think it needs further work on the language (by yet another person—surely there are word-nerd aficionados of this topic). 45 minutes by someone good would be quite sufficient. Tony 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to sound impolite, I am sure that there are word-nerd aficionados out there - but all my attempts to "recruit" one in the past 4 weeks have been unsuccessful, with the exception of User:Opark (I don't know how he found that article). I have tried to address your new comments in the article. One logic error was the result of a recent copyedit. Also, I sometimes couldn't tell whether your invisible comments were suggestions for alternate text or whether you were unsure/confused about what the info meant, so I'll just comment here:
  • Knauf had originally conceived Brother Justin as a preacher far along in his career... <!--mature/senior preacher?--> - original quote of the producers="In the original version that we shot of the pilot, Brother Justin was, I suppose, essentially the same man but probably much further along in his career." I rephrased it to "a well-established preacher" because "mature and senior preacher" doesn't feel natural to me and also doesn't get across the point that well (IMO; you're free to replace it with "mature/senior" if you disagree)
  • ...as well as a recurring instead of a regular character. <!--Huh?--> - not sure what you mean. He was originally designed to be a recurring character, but then they made him a regular character (even one of the two main characters). Original quote by the producers - "I’d always thought of him as being a recurring character but not a regular character."
Comments are still welcome, but at the same time I am more and more afraid that further (major) copyedits by me induce more new errors than what my improvement attempts are worth. – sgeureka t•c 08:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

Bruno Maddox

edit

Self nomination Bruno Maddox (born 1969) is a British novelist and journalist. He studied English literature at Harvard University, graduating with the class of 1992. I think the article is FA quality. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 09:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The writing for the article is somewhat clunky and could use a good copyedit, which I started and will return to later. Other problems aren't so easily fixable. I know this guy is pretty obscure, but the holes in his biography are definitely noticeable. I didn't really understand the timeline of his moving around in his early career, and after adding an inline query I saw your open letter to journalists asking them to explain how he got his first reviewing job--which I found a bit unclear also. If all this info is lacking, I'm not sure I'd be willing to support. Calliopejen1 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate the copyedit. I would like this article to achieve FA so that the missing biographical information can easily be determined by journalists. I've done my best with what little is available. Often it will be stated that he spends his time between London and New York. I'm steering away from mentioning that because it's difficult to say which years it was in which he split his time between those two cities/did he have apartments in both/ is it still the case? There may be more there to know, but then again what is and isn't an invasion of someone's privacy (meaning will such questions ever be answered)? So if I stick to the work he did and where those employers were located I can safely steer clear of such problems. As well, Maddox is only 38 years old so he can't have done that much. As well as well, I'm going for a short FA that meets all criteria. It seems to me that FAs always end up as monster articles, most often warranted, but shouldn't always be the case.-BillDeanCarter 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The article has received a thorough copyedit from user WillowW. Let me know if there remains any awkward sentences.-BillDeanCarter 10:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Changed to support. The writing is actually quite good. I'm going to echo Calliopejen's concern—is so little known of this guy's personal life? If a full birthdate is unavailable, I presume a picture's out of the question :) There are also still a few...subpar passages:
There are photos available, but they're all fair use. The best one is actually this one by the Picture Perfect Agency. So they are definitely going to want money. And I wonder if there's a way to find out Maddox's birth date? What resources would a journalist avail themselves of? But a lot is known about the guy, who is after all only ~38 years old.
    • Second section: Maddox envisioned SPY as a national magazine instead of its legacy of covering New York-centric stories—weird construction.
      I changed it to "Maddox wanted to turn SPY into a national magazine, rather than build on its legacy of covering New York-centric stories."
    • In "Recent essays": He draws upon a breadth of knowledge gleaned from his youth, growing up in a family immersed in science due to his father's writing career and was regularly exposed to scientists at social events. Perhaps you could change it to He draws upon a breadth of knowledge gleaned from his youth; Maddox grew up in a family immersed in science, thanks to his father's writing career, and was regularly exposed to scientists at social events.
      Excellent. I added the copyedit into the article.
    • The "Popular science" subsection of "Genres" isn't working for me. It's just a repetition of previous content, and [...] that dealt out his own personal views on science with a markedly humorous and skeptical bent could easily be added into the "Travel + Leisure" section.
      Hmmm, the idea is to have a Genres section that categorizes somehow Maddox's work. I'm trying to keep the Popular science sub-section hanging in there (stuff has already moved up into the rest of the article). It really is a major genre of Maddox's work but unfortunately I'm at a loss as to how to elaborate on it esp. without duplicating the rest of the article. Perhaps the critical articles on his Discover articles will have something. Will work on this.
  • Overall: nice work. The article's a tad on the short side IMHO, but if there's no more verifiable information to add I guess you've hit the wall. I would like to see some more copyediting, and perhaps a close look by another uninvolved editor. (Willow is an excellent editor, by the way; nice work getting her on board :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see what I can do about more copyeditors. So far there has been Calliopejen1, WillowW, Mike Christie, and you. WillowW really did a thorough copyedit that pulled the article together in a nice way.-BillDeanCarter 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I am withdrawing my opposition because the article has been extensively reworked since I first looked at it. Karanacs 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article seems really short to me. I think more information about his works can, and should, be added. Even after reading the article, I still don't feel like I have a very good grasp on who this guy is. Here are some other suggestions:
    Thanks for the comments. They are very helpful. The problem is Maddox is only 38 years old. This is all the information there is atm. Without this article there is no comprehensive look at his life and career. So I've done that and now as his career develops journalists can fill in whatever they find there is to fill in. The point of me seeking FA is to validate the comprehensiveness.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lead is too short.
      I disagree. The lead was reworked by WillowW and I think it is perfect. Simple and to the point.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Over the next four years, Maddox moved from"...this could either mean the 4 years after he graduated from college or the four years after his article was published (meaning last year of school and 3 years after). Please reword.
      done. I reworded and then reorganized the paragraphs.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like the way the last few sentences of the 2nd paragraph of Early years sound. It does not flow well at all. (I like the first sentence of that paragraph, though :) ) Also, this paragraph talks about 4 years of moving and various jobs he had, then in the next paragraph goes back to 1994 and talks about what he did then.
      I reorganized it.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but some questions remain. Did he quit his job as a book reviewer to work for the dotcom company or work both at the same time? Do you know what he did at the dotcom? Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      His last book review at The Washington Post was in 1996, and his last book review at The New York Times was in 1998. It is not known what kind of work Maddox did at the IT company. It is only known that morale was high.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done. I incorporated the information about the end dates for the book reviewing jobs.-BillDeanCarter 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the quotes about SPY's market (but then, I've never heard of the magazine)
      Tackled by Outriggr. I think it fixes the problem.
      MUCH better :) Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence about the editorial team seems like it should go into the first paragraph, when it talks about him becoming editor-in-chief
      I explain what Maddox wanted to do with the magazine, and then right after I explain the editorial team he pulled together. He only becomes the editor-in-chief in the second paragraph.
      It still makes more sense to me that you would talk about his team when you first mention that he is the editor in chief, rather than after mentioning his vision. Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First sentence of last paragraph in Editorship section is very clunky. Can it be rephrased or separated into multiple sentences?
      Done by Outriggr.
    • Maybe reword the first sentence of My Little Blue Dress. It made me think at first that the novel had been written, and then it says later that it wasn't finished.
      Done by Outriggr.
    • Two paragraphs in a row begin with "My Little Blue Dress was". Can this be changd a little.
      I changed the second sentence. Sounds much better.
    • Need a citation for: "The novel's intrigue lies in the mysterious reason that compels the fictional Maddox to forge a memoir."
      Done. I used Salon.com with "When you finally do figure out the entire story behind Bruno's decision to forge the memoir (well, almost the entire thing -- there are some intriguing holes), you can't help being moved, and even a little sad that it may not work in the way Bruno hopes."-BillDeanCarter 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you have a quote within a quote, use ' ' for the internal quotation
      Done.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed this -- it was using two single quotes on each side, which made it italicized. Next time, just one single quote on each side. Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, many of your paragraphs are really short. Some of them could probably be combined.
      It can't always be done but I did combine the last two paragraphs in Recent Essays.
    • This needs to be reworded "but a completed script was never on track for film production" - I'm not sure what it means
      It just means that the script was never completed, or if it was it was never on track for film production. It wasn't made. Outriggr reworded it some so maybe it makes more sense now.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What if you change it to, "it is unknown if Maddox completed the script" with a footnote saying that this is as of 2007? Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done with the footnote.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't begin the Recent Essays section with a quote -- there is no context for it.
      The section used to be called Free-lance journalism. I think the quote is excellent and starts off the section topically. Maddox is not a career man. He writes wherever he can which is a difficult way to live.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      For a magazine article, you are perfectly right. For an encyclopedia article, I think you need to give context to the quotation. Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I moved the quote to the right and down a paragraph.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of "As yet," use a date (as of 2006, as of 2007, etc).
      Okay, done. It was recommended to write as of August 2007 which I thought was too precise. As of 2007 sounds better.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence about the essay "Before it was real" is too long. Please try to make it multiple sentences or reword.
      I switched places with two phrases, but I kept it all connected with the semicolon.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is characteristic about his "Literary Terrorism" essay? Please expand on this.
      Right. What is typical and what is characteristic of both essays mentioned in that paragraph? This was just added later and possibly these qualifiers should be removed. I'll put some thought into it.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed the words typical and characteristic because they cannot be sourced. The qualifiers were added during one of the many copedits, but I kept the rest with some slight rewording to keep the same explanation of his works.-BillDeanCarter 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The recent essays section as a whole sounds too much like a list. I think it could probably be grouped a little differently and sound better. It could also use some expansion when discussing his works.
      I grouped it a little differently.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I like the new grouping, but can pronouns be substituted for some of the many "Maddox" references? Karanacs 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the information in the Genres section should be incorporated into the article. It doesn't really talk about genres at all.
      It basically explains the two genres he writes in: satire and popular science. I think it's a helpful section because as you said you don't really know who he is after reading this article. Well, at least you know he specializes in satire and popular science. I'd love to elaborate more on these two genres but there isn't anything to elaborate more upon.
      To me, the Genre section feels more like a conclusion, or summary of the article, but introduces just a few new facts (like his quotes). I think the one sentence about Blinded by Science that is in that section needs to be incorporated into the Recent essays section. The information about him being satirical in his own biography should probably go into the secton on My Little Blue Dress, as it is directly related to the book, which you've already discussed as a satire. Karanacs 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I would like to keep the Genres section. It is a nice categorization of the kinds of writing he does. The information seems trivial if dispersed throughout the other sections. The Genres section may get stronger over time if people note it and decide to comment themselves on the genres that Maddox writes in. It is also a somewhat higher level section which I like to do from time to time, such as the 'Writing process' section I have in the William Monahan article and the 'Writing style and characteristics' section I have in the Aaron Sorkin article.-BillDeanCarter 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should not have external links embedded in text, even if the links are pointing to his own articles. Instead, these should go into an External links section, perhaps pointing to the column indices instead of each of the articles. (For example, the Blinded by Science index: http://discovermagazine.com/columns/blinded-by-science/?searchterm=Blinded%20by%20Science)
      I like these kind of linkfarms in bibliographies because they are very functional. The bibliography obviously stays, and then you're just depriving the reader of links to the articles. I don't see the harm when it's done in a bibliography.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:External Links, external links should either be in an "External links" section or should be used as references. As the bibliographical entries satisfy neither of those requirements, they need to be removed. Also, per the MOS for list of works, the author's name (or the dash representing the author's name), should not be included for his own works. Karanacs 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I am following List of works by Joseph Priestley as a template for this Selected Bibliography. I'm using the same style in my own List of works by William Monahan. I believe the bibliography's style is fine but it is a matter then of whether to remove the links. I will remove the blue links if this is the only thing stopping the article from making FA. It does seem a waste to not be able to directly go to the articles.-BillDeanCarter 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the dash/no-dash option is really a matter of stylistic preference, not a matter of written-in-stone policy. I am not sure that there is a reason to change the current style, since it makes clear to the reader that Maddox wrote all of the materials listed. I also think that the choice to link titles in the "Selected bibliography" is a personal choice, not a MOS policy. I myself have seen several different suggestions regarding this for lists of works that I have worked on. I think that it is safe to link those works which will never have a wikipedia article. As one editor pointed out to me, it is repetitious to list a work multiple times: collapsing the external links with the "Selected bibliography" in this way helps avoid that repetition. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What if you convert the external links into citations for each article? That way, you remove the external links from being embedded in the article, but the link will be available in the references section? Karanacs 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think a Selected bibliography is a lot more professional.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems like a fairly good article to me. I am not familiar with the subject but it appears comprehensive. One thing - the comment "While growing up, he was immersed in the world of science" in "Genres" does seem slightly repetetive, since the same is mentioned in "Recent essays". I copy-edited a few other bits. Is there some kind of policy or guideline on category placement? I like them alphabetical, I know others have different tastes, but is there a definitive decision somewhere on which of the two it should be? Another question of the same type refers to the opening, which states "most well known" - I usually regard "best known" or "most known" as POV (something like "perhaps best known" seems better), but is there a definitive statement on that somewhere as well? Cheers, Mad Jack 08:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I just went and removed the redundant sentence. I don't really know about the policies regarding categories. You're right about "best known", because he himself is not well known, nor are his works, but he is best known (if known at all) for his novel and his satirical essays.-BillDeanCarter 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Support. Can you find a citation for the sales of My Little Blue Dress being "modest"? This is quite an important point to cite; I think it would be OK to cite Maddox saying something to this effect in an interview, since there is no reason for him to downplay his own sales, but anything more definite would be good too. I would support after you fix this. It would also be nice if there were something that could be quoted from an interview with him about his future plans, if he's stated any. You do have something about an upcoming novel, but it's from a six-year-old source. Is there anything more recent? This isn't necessary for me to support, though. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How could I cite that? I tried to figure out how many printings it had. It's currently out-of-print. There are 5 mentions of my little blue dress after June 2002, according to Lexis-Nexis and none of them mention sales or much at all. I could use the sales ranks for the major online book sellers which place it at ~300 000. How does one normally cite the fact that it had modest sales? There is no interview comment that I can find. I'm now wondering if this is just a personal conclusion I came to or if there was in fact a comment made by Maddox in an interview.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also haven't found a more recent comment of a kind, which could be used further down at the bottom of the section as well. I'll keep an eye out for it.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest just cutting "to modest sales". Sales figures aren't an absolute pre-requisite for an article about an author, and I think you're better off cutting it than leaving it uncited; as it stands I admit it's probably true, but I don't think it has to be there for the article to be featured. Mike Christie (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I cut it.-BillDeanCarter 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To expand the article a bit, you could devote a paragraph beginning with this sentence, which currently isn't elaborated: "His Discover columns are often criticized; his controversial essays include "Stuck in Creationism" and "Fictional Reality", a column on the current state of science fiction." –Outriggr ₪ 09:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll quote a few comments from the various critiques. Good idea.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a first attempt at this. Let me know if it works. That first sentence now seems a little dead compared to the rest of the paragraph, although it might be a good overview of the paragraph.-BillDeanCarter 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a writer as the topic, let's be careful about the prose.
    • Remove the comma and hyphenate "best known" in the opening sentence. Remove the second "for".
      So like this: Bruno Maddox (born November 15, 1969) is a British novelist and journalist who is-best known-for his critically lauded novel My Little Blue Dress (2001) and his satirical magazine essays. ? I think you mean something else. Please show.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure what it means by "early" exposure to science and technology. And exposure implies he was relatively passive in this acquisition of knowledge.
      Yes, he was relatively passive. It explains it more in the body of the article. HE gravitated towards the humanities but couldn't help picking up some knowledge of science from his surroundings. Supposed dinners with such éminences grises like James Watson and Sir Fred Hoyle.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • His one sister, Bronwen, is notable for what? It sticks out unless she's relevant to his output. Why not put his grandparents and aunts and uncles in, too?
      She's mentioned once in the Early years and in the Infobox. It's immediate family. She is actually Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times. I will have to do something about this, such as mention what she blossomed into later on. Or possibly simply change the sentence He has one sister, Bronwen to He has one sister, Bronwen, who became ....-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      So I mention her and what she became. Maybe one day Bronwen Maddox will have an article of her own. Some kind of sibling rivalry no doubt has probably begun.-BillDeanCarter 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long quote: is it possible to end it at "have done"?
      That would kill the quote and misrepresent. I'd prefer to keep the quote intact esp. considering the article is not long to begin with.-[User:BillDeanCarter|BillDeanCarter]] 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge the "Critics" para into the previous one.
      The paragraph is specifically about the criticism of his Discover columns. So an idea as paragraph.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit short: I wonder whether it covers the man and his output in a comprehensive fashion, as required. Tony 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It's comprehensive. He's only 37 and not being famous there isn't copious amounts of biographical info on him.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I haven't opposed, I can still find plenty of issues. First thing my eyes landed on at random was:
    • "a five-page fax proposal he sent on the advice of his literary agent John Brockman.[10] The proposal was sufficiently intriguing that his agent Brockman was able to sell My Little Blue Dress in nine countries within a week". Unsure we need to know it was faxed. Remove the second "Brockman"; change the book title to "the novel", since the title has only just appeared in the previous sentence. Sell the rights to the novel? Unsure, but check.
      Did a copyedit tackling this.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then: "Although the novel is a memoir of a hundred-year-old woman, it is also a satire of the literary memoir"—the logic is a problem: "although" is contrastive, whereas aren't you telling us two things that aren't at odds with each other? "... anyway."—MOS insists on logical punctuation.
      Likewise here. I changed to : My Little Blue Dress was published in 2001 by Viking Press, a Penguin Group imprint. The novel begins as a memoir of a hundred-year-old woman, but several chapters later reveals itself to be a satire of the literary memoir. The protagonist is a fictional Bruno Maddox who is desperately attempting to create a forgery of an old woman's memoir in a single night.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd still be happy for a fresh collaborator to come into this. Tony 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC) PS I fixed the first sentence for you.[reply]

There have been a lot of collaborators making changes here and there. Mostly positive on the whole. I'll try to get a few more though.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, part deux Changed to support. The article's much closer to FA level now. I still have a couple of questions, though:
    • "...moving from Boston to Moscow and to New York..."—confusing sentence. I'm lost here. Perhaps you could expand a bit—"...spent the two years after graduation moving around/traveling/seeing the world (just examples, whatever suits best), first living in Boston, then moving to Moscow and New York..." or something of the sort. If he lived in NY after Moscow, the sentence that follows ("hand-delivering...") is not in chronological order.
      done. The Boston part is simply his departing point, which is really Cambridge, and then he briefly spends time in Moscow and moves to New York where he suffers for two years on rice with egg fried into it.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I tweaked it a little bit more, I hope you won't mind. Hmm... egg-fried rice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, good edit. I don't have a good grasp on when to use the dash or the semicolon yet but hopefully I'll figure it out sooner or later.-BillDeanCarter 01:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of repetition of "satire/satirical" throughout.
      I got rid of a lot of them and changed those that I could.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under "Recent essays": "His Discover columns are often criticized; his controversial essays..."—lose the second "his".
      done.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go through the bibliography and italicize magazine names! Sorry, couldn't take it; did it for you :)
      Thanks. I see you made the switch from the publisher to work parameter, which makes sense. Penguin is the publisher of his novel, but in the case of his SPY articles it would be Sussex and work would be SPY. I also struggled with the fact that the magazine/newspapers weren't italicized but figured the cite news template knew what it was doing. I will have to make that modification in the other articles I've worked on. I've been misusing the cite news template.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I used to get publisher/work mixed up all the time; oddly, I find it happens most often (to me) when "switching" from frequent use of {{cite web}} to templates for citing print work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kudos on getting a full birthdate, by the way.
      Thanks. When I can I try to answer my Wiki Letter to journalist questions.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really, really close to supporting (if the FAC is still open, of course :P) Anyway, nice work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed. Avoid terms which become dated, when is "currently" (Maddox is currently a contributing editor to The Week magazine.)
    That is a very recent addition to the article. I have followed up this question with The Week (at www.theweekmagazine.com)'s editorial staff and they have confirmed the information. I hope to incorporate that sentence more appropriately shortly. The Week magazine is not available online (other than a special Green issue for one brief week last April). I've asked the anonymous editor User_talk:63.144.166.5 to specify more information as well as a kind email to the editors at The Week for appropriate encyclopedic information concerning his contributing editorship there.-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been able to verify the position at The Week by using the Internet Archives because there was one issue called the Green Issue which was available for a period of a few weeks last April. I would like to be able to note when that position as a contributing editor began though.-BillDeanCarter 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you change the word "currently" to an "as of" date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    done.-BillDeanCarter 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in date formatting is not pretty: Diary: The ULA profiled", Gawker.com, 2003-08-01. Retrieved on August 14, 2007. (If you wikilink the publication date, user prefs will show both dates in a consistent format.) I'm not crazy about the numbers in the section headings—Travel + Leisure magazine (10). Don't you want to wikify the dates in Discover magazine (17) (see WP:MOSNUM)?
    Okay, I removed the numbers in the section headings. They were ugly and problematic considering they would have to be incremented every month or so. I don't wikilink the dates in any situation so I'm a bit baffled by why they are wikilinked. Could someone who knows which is the right way to do this fix it?-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an adequate reference: Date of birth obtained from Discover magazine's editorial staff. Where's the source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is an email I received from Discover magazine's editorial staff. A source will only give you his year of birth, 1969, not the month and day. This is a valuable addition to the article allowing us to know how old Maddox is exactly.-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I broke up your paragraph to facilitate addressing them. If someone could fix those wikilinked dates I would be grateful. I also believe I am coming up against Wikipedia's no original research policy ever so slightly. Considering it is highly factual information (an exact date of birth and his work at The Week magazine) I hope it can be allowed for the sake of the article.-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dates; not crazy about the birthdate situation, but I won't object over that one issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support... with final comments, I promise
    • Under "My Little Blue Dress":
    • "...his agent was able to sell the novel..."—shouldn't that be rights to the novel? I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure.
      I did a copyedit. Let me know how the new 1st paragraph works.-BillDeanCarter 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph: memoir, memoir, memoir... How about "The novel begins as a memoir of a hundred-year-old woman, but several chapters later reveals itself to be a spoof of the genre"?
      done.
  • That's it. Congratulations—the article's come a long way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the help.-BillDeanCarter 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article looks much better than when I first saw it. The holes in his bio seem less noticeable, maybe because they're disguised by sharp writing. :) Anyways I made a last copyediting pass through it and made some small changes, but it looks great. Calliopejen1 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Your copyedit looks great. Do you mind if I put the through LexisNexis® Academic stuff back? I thought they were useful especially considering I don't know of any other ways to get a hold of some of those articles. NYTimes can be obtained elsewhere, don't know about The Washington Post, but The Hartford Courant and the others I don't think can.-BillDeanCarter 22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Calliopejen. I like the bulk of your copyedits to the article. I'm just not sure about whether removing the mention that certain articles where pulled from LexisNexis is a good idea. The mention of LexisNexis makes it clear where you can find those articles if you need to. I'm also wondering if the Infobox is a good idea. I'm half for it, half against it, because it seems a little unsightly, maybe I need to get used to it, but it does add certain details about the book which are useful. If anyone else has anything to say about these points I would appreciate hearing them. Thank you everyone so far for helping to improve the prose and make it beautiful.-BillDeanCarter 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the infobox, but I'd take out the information about his sister. Karanacs 01:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a big fan of infoboxes, although they're not required—I do think both the lead infobox and the book infobox add relevant information. I agree on removing the information on his sister; it looks quite odd under "Parents". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll remove his sister. Should I put mention of his sister back in if the Infobox Writer is fixed (i made such a request and the improvement is in the works) so that siblings is a parameter much like Infobox Person? But what of the through Lexis Nexis appendages to publication in references? I think they are useful and would like to put them back if in conformance with wiki policy and group consensus.-BillDeanCarter 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

Honoré de Balzac

edit

I, one of the principal authors of the page, wish to nominate Honoré de Balzac as a Featured Article Candidate. It was declared to be GA on 25 Aug 07, and has undergone extensive review (including two detailed peer reviews) and revision since. (Special thanks to Awadewit for guidance through this process.) The article includes a number of references to a biography by Graham Robb, a definitive work on Balzac – it was selected by the New York Times as one of the Best Books of 1994 (4 Dec 1994, p. A3). Thank you in advance for your consideration. Scartol · Talk 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've always used spaced en dashes; I suppose someone came along and changed one set to ems. Fixed, as are the ellipses (most of them are the sentence-ending variety, in no need of spaces). – Scartol · Talk 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Grahamec 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been watching this article grow and expand for awhile. I gave it a minor peer review, made some minor edits and offered some minor advice to Scartol. I have nothing more to add. It's a great article. --JayHenry 16:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Full disclosure: I have peer reviewed and copy edited this article.) This article is well-researched, well-written, and comprehensive; more importantly, it is a pleasure to read - Balzac really comes alive through Scartol's writing and choice of quotation. I'm so happy that he has taken the time to write on this major literary figure. Awadewit | talk 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large stretches of this article seem to me of featured status, particularly the biographical sections. I'm leaning towards supporting, but I feel that a few thin or obscure passages occur. Before I bring these up, may I say how refreshing it is to see an article for a major literary figure brought to this standard here. I've tangled with Anton Chekhov and William Shakespeare in my time, so I know how tricky it is to write a short, encyclopedic article on prolific "great" writers. The most difficult bits to hit off are the critical and style sections, I've found.
(I'm going to make some further comments to the article talk page later; but those will be editing points not connected to my support or otherwise for this article.)
  • I found it hard to pick the bones out of the following passage:
Soon afterwards, around the time of his father's death, Balzac wrote "El Verdugo" – about a 30-year-old man who kills his father (Balzac was 30 years old at the time). This was the first work signed "Honoré de Balzac". Like his father, he added the aristocratic-sounding particle to help him fit into respected society, but he had a more nuanced reason. "The aristocracy and authority of talent are more substantial than the aristocracy of names and material power," he wrote in 1830. The timing of the decision was also significant. Robb frames it this way: "The disappearance of the father coincides with the adoption of the nobiliary particle. A symbolic inheritance."
My impression was that this was either a highly complex way of saying something simple (after his father's death, Balzac added the aristocratic-sounding de to his name to help him fit into respected society and as a form of inheritance) or an unclear attempt to present some deeply symbolic idea that the connection between a novel about a thirty-year-old man killing his father and Balzac's assumption of his father's de signifies some kind of psycho-literary emergence that both buries and inherits the past (you see, I'm floundering already: you guessed it, I'm that dull beast, a historian). I feel that if Balzac made a deliberate connection between El Verdugo and the death of his father (that's interesting, definitely), it should be stated and reffed. If he also connected that to the de thing, that connection should be stated, too (since the readers are being nudged to synthesise the two, are they not?).
A contradiction between the two quotes in this passage strikes me. In the first, Balzac is saying that aristocratic names aren't important (which makes me wonder how that can be a "more nuanced reason" for adding the aristocratic de—forgive me if I'm being slow on the uptake here: it wouldn't be the first time). The second quote says that the change in the name is a symbolic inheritance: yet Balzac has just been quoted saying he doesn't regard that sort of thing as important. The last quote also, perhaps, would benefit from placing nearer the opening sentence of the paragraph, to which it relates, I would have thought.
Thank you for your comments and kind feedback. With regard to this passage, Robb (considered the most definitive biographer at the moment) makes the connection to El Verdugo, not Balzac. Robb also cites the quote about the "aristocracy of talent", in the same section (seven pages away), as part of his discussion on why Honoré added the de. Robb definitely does synthesize the two, so it seemed fair to pass this along. (Maybe I need to make it more clear that the connection is Robb's?)
Well, maybe; more importantly, perhaps actually make the connection overt, because the article doesn't join the dots of that together, in my opinion. It stacks the points up and leaves the readers to make the connections themselves.qp10qp 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The passage is written as it is because I tried to provide the following in it:
  1. What he did
  2. Reason #1 for doing it, followed by supporting quotation
  3. Reason #2 for doing it, followed by supporting quotation
But in the following, how does that quotation support the more nuanced reason (and what was the more nuanced reason)?
Like his father, he added the aristocratic-sounding particle to help him fit into respected society, but he had a more nuanced reason. "The aristocracy and authority of talent are more substantial than the aristocracy of names and material power," he wrote in 1830. qp10qp 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the paragraph is complicated, but I don't feel that it's necessarily contradictory. It's true that Balzac said that traditional forms of aristocratic lineage aren't as important as "aristocracy of talent", but this doesn't preclude a belief in the idea of aristocracy itself. Further, this connects to his view of his father, who worked his way into aristocratic (or near-aristocratic) circles through his hard work and talent.
That helps. So I presume Balzac is saying, "the aristocracy of names may not be as important as the aristocracy of talent, but aristocracy of talent isn't going to get me tables in restaurants so I might as well have the de as well, while I'm at it".qp10qp 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the Robb quote at the end of the paragraph to provide a kind of full-circle coherence to the passage – but it's clear that I didn't do as good of a job as I thought. I do think the elements in the paragraph are valid, however. (Does my explanation help clarify things?) – Scartol · Talk 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does help. Thanks.qp10qp
I've added some stuff in the article to explain there what I've explained here. – Scartol · Talk 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following seems to me a rather thin passage. What I mean by that is one where the information outlined on the page is outweighed by the information off the page needed to colour it in.
When the July Revolution broke out in 1830, Balzac solidified his political standing as a Legitimist, but with qualifications. He felt that the new government was disorganized and unprincipled, and called for "a young and vigorous man who belongs neither to the Directoire nor to the Empire, but who is 1830 incarnate…."[1] He tried to be such a candidate, appealing especially to the higher classes, but in the end a near-fatal accident caused him to abort the effort.[2]
Although the three political references are wikilinked, it isn't made possible to understand them without leaving the page. The best wikipedia practice, in my opinion, is to use phrases of explanation to help the reader in situ (I know this is difficult: it stretches one's powers of concision to the limits and requires all sorts of editing judgements about how much detail to attempt). The difficulty is intensified here, in my opinion, by the fact that we haven't yet been told anything about Balzac's political views or activities. Yet, if I read this passage right, he already had views that now "solidified" (so, what did he think of the old government?); and it appears that he now stood as a candidate ("tried to be such a candidate" is enigmatic to me: did he actually stand?): good grief, did he want to be elected emperor, or the head of the government (I wouldn't put it past him)? Or does "man" in the quotation mean "men": in other words, should I read this as: "Balzac called for young and unaffiliated men to be elected to the government and put himself forward as one of them"? The reader needs more help, I think. (Speaking for myself, I'd also like to know the nature of his "near-fatal accident".)
  Done Agreed. I've amended this passage, and added some additional context to the previous ¶ on Les Chouans. – Scartol · Talk 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that really is a wonderful improvement. I understand now. I'm glad to see that "solidified" and "aborted" have gone too. (Dreary though laying all the details out can be to anyone who cares about writing, the process does tend to chase out semi-metaphorical language that can be awkward in an encyclopedia.)qp10qp 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the following a little thin also:
Balzac planned to include 48 additional works in the Comédie – which remained unfinished at the time of his death – and he grouped the books by subject matter, rather than chronologically. This piecemeal style is reflective of the author's own life. "The vanishing man," writes Pritchett, "who must be pursued from the rue Cassini to … Versailles, Ville d'Avray, Italy, and Vienna can construct a settled dwelling only in his work."[71]
I'm not clear how many works he wrote. The opening of the article says: His magnum opus was a sequence of almost 100 novels and plays collectively entitled "La Comédie Humaine", which presents a panorama of French life in the years after the fall of Napoléon Bonaparte in 1815. The questions that raises for me are: did he finish all of those? How many novels did he write? Did he write any works that are not considered part of La Comédie Humaine, or is that a term for all of his work, even though he only thought of it in 1832? Do the pseudonymous works count in the "almost 100" or not? Are the extra 48 that he never wrote counted as part of the almost 100? Could space be found for some of that information in the body of the article?
Sad to say, you're not clear on how many works he wrote for the same reason I'm not – it's just not clear. Some works (for instance, Illusions Perdues) are multi-volume. Some count them as multiple individual works, some count them together as one. Counting the publication dates in Bertault, I get 90. But other sources (for the reason listed above) cite higher numbers. Robb lists 99. The pseudonymous works are not included – I've included an explanation of such at the start of the LCH section of the article. – Scartol · Talk 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That really helps.qp10qp 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He grouped the books by subject matter: I think we ought to be told how they were grouped, in that case. What were the groupings? And under which of them do the most famous novels fall? Such information, while basic, is encyclopedic and could give body to what strikes me as a rather flimsy opening paragraph to an important section.
I'm not sure that grouping the works by subject rather than chronology is a self-evidently piecemeal process. That point might be explained more, I suggest. And I don't feel the reader is given an explanation for the use of Pritchett's quote to justify the point that "this piecemeal style is reflective of the author's own life". On the contrary, the quote appears to be saying that whereas Balzac's life was unsettled (I presume this how the quote relates to "piecemeal"), his work was, by contrast, settled (in which he found "a settled dwelling"). The piecemeal life-piecemeal work comparison may be a valid one given Balzac's protean impulsiveness, but it needs an apter quote to source it, in my opinion.
  Done Agreed. I removed the bits about how the works are arranged – probably best for an article on La Comédie itself. I rewrote that first ¶ in the "Style" section. – Scartol · Talk 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better because a connection is now made between Balzac's tendency to move from dwelling to dwelling and jump from work to work. I'm still not sure about it, though. If Pritchett says that on the referenced page, he sure doesn't say it in that quote. He actually says the opposite: that Balzac constructs a settled dwelling in his work.qp10qp 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I suppose we can conceive of him trying to make such a settled home, though only Balzac knows if he succeeded for sure. (I would doubt it.) – Scartol · Talk 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balzac's use of repeating characters, moving in and out of the Comédie's books, provided Balzac with a sociological power not available to most writers. "When the characters reappear," notes Rogers, "they do not step out of nowhere; they emerge from the privacy of their own lives which, for an interval, we have not been allowed to see."[84] He also used a technique which French novelist Marcel Proust called "retrospective illumination", whereby a character's past is revealed long after she or he first appears – not unlike real life.
Is Rogers' point connected to the one about sociological power or a separate one? It seems separate to me, but I expected it to support the first point, which is otherwise not sourced or supported here. I feel the connection needs to be strengthened. The third sentence in the three-sentence paragraph introduces the idea of Proust's "retrospective illumination", which seems to me a different point again. As a reader, I sense a connection between these three apparently separate points that has been left from the page (one doesn't usually associate Proust with sociological observation, for example). The synthesis needs to be brought out, I feel, and more specifically referenced.
Agreed. I've revised the ¶. – Scartol · Talk 17:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The dots are joined up now.qp10qp 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar point, I don't see any sociological point being made by Flaubert in the following:
French author Gustave Flaubert was also substantially influenced by Balzac. He once wrote of the author's sociological acumen: "What a man he would have been had he known how to write!"[100]
It's a wonderful quote, but I don't actually understand it. For others in the same boat, could a more useful phrase of explanation perhaps be found?
I think I introduced the quote poorly. I've revised it. – Scartol · Talk 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, cheers.qp10qp 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Proust, the following one-sentence paragraph (could it perhaps be moved to help the other Proust point?) requires some explanation for those of us who haven't read either or both the works (I claim no more than having listened to a dramatisation of ALRDTP on the radio and mixed quotes from it into some dance music, to the annoyance of less pretentious friends):
Marcel Proust similarly learned from the Realist example; he adored Balzac and studied his works carefully.[104] Balzac's story "Une Heure de ma Vie" (An Hour of my Life, 1822) is a clear ancestor of the style used by Proust in À la Recherche du Temps Perdus.[105]
(in the voice of Comic Book Guy): Um, excuse me, but I believe that paragraph is two sentences. Thank you. (/voice) I've added some explanation in the article. (Although, trying to do seven things at once, I started to make changes into the section you quoted here. Yeesh!) – Scartol · Talk 17:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a rule of Wikipedia that as soon as one starts to prognosticate to others, one will sure as hell cock up oneself. I can only plead taglexia, the inability to read tags and punctuation simultaneously. (Actually I made this mistake on purpose, to get you to do the Comic Book Guy voice.) qp10qp 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, smashing article. Do forgive any pedantry in the above and of course ignore anything that strikes you as feeble-minded. I will check back another time (green ticks not required). qp10qp 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Always read entire comment before adding green ticks. Argh! Thanks again for your feedback and detailed notes. I hope the revisions and explanations are useful. – Scartol · Talk 17:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's like this direction test I am always sorely tempted to give my students. :) Awadewit | talk 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(voice) Worst direction test ever. (/voice) Thanks again for your comments and (now) your vote of support. – Scartol · Talk 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

7 World Trade Center

edit

This is the second article on the WTC, submitted to FAC (first article) with the goal of submitting more in the future. I have been working on the 7 World Trade Center article for quite some time. A year ago, the article was tagged for cleanup [71], had few references, and was much smaller. I think it has now reached the point where it meets featured article standards, being comprehensive, well-written (thanks to User:NameThatWorks for help with copyediting), well-referenced with high-quality, reliable sources, complies with WP:MOS, etc. I can't think of any other details to add, or changes to make at this time. Though, of course, I'll be around to respond to reviewers. --Aude (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Collapse section should have a sub section for the controversy about it. Also has anyone suggested splitting the struff about the new buliding? Buc 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not a subsection for that. Its mentioned, thats good enough. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the article has been considered. However, the article is not overly long at this point. Right now, there's really not much more to say about the new building. Both buildings have the same name, same address/location, same structural constraints (power substation at the base of the building), the new ebuilding incorporates "lessons learned" in structural engineering and building design based on what happened with the original building, etc. If the section on the new building is expanded so much at a later time, that (per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH) it needs splitting, that can be done. --Aude (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the collapse section, the following sentence was confusing: "Around 3:30 pm, Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, due to concerns for the safety of personnel."...I would have adjusted it myself, but wasn't sure what to do here.--MONGO 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The fair-use image Image:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg does not appear to contribute anything to the article that the free-licensed Image:Wtc7onfire.jpg does not. --Carnildo 06:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The rationale and caption on the image explains it quite clearly. The image is being used to show the damage on the south face of the building, something that is not visible in the free image. --- RockMFR 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have made the caption and image description page more explicit, that it's one of very few existing images (no free images available) that show the damage sustained to south face. This video footage, along with the few other images (all copyrighted), and firefighter testimony are all that NIST has to work with to know the extent of damage. The image adds a lot to the article that no free image can, to help the reader understand this. The image is not replaceable with a free use image, unlike photos of living people and others, where opportunity exists for Wikipedians to go take pictures. This was a one-time historical event. No additional images are likely to turn up, yet alone any free ones. --Aude (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because an image is rare or irreplaceable does not mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content. It may have been essential to the NIST in figuring out how the building collapsed, but we aren't the NIST, and figuring out what happened isn't our job. Everything you claim the image shows, is adequately described in text. --Carnildo 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"figuring out what happened isn't our job. " but explaining and helping our readers understand what happened is required of us in the article. The reader's understanding is greatly increased by seeing a picture, of just how much damage there was and what exactly the nature of the damage. Other than a couple logos that I uploaded as a new user, and some Wikipedia screenshots, this is the only fair use image I have uploaded. I don't like all the album covers and other free use images that get uploaded, but in rare situations, an image like this can really significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (both the damage and what images are available for making determinations of the damage).
Here are the 10 criteria that we must meet:
  1. No free equivalent. - meets this.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities.
    (a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. - just a screenshot is used. not a video excerpt. only one image is used.
    (b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace. - this is reduced resolution from the original
  3. Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia. - this has been published on live ABC News television
  4. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. - yes, this is encyclopedic, informative, etc.
  5. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. - yes
  6. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. - yes, it's used in one article and one article only
  7. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. - The damage is described in the text, but significantly better understood by seeing the picture. The point gets across significantly better with a picture, more than simply taking word for it (and that of our references).
  8. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is only allowed in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. Subject to exemptions. - it's only in the article, nowhere else.
  9. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    (a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source. See: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images. - yes
    (b) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. - yes
    (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. - yes --Aude (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to concur with Aude on this image. I am a big proponent of only using public domain images in all my work and almost every image that I have taken and uploaded has been released to the public domain. However, since there are no known images that show damage to this side of the structure that are in the public domain, and this is a critical proponent of explaining in encyclopedic form why the structure collapsed, I believe it qualifies as fair use.--MONGO 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see what the image provides that the phrase "a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior" doesn't. --Carnildo 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for someone who never saw 7 World Trade Center, the picture makes something far more clear that is a bit vague from your description. This image is something of historical importance and greatly contributes to the article. Can you tell us of an image that would meet fair use criteria that is copyrighted? Under your version, I can't imagine a picture that can't be described in exquisite detail (like a painting), but the picture (and pardon the cliche, but) is worth a thousand words. — BQZip01 — talk 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this image is of historical significance (in the way that Raising the Flag at Ground Zero is), rather than depicting a historical event, then why isn't there any discussion of the image? Incidentally, "Raising the Flag" is an example of an image I feel meets our fair-use criteria. --Carnildo 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of the damage to the tower is often one of the main arguments of the 9/11 conspiracy advocates. The topic is discussed among themselves and is also used as evidence to attempt to convince other audiences of the conspiracy argument. The fact that the "damage aspect" is discussed so heavily among people interested in the collapse topic merits the images significance, starkly compared to a mere one sentence. 74.13.99.79 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the image is a valuable primary source? Wikipedia doesn't need to include primary sources: it references secondary sources that in turn reference primary sources. --Carnildo 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures are, by definition, a primary source. Where on earth do you get the idea that primary sources shouldn't be in wikipedia? It isn't "original research". — BQZip01 — talk 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth do you get the idea that I think primary sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia? I'm saying they don't need to be in Wikipedia. --Carnildo 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image portrays the damage far more clearly than words alone can, significantly improving the readers understanding of the material in the article. What damage there was has been a particular source of confusion. For example, see this recent edit by an anon. [72] Nearly all images and video of WTC7 after the towers collapsed was taken from the north, showing the north side of the building which gives the impression that there was little damage to the building. Photographic and video evidence of the south face is rare, and this video surfaced (at least to the public) in March when 9/11 footage from various networks was posted on the Internet Archives. I'm not sure when NIST became aware of it. They relied heavily on eyewitness testimony, and what little photographic and video evidence they managed to find. Discussion about WTC7 has largely occurred on the internet, in discussion forums and on blogs - places I'm reluctant to use as references in the article. But, the ABC footage has been discussed to great extent and helps clarify the things for our readers, more than just repeating what NIST and others say. --Aude (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what does the image provide that the phrase I quoted above doesn't? When I look at the picture in question, I see a building enshrouded in smoke with what could be some damage. I'm convinced that the image is essential to the investigation, but I still see no reason to include it on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here with Mongo, Aude, the anon, etc about the picture. Almost the entire reason this building is notable is the fact that it collapsed. And the manner of collapse has led to tons of conspiracy theories. A picture showing the damage, which was the ultimate cause, is both irreplaceable and inherently relevant to the article. Raul654 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment...I see 7 World Trade Center...WTC 7 and 7 WTC in the text...this should probably be standardized, but not sure which format is best. Also, per conversations here, I went and removed the wikilinked measurements and added many non breaking page stops to avoid page wraping concerns.--MONGO 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine...I support the promotion of this article to featured level.--MONGO 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object OK, improved. Happy for this to be scrutinised again after promotion, though. until worked on. It's good, but the prose needs a thorough copy-edit by someone fresh to it. This is worth making splendid.
    • "the combined effect of structural damage, fire, and lack of firefighters, resulted in its collapse at"—uncomfortable about fire vs lack of firefighters in this list.
    • "The new building, completed in 2006, is 52 stories and also is above a power substation." Clumsy integration of two ideas.
    • Remove both "building's" as redundant and ungainly. Add "building" after "original".
    • Get rid of "also" in the last sentence.
    • MOS breach in the conversions: remove the decimal place and it's close enough. "Liters" should be abbreviated within parentheses.

Let me know. Tony 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to my talk page: See MOS on Conversions: I'm pretty sure the decimal places should render both main and converted values to roughly the same level of precision. I thought your converted values were more precise than your main ones, and should be rounded up or down. An exception is made for small values such as one mile = 1.6 km. No big deal, though. Tony 02:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I understand what you mean regarding unit conversions. Where applicable, unit conversions have been rounded. Also, copyediting has been done. User:PTR who helped with this will come back in a few days to look it over again. But, I think further changes will be minor. Please let me know if there are any specific outstanding issues for us to address. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

Battle of Greece

edit

This article had been initially rewritten and upgraded by Periklis*, who brought it to A-Class status. When Periklis* stopped to edit in Wikipedia, I decided to work on the article. It is my obligation to thank all those who contributed to this effort: Aeleftherios is the one who has created most of the article's maps, Raymond Palmer had the kindness to translate these maps from French to English, Ceoil and Awadewit provided two thorough copyedits (Awadewit also offered a review, and UberCryxic had also copy-edited the article during Periklis* active presence). These are the article's reviews (by chronological order): 1st A-Class review by the WP:MILHIST, 2nd A-Class review by the WP:MILHIST, peer-review by the WP:GREECE, 1st peer-review by the WP:MILHIST, general peer-review, 2nd peer-review by the WP:MILHIST. I thought it was the right time for this nomination.--Yannismarou 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been looking at this article now for over a year. Sice then I have seen Periklis* sow the seeds for the article and after his deptature from wikipedia, Yannismarou took over his role and contribute greatly to it and it has now blossomed into a beautiful tree. I think this article is one of the best on Wikipedia and I give it my support. Kyriakos 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Helped with a ce; but this is a fine effort. Ceoil 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One thing though, I like quote boxes, but I don't think you need so many in this article because you have plenty of images to break up the text. Nevertheless, very good work. Cla68 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:12, 19 September 2007.

A Streetcar Named Marge

edit

A group of us have been working on this page for a while and its as comprehensive as a 15 year old episode of The Simpsons is going to get. It's modeled after all of the other Simpsons FAs and is fully sourced. Any concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 00:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Without a doubt the best Simpsons episode article to date, and that is saying a lot. Points for reviews from major newspapers at the time of original airing, a controversy section that doesn't just add the US reaction, and a plot section that doesn't relegate the "sub-plot" to its own paragraph. Well done! Alientraveller 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Wilco

edit

The better part of Uncle Tupelo formed Wilco after its breakup. They slowly made their way up to one of the most popular album rock bands around. This article is a GA, well-cited (over 100 cites) and I believe it is of featured quality. Self-nomination. Teemu08 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm not all in favor of having a whole cluster of FA's based on the Kot book, but this article is well balanced and draws from a variety of sources. I saw some minor issues (and fixed the most obvious oversight), but other than that the main picture is of poor quality and doesn't show the full band I don't see a reason to withhold FA status. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Some sentences which are awkwrad and./or confusing:
  • "The songs reflected the relationship between a musical artist and a listener, intended as a rebellion against the belief that Tweedy could only play alternative country music"
  • "Unlike A.M., the band had no vocation for radio airplay while recording their second album, Being There"
Adding more as I stumble upon them. WesleyDodds 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded those two sentences. Teemu08 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" ← In this case the "item" is Yankee Hotel Foxtrot the album, not the cover art. ~ trialsanderrors 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Casino Royale (2006 film)

edit

previous FAC

The final comment of the last FAC , that is, overlinking, has been dealt with. Now, the article meets all criteria. Vikrant Phadkay 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support Bloody hell, it's done. It's done everyone. It's done. Done. It's informing, well written, well cited, it's done. The Filmaker 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Distributed by, Running time, Budget and Admissions sections in the infobox need sourcing, as I can't fin this infomation anywhere else in the article. Dalejenkins | 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I skimmed through the article and saw it was well referenced and was filled out enough. All good. Then I started to read the plot sypnosis and was alerted to two major problems. 1) The prose is not very well planned at all and reads strangely: "James Bond performs two kills to qualify for double-0 status. In the opening sequence, he is sent on a mission to Prague to kill a former MI6 section chief, Dryden, who has leaked classified information, and his ally, Fisher. Elsewhere, Mr. White is serving as a middleman, introducing a banker Le Chiffre to a guerrilla group that seeks a safe haven for its funds. Although Le Chiffre tells his clients there is "no risk" in his investments, he uses their money to engineer attacks on certain companies and short sells their stock to make large personal gains." I mean, it starts off right away with the weird, short sentence "James Bond performs two kills to qualify for double-0 status." It makes no sense what-so-ever. 2) The article is still overlinked in my opinion. With a bright blue link every sentence or more, your eye is immediately drawn to it making it immpossible to actually read the article without having your eyes darting all over the place. I mean, do we really need links such as Short sells, free running, casting and timeline? They're all basic things which don't need a link in this article. Also, dates don't really need to be linked to in this article unless it's one of those "2006 in film" date links etc. De link them. Other than that, the paragraphs to the end of the article need fleshing out. If you fix all of this, I'll happily support. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Done Vikrant Phadkay 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to Neutral above↑ -- A little bit better now, but I don't feel the article is quite ready for my support. The prose is still a bit off and some of the paragraphs in production etc need to be merged because they're too short on their own. If you want my support, you'll have to do quite a bit, but I'm quite happy just to leave my vote at neutral. It's up to you... Cheers, Spawn Man 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done Only one para was broken and need merging. But please stop saying that the prose needs attention. Nobody said this before, so you must point out wrong sentences
        • I would argue that non-common phrases such as short sells (are all of our readers going to be versed in finance?) and free running (which is relatively new and unknown to the larger public) do indeed need links. Also, Spawn Man should probably have been more specific about linking dates. Solo years, months, and stuff like "January 2006" do not need to be linked. However, full dates (January 23, 2006) do need to be linked per MOS as it's the only way for the date preferences to work. 69.202.63.165 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done Corrected all the links, confirming that spawn Man was partly incorrect Vikrant Phadkay 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How was I incorrect? I said usually dates don't need linking to - in fact I'm one for linking to dates, as they are articles too. I resent the fact you call me incorrect and earlier said that "...please stop saying that the prose needs attention..." Just because nobody said something before doesn't mean it is wrong and secondly, please don't tell me what to say. Remember to assume good faith and civilty here VP. By prose problems, I meant about its level of writing; it is written at about a highschool level, with sentences like "...Le Chiffre, a banker, tells his clients that there is "no risk" in his investments, but he actually uses their money to...", which very loose in regard to prose, "...of the embassy so as to escape." which is clunky at the end; possibly use "in order to escape" as an alternative. "...MI6, hoping that a defeat would force Le Chiffre to aid the British government in exchange for protection from his creditors, enters Bond in the tournament..." is clunky - you could possibly expand this sentence and divide it into two smaller ones or use "enters Bond into the tournament" to clarify the sentence. "...Bond soon learns that his poker winnings were never deposited in the Treasury's account and learns that Vesper is..." is too repetitive with the use of "learns". Admittedly, most of my concerns rest in the "plot" section, and I should have conveyed that more clearly. This does not draw from the fact that I was called incorrect about the broken paragraph, considering that you noted that one was indeed broken, proving I was correct and that you said I was wrong about dating systems; I've partaken in many conversations about linking and dates and I have a fair grasp on the concept. I was refering to dates such as January 2006 and solo dates, which again I should have been more informative about. However, the reason I did not go into great detail was because I was only voting neutral and didn't feel that the prose was a big enough deal to oppose on. Admittedly, I don't like being called wrong when I know I was right; But sicne you brought it up and have forced me to list all the problems etc, I guess I'll have to change my vote until the problems I have listed are fixed. The plot section could also be fleshed out a bit afterwards if you use a higher level of writing. Thanks and next time, try and stay on the good side of people who have commented instead of accusing them of being wrong. For example, you could have asked for clarification. In any case, have a great day. Changed to oppose pending changes -- Spawn Man 07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lessening vote then. The prose is still a bit weak in general across the plot section, but I wont oppose... Spawn Man 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done Is this much sufficient? Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't disagree more that the plot section has weak prose. The "weak" points in the prose stem from editors coming across the page and deciding that they just need to include their favorite moment from the film. Truthfully, and I say this without false modestly, if editors were willing to just revert to one of my previous versions of the plot section rather than try to integrate every irrelevant detail that gets added in, the prose would be clear, crisp, and read with one voice. Croctotheface 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well they didn't and therefore it isn't up to scratch. Free-running and short sells have been relinked for some reason - everyone reading at a highschool level knows (or should hopefully know) what short sells and freerunning is and considering that over linking was a major problem in the last FAC, I'm keeping my vote unchanged for now. Sentences still linger like "Bond seduces his wife, Solange, and she reveals that her husband is flying to Miami". It cuts suddenly from him seducing to her revealing - there should be a break in the middle and a bit of expansion. And as I said before, the whole plot section needs expanding. For a 2.5 hour film, the plot sypnosis goes by in a flash. It's nowhere near as detailed as the rest of the article and in a matter of a few seconds vips through several key scenes. That's why it has prose problems, because it's written like a children's book: I went to the zoo I saw a crocodile. Then I got icecream. Then I went home. Then I went to bed. It just isn't expansive enough for an article that's meant to be encyclopedia worthy. Take this section of text for example: "Bond obtains Mollaka's mobile phone and discovers many calls received from the Bahamas. Bond travels there and finds the caller, Alex Dimitrios, an associate of Le Chiffre. After winning Dimitrios' car in a poker game, Bond seduces his wife, Solange, and she reveals that her husband is flying to Miami. Bond kills Dimitrios at the Miami exhibit of Body Worlds and then follows Le Chiffre's henchman, Carlos, to the Miami Airport". You have to agree, it goes through things very quickly. Why not putting a few sentences in there? I went to the Burmingham zoo yesterday, where I saw a large crocodile being fed. Crocodiles are my favourite reptilians and after this, I visited the rest of the animals in the zoo. It was a hot day so I went to the kiosk for some icecream. With the day drawing to a close, I took the bus home, where I was overcome by exhaustion and fell asleep. See? Even a stupid little story that sounds as if it's been written by a two year old can be spruced up to a good standard, so imagine how much better your plot sypnosis can be with a little more effort? Explain how deafeated the attempt to blow up the plane. Why was the infringement angering to M? Where did this "free running" chase take place? So to answer your question if you'd done enough yet to confirm my support - the answer is not yet. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess I just disagree with you over some of these changes, then. I relinked short selling and free running because linking them is completely informative. I don't know any person took a class on free running in high school. It would be a detriment to the article, in my opinion, not to link them. In fact, the first edit made in response to your expressing concern that "free running" was linked changed the sentence to say "a long chase", which is much less informative. I agree that older versions that linked "castrate" went overboard, but that's not the situation present here. If you believe that the difference between this article being of FA quality is the difference between "free running" and "free running", then you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but the consensus seems to be that those terms should be linked. As another editor pointed out, many people don't have a background in finance or stunt work. To your second point, plot summaries in this encyclopedia necessarily need to walk a razor's edge about being concise (because plot should not be the focus of articles about films, according to WP:WAF) and explaining every event it discusses in detail. I tend to favor a section that does what you dislike: goes through events quickly. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to attempt to recreate the experience of actually watching a two-hour film in a section on plot summary. I actually believe that the current state of the Casino Royale plot section is more like your second example, which communicates the logic of events. In some cases, the plot section might be a bit too generous in assuming that the logic is clear from the events, but by and large I don't think that's a concern. There's a difference between communicating the logic of the story and just putting in more detail, such as by explaining how Bond defeated the attempt to blow up the plane. The "how" question may be interesting, but it is not at all essential to the plot: what matters is that he foiled the plot and left Le Chiffre with a big loss. It's possible that we just don't see eye to eye about the mission of a plot summary, and that's OK. Maybe it would be helpful if you could find a featured article on a film with what you would consider a well-written plot section. That might be a better vehicle for comparison than your story about going to the zoo. Croctotheface 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can let the free running objection go, as I don't think that it's such a big deal. However the prose and detail of the plot sypnosis is unnegotiable. I'm changing my vote yet again - I found dealing with Vikrant Phadkay a little bit more pleasant, seeing as they were more hospitable. It doesn't matter what you think and what you prefer Crocttf, seeing as you're not the one commenting on the FAC. If it did, we wouldn't have a need for FACs and users could simply place FA badges on evey article they've worked on a bit. However, as we all know, this is not the case, so complaining to me or down there that you can't please everyone isn't helping. Frankly, it's a load of croc... ;) (Pun...). Anyway, hopefully you'll come around and realise that you can't always have what you think is better. It's called compromise and seeing as how I compromised on the free running link, I'm hoping you'll be big enough to return the favour. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was never my intention to get personal, though I could see why my comments below could read that way. I apologize, then, for the presentation, but not the content. My point below was meant to illustrate what you have alluded to: it's not possible to please everyone who might comment on a nomination. Including more detail in the plot section could cause you to support the nomination, but it could also cause Staxringold to withdraw his support. I just have two comments to make here. First, this plot section is almost exactly 700 words in its current form. The guidelines relating to the subject say, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." Since Casino has a rather simple plot, there is not a reason to move outside of that range. 700 words is already on the upper range of acceptable. Again, I would be curious to see a featured article on a film with a plot section that is to your liking. It would be very helpful to see a different way to go about summarizing the plot. Croctotheface 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take your comments below as an attack, but thanks for the sincer effort to amend things. Searching through the list of featured films, without looking too hard, I picked a couple which I thought had points which might help as a reference: 300 (film), although still pithy, has subtle descriptions which elaborate on the main story. Not much, but it's still a bit better. Considering 300 has a pretty basic plot (Go there, kill, wear skirts) it is still as long (if not longer) than Casino's sypnosis. Halloween (1978 film) has quite a lot of what the characters said and doesn't zip through things quite as fast as Casino's plot summary. Admittedly, the prose is not the best in places, it is still an advancement in some areas. The guideline says a sypnosis shouldn't exceed 900 words - this could equate to about one or two paragraphs of text and I'm not even asking for that much, just a few descriptive words here and there and some elaboration. Besides, haven't you read WP:IAR? "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I'm pretty sure a few extra words over 700 won't cause a server melt down, nor will it cause Staxringold to oppose. I've made some points above about parts that could be expanded - use your own initiative to decide where something could be expanded or use elaboration and provide the links here or mark in your edit summary that it's to do with this. As I said, I feel this is non-negotiable. Happy editing. Spawn Man 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quite amazing work at sourcing that much useful text on things like the production background. All I would ask about is if the plot summary could be shortened slightly, since Bonds films (Casino Royale included) are not incredibly deep in terms of plot it seems like the summary could lose some details in some points. Regardless, great job! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Principal photography commenced on January 30 of what year? The article still features some clunky prose. For example "...and the only thing in the final film shot is the scene where Bond steps off the plane in the Bahamas..." Surely we can do better than "thing"? And what is "thing" referring to? "only...final film shot" is also problematic. This phrase seems to indicate that there are other scenes throughout the move that were filmed in South Africa, but the only "thing" in the final shot of the movie that was filmed in S.A. was a scene where Bond steps off of a plane. 69.202.63.165 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to, as someone who has edited the article, express my opinion here. However, if it is, I want to register my support for promoting this article. In truth, things like FA status don't matter a whole lot to me, but I can't imagine a more comprehensive and better sourced article on a film. Croctotheface 07:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support each failed nom the article only gets better. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Manzanar

edit

* Self-Nomination: This article just completed peer review. I was hoping for more than two reviews, but that's all we got before the peer review was archived. As such, I'm submitting for FA consideration.

I've had a lot to do with the development of this article, so I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to detail why I believe it's worthy of FA consideration. I'll just say that I think it's a good article that, at the very least, should be considered. We'll see how it goes! Gmatsuda 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments, as I mentioned at peer review, there is an External link farm which should be pruned per WP:RS, WP:EL and WP:NOT. To be comprehensive, the article should cover most of what is mentioned in External links; if it doesn't cover that material, it may not be comprehensive, if it does cover the material, then non-reliable sources aren't needed in EL. There is also still a 350px image which 1) is larger than a standard 300px infobox and 2) doesn't conform with WP:MOS#Images. Also see WP:MOS regarding punctuation of image captions. Another ce may be in order (example, no hyphen at ... thirst of a rapidly-growing metropolis ... see WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH), and sentences like "For more information on the debate, see Japanese American Internment", are not compelling prose—a see also template should be used at the top of the section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thanks for your comments. I'll take a look at all that later today when I get more time. Gmatsuda 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reduced the size of the lead photo. But, at least IMHO, reducing it further makes the article look worse, not better with all the white space. After reading WP:MOS#Images again, I note the following:
  • Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
  • On images with extreme aspect ratios
  • When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
  • When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
  • On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.
IMHO, this is a lead image that indeed captures the essence of the article. It depicts the harsh conditions that the prisoners of Manzanar were forced to endure.
  • Regarding punctuation of photo captions, I've made some changes as suggested. However, please note that for the majority of the historic photos, the original captions provided by the photographer were used.
  • I have removed some hyphens and I've pared down the external links further. Is it OK now?
  • Comment I am not sure about specifically Manzanar, but several of these camps also held non-US citizen Italians and Germans during WWII; as far as I know Americans of German and Italian descent were not interred if they were US citizens, but I may be wrong. While you do mention Lazo (whom I'd not heard of before), this may be worth mentioning, especially if some of the Italians and Germans were at Manzanar. I'll look over more later.Rlevse 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: You are correct that some Italians and Germans were incarcerated by the US during WWII. However, Manzanar (and the nine other so-called "War Relocation Centers") were not among the camps where they were imprisoned. They were imprisoned in Justice Department Internment Camps (different from camps such as Manzanar) at Crystal City, TX and a few others. Gmatsuda 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, didn't know there was a difference in WRC and JDIC. What was the difference?Rlevse 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were three different types of camps (not including the Assembly Centers) where Japanese Americans were imprisoned during WWII. For more information, check out Japanese American internment. Gmatsuda 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very comprehensive account. However (of course) there were some points I'd like to bring up:
    • The town of Manazanar is briefly mentioned in the lead, & I was left with the impression that this community still existed; only after poking around & reading the article more carefully, did I find out that the town was abandoned in 1929 -- a fact that would be helpful if it were mentioned in the lead.
    • The people forcibly detained there are called "prisoners", a word that IMHO doesn't fit. Has the word to described them been discussed somewhere? I did a search in the Talk page & the various reviews to see if this terminology has been discussed & found none. If there has been a discussion & the consensus was to use this word, I don't want to reopen a finsihed discussion, but from how the article describes their lives I feel a better choice would be "inmate" or "internee". -- llywrch 06:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I edited the lead to clarify. Please let me know if it works for you now.
Regarding the use of "prisoner..." we had a long, rather drawn-out debate about terminology to use in the article in the talk page (now archived). Although the focus was on the use "concentration camp," "internment camp," "relocation center/camp," when referring to the ten camps of which Manzanar was the first, we decided that to keep everyone happy, we'd mention the terminology debate in the article briefly, and then refer people to Japanese American internment for more detail on that topic. The short explanation is that because "internment camp" is actually an inaccurate term to describe Manzanar, "internee," although widely-used, is also at least somewhat inaccurate. "Prisoner," while not necessarily widely-used, is accurate since those behind the barbed wire were indeed imprisoned. FYI: there wasn't much specific debate on the use of this term.
Thank you for taking a look at the article and offering your comments! Gmatsuda 13:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You added a little more detail to the lead than I was expecting -- but won't complain. ;-) I did make a few copy edits with the intent of smoothing out the style -- I hope you don't mind.
As for "prisoner", my problem with the word is that it implies to me undeniably close confinement, at the level of incarceration one owuld put felons -- numerous daily roll calls, forbidden to meet in large groups, kept in their dwellings under lock & key. Maybe this did happen -- but the article indicates none of this, so that would be an important omission. But if the level of confinement wasn't this strict, I'd suggest using "inmate" instead -- not because it is a euphemism (IIRC, the people confined in the infamous concentration camps are often referred to as "inmates"), but because it doesn't have the connotation "prisoner" has for me. -- llywrch 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thanks for your copy edits. Nice work. :-)
This debate is very similar to the one we had over what to call these camps in the Manzanar talk page (now archived). Specifically, we were focusing on the use of "concentration camp," which many people believe should only be used to describe the Nazi camps during WWII. However, that term, by definition, also describes the American camps such as Manzanar. After a couple of weeks of going back and forth, we came to an agreement, which wasn't perfect, but avoided the use of the euphemistic and the inaccurate terminology.
In this case, I don't think what we have here is anywhere near as big of an issue...and it shouldn't be, IMHO. Indeed, as for the use of "prisoner," I'm not sure it would be a good idea to get into a lengthy debate on terminology here, but the definitions vary, depending on what dictionary you refer to. Oxford's English Dictionary states:
prisoner (noun): person captured and kept confined by an enemy, opponent, or criminal.
Webster's is a bit different.
prisoner (noun): a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody.
Certainly, that describes what the over 110,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry and their immigrant parents were. In fact, you could even make a case for them being prisoners of war. In any case, I hope the use of "prisoner" isn't a sticking point for FA consideration. Gmatsuda 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mean for it to be. I do think it should be discussed at some point, but outside of the FA process & hopefully as dispassionately as possible. However, I did point out one possible solution that you apparently overlooked, which I'd like to repeat again: that the inmates were subjected to "numerous daily roll calls, forbidden to meet in large groups, kept in their dwellings under lock & key. Maybe this did happen -- but the article indicates none of this, so that would be an important omission." I'm bringing this up because most Americans honestly assume that official acts like this "can't happen here" -- or they trivialize events like this when it happens. From what little I know about this race-based internment, these Americans weren't simply moved to places like Manzanar where they idled about while receiving free room & board for years -- which one could willfully misread into this article. It's a sublte point, one I believe you could easily fix, & one I only noticed because I was trying to find evidence to disprove that impression. -- llywrch 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were not subject to roll calls, forbidden to meet in large groups (although groups were always scrutinized carefully by camp administration), kept under lock and key, etc. However, they were not free to leave the camps. As such, they were incarcerated or imprisoned. They were not simply "held," or "detained," both of which imply that their "detention" would have been much shorter than it was. And you made my point--many Americans do not believe stuff like this can happen in the US, and they often do trivialize such occurrances or try to "sanitize" it. Hence, the choice of "prisoner" to describe the people who were forced, usually at gunpoint, to travel to these desolate camps to be imprisoned for 3-4 years. Gmatsuda 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...this discussion sure died...does that mean the FAC nomination is doomed due to lack of interest (or worse), or does it usually take longer than this (I don't know, so I'm asking)? Gmatsuda 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually make an effort not to fail things from lack of interest, which is why some articles spend upwards of 6 weeks on the FAC. Raul654 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...ok. got it. Thanks. Gmatsuda 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK...maybe this will get things moving again...

  • Support: I nominated this article, but I think it's really solid, even if I do say so myself. Gmatsuda 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on the article yet, but we have a related Featured Picture that should be part of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: That photo was once included in the article. However, I thought there were more important photos that are more descriptive of the conditions, etc. at Manzanar during WWII. That photo was replaced with the one of the Manzanar Free Press, which I believe has more educational value. But I guess since that photo is an FP, I'll put it back. :-) Gmatsuda 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, usually a promotion to featured status means there is community consensus to feature it in the article(s) for which it is nominated. Generally, it seems that organizing some of the pictures into galleries might be a better option than the current layout. Also, there was a very public disagreement between Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange on how the fate of the internees should be depicted, which should probably be mentioned. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: There was a gallery before, and it looked more cluttered and disorganized than it does now, and I wasn't the only one who felt that way. We had a consensus on that way back. As for the public disagreement between Adams and Lange, Adams' photos are often criticized for not being a balanced depiction of life in camp. However, he was also under tighter restrictions than Lange was in terms of what photos he was allowed to take. I also believe this issue would be better dealt with in the Born Free and Equal article. Gmatsuda 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I copyedited this article back in August, not so much for style as for mechanics and sense. I just re-read it, and I see a few more things I'd change to better satisfy the "well written" criterion. I will go ahead and makes those changes later, and they can be discussed after the fact on the article talk page. My main problem with the article as it stands is the neutrality criterion. There is an overall tone of hand-wringing over the abuse suffered by the shorter, darker people at the hands of the big, bad, non-prefixed Americans. That may well be a perfectly accurate characterization of the true state of affairs, I don't know, but such issues are probably better confined to articles specifically written to address them. This one is about a camp and a town. The facts will speak for themselves if they have anything to say, and they will speak more eloquently if they are not interrupted. A few examples should suffice:
"Owens Valley Paiute": They were forcibly forced? And did the soldiers have their guns pointed right at them the whole time, or did they sort of cradle their guns once in a while or put them over their shoulders?
*Response: Put it this way. They were forced to walk all the way from Manzanar to Fort Tejon by US Army soldiers who were armed. What else do you need? Does it really matter if they pointed their rifles at them constantly or not? I fixed the "forcibly forced" issue. :-) -- Gmatsuda 07:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of rewrote "Owens Valley Paiute" to show you what I mean instead of trying to tell you. I left the old version unchanged below the new version, remarked out for ease of comparison and reversion. The old version contained a misleading, oversimplified cause-and-effect scenario (1. Find gold. 2. Remove Indians. 3. Dig mine. 5. Be rich.). I hope to read your article about the Paiute Trail of Tears one day. To answer your question about "gunpoint", one problem with it was that it unavoidably conjured a vivid image of people being marched along each with a gun muzzle constantly trained on his back. The word seemed journalistically emotive, too, like a reporter saying "The thug pumped three slugs into the cop's skull" instead of "The criminal shot the policeman three times in the head." Emotive is bad when you want encyclopedic. --Milkbreath 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You went totally in the other direction in the rewrite when you used "armed escort," which makes it sound as if they were being protected from attackers as opposed to being forced to walk 200+ miles at gunpoint. As you said, "gunpoint is gunpoint." -- Gmatsuda 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wartime": The reader senses a shell game with the terminology. Let's call them Japanese Americans, even though we clearly state that one third of them were not American citizens. That's OK because they were prevented by law from becoming citizens, but please ignore the possibility that at least some of them didn't want to and still held allegiance to their divine emperor back in the Land of the Rising Sun. Also, scare quotes are snide; if they were not volunteers who built the camp, what were they exactly?
*Response: The term "Japanese Americans" is generally accepted for the Issei (the first generation; immigrants from Japan who were prevented by law from naturalizing). And it would not be prudent to go into the details of the loyalty issue in the Manzanar article because then you open it up to all the other causes/reasons for the internment and its history. And that is already covered in Japanese American Internment. As for the possibility that some held allegiance to the Emperor, the fact is that sure, that's possible, but the numbers would be insignificant. After all, by the government's own findings, the Japanese American community, including the Issei, were extremely loyal to the US. The Issei even felt that the US was their country, not Japan. This is documented in several scholarly works, including at least one that is cited in the article. As such, I believe your criticism in this particular instance is misguided (once again, no offense intended).
As for the use of "volunteers," I think the use of the quotation marks is very much appropriate. After all, they were required to go to Manzanar. They didn't have a choice. As such, a number of single men decided to make the best of things for themselves and others by going early to help build the camp. The point is, yes, they volunteered to help build the camp, but when you come right down to it, they weren't REALLY volunteers, were they? -- Gmatsuda 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doctored the part about citizenship slightly to remove the whiff of mystery. I think it's OK now. The NPS didn't have quotes around "volunteers", so I removed them. What those quotation marks meant was something like: "Certain people (white, racist, Japanese-hating people, in short, Americans) cynically decided to call them volunteers to conceal the ugly truth, but you and I know better, wink, nudge. They were forced to construct their own prison as slave labor." If that's what you mean to say, then say that and support it with references, otherwise the quotation marks constitute editorial comment and are out of place in an encyclopedia article. If you want to explain about the volunteers as you did above, that would be good, too. --Milkbreath 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing about slave labor. You're reading too much into that. But yes, they were indeed called "volunteers" rather cynically. It's just like the government's use of "relocation center" as the official name of these camps...it was a euphemism intentionally used to sanitize and obscure what it really was. There was a conscious effort to do that in all aspects of the internment program. But to go into this further would be duplicative since we have the article on Japanese American Internment. I believe the quotation marks are fine, but I won't add them back myself. -- Gmatsuda 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Life": Was the golf course primitive and sub-standard? The beauty parlor, too? And isn't "sub-standard" subsumed in "primitive"? The reader feels he's being hit on the head with the redundant repetition, and he is.
*Response: I disagree about the redundancy. If anything, we went out of our way to avoid using of those terms more than once to describe the conditions. As for the amenities Manzanar had, they were built/developed/created by the prisoners themselves. They were not provided by the US Government. If the prisoners wanted or needed something, they generally had to do it themselves. They made their "home" more liveable, even though they still had tarpaper barracks, communal latrtines, no running water in the barracks, minimal heat...I could go on and on. -- Gmatsuda 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Closure": I can't think of a way to kick someone out that doesn't involve force of some kind. "Kicked out" is emotive and imprecise.
*Response: OK...how about "removed?" -- Gmatsuda 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are more. That said, this is an otherwise solid article that deserves a place in FA. --Milkbreath 12:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Response: If you could let me know the others, I'll take a look and respond. Thanks again for your efforts. -- Gmatsuda 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a great article that has made steady progress through the involvement of many editors. Each of the serious concerns raised during this review has been addressed, and there are no outstanding issues that should prevent this article from being recognized as a featured article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Response: Thank you to Will and Hong Qi for your contributions to the article! -- Gmatsuda 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Rlevse and to Milkbreath for your support. Milkbreath also gets credit for some quality copyediting. -- Gmatsuda 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK...so do we have consensus? Does the article get promoted now? :-) -- Gmatsuda 10:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is pretty well researched and the lead has gotten better than it was a week ago, but I'm inclined to oppose unless the usage of "prisoners"/"imprisoned" is either documented as common usage or replaced with "internee"/"interned". It's clearly legally incorrect, as prisoner implies an accusation of individual culpricy and the existence of legal proceedings, while internment is based on collective characteristics and usually absent legal proceedings. The "Terminology" section looks like it's squeezed in to justify the usage, but it does no such thing. As it is, it can't be considered the best we can do to keep an article NPOV. Also to repeat, while the brunt of the discussion between Adams and Lange should probably go in the Born Free and Equal article, to completely ignore two historical figures who significantly carried the public discourse on Manzanar during WWII is a grave oversight. ~ trialsanderrors 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have gotten tangled up in something here without wanting to, but I'm here now. And let me assure everybody that I have no agenda other than getting the article squared away; I came in cold to copyedit, period. I read the article many times in the course of copyediting, and the word "prisoner" didn't bother me a bit, and I'm pretty easily bothered. It seemed to me to be the plain word for the thing—a person living under guard behind barbed wire not free to leave. "Internee" sounds like someone carefully chose the word for some reason and therefore sounds more POV than "prisoner". My two cents. --Milkbreath 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the term "imprisoned" used in several scholarly works, and while "internee" and "interned" are commonly used, they are inaccurate, given the fact that although Manzanar mostly falls under the common definition of an internment camp, the fact is that "internee" generally refers to those who are not citizens by definition. At Manzanar, and the nine other camps, two-thirds of those imprisoned were native-born American citizens. Hence, the use of "internee" is misleading and inaccurate, despite the fact that it's commonly used. Also, the US Government operated separate camps at that time that were officially called "internment camps." Manzanar was not one of them. FYI: all of this is discussed in Japanese American Internment and is fully cited there. To be consistent, we had to find an alternative to "internee" that did not sanitize or downplay what these people were. Sure, they weren't constantly held behind lock and key in these camps. However, they were definitely held against their will and a case could be made for them being prisoners of war in their own country. This is how we decided on the use of "prisoner."
I disagree about requiring the inclusion in the prose of Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange. There are far more significant people in the history of Manzanar. While they documented the site like few others, they documented what happened at Manzanar. They were not among those who were directly involved in the history of the site. I am not saying this in an attempt to minimize their work, their contributions, etc. However, even the NPS doesn't have a portion of their exhibit at the Manzanar Interpretive Center detailing who they were and what they did. You only see their photos in some parts of the exhibit. What Adams and Lange contributed in terms of Manzanar should be detailed in their own articles. A wikilink in the See also section of the Manzanar article should suffice, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree about the terminology section being a poor attempt (my interpretation of the comments by Trialsanderrors) at keeping the article NPOV. If you read the talk page archives, we went around and around and around to reach consensus on the terminology in question. It's not the ideal situation, but it gets the job done, IMHO. For me, I'd much rather use "concentration camp." But that has raised vehement protests from those who believe that term should be restricted only to references to the Nazi camps. IMHO, that's POV on their part, but in the spirit of coming up with something that works for everyone, we have what we have now. If this doesn't work for you, what do you propose? -- Gmatsuda 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

History of Stoke City F.C.

edit

I wrote this article a few months back and brought it to GA standard. I have since improved the article based on some suggestions by The Rambling Man and I now believe it is up to FA standard. Dave101→talk  14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used cite web merely for consistency, is cite news definitely required for news articles?
Yes, see here. Mattythewhite 11:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the appropriate references to cite news. Dave101→talk  12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of cite templates is not a requirement of WP:WIAFA, or a requirement for any other article. Consistently-formatted citations is the only requirment of WP:WIAFA; the method is irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose My objection is primarily due to fair use images. Seven fair-use images is excessive, particularly as two of them could easily be replaced with free ones - it would be trivial for a local Wikipedian to take a photograph of the Britannia Stadium, and Stoke-on-Trent has two separate statues of Stanley Matthews.
  • I've removed the image of the Britannia Stadium and the images of Eastham and Matthews; I do agree, 7 was a bit excessive.
I found an image of the Britannia Stadium on Commons. It's not great, but it is free-use. I'd prefer fair use images to be kept to an absolute minimum, but I'll leave judgement on whether or not four is still too many to others. One possibility for an alternative image is using a very old photo - some early club photos may be out of copyright by now. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image with expired copyright of the squad in place of the Victoria Ground image. I've also removed the image of Freddie Steele, which brings the fair use images down to 2. Dave101→talk  08:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comments:
    • The Football League Trophy is not generally regarded as a major trophy as the lead implies. The competition went under different names when Stoke won it, so Football League Trophy is something of an anachronism, perhaps Associate Members Cup would be better.
  •   Done I've changed the name of the Cup reworded this a bit, also mentioned which teams compete for this Cup in the lead. I've added the name cup went under each time Stoke won it in the prose.
    • pupils of Charterhouse School formed a football club while apprentices at the North Staffordshire Railway works Should this read "former pupils"? It seems unlikely that they were school pupils and railway apprentices simultaneously.
  •   Done The source states "former pupils", so I've changed this.
    • There is quite a bit of redundant phrasing in the prose e.g. At this period in time, the only fixtures were friendly matches... Stoke became of the twelve founding members of the Football League when it was introduced in 1888.

  Done I've had a go at removing some of this, hopefully it reads better now.

While there's still some there, most of it has gone, and I'll tackle the remainder myself. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a minor concern about over-reliance on the Stoke City website, which is cited on 40-odd occasions. A quick search at a certain well-known online bookseller reveals a large number of titles about the club, yet books account for only one citation.

Oldelpaso 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add further references from A-Z of Stoke City tomorrow, unfortunately I do not have any other Stoke City books to hand.

  Done Added 25 or so book references.

If the book is anything like most others from the same publisher, it will be pretty definitive, so I've struck that one. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left responses to the above comments. Dave101→talk  21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further responses. Dave101→talk  09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for being a pest, but I've spotted some more:
    • Durban was unable to keep the club up, as defeat on the final day of the season consigned Stoke to relegation from Division One. Technically true, but Stoke would have needed to win by something like twenty goals to survive, so different wording could be better.
    • The club decided to enter the FA Cup for the first time in the 1883–84 season, the competition itself had only been founded three years earlier. Something is wrong here. The FA Cup started in 1872.
    • The 1970s also saw Stoke compete at European Level for the only time in its history... This is contradicted by the rest of the paragraph, which details two European campaigns. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've corrected the above examples. Dave101→talk  17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support following copyedit. Oldelpaso 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose'—1a. Better. Here are examples from the top of why a good run-through by a copy-editor is required. It's worth supporting once that is done.
    • "the" is missing from the opening sentence.
    • Switch the first two sentences. MOS gives latitude not to have to slavishly bold the title in the very first sentence. You now don't have to sprinkle bold through the opening in all of the alternative names. Would look better just once.
    • Don't start a sentence with "Also". Why not "In the same year, ..."?
    • "in front of a crowd"—not wrong, but smoother as "before a crowd".
    • "record-low tally", but "first ever goal"? Could go either way, but not both.
    • "at the Victoria Cricket Ground, however they" ... "were friendly matches, however this changed"—One I could cope with, but not two in a row. Better, anyway, as "were friendly matches; however, this changed".
    • "Stoke won the new competition at the first time of asking, establishing themselves as the largest club in the area in the process." Spot the three redundant words.
    • "which ultimately led to the club losing its Football League status"—ungrammatical. Make it: "which ultimately led to the loss of the club's Football League status".
    • "The club's stay in Third Division North was brief; with the championship won at the first time of asking." Semicolon --> comma. Second time I've seen "of asking" (bit odd). Tony 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a thorough copy-edit. I've also put in a request at the League of Copyeditors WikiProject. Dave101→talk  15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been copy-edited by Cricketgirl. Dave101→talk  16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, incomplete citation, pls check and fix all of them (publisher, etc?):
  • England 1997-98. Retrieved on August 10, 2007.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - just run through it, sorry it's a bit late. I've copy-edited bits of the artile slightly, you may wish to refine what I've done but I've tried to cut out some redundant phrasing and repetition. Here are my suggestions:
  • Firstly, and most significantly, you need to sort out whether you're using F.C. after a club's name or not. It's a mix at present. I'd say that as you've established Stoke City is a football club, you don't need to mention that all the teams they play are football clubs too. Also, sometimes when another club is mentioned twice you link their names both times, and sometimes you only link it once.

  Done I've removed from all club's bar Stoke City in the lead. I've also removed all links from clubs that have been already elsewhere in the article.

  • "In 1925, Stoke-on-Trent was granted city status and this led the club to change its name for the final time to Stoke City Football Club in 1928.[15]" I'm not sure you need "the final time" there, it's a bit redundant considering the title of the article.

  Done "The final time" removed.

  • You don't mention any managers until Tom Mather. Looking at his predecessors, there were some long-lasting ones. Why aren't they mentioned. On a related note "Bob McGrory resigned as the club's manager in February 1952 after 17 years in the role; he had previously played for the club for 14 years.[29]" The italicised bit could either be put in a bit about McGrory's appointment, but it feels tacked on there.

  DoneI've added information significant managers prior to Mather, plus more info on Mather and McGrory. Dave101→talk  11:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Crowds were falling, with the average attendance dropping below 10,000 for the first time in 40 years.[16][28]" I think this bit of information would be better if moved to the Waddington section, attached to the Taylor summary of 5 years it's unclear as to when the attendance dropped below 10,000 - I presume around 1960.
  Done Added to the start of the Waddington section, the source states "by 1960", so I've rephrased it as "By 1960 Stoke were struggling to attract supporters to the Victoria Ground, with the average attendance dropping below 10,000 for the first time in 40 years."
  • "These matches included Gordon Banks' penalty save from Geoff Hurst in the second leg at Upton Park." Why is that important?
  Done Removed, I agree it probably isn't worth mentioning. Dave101→talk  21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Stoke qualify for the European competitons they played in in the 70s? It's not clear.
  • "He signed Mickey Thomas from Brighton and Hove Albion F.C.[58] and Mark Chamberlain from Port Vale,[59]" Why are these particular signings important, the decision to mention them seems a bit arbitrary.
  Done I've added a brief bit on info on both signings. I've mentioned their transfer fees and Chamberlain's England caps. Dave101→talk 
  • "His first task was to consolidate following the club's relegation in the previous season, which he achieved with a mid-table finish in the Second Division.[55]"
  • Why did Chic Bates leave? What was the situation at the time?

  Done I've added information on his departure. Dave101→talk  21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, though. With a few adjustments it's easily FA class. HornetMike 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy-edit and your comments, I'll address these over the next day or two. Dave101→talk  17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
  • Refs 9 and 10 are duplicates.
These link to two articles on different seasons. Dave101→talk  19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, my eyes must have blurred :) J.Winklethorpe talk 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there look to be a lot of double refs, such as "Stoke became one of the twelve founding members of the Football League in 1888.[7][8]", where the refs both give the same information. I'd say a single ref was fine for an uncontroversial statement. "1997–98 saw Stoke move to its new ground, the 28,000 all-seater Britannia Stadium,[76][77][78]" probably doesn't need three.
I've removed some of the refs that produce duplicate information. I'll take a more detailed look tomorrow. Dave101→talk  19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with this now. In general I've left two refs for the same statement when one is print and the other is internet, or they both provide different information. Dave101→talk  09:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with double refs where there are two pieces of information that need linking in; I don't think double refs are necessary simply to back up a print citation with a web source. However, I don't believe the MOS is explicit on this anywhere, so i shall leave it to your preference. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything to be said about league results between winning in 1877 to joining the Football league in 1888?
  • There were no league games as far as I know prior to the formation of the Football League. I will provide more information on the County Cup and FA Cup games played in this period. Dave101→talk  19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I meant to refer to the county cup games then - so yes, just something to fill what's otherwise a gap would be good, even if it's a report of "They played; they won nothing". That said, unless the county cup was a very long competition, they can't have had much to do for several years. If any information exists on the impetus for going professional, that would be interesting. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've added information the club's second County Cup win and information on the club entering two other cups (Birmingham Association Cup and Staffordshire Senior Cup). I've added a bit more to the club's reason for turning professional, as the FA legalised it shortly before the club turned professional. Dave101→talk  09:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.Winklethorpe talk 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I'll address these shortly. Dave101→talk  22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Not keen on the capitalisation of History in the second sentence, just for the sake of using the title of the article.
    • Removed capitalistation.
  • "The club joined the Football League upon its formation in 1888, making them the second oldest club in the League." - if they joined upon formation why aren't the first equal oldest club? It's a little confusing for me.
    • It's based on the club's founding date. I could phrase it as the "second oldest Football League club", would this be any better?
  • You wikilink "2–1 in the final", I'd just link "final".
    • "Final" linked only now.
  • (a Cup competition for clubs in the two lower divisions of The Football League)" - don't like parenthesised text.
    • I've put it in emdashes now, although I'm not sure if this is any better. Should I just remove this part altogether?
  • just curious really) "Played against an E.W. May XV..." was it 15-a-side?
    • Yes, it was. I've added the fact it was 15-a-side to the article.
  • Ref [4] not placed according to WP:CITE.
  • "In the 1882–1883, Stoke..." word missing?
    • Corrected typo.
  • I'd prefer a consistent season wikilink, so either "1885-86 season" or just "1885-86" throughout.
    • I've phrased it as the ".... season" throughout now, apart from when it is obvious a season is being talked about e.g. "In the following two seasons, 1947–48 and 1948–49,"
  • More disappointment ..." purists would suggest this is POV.
    • I've removed this, hopefully the article is bias free now!
  • Full stop missing before Ref [20] and the second instance of [21]. And a space missing after [25]?
    • Fixed ref placements.
  • "— as champions —" - why the em-dashes, why not just plain prose?
    • Plain prose now.
  • "The 1950s did not start well;..." I would add "...for Stoke" or "...for the club"
    • Added "for the club".
  • "Durban achieved promotion to the First Division in his first full season, 1978–79, on the last day of the season.[48]" - two "season"s in one sentence reads a bit clumsy.
    • Rephrased as "Durban achieved promotion to the First Division in his first full season, 1978–79, with a third place finish". The last day of the season part isn't really worth mentioning, in hindsight.
  • "Ball struggled in his first season in charge, 1989–90, and his Stoke side were relegated to the third tier of English football after finishing bottom of the Second Division.[79] It was the first time Stoke had played in the Third Division in 63 years." - they didn't play in the third division until the following season if you get my drift, tenses are a bit wonky.
    • New sentence: "Starting the 1990–91 season in the Third Division, it was the first time Stoke had played at this level in 63 years."
Hope they help... I think the article is in very good nick despite these, but I'd like to see them dealt with (or at least responded to!) before I add my support. Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses added, thanks as ever for your comments TRM! Dave101→talk  17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. The Rambling Man 08:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Battle for Henderson Field

edit

Respectfully submit this article for FAC review. The article has been through a peer review [73] and A class review [74] with WP:MILHIST. Cla68 23:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "October 23–October 26" - spaces needed around the dash
  • En dashes are used in page ranges in the footnotes.
  • "all of the Marine machine gunners" – the "of" is redundant. Epbr123 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix them. The en dashes may take awhile but I'll post here when it's completed. Cla68 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his dash fixing script; he's testing it still, and it doesn't catch everything, but it will shorten your workload. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the corrections have now been made. Cla68 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the punctuation from the image captions with sentence fragments. I appreciate your help and constructive comments. Cla68 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, another fine job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

California Condor

edit

Self Nomination Another bird article, and one that I have been working on for several months now (originally in my sandbox). I believe that this article fulfils the FA criteria, is comprehensive, has a good lead, conforms to the MoS, and has a bunch of good images and a range map. It has been peer reviewed (with most comments left on the talk page) and believe it is ready to become featured. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as a late-in-the-piece tweaker and copyeditor I feel this one is over the line. The prose runs smoothly. The only issue is a couple of stubby paragraphs. To solve this I'd suggest in Relationship with humans that paras 3 and 4 be appended onto para 1 and unified to one paragraph. The last 3 paras of the Conservation section could be merged and the last para be the first of the 3. Other than that I'm happy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I merged Conservation as suggested but only merged 3 and 4 in Relationship, leaving them seperate from the first paragraph. Should I continue to merge? I personally like it as is. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks pretty good to me, although I'd go along with Casliber's suggestion. Jimfbleak 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: In "Conservation", it says that ranchers "had been taught by their parents that the bird hunted calves and lambs." I think it would be better to say that they "mistakenly believed that the bird hunted calves and lambs." Because if it says that they were taught this by their parents, it implies that it was the parent's fault that ranchers were killing condors. Either that, cite an additional source saying that they were taught it specifically by their parents.--Jude. 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Possibly change comment to support? Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's a very good article, great work! Cheers, Jude. 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: reads well, but I have a couple of things I'd like to see (if you don't have time I'll add them myself): it needs mention of the two condor sanctuaries made specifically for this bird (the Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary in the San Rafael Wilderness, and the Sespe Condor Sanctuary in the SE part of the Los Padres National Forest, along with the reasons those sanctuaries were created (favored inaccessible nesting sites in terrain with lots of rocky ledges). Also, I have a problem with the range map. It shows a "U" shape in central California, and I'm pretty sure the "U" should, going counterclockwise, follow the coast range down to Santa Barbara/Ventura Counties, then go across along the Tehachapis and then up along the Sierra foothills. Right now the bottom of the "U" is within the California Central Valley. (I can make a fixed map if no one reading this can ... but I need a source to work from, since I'm not an ornithologist, and it would be a few days until I can get to it.) Nice work! Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done and unable to do. I put in the condor sanctuary bit under distribution, but I have no clue how to do or redo a range map. If you want to make another one, BirdLife International's is probably the most accurate. Its at [75]. Thanks for your comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Oh, and Support, of course. I'll try to make you a range map in the near future, as soon as I have a few minutes with a computer with ArcGIS; the one at the link you provide is similar to another I found online here, and which I believe is more accurate (the existing range map doesn't even include the condor sanctuaries!) Antandrus (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • "In relatively modern times, the California Condor roamed across the American Southwest." Could you use something a bit less vague than "relatively modern times"?
  Done Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image page of Image:Condorchick.jpg claims the animal depicted is a chick, while the caption claims it is an adult. One of the two probably ought to be changed.
It is most definately an adult's head, but I am not allowed to edit the picture's page. It doesn't exist or something (?) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the image is at commons, you have to click "description page there" right below the image to get to the description page there. Let me see what I can do.--Carabinieri 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the information on the commons description page. I am unable to move the image, since I am not registered at commons, but I have add a move proposal template to the page and hopefully someone will move it soon.--Carabinieri 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for your comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -
    • There are repeated references please clean them up with the name="blah" attribute. (1&61 , 8&9, 30&33 etc). #1 and #61 are broken also.
I'm still new to Wikipedia and have no idea what name="blah" attribute means, or how to fix the broken cites (someone specifically asked that #1 be included, though I personally think that it being in the article works) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left a message on how to do it on your user page. There are dead links in the references section, they need to be replaced. -Ravedave 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I cant find the full bibliography for "Nielsen 2006". -Ravedave 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the dead links (I was just on the LA zoo page, no clue why it vanished) and the full bibliography for Nielsen is in the Cited texts section. I'll get around to the name="blah" thing when I get a chance. Thanks for your comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done All references now name="blah"able. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clean up the External links, and if possible dig up some video and audio to link to.
:  Done Will take a look at this and try to find video/audio. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: Deleted one link and put in another movie link. I couldn't find any audio on the species though. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having more than one reference for the "Relationship with humans" section would be nice.

Other than that it looks pretty good! -Ravedave 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I'll search the web for some more sources, but I don't recall seeing any first time through. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Some scientists, such as Noel Snyder, believe that this process of making ceremonial clothing helped contribute to the condor’s decline.[69] If so, this would be the only species that was endangered by the California natives. Then who killed off the prehistoric megafauna? Corvus cornix 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they mean that the bird was still doing fairly well in their reduced numbers, but hunting for the clothing dropped their numbers even further. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of fixes needed. I just made a series of sample edits, fixing a number of WP:MOS issues, but there are still more needed. Please review my sample edits and fix throughout. Besides the sample corrections I made, there is still incorrect use of bolding in references (see WP:MOSBOLD), all references are not completely and correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES and sample correction on USA Today source, all sources need a publisher, author and date should be given when available), see WP:FN on how to use named refs for repeat refs (there are still a number of these to be done), and please be sure to doublecheck that you've gotten all occurrences of the sample edits I made (WP:MOSBOLD, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, WP:CONTEXT, WP:MOSLINK, WP:DASH and pruning of external links per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed all of the references that are repeated and de-bolded them. I'm pretty sure I got publisher, author, and date when available for the citations listed, so unless you have any specific examples of ones I missed... I'm going back through your edits now to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I think I knocked out the reference problems. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done OK, I think I dealt with all of the issues you raised. I may have missed a minor one, and if so please tell me, but I think I dealt with what you brought up. Thank you for your comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good start, keep going; I left more sample edits and an inline query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I fixed your inline query (I just copied and pasted the website's suggested citation) and delinked what I saw as the repetitive things in the article. I now think that the references are good (missed the publisher-author difference. Major oops). Now what? If there is another major ref problem, could you tell me what it is instead of trusting my poor brain to notice? Thank you for all of your copyediting of the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; nice work! Now what? Help proofread bird? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'm currently rewriting the King Vulture article in my sandbox. Any chance you could change your comment to support? Rufous-crowned Sparrow 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Banksia telmatiaea

edit

If ever an article was ready to go to FAC, this is. We have plumbed the depths of obscure sources until convinced we have referenced everything that has ever been written about this plant. We've scaled cyclone fences in search of photographs. We've harassed the world authority on Banksia to verify doubtful photos for us. We've polished and polished and polished. The end result: another WP:BANKSIA masterpiece. Hesperian 12:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Another nitpick, the use of the term "Swamp Fox Banksia" is used twice in the main lead bit. Once next to the title of the article (which is fine), but i dont like the second use of the term under the image, it seems redundant. Twenty Years 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Actually, "B. telmatiaea" is just as redundant there as "Swamp Fox Banksia". I have removed the caption altogether for now. I'm not opposed to reinserting a non-redundant caption, if someone can think of one. Hesperian 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for FA - My few nitpicks are on very trivial issues, and i have no doubt that Hesperian knows what hes doing there. The article is a well referenced, quality piece of work, whilst i have little idea about banksia's, i know that this is quality. Twenty Years 13:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking good - just a few questions from a reader's perspective:
  • Why is it called Swamp *Fox* Banksia? - there's no explanation in the article nor through the B. sphaerocarpa (Fox Banksia) link that I can find.
  • Is their any information available on propagation of this species?
  • A close-up photo of the foliage would be useful - is one available (without having to climb a cyclone fence!) --Melburnian 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any information on the origin of the term "Fox", nor could I find anything on propagation of this species. We're aware of the need for a close-up of the foliage, but a bush-fire recently wiped out all the adult plants at the site where Gnangarra has been taking pictures, so it will be a season or two because an opportunity arises. Hesperian 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative article and, within the constraints of bushfire and fencing, a thorough treatment of its subject --Melburnian 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this image shows the leaf, its just not that interesting compared to other species but if you thnk it will improve I'll go back take some leaf specific photographs. Re the fence image the one I climb had the three strands of barbwire verticle not angled. Gnangarra 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you could just do a crop from that photo focusing on a single cluster of leaves - that would do the job, it would pick up on the pungent leaf tips and grooves down the centre of the leaves.--Melburnian 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too late Image:B telmatiaea leaf gnangarra.jpg taken this morning Gnangarra 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even better :) --Melburnian 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Monte Ne

edit

previous FAC

This is the fourth time I've listed Monte Ne as an FAC. The article has been revised many times. It was reviewed by the League of Copyeditors as well as run through Peer Review. It was recently reviewed as a good article as well. All concerns mentioned in previous FACs have been been addressed. The article is now ready to be featured. --The_stuart 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Notes and References are still unformatted, there are still WP:MSH issues, and I fixed your WP:FN placement.[76] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I need some clarification on your comments. I am assuming your problem with the Notes and Reference sections are that they aren't alphabetized. How would I go about alphabetizing them, but I can't figure out how I would do it. Also, will you clarify what the WP:MSH issues are? --The_stuart 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not alphabetical, unformatted as in incomplete information. See WP:CITE/ES. All sources should have a publisher, all websources should have a last access date, and author and publication date should be supplied when available. MSH is manual of style for headings; you should avoid repeating words (like Monte Ne) in section headings, and avoid the use of "the" and "a". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to help with the citation issue. This citation:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/news_article.html?id=523 |title=Monte Ne Rises From the Ruins: New Book Chronicles Coin Harvey's Date With Destiny |accessdate=2007-04-13 |format= |work=The Morning News}}</ref> should actually look like this:

<ref>{{citation|last=Martin|first=Becca Bacon|date=[[October 26]], [[2006]] |url=http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/news_article.html?id=523 |title=Monte Ne Rises From the Ruins: New Book Chronicles Coin Harvey's Date With Destiny |accessdate=2007-04-13 |newspaper=The Morning News}}</ref> Furthermore, ALL of your citations need to have a publisher and a title. A lot of them have only a url and a retrieval date. Karanacs 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They need not use the citation template, which is clumsy. In your example above, the cite news template can be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back through a fixed all of the reference problems I could see--The_stuart 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the citations are still missing publishers. All websites should have a publisher listed to help people judge the relative reliability of that source. Karanacs 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to understand this comment but I can't figure out what you mean. Do the newspapers need publishers listed? What about personal pages like the James Skipper ones or the scuba diving websites where no publishers are listed. Why isn't the link itself enough?--The_stuart 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers don't need a publisher, but all other websites do, including personal sites. In some cases, the publisher might be MyNameHere.Com. Without having that listed on the page, though, someone would have to click each link to see if the publisher is reliable to their standards rather than have a nifty cheat sheet to look at. Karanacs 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper *is* a publisher; the name of the paper is listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers also have publishers. What I meant is that you don't need to include the name of the company that publishes the newspaper. Karanacs 19:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that, I was very confused as to what was needed. What else does the article need for Featured Article status? --The_stuart 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—2a is a problem. And I picked out at random the following issues, which suggests that another run-through is required, preferably by fresh eyes.
    • "located" is redundant in the opening sentence.
    • "Two of its hotels, "Missouri Row" and "Oklahoma Row", were the largest log buildings in the world." Peculiar statement near the top of the lead. There are other problematic statements in the lead. Keep it mostly to "big-picture" stuff. Read WP:LEAD.

That kind of point belongs further down, or in a travel brochure. The lead feels as though you're struggling to make the topic relevant/interesting.

    • "16 ft² (1.5 m²)"—MOS breach; read Units and measurements. This occurs elsewhere, too.

Don't abbreviate main units on their first appearance. Thereafter, abbreviate them (like all converted units) only with consensus.

Shouldn't be a problem to fix.

    • Chaotic formatting (spaces, dots) in "Carl A. Starck, P. G. Davidson, A. L.Williams, B. R. Davidson, J. H. McIlroy, J.W. Kimmons, F.F. Freeman, J. F. Felker, Robert H. Harven and Thomas W Harvey".

Well, the spacing is inconstistent. Look carefully. So is the use of dots. Personally, I'd prefer no dots and no space between initials. But that's your choice. It must be consistent. Tony 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- first, congratulations user:the stuart on writing a good article about a little-known and fascinating piece of Americana. I have no doubt that this is now one of the best resources on Monte Ne on the web. My biggest suggestion is to improve the lead in order to make it more clear to the unfamiliar reader why the subject is interesting. I used to live near Monte Ne and I know why it's cool; but the reader doesn't get that from the first few sentences. Instead of saying "Monte Ne is an area that is located blah blah" why not say something like,
"Monte Ne is the site of a former planned resort community and health resort in Northwest Arkansas, begun in 1901 by the eccentric politician and financial theorist William Hope Harvey. Harvey's community, named Monte Ne, featured one of the earliest golf courses in the world, a railroad that was specially constructed for travel to the site, its own monetary system and the two largest log buildings in the world. Ultimately unsuccessful and uncompleted, the community lasted until the 1930s, when the Great Depression forced closure. In 1964, the entire community was flooded when Beaver Lake was constructed." Then maybe incorporate the rest of the current introduction, or the 2nd paragraph of it. I'd put the very specific location of the area in the first paragraph of the body, not the lead.
This suggestion is not a perfect intro, of course, and it's just a suggestion -- don't feel like you have to do anything! -- phoebe/(talk) 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still little glitches, so a sift-through by someone else would be great.

  • "Oklahoma Row's "tower section" is one of the earliest examples of a multi-story cement structure,[2] and is also the only structure of Monte Ne standing today." What on earth is "also" doing here?
  • "It is unknown when the distillery was built, but was owned in the 1830s by Abe McGarrah and his brother-in-law. They also operated a small store." False contrast in "but". Stubby and disjointed.
  • " The house accidentally burned down a few months after they took up residence, and all of the family's possessions, including Harvey's large library, were lost. Harvey carried no insurance on the house, and after its destruction Anna went back to Chicago and returned to Arkansas only a few times thereafter for brief visits." Reference?
  • MOS breach WRT quotation punctuation: because it "fit the tongue attractively." Tony 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support - Other than any suggested cleanup above I have to say it is nice to see such a detailed article on a less prominante topic. Dalf | Talk 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I got very confused because the first footnote is numbered [2] in the text. I had to hunt around to find [1], which is in the infobox. Is there a way to fix that?

- Not that I am aware of. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Harvey's eccentric management is POV unless you source it to someone.

- Changed to simply "management syle. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Beaver Lake was not constructed, Beaver Dam was constructed.

-changed to created. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Although he was financially successful at silver mining in Colorado, Monte Ne seems to have been funded mostly by the sales of Harvey's writings - poor grammar. In this sentence, "Monte Ne" refers to the "he".

-Fixed. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Hotel Monte Ne, Missouri Row featured porches 575 feet (175 m) long. - I'm confused. Up to this point, I thought Hotel Monte Ne and Missouri Row were two different buildings. Am I confused?

-Inserted the word "both" to clarify that there are two buildings. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. He managed to raise enough money to finish its construction when the hotel opened finally there was no gala event, as there had been with Missouri Row. - this sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

-Changed to this: " Harvey managed to raise enough money to finish Oklahoma Row, but due to his lack of funds when that hotel finally opened there was no gala event, as there had been when Missouri Row was finished." --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The indoor pool was the first in Arkansas - citation needed.

-This fact was already cited once in the lead, I don't know the protocol so I went ahead and used the same citation again just for good measure. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Monte Ne also had the first golf course in Northwest Arkansas - citation needed.

-Changed to "Monte Ne also had the first golf course, which was built sometime before 1909" --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Figuring that the mountains were approximately 240 ft high, Harvey planned to construct a massive concrete obelisk and its capstone would remain above the debris - what debris?

-I beleive the previous sentence explained this, but I rephrased it anyway to say: "He believed that the mountains around Monte Ne would eventually crumble and fill the valley with silt and sediment. Figuring that the mountains were approximately 240 ft high, Harvey planned to construct a massive concrete obelisk and its capstone would remain above the debris."--The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In January 1929, he incorporated the Pyramid Association along with Lowell and H.L. Hardin of Kansas City - what does this mean?

-"In January 1929, Harvey along with Lowell and H.L. Hardin of Kansas City incorporated the project creating The Pyramid Association." --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. All that remains of the project is a retaining wall that remains under the waters of Beaver Lake most of the time - but according to one of the photos, the amphitheater still exists.

-The amphitheater wasn't technically part of the project. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In 1926, blood poisoning in his foot put him in a coma that lasted several days, surgery, and a three months of recuperation - terrible grammar. In fact, there's a lot of bad grammar, much of which I've fixed, but sentences like that just stand out like a sore thumb.

-Fixed --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Harvey returned to politics after the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression - since he died in 1935, he did not return to politics after "the ensuing Great Depression".

-Harvey returned to politics after the 1929 stock market crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. He decided to run for the presidency.--The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A resident of the area, Iris Armstrong opened up a girls' camp just east of the amphitheater in 1922. The Camp Joyzelle after the Maurice Maeterlinck play of the same name. - this makes no sense.

- She named it Camp Joyzelle after the Maurice Maeterlinck play of the same name. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the second phrase is not a sentence. Corvus cornix 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In 1955 Dallas Barrack, a Springdale antique dealer, bought Oklahoma Row, and renovated it into an antique store called the Palace Art Galleries. He carried some of the finest antiques in the area and the splendor of the old hotel only added to their value. - lots of POV there.

He was to have carried "some of the finest antiques in the area" and believed that "the splendor of the old hotel only adds to their value." This is cited so the quotes should be ok. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A new road was laid to the site where the tomb was placed on the crest of a hill donated by Harvey's longtime friends and neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Doescher. - "a new road was laid to the site" of the old tomb, or of the new tomb?

-There was only one tomb, the tomb was simply moved. Thats pretty clear from the preceding few sentences about the broken flatbed truck. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Corvus cornix 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear whether the new road was built to where the tomb was, or where it was moved to. Corvus cornix 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A new road was laid to the new site of Harvey's tomb. The tomb was placed on the crest of a hill donated by..." --The_stuart 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. alpha the books, by author.
  2. note_label the non-book entries. For example on how to do this, see "Indiana University (Bloomington)" article, Reference section, last three entries.
  3. alpha your note_label entries and place them, as a group, after the book entries.Rosiestephenson 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Egbert of Wessex

edit

Another Anglo-Saxon King, this time ninth century. Two for comparision: Ine of Wessex, who preceded Egbert by about 75 years, and Æthelbald of Mercia, whose reigns ends in the 750s. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you put some piece of information about his consort into either the box or the article? Or is it unknown? --HansHermans 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion on this on the talk page. The gist of it is that there is apparently a late manuscript that says something very obscure that has been interpreted in the past as referring to Egbert's consort, and which has apparently also been taken to refer to Redburga. None of the modern material I've looked at it even mentions this, and I strongly suspect this is outdated scholarship. I'd be more comfortable if I could find someone post-1950 who dismisses it in print, but I can't. So after some consultation with other editors I just cut it out (an earlier version had included her) as unreliable material. Mike Christie (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article mention that none of the primary documents tell of his consort? --HansHermans 04:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be not to do so, because there are a lot of things that the early sources leave out, and I don't see how we would choose what to include. For example, we don't know who his mother was, either; there are no sources for that. Is there some particular reason you feel his consort, or Redburga, is of interest? Mike Christie (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, just for consistency's purposes most royalty articles have details about the family. --HansHermans 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well-written and informative article. Karanacs 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Comment Overall, I really like this article. I do have a few concerns that should be pretty easy for you to address. Karanacs 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • Per the MOS, if you only know the date of death, use Name (died <date>); no question marks for the birth year.
    • Additional spellings of names should be in bold instead of italics, I think (see WP:MOSBIO)
    • Be consistent in dates; in one instance the article includes a comma after a date ("In the 780s, he"), while in subsequent instances there is no comma ("In 825 he")
  • Political context and early life section
    • The sentence on Charters in the first paragraph provides good information, but I don't think it flows that well. How about something along the lines of: ...Mercian overlordship. This is evidenced by Cynewulf's appearance on one of Offa's charters in 772. The charter, which granted land to Offa's followers or churchman, listed Cynewulf as the "King of the West Saxons. Although Cynewulf was defeated by Offa in battle in 799, he was not known to have acknowledged Offa as overlord. I would then make the next sentences a new paragraph.
    • I would try to incoporate the marginal note about the genealogy into the rest of the sentence: In 784, a new king of Kent, Ealhmund, appears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. According to a note in the margin, "this king Ealhmund was Egbert [of Wessex]'s father, Egbert was Aethlwulf's father."
    • I would shorten the sentence about Ealhmund in the next paragraph to read: "Ealhmund does not appear to have long survived in power; there is no record of his activities after 784." It's not incredibly important in this article where else he was mentioned after you establish that he is Egbert's father.
  • Please wikilink full dates.
  • There are several instances in the footnotes where the article references a website. Please make sure that a publisher is included (not just as part of the title)

Karanacs 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the bit about charters. A comment in a previous FAC led me to add a similar sentence to Æthelbald of Mercia#Mercian dominance. I would like to retain some explanatory material about the charters in some form -- most people won't know what they are. The sentence you cut -- "Charters, which were documents which granted land to followers or to churchmen, and which were witnessed by the kings who had power to grant the land, can provide evidence of overlordship if, for example, a king's appearance on a charter is as a subregulus, or 'subking'" -- also provides a contrast to the fact the Cynewulf is recorded as "King of the West Saxons", not as a subregulus, which helps clarify the lack of evidence that Offa was ever his overlord. Let me know what you think: I feel some of this should be there. Mike Christie (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if you just change the order of the sentences? After "Cynewulf appears as "King of the West Saxons" on a charter of Offa's in 772" put a full-stop, and then move the sentence about Charters just after it. That would make it flow a little better. Karanacs 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how that reads:
"Cynewulf appears as "King of the West Saxons" on a charter of Offa's in 772. Charters, which were documents which granted land to followers or to churchmen, and which were witnessed by the kings who had power to grant the land, can provide evidence of overlordship if, for example, a king's appearance on a charter is as a subregulus, or "subking". Cynewulf was defeated by Offa in battle in 779 at Bensington, but there is nothing else to suggest Cynewulf was not his own master, and he is not known to have acknowledged Offa as overlord."
The sequence of argument in my mind is that there are two pieces of evidence regarding Cynewulf's relations with Offa: he witnesses a charter of Offa's, though as king, not subregulus; and he lost a battle to Offa. The reason for the sequence as I have it is that I think the charter should be mentioned before the battle since that's chronological, and the battle should not be mentioned in between the charter and the explanation of what a charter is, since the explanation should come just when necessary. I also want to mention the charter and battle together, since I want to give the reader the two pieces of evidence in a clear way, without dividing them with an explanatory sentence. Those constraints force a particular sentence sequence. I've had a go at restructuring the sentence so the explanation flows better, but I've left it in place before the chronological information. Does that improve things? Mike Christie (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a lot better! Thanks! Karanacs 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a few fixesrecommended:
    • Consider unlinking years in the infobox.
    • In the infobox, "Æthelwulf" links 2 different pages
    • Put a citation for "the rival, not the overlord, of the Kentish kings" (even if it just means duplicating Kirby 165)
    • The paragraph on the three vs. thirteen confusion is unclear which is the error,and seems to start saying three is the error.
    • The Hwicce mention could use a bit of explanation. Its unclear for someone who is not very familiar with the topic whether they are a gang, faction, tribe or military division.
    • The repeated bit about Wulfred's coinage being stopped by Egbert feels clunkily disconnected: you don't expect it to come up after it's ben mentioned the first time.
  • Excellent work, as always. I can even hardly nitpick over the references. Circeus 00:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everything's taken care of -- see what you think of the clarifications I put in for the "iii vs. xiii" and the Hwicce issues. On Wulfred, I decided to take out the first reference to the termination of his coinage, and merge the additional information about the property being confiscated with the second mention of the coinage, so there's no repetition any more. It's the same data being referred to -- in the sources, they use it for slightly different deductions, but I think it only needs to be mentioned once. Thanks for the helpful comments (and the compliment!), and for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, clearer now that both are possibilities, but the current most agreed consensus is that "iii" is an error. Right? Circeus 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; and in fact it's stronger than that, as far as I can tell by scanning old books on Google Books; it seems the great majority of historians have settled on thirteen as the correct reading. Stenton's reputation is so high, though, that his dissent is worth noting, and there well may be others who have reservations about assuming the same error in every single version of the Chronicle. Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

edit

This is another article in my series on the major works of Mary Wollstonecraft. It is about her last, unfinished novel. The article has had an excellent peer review. Awadewit | talk 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Great article, I will support it as soon as the following has been addressed: "Focusing on the societal rather than the individual "wrongs of woman", Wollstonecraft's philosophical and gothic novel, which revolves around the story of a woman imprisoned in an insane asylum by her husband, criticizes the patriarchal institution of marriage in eighteenth-century Britain and the legal system that protected it." Calling the institution of marriage "patriarchal" is POV. The sentence should make clear that this is Wollstonecraft's view of things. And why not link patriarchal to patriarchy instead of a wiktionary entry? According to WP:MOSNUM: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Do you think the link to eighteenth century does this?--Carabinieri 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added "what she viewed as the patriarchal..."
  • I have linked to patriarchy - nice catch.
  • No, I don't think that the link to eighteenth century deepens understanding, but I have been told numerous times at FAC to link centuries in the lead. I'm honestly at a loss. That guideline seems particularly unclear, don't you think? I'll remove it for now, but I feel the presence of wikignomes just aching to link it again. :) Awadewit | talk 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the century is re-linked, I don't think that's a big deal. Congratulations on the great article. Support.--Carabinieri 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Titan (moon)

edit

With pleasure, a co-nom with User:Serendipodous on the unofficial ninth planet. I thought I was cheating in working on this one, because the article was already in good shape after the work of others, but we still needed two hundred odd edits to audit it—less for inaccuracies and more for stale information, given that direct observation is on-going. LEAD, Orbit and Rotation, Cryovolcanoes, Exploration, and Possible Life have all been expanded. Overall refs up by a third, with some weak ones dropped. In my amateur opinion, the somewhat difficult concepts related to atmosphere composition and so on are presented in understandable prose. Given a slew of papers on this body, there's a healthy proportion of journal refs cited in the article; there's some inconsistency in ref formatting (J. Smith v Smith, J. etc.) because of multiple editors, but that can be taken care of, where pointed out. And there's still a few to-dos in terms of content presentation, which I think an FAC will help with. A lot of good editors have worked on this, so we can hear from them at once. (And everyone keep it on your watchlist, because info will keep coming regarding Titan! :) Marskell 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Overall good, but there are a few issues before I can support the FA:

Support — On the basis that you've been actively addressing the additional concerns and I think it's essentially at VA-quality now. Thank you both for your hard work on this. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the radius is only known to within ± 2 km, is there really any need for two decimals of additional precision? Why not 2576 ± 2? Similarly for the density and mass. I.e. instead of 1.34520029 ± 0.00020155×1023, why not 1.3452 ± 0.0002×1023?
  • Some of the text seems oddly worded (e.g. "revealing of") and there are a few issues with the text here and there, but on the whole it appears close to ready.
  • Could the text explain Hadley cell and lineaments?
  • Some of the dates don't need to be wikilinked. E.g. April 30, 2006 (per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F).
  • You have a "citation needed" tag. Looks like more tags have been added.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RJ. I had intended to drop you a line about this one.
  • Dropped excess decimals.
  • Tweaked the one you noticed. Feel free to mention others.
  • Are the sentences following the mention of Hadley cell not sufficient? I'm not responsible for the para but it seems straightforward to me. Fair enough on lineaments; I unpacked it.
    • Yes, sorry I had only weakly connected the two. Serves me right for skimming the text. — RJH (talk)
  • Actually, MoS advises linking full dates, unless I'm reading it wrong.
    • Okay. I'm never sure which way the wind is leaning on that issue. Normally I only see full links in the citations — RJH (talk)
  • Forgot that. Reworked the paragraph.
Cheers, Marskell 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article has come a long way since the last time I read through it. However, I still think it has a little ways to go before it is a featured article. First, the climate section seems quite unbalanced, with two full paragraphs dedicated to the VIMS high altitude north polar cloud, but a much more limited discussion of the south polar cumulus clouds or the clouds seen elsewhere on Titan. The liquids section spends much of its time discussing the polar lake regions, but it is much more limited about river channels observed, not just by Huygens but by RADAR and VIMS as well. The obvious question a reader here will have is what does this distribution of fluvial/flood channel and lake/seas tell us about the overall climate of Titan. --Volcanopele 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to get this within the next day, Volcanopele. I have a paper to provide some balance in the clouds section. Marskell 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added another small para on clouds, which I hope partly answers your concerns. Marskell 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but there are still two paragraphs regarding the high-altitude, north polar clouds that VIMS saw last year. It makes it sound like they are distinct clouds when they are not (or at least they aren't two different types of clouds). It would really help to make the climate section more concise if those two paragraphs were combined. --Volcanopele 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Serendipodous 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel qualified to evaluate the article's scientific accuracy, but as an interested layman, I would like to see (a) a diagram of Titan's orbit, to show where it is in relation to Saturn, and (b) a section on Titan's sky, similar to the one in the article at Enceladus (moon)#Sky from Enceladus (I realize you wouldn't see much from the surface except orange smog, but info on the apparent size of Saturn and visibility of the rings from the upper atmosphere would be good). Otherwise this article looks great! Cop 663 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an orbit diagram, it's not very pretty though, maybe someone can do better. Rubble pile 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Not bad for the timebeing. Marskell 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good read so far - some points:

  • Needless to say, there are some [citation needed] tags that need to be verified or dropped before getting over the line.
  • 3 to 4 ratio? - I am more familiar with the colon here as in 3:4 ratio, the other looks odd to me but not a deal-breaker if everyone else is ok with it.
  • The prose is good but there are a few places where there is a "Scientists believe" or similar phrase, which would be good to steer away from if possible. I'm not sure how to do that stylistically - maybe the first person to come up iwth the particular idea and then to say that it was generally adopted or something but that would be ungainly...tricky to adress and not sure if possible.
  • Given these difficulties, the topic of life on Titan may be best described as an experiment for examining theories on conditions necessary prior to flourishing life's on Earth. - erm, not sure which thing "flourishing" is referring to. Also "before" is a little better than "prior to" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 11:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Overall Conditional Support if the cite tags can be addressed and maybe a couple of the "Scientists believe" type phrases or an explanation why it would be not feasible; I am an enthiusiast of solar system stuff, not an expert, but I'll defer to Volcanopele on that one and agree with his request. These are no biggies really and you've done a good job buffing the moon up. Nearly there. (PS: I took the liberty of tweaking a couple of straightforward thingies) OK, yer over the line though I do still find the opening phrases "Scientists have speculated that.." in Cryovolcanism and mountains and "Scientists believe that the atmosphere of early Earth..." in Prebiotic conditions and possible life irk me style-wise but they aren't deal-breakers. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — some observations:

  • Infobox is sparsely populated with citations. Every value, if it is not calculated, should have an inline citation;
  • It would be good if the section about atmosphere included a graph with temperature profile in (T,p) plane, which also should indicate altitudes, positions of cloud and haze layers, etc. Without such a graph it is difficult to read the article;
  • Cyanoacetylene is not a hydrocarbon;
  • In the same section two images of haze layers are virtually indistinguishable. I think only one image should be left;
  • The 'Clouds' subsection has two paragraphs about two different northern clouds. However I think they are one and the same. So the paragraphs should be merged;
  • The third paragraph in 'Surface features' section is uncited;
  • In the 'Dark terrain' subsection there is a strange phrase "The tidal winds cause sand dunes to build up in long parallel lines, with Titan's zonal winds aligning the dunes west-to-east.". I think zonal winds and tidal winds are the same winds, are not they?

To be continued. Ruslik 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruslik. Partially done:
  • Do see the first ref: "Unless otherwise specified: JPL HORIZONS solar system data and ephemeris computation service."
There are still no citations for albedo, temperature and composition. Ruslik 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With albedo, which wavelength? Never mind; found albedo on NASA factsheet. OK; they're reffed. Serendipodous 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide an example from another article of what that would like?
See Uranus (planet), section — Atmosphere. Ruslik 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shuffled it out of the bracket.
  • Fair enough. Left the true colour image.
  • I'm going to contact you directly about the clouds. I had been thinking the same thing; maybe you can help.
I can not find any publication about the second set of observatios. However latitudes of the clouds are the same. They were observed with the same instrument (VIMS) over a short time period. So at least the article should not state so categorically that they are different clouds. Ruslik 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that I was not alone in insisting on merging those two paragraphs. Ruslik 11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorporated that para into an earlier one and provided two refs.
  • I'll leave that one for the timebeing.
I actually meant that 'zonal winds' refers only to the direction. Whereas 'tidal winds' refers to the origin. They can be (and probably is) simultaniously zonal and tidal. So it is misleading to mention them as they were completle different. Ruslik 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Marskell 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik, Serendip merged the North Pole paras and I rendered the wording uncertain as to whether they are the same cloud. The sentence on winds was also tweaked. Marskell 14:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed dune formation explanation myself. Ruslik 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple of specific numbers and tweaked the wording. All that's left is graph you've asked for—it's not something I'm competent to perform, honestly. Marskell 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The longitudinal dunes exist on Earth, the phrase is intended to provide general explanaition of their formation. I changed the text accordinly. As to graph you try to find this [77] I am sure the necessary numbers are there. Ruslik 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the sort of thing you meant? I found it at JPL, so it's public. Serendipodous 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added this one. I had seen other graphs in image searches but they all seemed too esoteric to me. I think readers will be able to understand this one. I may crop it and reupload later. Is this sufficient Ruslik? Marskell 08:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Ok, now I support this article. Ruslik 08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Marskell 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Battle of Ramillies

edit

Would like to self-nominate this article for FA status. Thank you. Raymond Palmer 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has this: "(abandoned by the French the previous summer)". This needs rewording. Firstly, "summer" is an ambiguous time period, and it would clarify it greatly if a date or month was provided. (The Wikipedia audience is not exclusively made up of people who live in the temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere.)
The article also has long stretches of text in which the date is given without the year. I suggest that the year be mentioned more often, say with the first date in each section, and the first date with a different year to the preceding date. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There was only one change in year however, from the 'Background' section which dealt with 1705, to the 'Prelude' section which begins with 1706 (the year of the battle). This was clearly sated in the article. Thank you for your comments. Raymond Palmer 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead needs some work. It seems to me it does not cover adequately the whole article because it has two large paragraphs dealing with the background and prelude to the battle while only one small paragraph covers the actual battle and its aftermath. A second problem with the lead is prose, there are several unwieldy sentences which need to be rewritten. For instance The encounter was a resounding success for the Allies but it had come after a year of indecisive campaigning in 1705 where, unable to carry the momentum of victory following the success at the Battle of Blenheim, the Duke of Marlborough had been forced to abandon his position along the Moselle and cancel plans for an advance into the heart of France is a huge sentence. Sentences like this should be broken down. It might also be a good idea to avoid cramming to much detailed info on the lead so as to make it attractive for the average reader. --Victor12 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are these several unwiedly sentences in the lead that you have found fault with? Raymond Palmer 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad, the unwiedly adjective refers to just that really long sentence. Still I think the whole lead needs work per my other points. --Victor12 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The casualties for the French side are not as clear as the arcticle states. However, it is not a good idea to just write down the highest numbers one can find. For example, if we take a look in Chandlers "Marlborough as a Military commander" we find the following: "the Allies had inflicted at least 13,000 casualties on the French" (p.178) The same number can be found in some German and French publications. This would mean killed, wounded and captured. This differs large from the 23,000 the article mentions by now. Of course, it is no easy task to find out, which number is right, but a FA should at least tell its reader, that there are different statements about the casualties and it should also tell him, which author believes in what number. Everything else could be interpreted as too pro-English point of view. By the way I really consider it a great disadvantage of the article, that no French literature has been used. --Memnon335bc 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Memnon, but I think you’re wrong. You state:
For example, if we take a look in Chandlers "Marlborough as a Military commander" we find the following: "the Allies had inflicted at least 13,000 casualties on the French" (p.178) The same number can be found in some German and French publications. This would mean killed, wounded and captured.
You’ve misquoted Chandler. The 13,000 casualty figure from Chandler is the dead and wounded ONLY. It does not include the captured as you suggest. Chandler’s Marlborough as a Military commander Appendix A – 12,000 casualties AND 7,000 prisoners.
Or, Chandlers A guide to the Battlefields of Europe p.28 – Quote “18,000 casualties, including 6,000 prisoners”
Similarly with Chandler in the Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough or The Oxford History of the British Army. So Chandler certainly doesn’t say 13,000 INCLUDES prisoners.
Churchill also states 12,000 killed and wounded PLUS 6,000 captured. Marlborough His Life and Times Vol 3
I didn’t simply state the highest figure I could find as you suggest. If I had done that I would have use Correlli Barnett’s figures from Marlborough p.170 – 15,000 dead and wounded, AND 15,000 prisoners.
As stated in the ‘Notes’ No2, all casualty figures are taken from Falkner ie: 12,000 dead and wounded AND ‘up to 10,000 prisoners’. This was clarified in Note No3 with a near contemporary account from John Milner, Quote “John Milner, 17 years after the battle reckoned that 12,087 of Villeroi’s army were killed or wounded, with another 9,729 taken prisoner.” These figures approximate to Chandler, Churchill, Falkner etc
In fact, the French Wikipedia article puts the dead and wounded for the French army at 13,000. That’s 1,000 more than I stated I this article! I don’t think that’s evidence as being ‘too pro English’ regarding the casualty figures. The French article also states 6,000 prisoners. Therefore ~20,000 casualties. More or less what I put in the lead of English article.
The Dutch Wiki article: 6,500 dead, 5,300 wounded. Again ~12,000 (excl. prisoners) as I stated.
In summary therefore, we have about 12-13,000 dead and wounded PLUS 6-10,000 captured.
I have found Dupuy who puts the ‘dead and wounded’ at ‘about 8,000’ however. I could certainly add this to the notes and clarify as you suggest. Thankyou. Raymond Palmer 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you didn't get my point. Otherwise you wouldn't have written such a long answer. But thx for doing it - it indicates your proper knowledge. The case is quite simpleasIpointed ot before. If there are different sources which provide us with a wider range of possible casualties, one cannot simply chose one account, which one likes best. The only thing one should dois the explain,that there are different numbers and tell he reader what the range of them is. In a note there is room enough to go into more details. Everythng else cannot be neutral. (And only to comment this: A normal Field Commander seldomknew the actual strenght of his forces and in even less times the absolute number of casualties(only guessing), a 17 year old is therefor not a reliable source, and not at all for french dead and wounded, who were however not counted before buried ... Ah,and I quoted Chandlercorrectlyfor "casualties" always consist of dead, woundedn and prisoners, furthermore Chandler is in this book not talking about a higher number of prisoners, so they must be included in the number given before -althourgh I don't believe that either, it demonstrates how uncertain these numbers are)
By the way, this is all connected to the second problem I mentioned: No French or German author and no French or German literature on the battle in the article. (which would be also interesting concerning the French-Bavarian casualties) It is ok to write a normal article just with on-sided-literature. But a FA should provide a wider approach. So far I really miss that. --Memnon335bc 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I understood what you were saying. First though, let’s be crystal clear about Chandler. You quoted his book Marlborough as Military Commander. Please turn to the back of the book in Appendix A where he clearly states: 12,000 casualties AND 7,000 prisoners
Look at his book A Guide to the Battlefields of Europe, p20. I quote: ‘18,000 casualties including 6,000 prisoners’. Therefore 12,000 dead or wounded.
Or The Oxford History of the British Army. In his chapter entitled ‘The Great Captain General’ he states the Ramillies casualty figures for the French, I quote - “The French left 13,000 casualties on the field and A FURTHER 6,000 were taken prisoner besides all their cannon and camp”
Do you accept, therefore, that Chandler believes the casualty figures for the French at Ramillies is 12,000-13,000 dead and wounded PLUS 6,000-7,000 taken prisoner?
If you require a French source, try Voltaire,"One had fought nearly eight hours at Hochstedt (Blenheim), and one had killed nearly eight thousand men; but at the day of Ramillies, one did not kill two thousand five hundreds of them: it was a total rout: the French lost there twenty thousand men, the glory of the nation."Raymond Palmer 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted Chandler correctly, that's a fact. He may has written other things in other works, but that doesn't mean I quoted him wrong. But that is of no importance at all. While you are still struggling to find the "correct" numbers, you don't relise, that this is not the topic. There are different sources to this and the article should give them all. Right now it doesn't do that at all, instead it quotes some, that you may find proper. A 17 year old ist still no reliable source and an French source is also missing for the whole article. Voltaire was no military nor was he a military author, not even a contemporary - so far his "Histoire du siecle du Louis XIV." is not woth much. But there are quite a lot memoires of high ranking French officers (Puysegur for example or Quincy), which one could consult, not to mention a good number of German accounts. And this is not about the casualties only. The no-French, no-German sources is a problem of the whole article.
To make my point as clear as possible: There are many differnt numbers for the casualties. It is not ok to put up just one or two of them in an article. The highest casualty numbers must be mentioned as well as the highest! If it is necessary to write a whole paragraph on this, that's absolutely ok. But not in only in a note, which most readers wouldn't relise. AND I like to see there at least one source about the casualties from a French military writer (not of a philosopher), for it is unacceptable that the whole numbers base only on English writers. (about French losses - this is not even logic ...)
I hope you are not too angry now, but maybe you understand the basic problem: Too often in the English language Wikipedia (and literature in general) the topics are treated from the Anglo-American perspective only. I don't consider this to be an accaeptable niveau and so I see myself forced to demand a neutrality and this braod approach at least from the FA articles. --Memnon335bc 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I took a look in: Bernhard von Poten (Edt.): Handwörterbuch der gesamten Militärwissenschaften, Vol. 8, Leipzig 1880, p.81, s.v. Ramillies. There one can read: 13.000 dead, wounded and and prisoners, 50 cannons and 80 colors were lost by the French-Bavarian army .. just to indicate, that the range of possible casualtis is wide and should be treated this way ;-)
You misunderstood Chandler.
The French memoirs I used were Jean-Martin de la Colonie’s Chronicles of an Old Campaigner. He, like Millner (whose memoirs you dismiss as not reliable), was there, and actually fought in the battle. I will cite de al Colonie directly throughout the article and add him to the References (when I get the chance) to make it clearer his memoirs were used in the article. He gives no casualty figures, however, and it won’t substantially change the article – Voltaire (philosopher, essayist, Historian!) is correct, it was a rout. You perhaps think otherwise.
Despite your assumptions, I have not massaged/manipulated the French casualty figures (as you have implied) to suit some innate prejudice or to further extol Allied (and by association, English) glory. I was very careful which numbers I used and put in the infobox – considerably more careful than you yourself seem to have been with regards to Chandler.
John Lynn does not write from an ‘Anglo-American’ perspective. He writes from a French perspective. That is why he is very important – which is why I tend not to use Churchill to avoid accusations of Anglo-centric bias. So much for that theory!
Adding endless casualty sources would be nothing more than tinkering at the edges. Saint Simon in his Memoirs of Louis XIV called the battle a ‘Disaster’, Voltaire a ‘Rout’, or in the words of Marshal Villars from his memoirs it was – “The most shameful, humiliating and disastrous of routs.” If you think article is fundamentally flawed in it’s tone, and biased in it’s tenor, you should oppose it for FA status. I’ll cite de la Colonie throughout and add him to the sources, but that is the end of my contribution as far as I’m concerned. It’s time to move on. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
What you call tinkering at the edges is what I call scientific standart - and this is what one should expect from an FA article. I was very careful which numbers I used and put in the infobox - well, the fact I critsized is, that you DID chose numbers at all, no matter for what reason. I was asking for nothing more, than for you to add a paragraph, in which you discuss the differences of the various French casualty numbers instead of simply chose numbers. This would be scientific and exemplarily for other FA candites. You know the sources well, it shouldn't be any problem for you to do this and I could add the one or the other German source. That is all asked for from the beginning on and actually the only obstacle, which prevents me from suppoting the article to become FA (althrough I miss the German perspective in it). --Memnon335bc 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)
  • "Ramillies—Offus—Autre Eglise ridge-line"—Should be en dashes.
  • Bizarre ellipsis dots, and MOS says to space them from the adjacent characters. Try just ... that.
  • "To make quite sure that Orkney obeyed"—"quite" is idle.
  • "5 – 3"—MOS says unspaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- an excellent article on an important battle, this article is well-cited with compelling prose. The layout is quite nice, too. Good luck! Coemgenus 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine

edit

Support Self-nominated I hope you like this little piece. I admit that she's a minor figure but one, I think, of interest. DrKiernan 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another paragraph. DrKiernan 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to indicate more clearly that her birth name was Victoria Alberta Elisabeth Mathilde Marie? Perhaps use nee? At the moment with the numerous names in the lead it is slightly confusing.
  • It was the first indication that the disease was hereditary.[5] Is that the first indication that the disease of haemophilia was hereditary, or that the bleeding disorder in the royal family was hereditary? Need to make clearer.
  • In 1878, Victoria contracted diphtheria, Ella was swiftly moved out of her room—she was the only member of the family to escape the disease. I'm not entirely sure, but that sentence may need an "and" somewhere.

Recurring dreams 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made some clarifications. DrKiernan 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support. Recurring dreams 11:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- an excellent treatent of a minor, but notable royal. Good citations and a good flow to the text. Coemgenus 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DrKiernan 07:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Comment. I saw a few things that should probably be fixed. See below. Karanacs 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • what is "a serving officer"?
  • There are numerous instances where a comma is being used by itself to join two sentences together. These commas should either be converted to semicolons or periods or there needs to be a transition.
  • "Remarkable" seems a little POV when discussing her father's marriage
  • Should "war-years" have a hyphen? I don't think so, but I'm not sure if that is a Britishism.
  • Be consistent in your dashes; either offset them with spaces or don't; don't mix them.
  • "Incredibly," seems a little POV, or at least unencyclopedic, to me (in discussion of death of her sisters)
  • I believe there is an overuse of emdashes. Can some of these please be converted to either transitionary prose or multiple sentences?
  • In Legacy section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a fragment.

Thanks, Karanacs 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Amended all the above, except "remarkably". The marriage of a reigning monarch to a divorced commoner was very extraordinary at the time. DrKiernan 07:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I've changed my vote above. Karanacs 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Scotland national football team

edit

previous FAC

I probably hail from the wrong side of Hadrian's Wall to be nominating this, but here goes. This article had an FAC a couple of months back, which failed but had a number of useful comments. I've attempted to address the issues raised, and hopefully they have now been resolved. Oldelpaso 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*OpposeSupport Nothing about there crest. Buc 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small amount. As the crest is based upon national symbols of Scotland there's not that much to say; to go into much depth would involve regurgitating parts of Royal Standard of Scotland and other heraldry articles, and risk going off-topic. Oldelpaso 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok looks good now to be the first national football team article to gain featured status. Buc 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The players section seems very bare with only coverage of the current squad. A solution might be to copy the approach to this section in France national rugby union team, merging in the information from records. If there are some other notable players who do not technically hold a record, then they might deserve a mention - Archie Gemmill, perhaps? Or some members of the Scottish Sports Hall of Fame? Other notes: Selection committee and select committee in Managers - should both be selection? The 2nd para of the lead could happily be merged with the first, I think, so it's not a single-sentence paragraph? J.Winklethorpe talk 09:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, now I notice that Arsenal F.C. has the same approach to the players section, so I'll withdraw that. I'd say that the Arsenal F.C.#Statistics and records section is better expanded than the Scottish one, and it's written in a less bare style. Non-player records, such as attendance, might be a good addition. I prefer the Arsenal organisation of sections, with the table- and stat-heavy sections placed at the bottom. Also, no need to wikilink in the quote in Colours, per WP:MOSQUOTE. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the records section was a bit thin. I've added more material, but not members of the Scottish Sports Hall of Fame as it is not specified whether they were inducted for achievements at club level or international level. This might leave the section a little dry in tone; I've attempted to use the paragraph about the world record attendance to alleviate this. Organisation of sections is perhaps a matter of personal preference. I've moved the Colours section up, but I'm mindful of treating the lists like appendices. Oldelpaso 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail seems better. Colours is much better there now. I'd personally move Records to above players, but as you say, it's a matter of preference - it doesn't detract from the article. Oh, and I'd agree with The Rambling Man about the merge suggestion. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a few things to comment about before I'll support the promotion of the article. Watch this space...
    •   Done Clearly the merge suggestion has to be resolved, it looks likely to be speedy oppose as far as I'm concerned though.
    • Ensure all references comply with positioning per WP:CITE, e.g. [8].
      • Double check - [43] isn't quite right, there may be more...
    •   Done Citation of results in the lead isn't consistent - cite all or none (which is acceptable as long as they're expanded upon in the article and cited there).
    •   Done I don't like overwikilinking, say Dalglish in the infobox.
    •   Done I think that there's no need to have spaces in scorelines, so 11–0 instead of 11 – 0, check the infobox.
    •   Done Avoid text in parentheses, absorb it into the prose.
    •   Done Colours section has only a single citation.
    •   Done DoB - can we just use Date of birth?
    •   Done You can drop the century for year ranges, so 1960–1965 can be written 1960–65.
I think I've corrected all of those. No doubt you'll set me straight if I haven't. Oldelpaso 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for the moment, hopefully it's of use. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also doublechecked the ref positioning. Oldelpaso 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good work, well done. The Rambling Man 11:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm pleased to see that the issue I raised at the last FAN has been resolved. Thank you. Lurker (said · done) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. COME ON SCOTLAND! THOSE LITHUANIANS ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING DIVING CHEATS! No, seriously, it's well-written, well-referenced, neutral, and as far as I can see meets all the FA criteria. I skimmed over it and I didn't see anything that I'd find objectionable in terms of the featured article criteria.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as HisSpaceResearch says, I don't see anything objectionable. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Exosome complex

edit

This article was written recently with the intention of going to FAC. It has had (limited) peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Exosome (RNA degradation machinery)/archive1 and meets (in my opinion) the FAC criteria. It is a self nomination, but the article has been edited also by others during the last days, mainly fixing the last remaining spelling and stylistic errors.

Some remarks:

  • All images are GFDL, specifically made for the article
  • It is not as large as some FACs, but I think it has an appropriate length for the topic
  • The article contains no redlinks, for all redlinks I made at least an informative stub article
  • Article was embedded in Wikipedia by adding links to it in appropriate articles
  • References are all to scientific journals (most of which are peer-reviewed), including both review articles and research articles

Comments are welcome and will be addressed. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is mainly cosmetic, but maybe the title could be reined in a bit? It's a mouthful of a parenthetical. While I'm not a subject expert, looking at the article and the dab page, maybe renaming the article Exosome (complex) or Exosome (protein complex) or something similar would help. Essentially, something appropriate which is also as basic, memorable, and user-friendly as can be done. Girolamo Savonarola 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with you on that one, the current title (Exosome (RNA degradation machinery)) is too long. If no one objects, I'll move it to Exosome complex later. --08:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Done --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "That allowed the identification of more human exosome proteins and eventually the characterization of all components in the complex." - not clear what "that" is.
  2. "archaebacteria" and "archaeabacteria"- the correct term is archaea. Similarly "eubacteria" is wrong, now just called "bacteria". See link.
  3. "it is assumed these complexes are evolutionary related and have a common ancestor." - assumptions aren't evidence-based, "thought" might be a better word.
  4. "As the autobodies are mainly found in patients" - typo? autoantibodies?
Thank for your suggestions, they have been addressed [78] as follows:
  1. Reworded to: "Purfication of this "PM/Scl complex" allowed the identification of more human exosome proteins ..."
  2. All instances replaced with "archaea" and "bacteria", respectively
  3. Reworded to: "these complexes are thought to be evolutionary related"
  4. Technically nothing is wrong here, as autoantibodies are also antibodies, but I changed it to: "These autoantibodies are mainly found.." anyway for clarity
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you on proteins and genes, but unfortunately Wikipedia only contains articles about a minorty of all proteins. Links to external databases are one of the few ways to deal with it. I have just also added links to the yeast genome database, but if you have any other suggestion, let me know. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Yes Minister

edit
See original nomination discussion at: previous FAC

Renominating. The archive of the discussion from the previous nomination didn't make it clear to me that there was consensus for rejection. A year has elapsed since that process, and the objections given seem to have been answered. Worth giving it another look, because it really is a most informative, well-referenced article. CzechOut 00:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ticks all the boxes to me. My only concern is that the plot section is much bigger than the other sections which gives it an uneven feal. Theone00 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Very good article overall. I'm not going to follow Piotrus's line of argument, but I am going to ask for a few extra refs here and there.
  • The 2nd para of the lead has a serious run-on sentence, albeit written very elegantly.
  Done The JPStalk to me 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para of background – the statements about writers political views need sourcing.
  Done (removed the unsourced statements) The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you confirm if ref 4 supports the whole of the 1st para of Inspirations?
  Done The JPStalk to me 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally, I think the reference(s) for the last (now penultimate) para of inspirations need to be clearer.
  Done The JPStalk to me 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 needs fuller details if, as you say, they are published diaries
  Done The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para of Episodes seems a bit disconnected from rest of the section, and I’m not sure it really belongs there. Can’t suggest a better spot, though.
  Done The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: There are several remakes listed, and then “the official remake in Hindi (with the BBC's permission)”, could be taken to imply that the others are not official remakes. I’m not sure what’s involved in an official remake – presumably a licence and some money – but do the status of the others need to be clarified, and possibly referenced? “Possibly the latest remake” definitely needs a ref, because as written it sounds as if that fact is in dispute.
  Done Removed problematic word 'official', and removed the unsourced theatrical production. The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thick of It is clearly shown to be part of the Yes Minister legacy, but is there any reference for House of Cards? I don’t think you could list it as part of its legacy without its direct influence having been acknowledged by Michael Dobbs, or at least commented on by a reviewer.
  Done The JPStalk to me 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to discussion on any of these. J.Winklethorpe talk 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further CommentsSupport after reviewing new material.
  • "Hacker is shown at the declaration of his constituency result wearing a white rosette, with other candidates sporting red and blue rosettes." – I fear many will not understand the significance of this.
  Done Now explained a little. The JPStalk to me 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinks in quotes – a few days ago this was explicitly discouraged by the MOS. It has now been changed, albeit with a continuing, ahem, “discussion”. Personally I dislike the practice – quotes should be presented as is, without the article inferring any meaning to the words.
Oh, God. People do go out of their way to find things to argue about, don't they. I might leave it as is for now, then. (I assume we're talking about the newspaper quote? I think we can be confident that the links accurately infer the meaning). If it becomes the decisive factor at the end, then so be it. The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it gets changed back, then it's not an issue under the FA criteria.
  • “The series gained high audience figures, and 90+ on the audience appreciation index.” – as it’s a fairly obscure fact (I wouldn’t know where to go looking for it), a ref would be appreciated here.
  Done The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Reception is now well filled with good detail, can we lose the cat?
  Done I know who you are now. You're Cherie, aren't you? She always hated poor Humphrey. The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids J.Winklethorpe talk 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The title was probably suggested by Crossman's entry for 22 October 1964,” – I’m a bit bothered by that “probably”. If this comes from the Britain’s Best Sitcom ref, then it can be stated as a fact. If someone on the programme was speculating, then state it as their speculation. That way, there’s no doubt in the article.
  Done I've removed the quote. This was one of the things added by someone else (most of the uncited OR stuff was inherited) The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same applies to the “may” in “The reference in "A Diplomatic Incident" to opportunities for diplomacy at a "working funeral" (in light of his predecessor's death) may have been inspired by the discussions…”
  Done As aboveThe JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para in Inspirations doesn’t seem to lead in as well now that a new para is in front of it.
  Done The JPStalk to me 09:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In Yes Minister he is the Minister for the Ministry of Administrative Affairs” – in RL, this would be phrased simply “Minister for Administrative Affairs” (e.g. the current Minister for Women or Minister for the Olympics);
  Done The JPStalk to me 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the stuff in Characters is beyond simple summarising of the source material: “As he learns, and loses his initial callowness, he becomes more sly and cynical, and uses some of the Civil Service ruses himself.” “In many ways he represents both British snobbery and gentility. He is arrogant and elitist, often pompous, and he contemptuously regards his minister as intellectually inferior.” This level of interpretation of the character is at the point where I think they ought to be sourced.
  Done The JPStalk to me 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 17, 20, 21 have dates in the articles that can be added to the ref.
  Done 20 and 21, but confused by 17. The JPStalk to me 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I've no idea which one I meant, either. Probably just went mad. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Radio times refs could do with article titles, page nos, etc.
  • I’ve fixed some WP:DASH issues.
Ta The JPStalk to me

J.Winklethorpe talk 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the changes in characters, that's all the stuff that particularly concerned me fixed. On the assumption that the minor stuff will be looked at, I support. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you for your very thorough comments. The article has befitted from your advice. The JPStalk to me 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Red-tailed Black Cockatoo

edit

And now, after the Common Raven another sombre bird...the Red-tailed Black Cocky. I have worked on this until I feel it fulfils FA criteria. It is comprehensive, conforms to MOS, has a lead summarising the text and has had a a critique by good copyeditor. All images were taken by me or someone else who donated them themselves onto commons. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm not sure I like the way we have several species with different conservation statuses in the same article under a LC infobox indicator. I would be happy if that indicator were replaced with "varies" or "see below" but otherwise, and excellent article. ←BenB4 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've not seen that on other articles but I'll ferret around and see what the consensus is. Unless there is a consensus not to, I'll try to modify it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose→Changed to Support - Hi there Cas. I've come across a few problems, most of which are totally fixable. Overall the article looks great, but as I said, a few things need attention.
1) At the beginning of the second opening paragraph is the sentence "...males are large black cockatoos, 60 cm (24 inches) in length, with prominent red tail bands...". The "males are large black cockatoos" part is a bit weird - I get what it's trying to say, but is there another way to rephrase it? The way the female description is given below the above sentence is much better in my opinion.
2) The third opening paragraph is unsual - it jumps from a trivial sentence about the parrot being a mascot, then goes to something scientific. Considering that the mascot sentence is included in the "Symbolism & Folklore" section at them bottom, I would consider removing that part from the lead and merging the remainder into the second opening paragraph.
3) Again in the third paragraph, there is the sentence "Of the black cockatoos, the red-tailed black is the most adaptable to aviculture, though they are much rarer and much more expensive outside Australia." - This needs to be sourced as I can't find that exact statement in the article text and it is stating an opinion which needs backing and citing.
4) In the "Taxonomy and naming", (the last para of) "Relationship with humans", "Distribution and habitat" and especially in the "Description" sections, all have paragraphs which are very short. These either need to be expanded or merged into other paragraphs.
5) - "...it takes a bird approximately 18 months to moult and grow into its adult feathers..." in the "Description" section needs to be cited.
6) - In the "Symbolism and folklore" section, the article has text about the cockatoo being a mascot for the 2006 Commonwealth games in Melbourne. However, I fail to see how this relates to eiter symbolism or folklore. If this is to be included in this section it should state if it being a mascot symbolised anything for those games (EG, the dragon was the mascot X year for X sports event because the organisers wanted to show the event's fiery competition). Otherwise, it either needs to be removed or the section needs to be renamed.
7) - The caption to the picture in the "Aviculture" section reads "Female pet." Compared to the other captions, this lets the team down. It needs to be expanded.
  • Well that's it really. It's about 80-87% cited and seems to be in order in all other areas. I really hope you'll be able to fix these, but in the end, I think it'll be good for the article. Good luck and drop me a line when you feel you've completed some of the requests. Cheers Cas. :) Spawn Man 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done all but left one-line about Karak and Commonwealth games in lead. Am happy to see how consensus falls for that one. Also, renamed Symb. and folkl. to Cultural depictions -yeah I know it's unoriginal but it covers the two points. Strike away cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the "consensus" trump card, IE, I'll won't do anything until the end of the FAC when nobody cares... ;) Seriously though, I think the sentence should go; it distracts the reader away from the scientific nature of the opening and you've already got it at the end of the article. But anyway, went through your edits and all looks well now. I just found one more problem which needs attention before I support - At the end of the "Description" section, there's a paragraph which reads "Several calls have been recorded. The contact call is a rolling metallic krur-rr or kree which may carry long distances and is always given while flying. Other calls include a sharp alarm call, and a sequence of a soft growling followed a repetitive kred-kred-kred-kred given by displaying males." This is completely weird - if you didn't know you were reading about a bird, you could've sworn it was an alarm clock or phone article. The structure is grammatically incorrect, as it doesn't give a subject - You need to rewrite it and possibly start off the first sentence with something like "Several of the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo's calls have been recorded... etc etc" instead of just jumping in with what's already there. The article's looking much better now - Could you not find a source for the moulting sentence from 5)? Anyway, as I said, great work and once that's cleared up, I'll support. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(OK - I deleted teh line from the lead - it is pretty peripheral to the scheme of things and does sorta 'sit there' a bit. The ref on moulting was tricky and another definition/timeline was better - I think the first one was from before I did any edits on the article. The voices is doing my head in, now a bit better but a bit 'listy' that ok?)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - I thought you were talking about the voices in your head for a second there until I realised you meant the bird's calls (You did mean the bird's calls riight? Please tell you meant that...) ;) The article looks a lot better now thanks to my expertise ;) and as I said, I'll be able to support now. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support with some comments
Of the black cockatoos, the red-tailed black is the most adaptable to aviculture, though they are much rarer and much more expensive outside Australia. It is unclear whether this means that it is much rarer and expensive outside of Australia than it it, or if it means that of the black cockatoos outside of Australia it is the rarer and more expensive one.

(I mean the first meaning, however I am debating to tack on "than within it" as it looks a bit unwieldy. I am happy to wait what others think and if people feel the less ambiguity a better tradeoff than flow I'll put it in. I hadn't thought of the 2nd meaning to be honest)

You only give common names for three of the five subspecies, do the other two not have them?

(Most subspecies lack common names, it's just that 3 of these have been given names though most would just call them RTBCs - do you think that is worth highlighting? And I'm not sure of a reference which particularly spells that out but that almost all birdbooks just call them RTBCs with no mention of subspecific names)

Until now, most birds in captivity have been of subspecies C. b. banksii and C. b. samueli, though more members of subspecies C. b. macrorhynchus should become available. I can't pin down why that bothers me, but it reads more like a trade article than an Wikipedia article. "Stocks have run low in the past, but more are on the way!" That sort of thing.

(True - even though from a reliable source it is still speculative. It was made I think as the northenr subspecies is the most plentiful and wit the idea the harvesting plan may come about which hasn't actually happened. I'll remove it.)

More aviculturists are concerned about maintaining the integrity of the separate subspecies in cultivation, and so avoid crossbreeding. Not a hundred percent sure why this follows from the last sentence or what it really has to do with anything.

(As with many critters, crossbreeding was comonplace though subspecfic integrity is becoming more and more recognised - I'll see what I can do) Anyway, aprt from thos minor niggles, good work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You only give common names for three of the five subspecies, do the other two not have them?" - I was wondering about that too - would it be too much to ask for any names? I wont oppose if you can't, but it'd be great if we could... Spawn Man 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  • Under "Distribution and habitat", it says, It is widespread and abundant in a broad band across the northern half of the country with more isolated distribution in the south. It has even been considered an agricultural pest there. Where has it been considered an agricultural pest? Australia in general, just the northern section, or just the southern? Right now, it looks like it's saying that it is considered a pest in the southern half. (eek! well spotted and fixed)
  • The article uses both plural and singular when referring to "the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo" or "Red-tailed Black Cockatoos". It seems better to me to pick one and use it consistently. (A point worth raising but I'm looking and as it stands it is singular when talking about the specific entity, plural when talking about the birds as they are often gregarious, while singualr again when talking of mating display - I could change the last to plural then it is pretty consistently plural. I just played with it as all singular and I feel it was awkward. I'll see what I can do to make more plural - though I feel the flow of sentences is pretty good now)
  • In places, the article refers to "the birds" or "the bird". Is it normal to do this rather than saying "the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo" or "it"? (it just reminds me of the Hitchcock movie) (I was just "mixing it up" as Dave Navarro would say but it's no biggie)
  • Should the information in Aviculture about the egg hatching in 30 days and the eyes opening in 3 weeks, et cetera, be mentioned in the Reproduction section instead? Unless those times are particular to birds in captivity? (not at my house at the moment but the information came from observations of captive birds breeding so I guess it can't be strictly extrapolated to reporduction in the wild as such - which is why I left it there)

--Jude. 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well-referenced for a species that's not a household name and it covers all you'd expect. A few notes:

  • I'm not sure about the "General" and "Specific" titles in the References section. I'd have Notes and References separate, listing the General (book) sources under the latter.
(I'm not fussed how it goes as long as the headings relate to each other - I initially used cited texts and references as the books listed have the page numbers reffed in the other bit. It was all Circeus' idea....(shuffles feet and looks at ground) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you unpack "generic rather than infrageneric relationships were being examined." I assume these are the adjectival form of genus but they're specialized terms for most readers. Also, the article has just said it shares a genus with another bird, thus the line doesn't quite add up.
Sorry, what I meant was (and rephrase if you wish - the study was looking at an overview of cocky relationships between the groups, so they only bothered with one of the five black cockies of Calyptorhynchus as they are all clearly closely related. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cont'd. I'll note conditional support pending someone looking at ref formatting (they look good at a glance, but I don't have a great attention span; might ask Sandy to stop by). By and large this all seems good fine. A few more notes:

  • Audit for consistency in although / though. I prefer the former.
  • I'll be honest that I still don't get point two above... If they're comparing between groups why only choose one species? Put another way, is it groups within species (with this species as an example), species within the genus, or species/genera within the family? If either of the last two it doesn't make sense to me.
Within the cockatoos, the clearest thing is that the 5 black cockatoos are very closely related, but outside that there is/was conjecture about relationships, including between black and white cockatoos and within the white cockatoo genus, as well as the other odd ones. Thus, for convenience, they only tested the RTBC.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I've noticed in the prose is difficult comma lists. This is still in: "...in four scattered populations: in central coastal Western Australia from the Pilbara south to the northern Wheatbelt in the vicinity of Northam, and inland river courses in Central Australia, southwestern Queensland and the upper Darling River system in Western New South Wales." OK, I can work this out but it's more difficult than it should be. Semi-colon lists are often preferable, or simply break it up into two or three short declaratives. I've done that a couple of times with other sentences in the article.
Great, thanks.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused over: "In southwest Western Australia, both subspecies there [now: "both extant subspecies"] appear to have a north-south pattern; northwards after breeding in the case of subspecies naso, while movements by subspecies samueli in the wheatbelt can be irregular and unrelated to the seasons." Only one appears to have a north-south pattern, right? Marskell 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, both do but the latter can be irregular as well and follow no pattern...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Parapsychology

edit

previous FAC

(self nom) This article has gone a long way since it's last FA nomination and an even longer way since it was rewritten. This article meets all of the criteria to be a featured article and I believe it should be a featured article. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Ban Ki-moon

edit

After a month of steady work and a recent peer review, I feel this satisfies the featured article criteria. In some sense this is a "current event" as he's less than one year into a five-year term. Secretary-General (official UN style is capitalized and hyphenated) is not such a busy office that this will be "unstable." It will expand (I hope slowly) over the next five years, not unlike current U.S. Presidential Candidates that are FAs. Ban is not yet a subject of serious academic inquiry, but I have a subscription to Foreign Affairs, and will be monitoring this and other outlets for developments going forward. I will also be attending to the article closely over the course of this FAC (my first biography FAC, be gentle) and will strive to incorporate constructive criticism and guidance quickly. --JayHenry 07:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I must say I've looked it over and can't find much wrong. Great work. Recurring dreams 07:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything looks good to me - it's well-written, comprehensive, neutral and well-referenced. I've already made several minor edits, and added the Korean name infobox per WP:MOS-KO. Several minor points:
    • Under the "Personality" section: "Ban's work ethic is well-documented. His schedule is broken into five minute blocks." - two short, consecutive sentences. Perhaps they would be better combined into a single sentence?
    • In the "Campaign for Secretary-General" section, the opening line links to February 2006. I honestly don't know if we're supposed to link to such dates or not, so it either needs to be removed, or other such dates in the article should be similary linked. PC78 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PC78, I'm really happy someone from Wikiproject Korea was able to give the article a look! Thanks a lot! Both of your catches are good ones. Apparently we aren't supposed to link incomplete dates, only September 10, 2007 and such, because then a format setting in preference kicks in. Who knew! Fixed the first sentence you identified. Thanks again! --JayHenry 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These fixes needed:
  • Weak Support Maybe my standards for featured articles is a bit too high but shouldn't there be more citing & more analysis? I don't know. Well, I don't see stuffs going wrong on what's already there... so (Wikimachine 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Your standards might be a bit high if you feel that over 100 citations from 52 sources about someone who has been Secretary-General for nine months is too few. If there are areas that you think are weak, I'm happy to grab more sources. There's not much analysis because he hasn't been Secretary-General for long and no serious academic would consider that long enough to make an evaluation of his success, whereas analysis from a journalist would be obsolete in a month or two (although some journalistic analysis is included in the sourcing). I also wanted to give the article a concise framework so that over the next four years the article doesn't become 360K in size. Let me know, however, if you'd like to see anything done further and I'm happy to make the article more satisfactory to you. --JayHenry 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

The Power of Nightmares

edit

A controversial BBC documentary arguing that al-Qaeda doesn't exist. Has had a peer review with a rather small response, and recently was listed as a Good Article. I don't think there's much more information that can be found concerning the topic. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For an extremely controversial film dealing with an extremely controversial set of topics, I think that the criticism section is completely inadequate. The views and references presented are not at all exhaustive, as one would expect for an article with GA status, let alone FA status. I have not plumbed the depths of the media, and the internet, but I believe that there must be much more reaction to this film from a much wider range of critics than presented here. Have no sceptics groups weighed in? No people have criticized this as another conspiracy theory speculation? What about public reaction? Have we found all the media rebuttals? Somehow I am not convinced that this article covers the subject exhaustively. --Filll 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add, how many people have viewed this film in each country where it was shown on TV? Although a short comparison section with Fahrenheit 911 was included, there are no allusions in this article to other 911 conspiracy films, both professional and amateur (of course, these days with internet distribution, even an amateur production can have a very wide distribution). There are many other video productions in this category, including Loose Change and "Zeitgeist, the movie". This set of television programs can be viewed as just another film on this continuum of efforts to explain what is going on "behind the scenes" of a current complicated world situation. Surely there are some relations and connections between this film and the 911 conspiracy movement. Surely someone has noticed this, or commented on it.--Filll 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of searching. If you can find any more reliable sources with additional commentary, comparisons, and criticisms please bring them to my attention. I'll even run another Google search of "Power of Nightmares" conservative towards this end right now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find much else, if other reviewers were waiting for the word on that. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support couple small things but otherwise I think it's solid.

  • In the infobox, instead of the release date(s) and original run fields, the television template suggests first_aired and last_aired for miniseries, also link the dates per MOS:DATE.
  • Also in the infobox, preceded by and followed by is generally reserved for sequels and the like, if these are intrinsically related it's not mentioned in the articles.
  • Are the two first photos random examples of people from the given ideologies, or are they prominently featured in the film? Maybe make the caption a little more specific.
  • In paragraph three of the context section, "are both featured in the films to accuse..." and "appears in The Shadows in the Cave to comment on..." etc. read slightly ambiguously, they can be read to mean he's controlling what they're saying or they may or may not be implying such. I'd change the "to"s to "and"s, i.e., "Cahn and ... Brock are both featured in the films to accuse the Neo-Conservatives of..." and "appears in The Shadows in the Cave to and comments on..." Something like that. It could be read as inferring that they're pushing an agenda instead of reading NPOV.
  • Was awarded a British Academy of Film and Television Arts what?
  • I don't like the criticisms header, it means basically the same thing as critical response. Maybe controversy? They must have come up with something appropriate in one of the Michael Moore articles.

Doctor Sunshine talk 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Great work, by the way. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello again. I understand the film was released into the public domain at some point (and is available here). It would be good to add something about that. Also it would be nice to probably replace the current images with screenshots. Haven't actually seen the thing yet but I'll be watching it soon. Doctor Sunshine talk 09:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will probably have to wait until confirmation from the Beeb itself can be found. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it seems like everyone who's said it's public domain has assumed so because it's available at archive.org but this seems to contradict that. I withdraw my comment. You're right to wait. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the changes. I have now read the article more thoroughly and I still oppose on the following grounds:
          • The titles of the parts of the series in the section headings should be in quotation marks. (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Quotation_marks)
          • "When he returns to Egypt, he is disturbed by westernization under President Nasser and becomes convinced that in order to save society it must be completely restructured along the lines of Islamic law, although it still can utilise western technology." As far as I'm aware Sharia does not forbid the use of modern technology, so the contradiction implied by the word "although" does not exist.
          • The second paragraph of the "Part 1" section should make it clearer that the views depicted are those of the movie maker, not those of the Wikipedia article.
          • "The title of this episode is taken from a popular song which Qutb heard played at a church-organised dance for young people, which he saw as symptomatic of the immorality of American society." This statement is not sourced.
          • "After the American invasion of Afghanistan fails to uproot the alleged terrorist network, the Neo-Conservatives focus inwards, searching unsuccessfully for terrorist "sleeper cells" in America." Why is "sleeper cells" in quotation marks?
          • "The ideas and tactics also spread to the United Kingdom where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority." The ideas and tactics did not "spread" to the UK. The UK joined the US in the war on terrorism. The idea that Blair was simply "using" the threat should be explicitly attributed to the film.
          • "The title of this episode appears to refer to Plato's allegory of the cave, which is mentioned in the course of this part of the film, and to the belief in the complex in Tora Bora." Also unsourced.--Carabinieri 20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've done some work towards this, but some parts of the plot summary remain the same as I assume their presense in a "Synopsis" section disclaims it's the film's opinion. I even wrote it mostly present tense just to be safe. Perhaps the section should be retitled to further stress this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Technically, you're probably right, the section being titled "Synopsis" should be enough. However, I think with controversial topics like this it's better to be safe than sorry and attribute the more controversial views to the film explicitly. The section does use the word "alleged" or its derivatives repeatedly to do just this. If we are to assume the title of the section is enough to establish the fact that all opinions in it, are merely those of the filmmakers, then the word should be removed (except for one instance where it attributes a statement to neo-conservatives).--Carabinieri 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

edit

This article on a less covered military topic has just passed an A-class review by WPMILHIST, and it may well be ready for FA status. There is very little coherent comprehensive information available on the topic, so I've done the best with what there is. Would very much appreciate your consideration, and if this has to go round for a second FAC nomination after necessary changes, that's no problem. Buckshot06 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide sources for the detailed list of equipment? Thank you. Wandalstouring 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified: there was a note saying 'figures are from the IISS', now says 'figures below are from the IISS Military Balance 2007'. Buckshot06 07:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nick Dowling and I have now done some revisions. Buckshot06 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some examples of the "diction issues", please? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would it be possible to mark where you feel the first paragraphs are under-attributed? This is the introduction, after all, and many areas are ref'd in the sister paragraphes further on. Buckshot06 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Bob Meusel

edit

Self-nom a forgotten member of the famous New York Yankees teams of the 1920s, I expanded it from a simple stub. It still needs a copyedit, and I can't find much info on his after baseball career, and his early life though. I asked a few users to copyedit for me as I can't copyedit for my life. Everything else should be ok though. Thanks Secret wat's sup 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Support. Needs a copyedit. Sorry I didn't get to this (at your request) before nomination. Some of these points need to be addressed throughout. Overall, this is a possible promotion, but will need work. Slight reservation in my impression that it's ... kind of boring. But heck, sport is just not my thing. Who's your audience? Think about the types of reader you want to engage, and adjust accordingly. Try to make it interesting, especially at the top, where the numbers are hard to wade through.
    • MOS: nine/10 is the usual boundary for spelling out or digitising numbers. ("Eleven" in the opening sentence.)
    • "1920" and "1930" are good piped links, but "1920s" is in the category of trivial chronological link, and should be delinked.
    • MOS says not to insert "the year" before a year.
    • 6'3"—MOS says don't use those marks—spell out the main units. MOS says convert to metrics in parentheses. Worth reading MOS.
    • Commas often involve personal style decisions, but most people would want one after "1930 season".
    • Last para in lead is a very short sentence; it's awkward structurally. Can you remove it (presuming it's covered below) or expand into even a shortish para on that and related issues?
    • The section entitled "Personal life" contains a lot of professional information; isn't there anything more to say on his personal life?
    • Read MOS on lower-case in headings.
    • Do we need "New York Yankees" linked again and again? Same for other terms such as "hit for a cycle". There are so many valuable links in this article that we don't want to dilute them. Needs a complete audit to weed out the trivial and repeated links.
    • "69-85". Read MOS on en dashes.
    • "Passed away"? Oh come now, that's coy in an encyclopedic register: "died".

Last section:

"Meusel was best known for being a member of the Murderers' Row teams of the mid-1920s which included Ruth, Gehrig, second baseman Tony Lazzeri and center fielder Earle Combs. He shares the record for the most times hitting for the cycle with three, along with Babe Herman and John Reilly. Meusel was considered to have one of the strongest arms of the era. In his obituary, the New York Times called his throwing arm "deadly accurate".[1] Hall of Fame manager Casey Stengel said that he had never seen a better thrower than Bob Meusel.[1] Meusel occasionally played right field in Yankees games away from home to protect Ruth from the sun, as the sun affected Ruth's skill as an outfielder.[24] Meusel was characterized as a heavy drinker and womanizer who didn't get along with his teammates. His manager Miller Huggins called him "indifferent".[25] He was very quiet and reserved, rarely giving newspaper interviews until his career was winding down.[26] He was also known for his lazy attitude, such as refusing to run down ground balls, which many said kept him from achieving greatness.[27] Meusel was nominated for the Baseball Hall of Fame by its Veterans Committee in 1982 but lost to former Commissioner of Baseball, Albert Chandler, and former New York Giants shortstop, Travis Jackson, in the balloting.[28]"

    • "Best-known" (there's one in the lead, too).
    • Here, you must precede "which" with a comma, or it's an unintended subset of those teams.
    • There's a lot of vague attribution—"was known""was considered", "was characterized". If [25] is authoritative, just boldly make the statement. But does [25] cover both sentences or only the one? It's unclear. Consider otherwise naming the author of the reference "In his biography of Meusel, Blah claimed that he was a heavy drinker ...".
    • MOS says no contractions: "didn't". Tony 04:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very" is usually very redundant.
  • Tentative support - I like this article because it low key, direct and to the point. It is nicely laid out visually. If the problems Tony has identified are fixed I would wholeheartedly support it. Mattisse 15:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As far as I can tell, Tony's objections have been fixed. The article, directed at baseball fans, concisely covers the amount of information available. I don't know much about baseball but I found the content interesting and well presented. The editor has avoided POV statements despite it being an article on a sports figure, an unusual feat in my experience. Mattisse 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I did some copy editing but was not a "significant contrbutor". Mattisse 14:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Typhoon Pongsona

edit

It's been a while. I've worked on this article on and off for a while, now, and I think it's finally up to par for FA status. Comments are welcome. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, well-written and comprehensive. Appears to meet the FA criteria. However, I would reword "the eye became more defined" in the storm history to "better defined", since the previous paragraph established that Pongsona had begun forming an eye. --Coredesat 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, extremely well-written, great use of 31 references. However, I would recommend making Pongsona's retirement a section (as it is in many other articles) so one can find it easily. Also, redlinks look a little bad in such a great article. You might want to delink them for now. -- 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RattleMan (talk • contribs).
    • I took out two of the redlinks (leaving one, the National Meteorological Center of China, which could get an article). Regarding retirement, I'm not so sure I want a separate section for two sentences. It is mentioned in the lede, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - object in principle (not as a !vote). I'd like to see this FAC not pass on the merit of only two supports from WPTC users one of whom hardly does comment on FACs at all (no offence Rattle). – Chacor 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the article meets the explicit (i.e. bulleted) Featured article criteria I do not honestly think that it "features professional standards of writing and presentation". It could be a little smoother. For example, this sentence seems a little confused: "Additionally, President Bush authorized for disaster assistance for the Federated States of Micronesia". Furthermore, how much assistance did he authorize? Plasticup T/C 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These fixes needed:
  • "150 people on Rota sought shelter" – sentences shouldn't begin with numerals
  • Some measurements are missing non-breaking spaces.
  • "As the eyes of 6 typhoons had passed over" - 6 should be spelled out
  • A pdf source needs identifying
  • I think there is an overuse of the word "with" as an additive link, which makes the prose seem a bit sloppy, for example:
  • "the passage of Pongsona caused two destroyed homes, with seven receiving major damage"
  • "Nearly 29,000 individuals registered for disaster assistance, with the first assistance check arriving ten days after". Epbr123 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'm not thrilled with the prose.

  • "10-min winds"—what are they? 10-minute winds? Usually, abbreviated units are not hyphenated (ISO). Later, we have "1-min" in tiny font-size.
  • "Damage on the island totaled over $700 million (2002 USD, $800 million 2007 USD)"—What about "Damage on Guam exceeded $700M (equivalent to $800M in 2007)"? MOS says US-related articles don't need to specify US dollars.
  • Why italics for the first caption?
  • MOS says that you must spell out main units on first occurrence; thereafter, they may be abbreviated (as the conversions always are), but only with the consensus of the contributors. This applies to "min", too. Can you link it (it's unfamiliar)?
  • "Following the experience from previous typhoons, the Guam newspaper Pacific Daily News underwent great preparedness actions, including installing storm shutters, reinforcing the building, using three generators with a fuel tank installed after a previous typhoon, water supplies, and sufficient food supplies for the staff." Chop up this snake.
  • "inHg"—one word?
  • "et. al"—Nope, the dot goes after "al". Tony 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for getting around to it (I can see why you weren't thrilled). First, I got the et al.'s (stupid mistake). I wikilinked inHg, and spelled out mbar on its first occurrence. The snake was chopped. I wrote out the main units upon first usage (think I got all of them). The first image caption has italics because that is integrated into the hurricane infobox, so it's not something I can change for the article. I disagree with you regarding the damage total; not everyone knows Guam is a part of the United States and that is uses USD, and additionally that format has become standard on tropical cyclone articles. I linked the first 10-min winds (linking minute), and made that and other 10-min or 1-min small in parenthesis. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Thanks for improving it, but it's easy to find bad writing, at this late stage. Can you bring on board others with fresh eyes?
    • "One-hundred fifty people on Rota sought shelter, and in Saipan 549 people were in shelters ..."—Why not express both consistently, thus allowing numerals: "On Rota, 159 people sought shelter, and in Saipan, 549 were in shelters ..."
    • "Several schools opened classrooms as evacuation centers, as well." Remove the last two words, which are inelegant and redundant.
    • "The Guam office of civil defense filed the necessary paperwork for Federal Emergency Management Agency to declare the island as a disaster area. Governor Carl T.C. Gutierrez also took similar measures to declare a state of emergency for the area." Remove "necessary" and "as", and add "the" before "Federal". "Also" is wrong—you haven't just told us what the governor did to be adding to it now. Just remove it.
    • "Following the experience from previous typhoons, the Guam newspaper Pacific Daily News underwent great preparedness actions to provide internet updates"—Yuck: "great preparedness actions"? Remove "the". This is not good enough.
    • Yuck indeed. I was disappointed when I copyedited it again (my eyes are fresh after not looking at for over a month), but I believe I fixed the examples of bad writing. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, will support once these issues have been taken care of:
    • "The name "Pongsona" was contributed by North Korea and is the Korean name for the garden balsam." What does "contributed" mean here? Does it mean "suggested"?
    • "Considered by some to be the worst typhoon to have struck Guam [...]" Weasel word.
    • "The Guam office of civil defense filed the paperwork for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to declare the island a disaster area." Shouldn't "office of civil defense" be capitalized?
    • "Communications on the island failed due to the winds;[19] the entire island was left without power and phone service." For how long?
    • "With thirteen Red Cross shelters across Guam,[27] most remained in shelters for about three weeks before disaster tents were distributed." Red Cross links to the international movement. Are you sure it wasn't the American Red Cross?--Carabinieri 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, delegates from North Korea provided the name Pongsona to the list of Pacific typhoon names. Next, I removed "by some", as it still holds true. Got the third thing. For the fourth item, the source does not say how long, and I couldn't find another source that says exactly how long areas experienced power outages. Should I add temporarily before "without power"? Lastly, yea, my bad. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I'd change it to "added to the list of Pacific typhoon names by North Korea" or something similar, since as it is, it's kind of hard to understand. The sentence in point two is still weasly. In what sense was the storm the worst? Material damage? Injuries?--Carabinieri 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree for the first point, as it goes against the typhoon article standards. Also, the second point is not weasly at all. From the National Weather Service Assessment of the typhoon, "Super Typhoon Pongsona was one of the worst typhoons to ever strike the island of Guam." Shortly after that in the same document, "Since such a large portion of the population experienced the worst part of the storm, there was a perception this was the worst typhoon to ever strike Guam." It is the Public Domain words of the National Weather Service, not mine, that refer the typhoon as the worst on the island. Furthermore, the article already lists that Pongsona was among the most intense and costliest to strike Guam. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the weather service explains why it was the worst: it was in the top three for intensity, and the top five for material damage. "Considered the worst typhoon to have struck Guam" sounds like this is a widespread scientific or somehow informed view, which definately is not the case, this was just public perception, the article needs to make both points clearer. As to the first point, I don't know if very many readers will be aware that there is a list of typhoon names, which countries add names to. If you don't know this, I think the sentence is pretty hard to understand.--Carabinieri 11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article does make it pretty clear. When that statement appears in the article (4th paragraph of Guam impact), it is after other statistics on the typhoon (among the most intense and costliest). However, I'll agree with you on the second point, and I linked the Lists of tropical cyclone names in the lede. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pongsona is not "[c]considered the worst typhoon to have struck Guam" by the National Weather Service for example. It states that there were several typhoos that were intense and costlier. It was merely perceived by the public as being worse according to the NWS. The lead currently reads as if experts or whoever thought it was the worst.--Carabinieri 16:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you win. I removed that statement from the lede. Are there any other objections? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I didn't think of this as a competition, thanks. Support.--Carabinieri 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS says for US-related articles, just the dollar sign is enough. Please remove "USD" throughout, and don't link it (MOS).
  • "thiry-eighth" and "ten", yet tons of numericalised values. See MOS.
  • MOS breach in the abbreviations and spellings out of units and conversions; they're not even consistently wrong. Please consult MOS. Tony 11:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I am opting to ignore the MOS for this one, as not every one knows Guam and other places are US territories and because the values are inflated. Secondly, could you be a little more specific with your objections? I changed thirty-eighth to 38th, and changed 10 to ten. Are there any more serious objections that are preventing this from becoming an FA? I am getting a little annoyed how long this is taking. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The boundary is nine/10, not ten/11. Remove "USD" (MOS). 71-year-old woman". First caption inadequate. Shouldn't have to hit the info page to know who produced the pathway of the storm, what the colours mean, and the sample frequency (i.e., 6 hrs per dot?). That's basic to understanding it. 22 feet is ... how many metres? Is 1 m really closest to 4 ft? Sorry to harp on, but measurements are central to this topic. Tony 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is ridiculous. This has been on FAC for 30 some days, and you're still objecting to missing measurements and MOS oddities. For what it's worth, I added the number of meters of 22 feet, and yes, 4 feet (the original number) is 1.2 m, which is closer to 1 m when using 1 significant figure (based on the original measurement). However, I'd like to remind that FA's are not perfect; even if they have the star, there will always be things that can be added (hence being part of a Wiki). So, if this needs to be "perfect" to become an FA, and by being "perfect" I mean omitting USD's (which should be kept for inflation numbers and because not everyone knows it's a US article), changing the caption (which is a template used in 400 odd storm articles, of which 29 are featured articles), and whatever else you can think of, then should I just withdraw it? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Shouldn't have to hit the info page to know who produced the pathway of the storm, what the colours mean, and the sample frequency (i.e., 6 hrs per dot?)" - um, that's what the image pages are for: to provide attribution and expanded information. I would object to expanding the caption, as it is not necessary. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Kingdom Hearts (series)

edit

Myself and other editors have been cleaning up and expanding this article to get it up to FA. It is the main article of the Kingdom Hearts FT and we would appreciate any comments or suggestions that could improve the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Co-nom/Support - I was the main pusher for all of the KH game articles. Greg Jones II 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I feel that the lead could be expanded. By itself, it's supposed to summarise the whole article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been expanded a bit more and additional content will be added later. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments It's a shame the peer review didn't receive any other comments.
    • The lead should summarize the entire article, and I'm not entirely sure it does so at the moment; I think it could be expanded. I still think the lead is unclear in describing the games as a blend of Disney and Final Fantasy characters. Why not just say so, instead of using the word "universes"? "Kingdom Hearts is a crossover of universes from The Walt Disney Company set in a universe made specifically for the series" is still confusing, IMO.
    • The prose could definitely polished: repetitive phrases/words in the same sentence ("Various added elements foreshadowed later plot elements in the series.") or across sentences; simple grammar errors ("The three eventually discover that a man named Ansem, is the true antagonist and is attempting to open the door Kingdom Hearts.", "different Disney themed worlds", "Despite the being numbered 'two'", "According to Nomura, it will be a whole new series and stated,"); and sudden changes in tense ("Naminé puts Sora, Donald, and Goofy to sleep for a year. While the three were ascending to the top floor of the castle...", "Reception towards the first playable mission pack is mixed. The game was criticized...") mar the article. These are just examples; there are many more throughout the text. Please make sure to go through and copyedit/proofread the entire article.
      • This needs to be fixed up ASAP. Greg Jones II 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of these have been taken care of. More of it plans to be addressed shortly. Some of it I don't believe is an issue, like "different Disney themed worlds", the word "themed" in "Disney themed" is being used as an adverb, not really as a past tense verb. Though rereading it I'm not sure if a hyphen should be between Disney and themed or not. Also, the I didn't find the use of "various added elements" too much in the article, could you elaborate more on that point? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
        • I believe the verb tense issue has been taken care of, let us know if there are any we missed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Finally, some sentences throughout the article are missing context. For example, in Development: "The idea for Kingdom Hearts came about when Shinji Hashimoto met with a Disney executive in an elevator; Square and Disney had previously worked in the same building in Japan." OK, so? First of all, when was this? Second, what did they talk about? Reading the very next sentence, one gets a sense that something was skipped. What happened during development? How did the game go from genesis to release? Sentences should flow into one another, but the first paragraph of Development is composed of sentences with no logical order. A good article reads like story (but isn't written like a story — there's a difference), but much of this article reads like a bunch of facts grouped together.
    • Per MOS, full dates should be linked to allow date preferences to work. 69.202.63.165 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This line bothers me: Kingdom Hearts II and Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+ have unlockable teasers that hint at the potential plot of a future installment in the series. This statment doesn't seem to be supported by the ref (which is about the characters shown) and seems like original observation. hbdragon88 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support please comment or fix the following:
  • Many of the web references could include author and date information. It is advisable to do this wherever possible. Ideally, the reference should be descriptive enough to make it possible to trace an online article without making use of the internet. For example, by writing to Joystiq about the article "More Kingdom Hearts in 2006" written by Ross Miller on 20 December 2006. This is not required, but would increase the quality of the article. Ref 38 does not include accessdate information, too. This is required.
  • In the lead, a game cannot be "critically and commercially successful". It can be critically acclaimed though.
User:Krator (t c) 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments have been addressed. I believe I added the appropriate missing information to the references. The lead was also tweaked. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

European Commission

edit

This article has been GA for a while now and I believe it should be of FA quality after changes in response to points raised by the GA reviewer. If there are any problems with this I am here to fix them ASAP. - J Logan t: 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 Should that line in the 'powers and functions' paragraph read: 'executive power in the EU has been DEVOLVED TO(?) to the Commission by the Council and may be withdrawn? Confered seems to imply a relationship the opposition of which exists. Buckshot06 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think devolved it a good word. The exact words of the treaty are that "The Council confers on the Commission". It is kind of like the UK PM drawing power from the Queen, the latter holds it and confers it upon the former, but may withdraw it. I'll see if I can clarify that a bit though.- J Logan t: 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support Support: After reading through the article closely, I feel it covers all relevant areas of the Commission to an appropriate extent. I found a few minor errors in the prose, which I corrected myself, but in general the text flows well and is understandable. However, I did find a few areas where the text was composed of short sentences which could be linked together - the lack of flow in these areas was noticeably different from the rest of the article. If these could be smoothed out a bit, then I would be happy that the whole article was of good quality. Rossenglish 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objections have now been sorted out, I support the FAC. Rossenglish 10:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - J Logan t: 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleared up the see also, the EFTA SUrveillance Authority is a similar body for EFTA. On the first one, I would if I could find a chart to base one on. It is very complex and I couldn't possibly build one from scratch. I'll keep looking but I can't find one for the Commission. - J Logan t: 07:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters

edit

This is another article in my running series on the major works of Mary Wollstonecraft. This article is about her first published work, a conduct book. The page has had several very helpful peer reviews from people unfamiliar with the material ("lay readers", if you will) who addressed accessibility issues as well as prose issues: see here and here. Awadewit | talk 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you mysterious 165.173.137.96. Awadewit | talk 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the hope of providing a constructive comment about this article... as I read, I added an in-sentence attribution to this text: "However, by envisioning a masculine role for women, one that they could not actually perform in the public sphere, Wollstonecraft leaves women without much of a place in society; the picture Wollstonecraft drew of the role for women was ultimately confining and limiting.[13]"... then reverted myself when I read on the peer review page that the attribution of this view had already been discussed. If the P-reviewer and I independently find this passage a bit surprising, it must mean something. :) I find that the "confining and limiting" description comes across as the article's voice, not just a continuation of Kelly's argument. If, as you said in the PR, this argument is not solely Kelly's, I suggest that the reader be better prepared for it—for example, by adding to the lead. –Outriggr ♠ 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An interesting article, accessible to someone with only an amateur interest in Wollstonecraft's works. I have a few minor points for consideration.
    • Treatment of the book itself could be expanded, and might be improved with a few more direct quotations from the source. More comparisons of Thoughts with contemporary conduct manuals would be interesting.
    • Biographical background should perhaps attempt (if sources can be found) to link Wollstonecraft's background with the advice given in Thoughts
    • Suggest moving the image of Wollstonecraft to illustrate Biography section
    • Overview -- 18th century attitude to breastfeeding could do with a reference
    • Themes: Education of women -- several points seem to need references
    • Quite a few red links -- can stubs be started?
    • I don't know what the policy is here, but the US spelling feels very odd for an English author.
      • Since writing in AE is easiest for me, that is what I do. Also, since I am the primary contributor for this article (I don't even know if anyone else watches the page), it is easier to keep it in AE so that I can revise and add material without hunting for someone to fix the spelling, syntax, and diction every single time. Plenty of Wollstonecraft scholarship is written in AE! :) Awadewit | talk 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article does an excellent job of introducing a little known work, placing it in the context of Wollstonecraft's thought and the history of the conduct book. In particular, the article successfully explains the contradictions of the piece and the scholarly issues surrounding it. Many congratulations to the editor, whose sequence of articles on Wollstonecraft is, in my opinion, an invaluable asset to Wikipedia.
I have jotted a string of comments and queries on my notepad, but since none of them affect my support for the article, I'll add them to the article talk page rather than clog this page up.qp10qp 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming you can fix most of the below minor and relatively easy issues.
    • What is the correct capitalization, anyway? TotEoD as in the article title, or Toteod, as in the first sentence? We should probably pick one...
      • The capitalization is not clear from the title page of TED. When the title is shortened, it is usually written as Thoughts on the Education of Daughters and when it is written out, it is usually written Thoughts on the education of daughters: with reflections on female conduct, in the more important duties of life. Let me know what to do. Awadewit | talk 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article makes a big deal about religion, and that Wollstonecraft herself was associated with Dissenters, but doesn't give a name to the specific religion addressed in the book. In other words, what is the specific religion it advocates so much? Any religion will do? Unitarian universalism? Christianity in general? Protestantism? Clearly not Deism ... Anglicanism?
      • "Dissenters" is an umbrella term for Baptists, Presbyterians, Calvinists, Unitarians, Quakers, Arians, Socinians, and others who did not conform to Anglicanism at this time. However, it excludes Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. To specify any particular denomination would be historically inaccurate - this is the term used at the time and in all of the scholarship. (I know the Dissenters page is not very good - it is on my list of things to do.) Should I say "religious Dissenters who did not conform to the established Anglican church, most of whom were Protestant"? (I worry about adding the last phrase, though.). Awadewit | talk 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand all that about Dissenters, my questions is, when the book refers to religion, how does the book refer to it? Does it say "Church of England" or "Christianity" or merely "Religion" or "God"? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The language of the text itself is vague, but, of course, no one would have thought to identify "God" as "the Christian God" - it would have seemed unnecessary at the time. The general tone of the religious language and recommendations like observing the Sabbath would have identified the book as tilting toward Dissenting theology for readers, but again, none of this needed to be stated for readers - it was all understood. Awadewit | talk 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice the "conduct book" section of this article is longer, more thorough, and generally better than the entire conduct book article. Any chance you could copy and paste it there as well, possibly with minor tweaking? Not required for this article, of course, just for the general health of the Wikipedia.
      • Another article on my list of things to do. I'm a little uncomfortable pasting this section, even tweaked, into the article, because I have tailored it for this article. It would skew the conduct book article too much towards late eighteenth-century Britain, I think. Awadewit | talk 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • potboiler could use a wikilink
    • The Modern reprints section links to Wollstonecraft 4 times
    • meanwhile the Eighteenth Century Collections Online line has a Retrieved on date, but no link. Preferably add the link, if you can't, second best is to remove the retrieved on date.
    • Not sure why the BBC external link is needed; it's about Wollstonecraft in general, not this book in particular, right? Is it used as a reference?

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Superlatively clear, well written, and complete. I particularly like the way that context is provided for the material without its interrupting the flow of the article. Well done, Awadewit! :) Willow 12:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

edit

I was asked to revisit my decision to fail this nomination. Since the bot has already gone through and archived it, it's easiest to start a new nomination. (previous FAC) Raul654 21:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per previous FAC nom — BQZip01 — talk 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Folks at 137 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some minor queries I'd like addressed though - sorry I didn't get to this at an earlier review:
    • The line His parents were quoted as having a "strong intellectual and clerical tradition," reads oddly to me. Are we implying that his parents said that they had a "strong intellectual and clerical tradition" or did someone (possible ABC himself) say that? If the latter it should read His parents were described as having a "strong intellectual and clerical tradition," or something like that. Added your text in.
    • Similarly, By the end of his course he was quoted in his memoirs as being "anxious to seek adventure at sea". Do we mean He said in his memoirs that by the end of his course he was "anxious to seek adventure at sea".? Think the latter reads better... It does and so i have added it in.
    • I'd prefer to see a citation for He accepted this shore job with reluctance since he loathed administration, as we're ascribing a strong feeling or opinion to the man. Referenced the whole paragaph now.
    • Also found a couple of very minor style or grammatical inconsistencies which I might take the liberty of just editing in the article itself. However overall this looks a very worthy piece of work. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the fixes that you have done so far. Woodym555 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

2005 Texas Longhorn football team

edit

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as nominator. Per SandyGeorgia's pointers, I went back through and addressed formatting issues. I also expanded some of the game summaries based upon an earlier request. In case anyone is interested in checking the length, the readable prose of this article is still less than 50 kilobytes. I look forward to new reviews. Johntex\talk 05:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatically Support All issues well-addressed/discussed. As much as this pains an Aggie to say, this is one of the best sports-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Excellent work Johntex!!! (those comments remaining were leftover form the previous discussion and I wanted to make sure my responses were posted). — BQZip01 — talk 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by — BQZip01 — talk

Below are excerpts from the previous review. I still Oppose, for now, but I will be deleting vast sections of this review that have been addressed (Hopefully Raul won't delete my comments again) and crossing off all those that were not addressed at the time of deletion. I also expect to have my mind changed in the near future...

General Problems

  • Make sure ALL full dates comply with WP:DATE (problems primarily in the references)
  •   Done - I have gone through to see that all the dates are formatted correctly. Since there are so many references, there were lots to check. I will make a second pass later to double-check. Johntex\talk 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before the season
  • "At the start of the 2005 season, the Longhorns were one of the most victorious programs in college football history as measured by number of wins (third at 787) and by winning percentage (fourth at 71%)." The prose doesn't flow well with the parenthesis. I'm not saying this isn't done IAW WP:MOS, but it doesn't seem to be "brilliant" prose. The fact that they are 3rd or 4th seems irrelevant as are the actual metrics. 71% and 787 wins mean NOTHING when there is no context. Is #1 71.3%? Is #6 40%? These facts have no basis for comparison making them awkward metrics for success.
  • Reply: The fact that they are 3rd and 4th is completely relevant. The point is to show that they were one of the top 3 or 4 teams by these two different metrics. If I left out the percentages and the number of wins then the reader would naturally wonder "what percentage does it take to be 4th?" or "How many wins do they have?". I could certainly list how many percentage points and wins they were off the #1 team, but I think that would be veering too much into information about other teams. The reference is provided if the reader wishes to learn more. Johntex\talk 07:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me make sure I am understanding. Are you suggesting we say simply, "At the start of the 2005 season, the Longhorns were one of the most victorious programs in college football history as measured by number of wins and by winning percentage."? I guess I could live with that, although I like the original version better because it is more informative. I guess we could say "...one of the four most victorious..."? That might be a good compromise between smooth and informative. - Johntex\talk 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State

  • "This meeting was the first match-up between two programs that rank among the oldest and best known teams in college football." Other programs that are old and well known have also met. Please rephrase.
  • This actually looks even worse. All that seemed to be needed was clarification that this wasn't the first matchup between any two powerhouse programs, but "between these two powerhouse..." Additionally, if you really want to go with this, please rephrase and tweak this and since "most storied" is a quote (???), it should be annotated accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma

  • "The game typically has conference or even national significance." The games between the two always have conference implications because they are in the same conference.
  • Reply - Yes, but Baylor and Kansas play in the same conference and the outcome of that game rarely decides who is going to win the conference. The same is true of Baylor and Oklahoma State or Oklahoma State and Kansas, etc. The paragraph goes on to explain how often Texas would have won the south division of the conference had they not lost to O-who. Johntex\talk 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I changed it to "The game frequently has implications for the conference and national championship races." The paragraph already explains how the game relates to the conference championship race (with references). At the end of the paragraph, I added "One of these two teams appeared in four of nine BCS national championship games from 1989–2007.[92]" How's that look to you? Johntex\talk 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*"Texas won They ended up winning the game by 33 points,[92] tying the biggest margin of victory for the Longhorns (a 40–7 victory in 1941) (his historical reference is not needed; should you choose to keep it, replace the () with commas) in the history of the rivalry."
  • Sorry, I acted on the second part of your comment (removing the parentheses) and failed to act on the first part. The first part should be fixed now. I think the historical reference is useful to help keep UT's accomplishment in perspective. Despite the significant things this team accomplished, getting the largest point-spread in the Red River Shootout is not one of them. OU still holds that record. Johntex\talk 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado

*"Vince Young had perhaps ("perhaps" he didn't?) the best statistical performance of his career...rushing and 3 rushing TD's." "TDs doesn't need an apostrophe and I still think "TD" is too informal for encyclopedic prose. If it is used in a quote, no problem, but as-is is too informal.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Winfield Scott Hancock

edit

This is a self-nomination, I guess, although the article was already rated GA when I started working on it. I added material on his pre-war and post-war life, including his 1880 candidacy for President of the United States. Article is well-written and well-cited. Coemgenus 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- well written, encyclopedic, and informative--Southern Texas 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, informative, all together good. I've reviewed this article and am confident it is deserving of FA status. JCO312 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very thorough, well-written, well-referenced and coherently organised, great job --Brent Ward 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the whole I concur that this is a well-written article. There are a few minor MOS issues that I would like to see addressed, however. Karanacs 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • per WP:MOS, you don't have to use brackets around the first letter of a quote if you change its case. (Just an FYI, it doesn't say you can't, I don't think).   Done
    • Need a citation for him being named after General Winfield Scott. It's also possible his parents could have just liked the two names.   Done
    • Don't refer to him as "Winfield." I know that you were just discussing other people with his surname, but, he should only be referred to by surname after the first mention. (See WP:MOSBIO#Names).   Done
    • Headings should not begin with "The".   Done
    • You need a retrieval date for citations 6, 10.   Done

Thanks! Karanacs 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've completed all the adjustments you recommended, except one -- the date on footnote 6 is the retrieval date. Coemgenus 13:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

Swedish emigration to the United States

edit

Self-nomination. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment I really like this article and was going to ask you if you were going to put it up for FA candidacy. I have made one edit to this article and that was moving an image, and I have a little problem with how the images are displayed right now; The lead image is a poster of a ship that shows no record of traveling with emigrants between Sweden and USA. And her maiden voyage was in 1913 which is after the emigration started to slow down. Then you have this image that actually depict Swedish emigrants taking what is probably their last footsteps on Swedish soil. In my opinion these images should exchange place in the article. --Krm500 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I dunno. I think there's something of a point in having the Atlantic crossing visually implied in the lead image. You wrote in the lead caption that the ship in the Gothenburg photo is "on its way to North America,"[79] but I don't see how it can have been. It's only going to England, whose earth those emigrants on the quays will step on to next. The people on board the Aquetania, on the other hand, are set to disembark in the New World. You can argue for either of the pics. I like to have the one more likely to draw readers in, by its colors and cool design, but change it back if you like... I expect it'll get changed more times than that over time. For instance, I think this one is a contender, too, if you want to focus more on the leaving than the arrival. On the individual level, the moment of leaving the home parish and saying goodbye to loved ones was surely more significant than the "Swedish soil" mystique. Or how about this? I love it! Bishonen | talk 07:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Top-notch. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I too have been waiting for this article to become an FAC for a long time. It is worthy to be displayed to both newcomers to Wikipedia as well as experienced Wikipedians as indicative of the standards to which our content can rise, which has always been the central featured article criterion in my view. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written, amazing piece of work. Hello32020 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks excellent, but should the spelling be American and not Commonwealth English? --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No edits from User:Bishzilla. Will consider changing to support if this is rectified, as the article does look excellent otherwise. ElinorD (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Okay, changing to Support, as it seems to have been at least worthy of 'Zilla's attention. An excellent, balanced article. And nice to see so many free images. ElinorD (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article meets the criteria with ease, in my opinion. The information inspires confidence, though I know little about the subject. It is meticulously presented and thoroughly referenced. Congratulations to the editor for a fascinating piece. I had no idea the Swedes used to be so bad mannered and drunk: how extraordinary. These days they seem so much the opposite, unless one goes to a Hives concert, of course. I also didn't realise the class system there was so rigid; I wonder if any of that lingers today, as in Britain.
A few small points:
  • The article might perhaps benefit from one more prose edit. Although it is very well written and the sentences are carefully constructed, the prose occasionally becomes stodgy, in my opinion. Dismiss the idea, by all means, but I feel there are too many sentences of similar length. A short sentence here and there might add variety and pep.
    • I totally agree, I think there's a woeful lack of rhythm, and too many sentences start the same way (subject+verb). I can't seem to get them to behave. Bishonen | talk
  • I sensed a degree of repetition on the point about the impressions of those who returned. I refer to the passages beginning "Many middle-aged or elderly immigrants returned briefly" and "A number of well-established and longtime Swedish Americans visited Sweden".
    • Everybody in Sweden was falling-down drunk the entire time in the 19th century, apparently. I agree about the repetitiousness, I was wondering if anybody would pick up on it... I just thought those culture clashes were pretty funny ("OMG that's not how I remember the place!"), so I guess I put in too much detail about them. :-( (There was much more at one point.) I probably ought to merge the two separate passages you mention. Bishonen | talk
      • Well, if the folks who left were religious reformers and extremists or if they landed in the midst of austere religious communities of Swedes in the New World, then they might have a pre-selection to tea totaling and alarmed frowning at the devil of drink. It would be like a Puritan coming back to visit London in 1665. He might (would, did) get all hoity toity about the decadence he saw compared to the New Jerusalem of Boston. Utgard Loki 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence could be improved, I think (I hesitated to copyedit it myself in case I missed the full intention, which seems to contain three points): "Whether or not a prairie farm had been an immigrant's original dream, a growing proportion of immigrants stayed in urban centers, combining emigration with the flight from the countryside happening in the homeland and across Europe". I'd be inclined to cut the introductory clause and perhaps make a new sentence out of it.
  • "The Midwest remained the heartland of the Swedish-American community, but its position weakened in the 20th century". This opening to a paragraph seemed to promise information about this weakening, but it never arrived. The map shows that the heartland is still going strong, so I missed the point being made there. Is it that American Swedes are now more widely dispersed?
    • Well, the percentages in the rest of the sentence, after the colon, are supposed to show the weakening. "The Midwest remained the heartland of the Swedish-American community, but its position weakened in the 20th century: in 1910, 54% of the Swedish immigrants and their children lived in the Midwest, 15% in industrial areas in the East, and 10% on the West Coast." 54 % in the Midwest doesn't seem impressive for a "heartland". I suppose the point would be clearer if there was a previous, bigger, percentage to relate the 54% to? I haven't seen any earlier figures, though. I'll try to fix it up, somehow. Thanks very much for your comments. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Anyway, thanks for submitting this quality article. I'm so glad you haven't given up on the featured-article process. (If any gnats do come and bite you, please just swat them away.) qp10qp 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Minor question, turn of the century in paragraph "Swedish Americans" is here the change from the 19th to the 20th century? I assume it is but it isn't really clear. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written, balanced, nicely illustrated and authoritatively sourced. Pia 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming the following issues can be fixed.
    • You have nothing on Sweden's most important contributions to American culture, the Swedish Chef and the Swedish Bikini Team! Just kidding.
    • More seriously, why is "Crossing the Atlantic" a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Emigration#Crossing_the_Atlantic ?
      • What..? [Stares at the link in horror. Recovers slowly. ] Here's the deal. If you go to the article via my sandbox redirect, User:Bishonen/Emigration, all the links in the TOC—not just "Crossing the Atlantic," all of them—are links to URLs that contain the name of the sandbox. Try it. Now scroll up from the section you were taken to, and look at the name of the page. You actually aren't in the sandbox, you're at the real article, and all its sections are the correct latest versions—for instance, I revised "Crossing the Atlantic" substantially yesterday, and this is the newly revised version, it's nothing like the sandbox. So it's actually not serious, it's more mysterious. Does this always happen when you go to a page via a redirect? I tested a few examples, and yes, apparently it does. Try typing in First World War, click "Go" and get taken to World War I, and click on one or two section titles in the TOC: their URLs have "First_World_War" in them, not "World_War_I. Well, I'll be darned. Bug or feature? Bishonen | talk.
        • I'd be leaning towards bug, considering that when any of our downstream users, like answers.com, grab the article they would keep the full URL going to your sandbox. I fixed it. [80]
    • Redundancy in references: 24, 43, 51 "Swenson Center" can be combined by use of the <ref name=> parameter.
      • Thanks... but, no, I don't think saving two "redundant" footnotes out of 51 is worth the price of making the note numbers in the article non-consecutive (a peculiar and disagreeable system that I've only seen on Wikipedia ). The way I do it is more reader-friendly, in my opinion, as well as being a standard system (one of them) in academic publishing in the humanities. Bishonen | talk.
        • OK.
    • $1.25 per acre - WP:$ (basically link to United States dollar). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, from first reading this was one of the better articles, FA or not, I've read. As Newyorkbrad notes above, the way this article is presented - entirely comprehensive, encyclopedically-written, appropriate graphics - is a perfect example of what every article should strive to be. Moreso than some other featured article candidates, this article truly should be "featured" because, by featuring it, Wikipedians and readers alike can see what we strive for. Much kudos to Bishonen. Daniel 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support I am almost ready to support this article. It was well-written and informative; I was especially fascinated to learn that the steamer lines won't open their records - what are they hiding, I wonder? Anyway, to the task at hand:
  • The article relies heavily on Barton. Could you make a case in the article for why the reader should grant his views authority? Is he one of the foremost historians of Swedish immigration or something like that? Currently the article simply identifies him as "an historian."
  • Well, the first mention of Barton is a link to our article H. Arnold Barton, which I think makes a case for his importance in the field—in an implicit and encyclopedic way, you know. Not enough? I'd rather not say anything in the article about Barton being the authority, because it's probably not the case. There's a big Swedish emigration project at Uppsala university, which has published some high-powered, though not as accessible, nor as large-scale, research on the U.S emigration. Some of that appears in my reference list. But I agree I rely much more heavily on Barton. Bluntly, I'd call this article rather thinly sourced. Well, it depends what your frame of comparison is, but it's not the kind of FAC that's based on reading everything there is to read, like, say, Kevin Myers' Pontiac's Rebellion. It's a little ironic that everybody's so nice about the sourcing of this one, while my last FAC, where I was a bona fide expert... well, never mind. Bishonen | talk
  • I agree that the article is thinly sourced (sorry!) and I guess I wanted some reassurance that the two major sources used (Barton and the edited collection of essays) are undisputed authorities in the field (letting the reader know this is never bad since wikipedia articles don't have the stamp of legitimacy of Britannica). Even if Barton is not the authority on Swedish immigration, is he at least an authority on Swedish immigration? I would worry about sourcing an article primarily to a non-expert, as I am sure you yourself would be. Just to be clear: nothing in the article led me to think it was poorly researched - I really appreciated the comparisons between competing explanations for the emigration, for example. (FACs vary so much, don't they?) Awadewit | talk 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a personal idiosyncrasy, but I dislike repetition of the lead's language in the article itself. To me, the article's language should be more precise.
  • Like, more specific? I agree. But I had trouble finding different ways of expressing everything in the Lead. The article text being already very boiled-down didn't help. Maybe rephrasing the Lead would be a more manageable task for somebody who looks at the page with fresh eyes HINT HINT ? Bishonen | talk
  • While the virgin land of the U.S. frontier was a magnet for the rural poor all over Europe - Is the land "virgin" when there were Native Americans on it?
  • Hmm... in a sense, yes. The land was virgin with respect to the plow, and you could argue—it has surely been argued—that the Native Americans lived on the land in balance with its ecology, and therefore without deflowering it. But if you think it sounds colonial, I'll certainly change it. (And maybe put Virgin land, a redirect to Frontier, up for deletion?) To me the phrase "virgin land" evokes Henry Nash Smith's classic Virgin Land: The American West As Symbol and Myth from 1950, but clearly that's no (encyclopedic) excuse for it. Bishonen | talk
  • Not all Plains Indian tribes were hunters - some were also farmers (not many, but a few). I don't know if they used a plow specifically, but I do know that they cultivated the land. This was drilled into me on school field trips as a child and I'm pretty sure it's accurate. See, for example, the Pawnee. The phrase "virgin land" does very much evoke Smith's book and others of its ilk, but its subtitle is particularly important: "as symbol and myth". I think whenever "virgin land" is used, the phrase should be used in an explicitly symbolic context like that. Obviously, I am not going to object on "virgin land" alone. :) Just something to consider. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was lost to the Dutch in New Netherland in 1655. - How was it lost?
  • Search me. I was summarizing the "main article" New Sweden, which I didn't write. I could find out... if you think it's really interesting? Bishonen | talk
  • Can you connect the sentences together a bit more in the second paragraph of the section on the "17th century"?
  • It is a little bit odd to have section headings that skip the 18th century; could you rename them somehow?
  • Right, yes, it is. I've experimentally renamed the "17th century: New Sweden" section to "Early history: New Sweden and the Swedish American dream". It's too lush, though. I'll try to think of something better.
  • Newspaper advertising, while very common, tended to be repetitive and stereotyped in content. - What stereotypes? The ones explained in the earlier section? If so, perhaps a quick reference to those?
Er... I don't know. I was channelling my source, which didn't say. Bishonen | talk
Too bad. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swedish peasants were some of the most literate in Europe, and consequently receptive to the egalitarian and radical ideas that shook Europe in the 1840s - Please explain the connection between literacy and radicalness. I don't think that it is a given that literacy leads to liberal political views, is it?
  • Why, sure it is! Er. I mean, no, of course not. I meant that, being able to read, they knew about the new ideas, and so had the possibility of taking them on board. Rephrased. Bishonen | talk
  • As domestic servants in America, they … were treated as members of the families they worked for and like 'ladies' by American men, who showed them a courtesy and consideration to which they were quite unaccustomed at home." - I find this quote a tad hard to believe. Can you help me out?
  • I can't believe they were treated "as members of the family" either. But Barton has apparently interviewed people who could tell him, through family tradition, about such claims being made by the maids themselves. I think the answer is in the comparison with what working-class women were accustomed to in the old country— the horrors of rampant practical misogyny plus class pride, which appalled the visiting Swedish Americans so much. The women's previous Swedish experience of a) the way women were treated, b) the way servants were treated, presumably made them exaggerate the American contrast ? Plus, it's only human to want to validate one's momentous choice of emigration. In any case, I can't very well second-guess Barton's interviews. OK, I'll look at the rest later. Thanks very much for your comments, and for asking interesting questions ! Bishonen | talk 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Swedish Americans" seems to repeat some of the information from the end of the "Late-19th century" section. Could these be condensed or differentiated?
  • Absolutely. I've condensed the second passage into a mere reminder. B.
  • I am unclear as to where the data for the second paragraph of "European mass emigration" is coming from. Is this Jerome as well?
  • Well, the information is apparently very uncontroversial and generally agreed on, but I got it from editorial matter in the Uppsala anthology From Sweden to America by Runblom and Norman. I've added a note to that. Maybe not the best kind of reference, but at least it means readers can, theoretically, check the info in a reliable source. Assuming they live near a university library in Sweden or Minnesota... :-P B.
  • The material on Dissenters and pietists does not appear to have a source.
  • Fixed. B.
  • If both of the Skarstedt's quotations come from the same place, perhaps you could put the footnote after the second one? Right now, it is hard to tell where that second quotation comes from.
  • Yeah.. I guess these things are all in what conventions you're used to. Me, I dislike leaving the first quote unattributed for even a short while, and expect that the same provenance for the second one will be unproblematically assumed. I've changed it to the Wikipedia way. B.
  • Franklin D. Scott argues in an influential essay that the American Immigration Act of 1924 was the cause. - It would be nice to have a note for this essay.
  • A note? But... well, I don't refer to any part of the essay or any fact taken from it, I just tell the reader it exists and was influential and had the thesis such-and-such. A note for it would only repeat exactly what its References entry says. Or do you mean a note to where somebody says it was influential? B.
  • I would de-link the words in quotations - it is hard to know what other people mean precisely with their words. It is best not to interpret for them. This is wikipolicy as well.

I have placed a list of smaller issues on the article's talk page. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

Jason Voorhees

edit

Undoubtedly the best fictional character article I have seen on Wiki. It's already a GA, and it meets all the criteria for featured. It has just the right amount of images, no redlinks, and a whopping 112 sources. If that's not a great page, I don't know what is. Belgium EO 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Belgium EO 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not know if it is ready. I still have two more books to pick up and go through for the characterization and popular culture sections hope to be able to expand on the pop culture info more some, which, in my opinion, is a little weak at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It is an incredibly good article. Sure, it'll have to be heavily maintained as Jason returns in films and literature to kill again, but I wholeheartedly believe this article should be featured. Alientraveller 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "He first appeared in Friday the 13th (1980) as the child of Mrs. Voorhees, who drowned in Crystal Lake when two camp counselors were supposed to be watching him, but were having sex instead." First of all, is the latter half of this sentence ("who drowned in...") really necessary in the lead? There's not much context provided, and it seems somewhat peripheral. Second, to whom is the "who" referring: Mrs. Voorhees or Jason? If the latter, please consider instead "Mrs. Voorhees' child", as placing the modifying clause immediately after Mrs. Voorhees is confusing. Also, that would mean that you would have to devote more words in the lead to explaining how Jason "survives" if he has drowned (for those unfamiliar with him, such as myself). Otherwise, we'll be going through the entire lead thinking, "wait, if he drowned...then..." 69.202.63.165 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kirzinger thinks his experience on Part VIII helped him land the part, as Kirzinger doubled for Hodder on two scenes for the film,[69] but also believes he was simply sized him up and handed the job.[70] The end of the sentence is awkward. LuciferMorgan 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase but also believes he was simply sized him up and handed the job.[70] doesn't make sense to me at all. Read it, say it out loud. If you cannot tell if the sentence is awkward by reading it out aloud, no amount of comments from myself will. LuciferMorgan 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm going to go ahead and give my support. The article is already rather comprehensive--the books may add something, but they may not add anything...I won't know till I get them. I'm not going to say it isn't comprehensive based on the fact that there are a couple more books that I'd like to get, but have no clue if there is anything viable in them. Without them, I think the article is still FA quality.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article is, without a doubt, the best fictional character article I've seen on Wikipedia. I have used it as an example of how character articles should be written on several occasions. It is extremely comprehensive and well-referenced - everything is supported by a variety of reliable sources. The images are relevant for an encyclopedia, and not just eye candy to brighten up the article. If the article can be imporved further, brilliant, but that does not change the fact that it is already FA quality. Paul730 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

edit

Nomination restarted (old nomination) Raul654 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - nice to see it all rejiggled and settled this way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I may be way off-base here (and if so, feel free to attempt a pickoff throw), but I'd be interested in a brief treatment of the historical development of thought on the topic, with points like the recognition that it occurred, the old hypothesis that mammals had replaced dinosaurs because the latter had gotten stagnant, the appearance of Alvarez's work, etc. If anyone else is interested and thinks it's applicable, I'll see what I can find. (Actually, it would also be interesting to have somewhere (not in this article, probably) a description of the numerous rejected theories, many of which fail because all they attempt to explain is dinosaur extinction.) J. Spencer 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good suggestion. A nice para on it with a ref should do the trick nicely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think absence of such information should hold it up, though; it would just be gravy, and it may take some time to find the proper references. J. Spencer 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the main editor for this article (I don't quite know how that happened), I tried to separate the event from the cause of the event. I like the suggestion on a history of theories of the event, but as soon as we have this article FAC (or close), I want to take that suggestion and use it to improve K-T boundary, which describes the geological causes of the extinction. That the extinction happened is without controversy. That some environmental event caused the extinction is also without much controversy (unless, of course, you're some sort of Creationist)). That the environmental event was caused by......., well that's a story to be told. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have trouble with this sentence from the lead: "Mammalian and bird clades passed through the boundary with few extinctions, although radiation occurred well past the boundary." I understand what is meant here: the current diversity of mammals and birds did not develop until after the extinction event. However, using 'although' to connect the two phrases here seems wrong to me; the two facts aren't that closely connected and the radiation event isn't a qualification to the statement about mammalian and avian extinction. Hope that makes sense! 4u1e 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. "And" is the proper word, I believe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this article provides good coverage of an important subject. If any Subject Matter Experts are here and have suggestions for improvement, I would implore them to make concrete, substantive suggestions, and not just vague general statements.--Filll 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great source of information on the subject, very much featured quality. Hello32020 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A wonderful report of one of our greatest mysteries. A good read and great content depth. aliasd·U·T 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm willing to throw in at this point. Let me know if you need anything; I'll probably continue to pick at it, but there's nothing objectionable as far as I'm concerned, mainly stylistic concerns. J. Spencer 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

Georgetown University

edit

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still support, though noticed a few things in the lead. I have a copy of the main page in my userspace - User:Aude/Mainpage with the lead section inserted as "Today's featured article" to show how it might appear. Doing this helped me find changes to make.
  1. First, the sentence "The University employs reputable faculty members including former ambassadors and heads of state." doesn't look quite right, the way it's worded.
  2. Second, the reference is not needed in the lead section, since that information is cited again later in the history section.
  3. I also wonder if it was necessary to say "Georgetown, Washington, D.C., United States.", as if people hadn't heard of Washington, D.C. or not know it's located in the U.S. Maybe it is needed, but I don't think so. Also, separate the Georgetown, Washington, D.C. link, so both the city and neighborhood are linked in the intro.
I have done some edits to the lead section to address these, and making it so the lead is two paragraphs instead of three. Feel free to copyedit or modify the lead further, as you think is needed. --Aude (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more concerns from me; Patrick is mostly done inserting publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as before. If there are specific claims that need citation to a source more reliable than campus publications, I'm happy to help search for those sources. Campus publications, however, are sufficient for non-controversial claims about the university they cover. Once again, even professional/academic level campus histories use campus papers as sources. A blanket prohibition of these sources on Wikipedia would be an absurd restriction. --JayHenry 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Fun Home

edit

Self-nomination. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced and (I believe) meets all the FA criteria. A peer review led to only minor amendments; LuciferMorgan talk%3AJosiah Rowe&diff=149832810&oldid=149490645 suggested that I should "bite the bullet and go for FAC", so here I am. It's my first time, so be gentle! :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Erm... hello? Anyone there? When I said "be gentle", I didn't mean "be silent"! I can take it, really... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Your first time at FAC, my first time even voting at FAC, but it seems very well-written and comprehensive with good citations. I suppose some people's concern would be the length (25K compared to the most recent Main Page articles which are 58K, 51K, 29K, 88K, 54K, 73K) but I don't know what else would be appropriate to cram in to the article. Mauna Loa was also Main Page at <24K so it's not an unheard-of length. The sentence "His death at age 44 may have been a suicide, possibly motivated by his wife requesting a divorce" seems dangerously speculative but, since it's in the plot summary, I assume the speculation comes from the novel and not from Josiah. If so, it's fine, but a clarifier may be a good idea. Nice article! —Wknight94 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, the speculation is from the book; in fact, the matter of whether and why Bruce Bechdel killed himself is one of the central questions of the memoir, and the author more or less comes to the conclusion that the possibility of divorce was a trigger, while still recognizing that she'll never know for certain. I'll see if I can adjust the wording later today, to make it clear that the speculation is from the source. Thanks for the support, and thanks for replying! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've adjusted the description of Bruce Bechdel's death, giving an important detail and dropping the divorce mention, which really isn't as key as the question of whether his death was accidental or volitional. I've also added a mention of two visual artists whose work is referenced explicitly in the book — I should have remembered to mention them before submitting the article for FAC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a section on the numerous allusions used in the book. I was slightly concerned that my summaries of how the allusions are used would lean towards original research, so to limit that I've included citations to the pages in Fun Home on which each reference occurs. I hope that I've avoided making an original synthesis of the way Bechdel uses each reference: I tried to be as neutral as I could without being repetitive or boring. Still, if it skids too close to OR, the article can be reverted to a Home&oldid=150611361 version before this expansion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I restructured the article. Very interesting so far. It could use a Themes section. Anyways, I'm reading Fun Home right now. Just started reading it, and I'll follow this FAC along with my reading. I haven't seen an Allusions sections before, which is interesting. Don't let OR paralyze you from writing a good article. I hope I can finish Fun Home before this FAC closes.-BillDeanCarter 04:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I would look at the Watchmen article for a guideline to follow. These are both Time magazine favorites so it would be interesting to compare and contrast the two articles. Don't worry about achieving the same article length as the Watchmen article, that would be silly, but some of the sections could offer a guideline.-BillDeanCarter 05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, the lead has to go. Some of the stuff in the lead is only reported in the lede. The lede should summarize the article and not introduce anything that isn't in the body of the article. Move stuff in the lede to the body. The lede should talk about the removal from the public library (most definitely) and summarize all the important stuff to know. Number of pages is not important.-BillDeanCarter 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying! I'll try to see what themes I can derive from the reviews — you're right that it was fear of OR that prevented me from writing such a section. I'll work on it (and the lead) tomorrow, and also see if I can get any ideas from Watchmen. (Actually, I just checked it and Watchmen has a section on allusions too! Here I was worrying that it was OR, and there's already a comics FA with such a section!)
One question about the restructuring: why did you place the section on reception in France under "publication history" rather than "reception"? I suppose that the fact that it was serialized in Libération and subsequently published by Éditions Denoël is part of the publication history, but the rest of that paragraph is really about reception and academic criticism. Should I split the Popular and academic attention in France section up? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually puzzled over that. It was a quick restructuring. I've seen sections such as "Publication and reception history". If the section leans more towards reception then it could go there. Hard to say. The fact that the novel was serialized in french is an important part of the publication history, but the fact that it was peer-reviewed in a french journal is also reception.-BillDeanCarter 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Pascal's reordering, I found a simple solution: rename the section "Publication history and reception" and move the former "reception" section under its aegis, renamed as "reviews and awards". I hope that works. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly object Fantastic work (on a fantastic book). As an experiment, I've reordered the sections to get a more logical flow to the whole thing (and I agree that the France bit should go in the Reception section). I have also added a fact tag in the lead. The comparison to the Watchmen article is interesting and brings up the sole objection I currently have with promoting to FA status: comprehensiveness. The article's current content is as polished as one might hope but it does seem to be lacking in terms of critical commentary. In particular, there's been quite a bit of scholarly commentary on Fun Home and this is not showing enough. The references (which are excellent by the way) sort of reflect this: there are many references to the book itself, to reviews and to news stories but relatively few to sources analyzing the book, its impact and so on. Pascal.Tesson 05:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I assume that sources like the ones listed here are the type of thing you're looking for? The only scholarly sources I'd been able to access at home were the three papers from the French conference, and The Comics Journal (I bought the relevant issue). I'll have to see if I can get into the Yale library, where I assume they'll have subscriptions to the relevant journals. If I'm going to the Yale library, are there any print journals I should look for, which might not be available online? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Not sure I have time to help out but I'll see what I can do. If some of these journals are available by subscription online, I may have access to them. The other advantage of tracking down such references is that it avoids the potential problems of OR mentioned earlier. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, what's the current thinking on citations in the lead? I know that at one point there was some debate about whether facts which are cited later in the article also need a footnote in the lead. I ask because the "best of 2006" info is covered at Fun Home#Reviews and awards; I can move those notes up to the lead when I rework it (per Bill's suggestion), but that's got eight citations of different publications naming Fun Home in their "Best of 2006" lists. (And that's not all that did so, as you can see from the back cover of the paperback edition.) How many citations would be enough to support "was named one of the best books of 2006 by numerous sources"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps that sentence can be cut down anyways. (I've tried something, let me know how you like it!) Pascal.Tesson 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've restructured the lead slightly per Bill and Pascal's suggestions. I found one source which can be used for the "numerous sources"/"best of 2006" sentence: the author's website! (I kept Pascal's "popular and critical acclaim" phrasing, but I think that the "best of 2006" is a fairly important aspect and merits inclusion in the lead; I also mentioned what I think are the most noteworthy awards. I hope that it's not redundant, or repetitive, or saying the same thing twice. :^) )
Because of the non-linear structure of the book and the narrator's highly self-aware voice, it's hard to disentangle "theme" from "plot", so instead of writing a separate section on themes, I've tried to expand the thematic discussion in what was the "plot" section and is now "Plot and thematic summary". Let me know if you think it works. I still plan to go into New Haven at some point in the next few days to see what the Yale library can provide in the way of academic sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've seen this evolve from B-class to what I now consider FA-class in a remarkable manner. It's a testament to Josiah's hard work. Well done. The Rambling Man 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've made some minor tweaks in the format but I really can't argue with the overall quality of the article. There may still be room for growth in the article which of course is perfectly fine. But as it is now, I think it can reasonably be described as comprehensive and the prose and referencing are impeccable. Kudos to Josiah Rowe: this is fine work indeed and I sure hope you have plans for other articles. Pascal.Tesson 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're now supporting, could you please strike your previous objection? Thanks, as only the voter can strike their own previous vote. LuciferMorgan 12:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pascal.Tesson 02:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've been looking through the FAs and I found this one which is similar to Fun Home: The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall. One the surface this 1928 novel has some similarities to Fun Home. I think it's great that you have elevated this article to FA quality. Graphic novels these days are doing some pretty cool stuff and more people should read this one (as well as Blankets which is my personal favorite). Definitely this should go on the main page but before that happens here are a few of my comments. I may be off-base here and there so to be read with a grain of salt:
  • I would break the lead into 3 parts. Some parts of the body are not discussed in the lead but I can see that some effort has been made to rectify this.
  • How does it look now? I tried a 3-part structure, with one paragraph describing the book itself, one describing the critical response from the literary and comics worlds, and one for the contrasting responses in France and Missouri. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention this in the lead: "Bechdel wrote and illustrated Fun Home over the course of seven years."
  • Break this lead sentence up "The book's artwork consists of black line art with a gray-green ink wash; Bechdel used extensive photo reference, posing herself as different characters." and explain in plain english what photo reference is. I found this very interesting and it really is one of the most insightful parts of the article. For me I had no idea that comic strip artists ever did this and I wouldn't quite get what you mean from this brief phrase in the lead. The section in the article that goes into detail is perfect though. It also ties into why it took 7 years.
  • I would rename "Publication history and reception" to just "Publication and reception"
  • "This emotional distance, in turn, is connected with his homosexual relationships in college, the military, and with his high school students, some of whom were family friends and babysitters" This sentence should be more descriptive. How is it connected? And did he have relations with family friends and babysitters or are you just describing his high school students?
  • I've reworded and expanded this slightly; does the mention of the closet suffice to explicate the connection between Bruce Bechdel's familial dysfunction and his sexual orientation, or do you think that needs to be made more explicit? (I'm slightly hesitant to do so because the nature of the connection is largely implicit in the book.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not sure about the Plot and thematic summary, as well as including the Allusions section. There was some discussion about having spoiler warnings in Plot Summary (don't know how that discussion ended) but there were some voices that reasoned the Plot Summary section was a clear sign of a spoiler warning. Maybe have a really short Plot Summary of a paragraph and break off themes and allusions into an article by itself.
  • Does this sentence really need to be in brackets?: "(Bechdel chose the greenish wash color for its flexibility, and because it had "a bleak, elegaic quality" which suited the subject matter.)"
  • I suppose not. I had put it in parentheses because the previous sentence was part of the description of Bechdel's step-by-step process, which is referred to in the following sentence; by putting the sentence about the wash color choice in parentheses, I was hoping that the referent for "this detailed artistic process" would be clearer. But it's not essential. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At this conference, papers were presented examining Fun Home from several perspectives: as containing "trajectories" filled with paradoxical tension;[50] as a text interacting with images as a paratext;[51] and as a search for meaning using drag as a metaphor." If you could make this sentence more accessible that would be great. I didn't know what you meant by drag, so maybe drag clothing, because I figured it was some kind of visual thing. Also, what kind of trajectories? Narrative trajectories?
  • "Drag" in this context is drag clothing, which is why the word links to drag (clothing). However, I think that in queer studies the meaning of the word "drag" is extended to any sort of performative gender play which is in tension with normative gender roles or societal expectations; so, in this context, it's not just the young Alison Bechdel putting on her father's dress clothes, it's also her father's pursuit of gardening and home decorating. At least, that's my understanding, but I'm far from a scholar of the subject. That sentence was an attempt to summarize three highly complex academic papers, so some compression of meaning is probably inevitable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trajectories" in that paper does refer to narrative trajectories, but also psychological trajectories (such as Bruce Bechdel's desire for aesthetic order and his contrasting, chaotic sexual desires) and even physical trajectories (the limited geographical sphere in which Bruce Bechdel was born, lived, worked and died, contrasting with the geographical liberation symbolized in the book by visits to New York and Paris). I'm afraid that further elucidation of these papers may require the contribution of someone who's active in academia and au fait with the terminology of cultural studies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These papers and others on Bechdel and her work were later published in the peer-reviewed journal GRAAT." Is it possible to link to mention of GRAAT in the French Wikipedia? This is off the top of my head but would be interesting if possible. Kind of like linking into Wiktionary.
  • "Fun Home was positively reviewed in many publications, including The Times of London (which described it as "a profound and important book"),[61] Salon.com ("a beautiful, assured piece of work")[62] and the New York Times, which printed three separate stories about the book.[4][63][64]" I would cut-off this sentence after "in many publications" and work the rest into prose using quotations and no brackets (in fact I went and tried out an edit;you could revert it) Great piece of info about how the NYTimes covered it thrice.
  • Your split works; I tweaked it only slightly, in part because of the NYT articles only two were actually reviews; the third was a feature piece in the "Home" section, in which a reporter accompanied Bechdel back to the house she grew up in (it is, or was, on the market, and most of Bruce Bechdel's decorative touches survive). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does one write the New York Times or The New York Times? I tend to do The New York Times but I don't really know.
  • Is it Salon.com or Salon magazine? You have both.
  • I've made a few minor adjustments to the section on plot and themes, but I'm not quite sure what you're looking for with regard to that section. As you know, the narrative of Fun Home is non-linear and keeps returning to the same events, showing them again from a new thematic perspective. Because of that, I'm really not sure how to describe the plot as distinct from the themes. As for the "Allusions" section, it's worth noting that Watchmen also has an allusions section (although that one may be structured better than the Fun Home one; I'm open to any suggestions on how to present that information better). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by — BQZip01 — talk The beatings will continue until morale improves... (just kidding, but it's a funny quote from Animal House)

  • Images need to be sized as default, not sized by pixels IAW WP:MOS#Images. Good use on the fair use rationale though.
Done
  • Mid-sentence references should be moved to the end of the sentence.
Done (hopefully I did not miss any
  • All dates need to be done IAW WP:DATE, so make sure all dates in the article and your references are appropriately linked, but only if necessary.
Are there any which do not conform to that?
Yes — BQZip01 — talk
Oh, fine. I won't make you guess (I thought about being a little testy, but I'll be nice today). Reference 16 and I thought there was something else, but I guess I was wrong or it was fixed already.
I've taken care of that minor omission. (Some of the citation templates automatically wikilink dates and others don't — I occasionally slip up and don't link a date that I should, or vice-versa.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be no spaces between superscript references and each other and punctuation (big problem throughout...see my sample I changed on the page).
Taken care of, I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The problem originated from citations being moved up in the article, or from the citations which were mid-sentence being placed in the order in which they occurred (for example, each of the various publications which included Fun Home in their "Best of 2006" lists being cited in the order they were mentioned in the sentence, instead of the order their reference first occurred in the article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Artwork section seems to be unnecessarily broken into a lead section and another. Combine the two into a single section. I recommend cutting the first sentence from the second paragraph and making it the first in the first paragraph.
Done as far as the sectioning goes. But the "seven years" sentence makes more sense when describing the laborious process.
  • I think the Publication and reception section's subsections do not need their own separate headings. By definition, each paragraph should cover a slightly different topic. Making them all subsections is overkill.
Reworked down to a single subsection. Indeed, it improves the flow
  • I am personally not a big fan of citations in the lede. By definition, they are not NEEDED, but also are not specifically excluded. Since each sentence in the lede needs to be expanded upon in the article, the citations aren't needed and it seems to me that the citations clutter the lede. Again, this is merely a preference, not a requirement.
Then out of laziness, I did not change it!
Fine by me. Exclamation marks not needed. — BQZip01 — talk 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask about this earlier. Where is the discussion about citations in the lead, by the way? (Just so I know which way the wind is blowing.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LEDE — BQZip01 — talk 02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be cited in some way:
  • "His two occupations are reflected in Fun Home's focus on death and literature."
  • "On one level, the memoir traces Bruce Bechdel's obsession with restoring the family's Victorian home. His concentrated pursuit of this long-term aesthetic quest is connected to his emotional distance from his family, which he expressed in coldness and occasional bouts of rage. This emotional distance, in turn, is connected with his closeted homosexual tendencies. Bruce Bechdel had homosexual relationships in college, the military, and with his high school students; some of those students were also family friends and babysitters. At the age of 44, two weeks after his wife requested a divorce, he stepped into the path of an oncoming Sunbeam Bread truck and was killed. Although the evidence is equivocal, Alison Bechdel concludes that her father committed suicide."
  • "The story also deals with Alison Bechdel's own struggle with her sexual identity, culminating in the realization that she is a lesbian and her coming out to her parents. The memoir frankly examines her sexual development, including transcripts from her childhood diary, anecdotes about masturbation, and tales of her first sexual experiences."

Other than that, wow. This appears to be well-referenced and well-structured for the most part. I have to admit, I am NOT a fan of the subject material of the book, but that is not a criteria of the FAC process or Wikipedia, so, best of luck. — BQZip01 — talk 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the above. I think it's an overkill to cite the second and third of the above. In any case, if we want to do that, it's pretty simple to just cite specific pages of the book (although I just leant it to a friend, so it's on you Josiah) or pretty much any review (that'll work for the first). Sure, OR and all that, but really this seems superfluous and just clutters the article with references. Pascal.Tesson 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also note that the above italicized comments interleaved in BQZip's list of complaints are mine. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the comments indented to here are mine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that easy, then it should be cited. IAW Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" As it currently stands, it is an unsourced claim. "Clutter", such as citations as you so deem it, is irrelevant. If I think punctuation is irrelevant, I can't claim that is how Wikipedia should be run because it runs contrary to WP:MoS, a requirement for an FA. — BQZip01 — talk 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the second paragraph you cite is the plot. It's not a claim, it's what's in the book and typically these are not cited to specific pages. This is the standard in other FAs and in fact in any scholarly work on a book. The first sentence does make a claim about the focus and that needs to be cited. In the third, the only thing that can be considered original research is the adjective frankly. Pascal.Tesson 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Frankly" is the sticking point since it appears to comment on the material in the book, I concur. I would also say that "deals" seems to be a comment as well, or at least a summary. I'll be honest, I don't care too much about the specific reference. IMHO, simply putting the book as a reference is fine by me, I just think it should be referenced. If you are claiming it is cited by its existence, then I think that falls under original research, not "verifiability". It's like me saying the Vietnam memorial has 66,000 names (I don't know the actual number, but that seems high and this is an example only). Sure, the memorial has that many names, but it needs to be verifiable. — BQZip01 — talk 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you two were having this conversation, I was looking up the relevant pages in the book. I've cited reviews which discuss the themes, and indexed the relevant bits of the book for the things which were merely summary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can check the YouTube link but boldface is common to indicate periodical volume numbers. Can you fix the dashes though? I have no clue what you're talking about but it would seem trivial to fix. Pascal.Tesson 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update on the YouTube link. The video was submitted by Alison Bechdel herself so I would think there's no copyright issue and therefore nothing wrong with linking to YouTube in this particular instance. Pascal.Tesson 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep— the YouTube link is a video posted by the author of the book, demonstrating her artistic process; I'd have thought that was a reliable source, but if it isn't the same video is available on the publisher's website release/bechdel/#video here. I actually chose the YouTube source over the Houghton Mifflin one because I thought it would be more accessible — the HM page has the file in RealOne Player and Windows Media formats, neither of which I find as easy to use as the Flash videos on YouTube. However, that may have been an error; if so, I can change the reference.
The bolding comes from the "volume" field of the {{Citation}} template. The journal GRAAT has both print and online editions, but both use the name GRAAT (see here and here). I used the "volume" field to distinguish the online version from the print version. Is there a better way to do that?
As for the dashes, I found only three mdashes which were spaced, and I've fixed them. Is that all? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copy and pasting below comments made by Awadewit on the talk page of Fun Home. (and again, at the risk of creating confusion I'll comment in italics. Pascal.Tesson 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

This is a very good article - it is well-written and engages the reader (I am now going to check out the book from the library). However, I do think that the article could benefit from a slight reorganization and some concentrated efforts to connect everything together. Here are my suggestions (take 'em or leave 'em):

  • The first and third paragraphs of the lead feel a little choppy. The sentences move from one topic to another without a real connection. Could you perhaps try to tie them together more?
I did try, not sure about the result though
  • I find the infobox unsightly. I don't think it adds anything to the article since you mention all of the material in it in the article.
The infobox should stay. I understand the concerns, but this is the common practice
  • In the "Plot and thematic summary" section, I would start with a simple description of the book and then offer the detailed analysis. For readers unfamiliar with the book, it might be a bit jarring to jump right into something like "non-linear and recursive". The reader needs to be familiar with the book before embarking on a thematic analysis. In fact, I would separate this off into an "Overview" section, since memoirs don't really have plots in the traditional sense.
True, "plot" may seem akward but in the case of Fun Home it does make some sense, especially because of the construction. But it's true that the first paragraph might be intimidating. Perhaps we can swap the first and second paragraphs so that the reader unfamiliar with the book is not scared away. I'll let Josiah handle that though...
  • Saying that the book draws allusions from the "visual arts" is a bit broad - at least give an example, even if you are not going to launch into a full-scale analysis at that point.
  • You must have studied literature at some point - I see the word "lens". :) This word might not be the best kind of diction for an encyclopedia, as its meaning in literary studies has not become very common.
I'm not so sure. I haven't studied literature and this feels like the right word.
  • I think that perhaps you could spend more time describing the genre of the memoir and its relationship to fiction. To what extent is Bechdel attempting to tell the "truth" and to what extent is she telling a "story"? (You can only do this if some reliable sources do, obviously.)
  • Linking abstract concepts inside quotations is not generally a good idea, as such things can easily mean different things to different people. Let the quote speak for itself.
  • I generally think "Allusions" sections are a poor idea. Most allusions are part of a larger theme or a smaller motif and are usually better presented when that theme is presented. It makes the article more coherent. I wonder if placing this material under a "Themes" section that is subdivided into smaller subsections (such as "Sexuality", "Suicide of father", etc.) might work out better. Right now the "Allusions" section is sort of a list. (I have tried to do this myself in Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman.)
  • Have you thought about combining references, so there aren't three and four in a row? It would make the article easier to read.
What I think would make the article easier to read is to stop insisting that references should be used only at the end of sentences. :-)
  • I wonder about cutting some of the material from the "Reception" section. There is almost as much on reception as on the book itself, which seems a bit off kilter. I might mention the academic conference in passing, but I would not, for example, describe the papers. Those are pretty ephemeral. I would also condense the story of the one library who tried to censor it - it is just one library, after all.
Interesting comment. You have a point about the relative size of the sections but I'm sort of reluctant to cut through the Reception section. Ideally, this balance should come not by cutting it but by expanding the other sections (for instance your suggestion above about truth) but this is proving to be a bit difficult without falling for OR.
  • The beginning of the "Reviews" section is a bit listy (so-and-so said this, another person said this, yet another said this...). Might you find a way to make that paragraph cohere a bit more?

A very interesting article. Let me know if you have any further questions. I'm sorry that it took me so long to get around to reviewing it. Awadewit | talk 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Bald Eagle

edit

Currently GA status. This article is comprehensive and well referenced.--Jude. 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first footnote has bad formatting and another has a red date.Rlevse 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed it.--Jude. 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Fixes needed - pending slotting in the kilometres/hour where miles per hour are; an easy fix. The prose is good and flows fairly well. congrats. still not far off but agree with most of Ravedave's points. I was confused about the mention of washingtoniensis under subspecies - where does that fit in? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't mind the ref to symbolism in first line as it is instantly recognizable as such and heavily connected with US emblem.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most other sources I have found don't refer to this fact in the opening paragraph let alone sentence. I'm willing to defer to consensus though. -Ravedave 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ——Supporpt Oppose
    • I don't believe the fact that it is the U.S.'s symbol is necessary in the first sentence. (This is just my opinion though, not a blocker)
    • Probably worth saying that it is a Sea Eagle at the very beginning.   Done
    • The subspecies range descriptions are poor.  Done
    • (Wink et al. 1996[9]) should be a note.   Done
What do you mean by a note? That it should be a footnote?--Jude. 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, footnote, so as to make all the references the same format. -Ravedave 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "The Bald Eagle forms a species pair with the Eurasian White-tailed Eagle. " paragraph reads poorly. It's also not logically grouped, it goes diversion/description/diversion/description   Done
    • "... although longer and narrower bodies of water can support breeding pairs.[11]" - ? Diameter is never mentioned only circumference.  Done
    • "Bald Eagles will also congregate in certain locations in winter." - can you find info on why? Would be great to add.   Done
    • "but most eagles live mostly off of fish. " - Could this be phrased better?  Done
    • "and they can scavenge carcasses up to the size of whales," "Can"? shouldn't this be "will?  Done
    • Reproduction - The sentences in the first paragraph are out of order and poorly fit together.  Done
      • Much better, Thanks!
    • I stopped looking at copy editing at reproduction. This article needs thorough copy editing.
    • I don't believe the Ben Franklin quote is really worth having   Done
    • The "Bald Eagles in Native American culture" needs to be longer if this is to be an FA. Not all Native Americans belong to the same tribe, any beliefs need to be associated with a tribe/group. It's like saying "Europeans don't eat meat on Fridays during lent."  Done

-Ravedave 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the improvements. Here are some additional things:
    • Taken from a conversation Casliber and I were having: It appears that both the golden eagle and Bald eagle have feathered legs. Compare these pictures [81], [82]. Perhaps the word "completely" is missing, as the golden eagles feathers extend further down the legs all the way onto the top of the feet. Here's a ref:[83]   Done
      • Article has another sentence that says "The legs are unfeathered"
        • The source you provided says that the Bald Eagle has "unfeathered yellow legs". I think that the just the tarsi are unfeathered, while the upper leg is.--Jude. 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the nominate subspecies be listed first (even though it's not alphabetical?)  Done
    • "..water with an abundance of warm-water fishes." - uh... Salmon are a cold water fish, and they flock to salmon spawning areas. I'm not sure that cold/warm water fish is even full defined from what I can find on google. I don't think I would call the fish here in Minnesota "tropical" or warm-water, but the eagles seem fine.  Done
    • I didn't mention that I added two fact tags during my previous pass.  Done
I referenced the spiricules, but deleted the weight carrying capacity, as I couldn't find any references to it.
    • "Though its population has declined within the last half century" - 50 years ago = 1950's. The population in the lower US is much higher now than then, was there a decline in Canada or something?  Done
    • The fact that DDT was banned in the US should be mentioned in the recovery area.  Done
    • "It is probably one of the country's most recognizable symbols," - "probably"? Weasel word.  Done
    • If possible move all of the items in the references section to the footnotes section, where applicable.  Done
    • The external links section has some "Retrieved blah blah" notes, were these supposed to be references?
    • The external links need to be cleaned, and better titled. I personally like how Minnesota seperates them into sections, but it's up to you.
      • Most of the links were to sites that were fact pages with information that's already in the article, which I got rid of, and I put the video of Bald Eagles in a subsection.--Jude. 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3rd round.
    • Article now has measurements in Metric first, which is fine, however they are not always backed up by imperial conversion. They are also missing the   between the # and unit.  Done
    • "tonnes" - this article is about a North American bird, should be in American English.  Done
    • What is going on with H. l. washingtoniensis vs H. l. alascanus and the flipping back and forth? If this is a point of debate, or has recently changed etc it should be noted in the article.
      • Basically, what happened was that Audubon saw a large eagle in Kentucky, concluded that it was a distinct species from the bald eagle, and gave in the name Falco washingtoniensis. It was later decided that the bird was a wintering immature bald eagle, and the name washingtoniensis was more or less forgotten. Then in 1897, Townsend determined that northern and southern specimens differed in size, and he assigned the larger northern birds to the new subspecies H. l. alascanus. Then it was pointed out that Audubon's washingtoniensis and Townsend's alascanus were both northern populations of Haliaeetus leucocephalus and that the two should be considered synonyms. Then Mengel objected to this, since it was unclear whether Audubon's bird was actually a bald eagle, and recommended that the name alascanus be used for the northern race of Haliaeetus leucocephalus. In 1957, the A.O.U. decided to use the name alascanus for the northern subspecies. Anyway, that's the way I understand it. But ITIS uses H. l. alascanus, and as far as I know there's no current debate on the subject.--Jude. 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently it is, as it has flipped again. -Ravedave 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, missed this before, with its being higher up the page. Under the ICZN, the oldest validly published name always takes precedence, unless the older name has been formally suppressed by a vote of an International Zoological Congress; washingtoniensis has not been so suppressed. HBW accepts washingtoniensis as the valid name and states "Race alascanus/alascensis synonymous with washingtoniensis". Why ITIS don't, I don't know, but it is very far from the first error I've seen on ITIS (over at WP:Plants, it is pretty much ignored as a resource because of its error rate). - MPF 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see better sources on the range map, or have it removed. The map it is based on simply shows an outline of where it will show up, not the various breeding/migrating spots, so that part of it is basically unsourced. This map [84] disagrees with it in a couple of areas.
      • The map as it stood before my edits is derived from Sibley's Bird Guide (recognisably the same pattern of locations - whether this constitutes copyvio or not I don't know, but if it does, then every bird map on wikipedia is copyvio!); I added stars for vagrant locations derived from the BOU report (already cited on the page) for Ireland, and from Avibase for the others (the placing of the Russian star is inevitably somewhat conjectural; the rest, the star size on the map more than covers the areas of the locations to which they refer). Sibley is a good enough reference for its time, but I suspect the range has changed in the subsequent ten years or so with continuing population recovery, particularly in the east; a more up-to-date source would be good if it can be found. I'd also suggest changing the colours to something more easily interpreted (e.g. yellow for summer, green for resident, blue for winter); I'd have done this but didn't know how to edit the key codes. - MPF 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The map only has one source listed currently and that is this: [85] which doesn't support the map at all. Nothing is said about "Sibley's Bird Guide". If you have resources that support the map then list them on the image page. If they are 10 years out of data, then please note that information as well. But as it stands I will not support the article if this map is included with its current references.
    • I Tweaked the population recovery paragraph and intro sentence a bit.
    • This isn't the best use of "i.e.": (i.e., while flourishing in much of Alaska and Canada)  Done
    • This ref [86] says that there is no evidence they mate for life.

-Ravedave 01:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • So, are any other fixes needed, or has everything been addressed?--Jude. 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a remark above, re map. I'm sorry to keep extending thsi out but I keep finding things
      • This sentence doesn't make sense. " During migration, it may ascend in a thermal and then glide down, circle steadily down a stream of thermals, an updraft as it sweeps down against a cliff or other terrain."{done}
      • Article contradicts itself on max nest size "...and weigh up to a tonne..." "...to weigh 2.722 tonnes...". If one was found that is 2.722 tonnes, then thats the max, isn't it? Also is it possible to find out what a normal nest is like? {done}
      • "The beak is large and hooked, with a yellow cere." is repeated 2x. {done}
      • Not a blocker - Audio - I couldn't find any free audio of the BE's screeching on the net. Anyone have access to an eagle?
        • There's an audio clip on the Cornell site ([90]). But I can't figure out how to link to just the clip, and not the whole page. And it's copyrighted, but it could go under external links. --Jude. 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And finally a question that no one will probably answer: If eagles get divorced who gets the nest? :)

-Ravedave 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is it WP:BIRD policy to have such long lead sections? Four paragraphs is a pretty long lead for a 34K article eh? I won't quibble with it if that's how bird articles are written these days, but if not, maybe shorten it up so it's more of a summary. There's a lot of pretty specific information above the ToC. In particular, a lot of those measurements could be removed. Maybe just give measurements for the female and say "with males being about 25% smaller than females" or something. I really don't think the nesting information or flight speed is necessary either. Just some thoughts. Very informative article. Sheep81 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out the male measurements and flight speed, and wrote that the Bald Eagle has the largest nest of any North American bird, which is the only reason why the nesting is important. I also changed it to three paragraphs. Any better?--Jude. 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things:
  • Is "armpit" the technical word in bird anatomy? If so, drop the quotes, if not, use the technical word.  Done
  • In the behavior section, it suggests that eagles will summer in areas with no access to water. Is this true, and if so, do they really restrict their diet to mammalian and avian prey?   Done
Anyway, great article. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. And thanks!--Jude. 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Support. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Hey Baby (No Doubt song)

edit

Currently listed as a GA. It was at peer review, which I closed early since it was mainly to get help expanding the Critical reception section, and LuciferMorgan's tips were helpful in expanding it to the size of the other sections. 17Drew 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Yellowstone fires of 1988

edit

Self-nom of an article I have been working on. Has been at Wikipedia:Peer review/Yellowstone fires of 1988/archive1 and a number of issues brought up there have been addressed. Copyediting by User:Frutti di Mare and User:Wsiegmund have streamlined the content and improved the prose. What else does the article need to be listed as featured?--MONGO 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great start, but I suggest you run the peer review script by AndyZ on this. For example, the lead is way too long for an article of this length. Try cutting out a para of the lead.Rlevse 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done...I condense it by cutting out a few sentences and combining two of the smaller paragraphs.--MONGO 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The lead section still seems too long to me, for an article of this size. For instance, the second sentence can be more concise, summarizing the causes in more general terms, and possibly combined with the first sentence. Maybe say "largest wildfire in the recorded history of Yellowstone National Park, caused by weather-related factors and past fire management practices that made the park more susceptible." This wording suggested isn't quite right, but a possible idea to work with. Some other edits to make the lead more concise would be good, or if you can possibly cut any details that are not essential from the intro section.
  • A minor detail noticed is linking of units. I have noticed User:Tony1 come through and delink those here: of the World Trade Center&diff=149048733&oldid=144470035 I'm not sure what the guideline is, but would follow his example.
  • The choice of images is excellent. The 2006 photo showing recent conditions adds a lot to the article.
  • The substance of the article and sources look good to me. Don't have any suggestions there. I can't think of anything else. --Aude (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when suggestions by Aude are doneRlevse 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the lead a little, but it might need further trimming. I also removed the links to measurements and added a few needed wikilinks.--MONGO 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good with the changes. I can't think of any other suggestions. Changed to support --Aude (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Today (Smashing Pumpkins song)

edit

Self nomination. A 1993 song by the popular alternative rock act, The Smashing Pumpkins. It is currently a good article and has been peer reviewed. I, along with a few other helpful editors along the way, have been working on this article on-and-off for quite a while now and almost nominated it earlier, but now I think that it's finally ready for the FAC process. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am consistently impressed with Wikipedia's coverage of the Smashing Pumpkins, and this article continues that trend. However, I do have a few issues with it: Some of the language used is sneakily POV. Examples are below:

  • "It is now regarded as one of the defining songs of its generation." In the lead. Just because it is sourced doesn't mean you should make such a broad statement. Like the other instance of a similar sentence further down in the article, I'd mention who said that and quote directly.
  • "Sly irony" what's so sly about it? Who says?
  • " "Today" and its follow-up "Disarm" are credited for breaking the band into the mainstream." Who says? Who credited those songs? Same thing with "one of the songs that brought the Pumpkins into the mainstream."
  • ""Today" is considered one of the Smashing Pumpkins' most critically acclaimed songs." Who considers it this?

Also, some unreferenced statements:

  • "Triclops Sound Studios"
  • "This video is available on the Smashing Pumpkins' Greatest Hits DVD. However, it is not available on The Work of Director Stéphane Sednaoui, a DVD that compiles many music videos of Sednaoui."

Other issues:

  • "The dark, ironic lyrics of "Today" contrast with the instrumentation.[10] The song describes a day when Billy Corgan was feeling depressed and suicidal.[10]" Two short, choppy sentences with the same citations that could easily be merged into one decent sentence.
  • ""Today" is one of the Siamese Dream songs where Corgan took over..." The way it is worded makes it sound like we already knew that Corgan took over once and a while.
  • Typo in the second sentence of Other releases. Two "on"'s.
  • If possible, I'd recommend expanding upon the Brett Hickman quote. That sounds interesting.
  • I think the cover versions should be relegated to a subsection of the Other releases section, since the section heading makes it sound like they are official releases from the band itself.
  • "making-out"? Seriously? Unencyclopedic tone if I ever saw it.
  • Does gas station need to be wikilinked?
  • The "All information taken from All Music Guide.[35][36]" thing seems completely unnecessary in that section. That stuff can be found in the liner notes and is pretty common knowledge (Billy, D'arcy, Jimmy, James, and Butch Vig, no duh), so I don't think you need to source that.
  • You should wikilink the date attribute in the citation templates. ie [[2005-08-12]] That way it will be linked and conform to user preferences.
  • Also, the publisher attribute should also be wikilinked where neccessary. ie [[Blender (magazine)|Blender]], [[All Music Guide]], [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]], etc
  • I don't think Act4.net is a reliable source. (refernce #32)
  • Ok, upon a closer look I think you're right. Nevermind on that one.

Hopefully the above list doesn't seem insurmountable. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Drewcifer 06:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something, I believe that all of your concerns have been addressed. If you feel anything else needs fixing, just let me know. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you missed the second to last bullet point (about wikilinking the publisher attribute), so I'll just assume you'll get to that when you get a chance. Other than that last little detail, I'd say everything looks great:
Support Drewcifer 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review and your support! --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few nitpicks.

  • "Corgan picks up a cross-dressing James Iha and the two drive for a while before stopping at a gas station. Jimmy Chamberlin and D'arcy Wretzky are the gas attendants." Is it necessary to refer to the latter three by their full, rather than last names after they've already been fully introduced in the article? Wikipedia guidelines usually advise against this, except during exceptional circumstances.
  • "However, it is not available on The Work of Director Stéphane Sednaoui, a DVD that compiles many music videos of Sednaoui." Is it noteworthy to say where the video is not available?
  • I think saying that "Today" is not available on a particular DVD is, in this case, noteworthy because it's a notable omission from a collection that encompasses what are considered to be the music video director's most important works. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair and valid—but not totally relevant to the scope of this article. I think it would be a great piece of info for the DVD's article. But we're here to address this article. Furthermore, however much we both agree with it, it's an opinion that this is one of the director's important works. Obviously someone else didn't think so and left it off the compilation. You could cite an opinion affirming it's importance, and neutralize its somewhat POV nature; but then you'd have citation that backs up a fact that, within the scope of the article, really isn't worth saying. Removing this statement won't harm this article at all, so it's my suggestion that you do that. Grim-Gym 05:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have to say. You've made it easy for me. Grim-Gym 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is quite impressive in multiple facets, and deserves to be featured. Grim-Gym 05:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Ordinances of 1311

edit

I have created and done most of the work on this article. It has been promoted to GA-status and gone through peer review, and I now believe it is ready for FA-assessment. Lampman 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was just me and the receptive language issues that I have sometimes. It made perfect sense the second or third time I read it.--Rmky87 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "Edward I creating his son - the future Edward II" - en dash needed instead of a hyphen
  •  Y Done Following WP:DASH, I've now consistently used spaced en dash, rather than em dash, throughout the article.


Whole thing needs fixing up in terms of 1a. Like ...

  • ‘shall have chosen’—Read MOS on double quotes.
  • "In order to"—It's not a MOS issue, but why, oh why, include "in order"?
  • I don't mind not using the autoformatting for dates (in fact, I prefer this), but make it consistent (11 October, but Feb 25,).
  • "Ordainers – on 19 March, 1310–[h]"—Dash chaos. Tony 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tension between past and present tenses in the lead. And a related note says the Ordainers WERE ...
  • MOS breach in the final period in captions.
  • Superscript reference letter after an en dash?
  • "whether Edward and Gaveston’s relation was of a homosexual nature"—roundabout wording; please write in straightforward language. Tony 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Really good article, one of the best I've seen at FAC in a while. I just can't support until the following issues have been addressed:
    • Shouldn't it be "the King" rather than "the king", since it is really referring to the "King of England"?
    • Similarly shouldn't "lieutenant of Ireland" be capitalized?
    • Please adjust the usage of boldface in the lead to comply with WP:MOSBOLD.
    • It seems to me that the lead says a lot about the historical circumstances of and the people involved in the Ordinances, but it tells nothing about what they entailed, except that they "eatured a new concern with fiscal reform, specifically redirecting revenues from the king's household to the exchequer". Could you maybe add a sentence or two explaining the changes they were supposed to bring about.
    • "Much speculation has centred around whether Edward and Gaveston’s relation was of a homosexual nature. An in-depth discussion of this issue – and an alternative view – is presented by P. Chaplais." An alternative to what? Does Chaplais argue that the two were homosexual or not?
    • "The articles can be divided into different groups, the largest of which dealts with limitations on the powers of the king and his officials, and the substitution of these powers with baronial control." Sounds like you couldn't decide whether to use past or present tense ;)--Carabinieri 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you fix the page ranges in the notes? pp. 527–539, then 182–3 and a problematic 12–7, which I guess means 12–17. Abbreviation to one closing digit can be a problem, and unfortunately wasn't covered by our recent overhaul of dashes, as it was for year ranges. Two digits is fine, consistently, as an abbreviation. Tony 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Aggie Bonfire

edit

(self nom) This article has been worked upon by a team of Aggie editors and I believe has attained FA status. Please review and give us some support or feedback. Gig 'em! Co-nominated by — BQZip01 — talk and Karanacs 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have near total support (or at least all issued addressed) at this time. Is there anything else anyone would like to add/address? — BQZip01 — talk 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of critiques so far:

Support Comment Oppose ???
8 5 1 1*
* No apparent opinion; clarification requested

Concerns reasonably addressed (certifying completion is up to the reviewer)
Concerns not yet addressed

Support I was solicited to comment at this FAC, but as I have no specific background in the subject or significant prior history with the nominators I feel comfortable supporting this article for FA, with some non-contingent suggestions:

  • Although it began as a pile of trash, Aggie Bonfire quickly grew into an organized annual event. The first clause of this sentence, while quite poetic, leaves something to be desired. How does "a pile of trash" become "an organized annual event?" I would start with "The tradition began with a pile of trash..." or something.
Reworded. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, terms "Aggie Bonfire" and "Bonfire" are often used throughout article without definite article "the." While it's obvious the article is talking about "the Aggie Bonfire," the use of definite articles would make the language flow more naturally.
The name of the event is "Aggie Bonfire," although Aggies generally shorten that to just "Bonfire." As a proper noun, it doesn't need an article. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During this time period, University of Texas students, unhappy with the premise behind Bonfire, tried multiple times to ignite the stack early. I would say "symbolism of" rather than "premise behind."
Fixed. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To ensure safety during Stack, the organizers maintained a perimeter around the working area, and allowed only safety-trained students through. While I understand "Stack" is a specific stage in building "the Stack," the process of building could be confused with the sum of the objects used. I would say, "To ensure safety during the 'Stack' period...."
changed
  • The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band began building the outhouse, ending the tradition of stealing Bonfire's components. I'm not registering to read the link. What, pray tell, is "the outhouse?"
In the previous section, it mentions that the final piece of Bonfire construction is placing an orange outhouse on the top of the stack, symbolizing at University of Texas (tu) "fraternity house." The outhouse was usually stolen from a neighboring farm. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although women were allowed to serve coffee and provide first aid in the late 1960s, in 1974 they were officially banned from both Cut and Stack. Why not Push? Perhaps a visual chart or diagram could better illustrate the building process than a wikilink.
A chart has been added to depict the stages of construction. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1996, a student died in a car accident on his way home from Cut. Another use of colloquial referent.
Colloquial, yes, but in this context, it is accurate and best for this article — BQZip01 — talk 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, I have no other issues. The article throughout seemed very precise with measures and such, and the remaining sections, I thought, handled the tragedy with great sensitivity and frankness. All in all, reading about all the ingenuity and organized teamwork that went into building the bonfire reminded me of some of the greater efforts involved in building the encyclopedia, except that Wikipedia is much safer and less strenuous, of course, and most of us aren't trying to light it on fire. Best Regards to All, Ameriquedialectics 08:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do our best not to give our detractors any ideas ("...most of us aren't trying to light it on fire."). Vandalism is bad enough... :-) — BQZip01 — talk 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (edit conflict) This is my first time examining a FA candidate, so I don't know if I'm experienced enough to give a straight up or down vote. In any case, I have the following concerns, forgive me if they're not entirely accurate:

As I said, I don't feel expierenced enough to give an up or down vote on an FAC, but I do feel that just about all of my conerns have been adressed, and have struck all comments I'm not worried about anymore. --YbborTalk 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This lack of capitalization is intended to be derogatory towards the school. For a long time they were the only public university in Texas. When A&M became a University, that overglorified junior college in Austin (just a joke people) began to refer to itself as The University of Texas, implying that A&M was not a real University. In contradiction to their claims, A&M began using the term t.u. as a derogatory term to emphasize the past where they were the only one, but they are not any longer. — BQZip01 — talk
I see. And what's the reason for reversing the order of eltterss? And is it appropriate to be using the dergatory abbreviation? (two of its three apearances are in quotes, the other is in unquoted, and references the outhouse. Maybe just spell it out Before the outhouse reference.)--YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess I could have made that more clear. "t.u." stands for "the university", all in lowercase to show the disdain for that "school" (if you can even call it that...it really isn't a rivalry as much as it is a psychotic hatred...) — BQZip01 — talk 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, from the t.u. disambiguation page: "the University of Texas is not the university of Texas, but just another Texas university."
  • "Known within the Aggie community simply as Bonfire, the annual fall event symbolized the students' "burning desire to beat the hell outta t.u."[1]" First of all the link to that reference is dead, and it looks like it shows up in a lot of other places as well. Second, I don't know anything about the Bonfire, but is it referred to as "Bonfire" or "the Bonfire"? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me about grammar can say what's more appropriate.
It is referred to as both. Generally, "Bonfire" refers to the event itself, but can mean the entire process of building the structure. "the Bonfire" refers to the physical structure itself. — BQZip01 — talk
The link opens for me. I've added the DOI to that reference, however, which should help. As for the grammar, the event's name is "Aggie Bonfire," which is often shortened to "Bonfire." (Aggies are not very creative when it comes to naming events.) Because it is a proper name, it doesn't require the article. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the years the bonfire grew to an immense size, setting the world record in 1969." might help to be more specific. World record for height? weight? heat? attendees?
Height. Corrected. — BQZip01 — talk 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just who is an "Aggie"? Reading the articles on both colleges, it seems to be Texas A & M students, but you might want to make that explicitly clear.
I added an explanation that the A&M students are Aggies into the first sentence of the section Early years. Karanacs
  • "they constructed Bonfire from debris and pieces of wood that Aggies "found," including lumber intended for a dormitory that students appropriated in 1912." What specifically did they appropriate? The lumber or the dormitory?
rewrote this sentence to hopefully be more clear. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the university made Bonfire a school-sanctioned event so that the administration would have more control." Perhaps it's nitpicking, but should you specify the college administration, and not, say, the Roosevelt administration?
clarified. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1960s, membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary for students at Texas A&M." - Surely a specific year is available here?
Added specific year
  • "Unfortunately, the stack they built that year was willingly dismantled for the first time in Aggie history." Unfortunately seems POV.
Removed POV. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1969, the stack of logs set the world record at 111 feet (30 m) tall.[3][8]" Just to be clear, ref#3 says it was 111 feet, while ref#8 says 109 feet. There's a reason behind the use of 111, right?
That was an oversight. I changed it to 109' 10", since the first source said "nearly 111". Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the new height restrictions, in the 1970s, the Guinness Book of Records listed the Aggie Bonfire as the largest Bonfire in the world.[3]" You've essentially already said this.
It set the record even after the height restrictions were in place (primarily because everyone ignored the height restrictions, but I didn't have a source for that). Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean it's redundant. this sentance adds no information from the sentance that says "In 1969, the stack of logs set the world record for the height of a bonfire at 109 ft, 10 in (30 m) tall." Except that it was recognized by Guinness, which I guess is significant, maybe you can combine the sentances. --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recognition seemed to be for the largest continual bonfire (annual events or otherwise). Kinda hard to put that into context without the actual book handy. — BQZip01 — talk 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "symbolizing a t.u. fraternity house" You've already explained "t.u." you don't need to wikilink it again.
IAW WP:MoS, "...[D]uplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate...Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked." (emphasis added by — BQZip01 — talk)
  • Link the first occurrence of "wedding cake", not the second. same with outhouse.
Done. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To find their own place in the Bonfire hierarchy, students founded the all-female Bonfire Reload Crew to provide refreshments to those working at cut and stack.[13]" perhaps you should clarify to say "female students" instead of just "students." Although it may seem redundant, "female students" is the subject that found its own place in the "Bonfire Hierarchy."
You have a point there. Done. — BQZip01 — talk 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the 1994 Bonfire was burned, two tons of lime was spread on the Polo Fields in an effort to stabilize the ground. This layer hardened to a consistency similar to concrete.[6]" The cited source says nothing about 1994 and lime, two tons, or concrete. find a source for the statement or remove it. (As a minor aside, it'd be nice to have a note in the citation that that work is a PDF.)
Found the actual citation for this. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Collapse section talks about rescue efforts. I'd be interested to know how many students were actually rescued if that information is available.
I was there minutes after it collapsed and people were injured and pulled from the wreckage in an ad hoc manner. No tallies were taken (Texas Task Force 1 could have pulled out 14 people, but before anyone else arrived there could have been many more that were rescued). In short, I don't think there is information regarding that specifically. Even if there were it would be a vague reference. One of the heroes was actually trapped in the stack himself and later died from injuries sustained in the collapse. Think we should add story? It is accurate and I knew Tim; we were in the same history class. I think the picture could easily fall under fair use. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forums aren't really reliable sources. Is there another source? --YbborTalk 12:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A different source was used. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forums may not be reliable sources, but they certainly can be. This one is and can be backed up. Same goes with the picture, which will forever be burned in my mind. Do you feel a paragraph about Tim Kerlee is appropriate here? — BQZip01 — talk 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within hours, over 50 satellite trucks were broadcasting from the Texas A&M campus.[6]" The cited source says "approximately fifty." Don't assume it's "over" 50.
Fixed. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A quickly organized official memorial service was held less than fifteen hours after the collapse."{{fact}}
The citation for that paragraph notes that the memorial was held at 7 pm on the day of the collapse (that's about 13 hours after the accident). Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, swing and a miss there. 7 P.M. minus approx 2:30 A.M. equals 16.5 hours. Changed accordingly. Darned higher math... — BQZip01 — talk 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when I do math in my head! Thanks for catching that. Karanacs 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Aggie students, who normally sit only when the opposing band plays, stood throughout both performances and gave both standing ovations.[29]" The word "only" seems misplaced here since you are talking about standing, not sitting, if that makes sense.
I think I'm not the only one confused here. What exactly are you saying? Hopefully this will clarify your concern: The 12th Man stands the entire football game except when they sit down for the opposing band's performance. Clear enough? Do we need to rephrase this? If so, do you have any suggestions? — BQZip01 — talk 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that by introducing the word "only," you're implying that they sat at a time when the normally don't. I would suggest rephrasing this to either "Aggie students, who normally sit when the opposing band plays, stood throughout both performances and gave both standing ovations." or "Aggie students, who normally stand only when the Aggie band plays, stood throughout both the the home and away teams' performances and gave both standing ovations." My personel preference is with the former. --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They stand at all other times of the game, so, yes, they sit only at halftime when the opposing band plays, but not during any other part of the game. Yes...those games that run into overtime get VERY tiring... — BQZip01 — talk 20:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, don't they have chairs in Texas? ;) In any case, I would still drop the word "only" to something like, "Aggie students, who normally sit when the opposing band plays, stood throughout both the home and away teams' performances and gave both standing ovations." --YbborTalk 12:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. They don't have chairs on the student side, only cheap aluminum benches that are scant inches above their concrete base. As for the word "only", removing it implies that they sit when the opposing band plays and doesn't show that this is the only time during the game that they stand (in this case, it means they stood for the entire game...4+ hours). — BQZip01 — talk 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stadium was so quiet that a baby cry was the only noise made and it was heard across the crowd of more than 86,000." {{fact}}
I'm not sure how that sentence sneaked in there, but it has been removed. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to revert those changes and bring in an additional reference. I was there and WOW was it amazing to have 86,000 people in absolute silence. — BQZip01 — talk 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section re-added & referenced. — BQZip01 — talk 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most moving tribute to the fallen students was left at the Systems Building..." most moving? sounds like POV
Rewrote those sentences to be less POV. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many people further blamed the school for the accident, saying that, in the name of tradition, they turned a blind eye to an unsafe structure being constructed with very minimal engineering and safety protocols followed." "many people" seems like a Weasel Word, and there's no citation. Similar problems throughout the controversy section.
Citation added. The volume of people involved in the lawsuit substantiates "many". — BQZip01 — talk 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one of the six lawsuits filed as a result of the tragedy, plaintiffs alleged that A&M officials violated the Bonfire victims' right of due process by placing those victims in a "state-created danger" by not ensuring Bonfire's structural integrity and by allowing unqualified students to work on the stack.[32]" The ref is a broken link, so can you tell me how those safety concerns have anything to do with due process?
That link is not broken -- it opened fine for me. The fact that people have to ask why it's a due process violation explains why the portion of the lawsuits targeting the university keep getting thrown out. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, when I first oppened it it gave me a white screen with a error number, and text etc. must have been temporary. Works now. --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bonfire memorial section, what portion of the memorial is pictured?
Clarified that it is the Spirit Ring. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that's about all I can say good work :) Keep in mind that a couple of your references have dead links, and even more are subscription only. --YbborTalk 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that the subscription URLs are primarily for the Houston Chronicle. Since this is also a print newspaper, the urls are included solely for convenience if someone wanted to further read the article. Since it is a print newspaper, a URL is not required at all to be a valid citation. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well aware. Just pointing it out :) --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more: on the table titled "Stages of Bonfire Construction" you might want to put the year that system started, since it seems like it was much more ad-hoc before. --YbborTalk 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done — BQZip01 — talk 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize if I reiterate something someone else said, as I haven't read anyone else's comments. Or, if the page has been corrected while I was reading. This is only a couple things I found, as I haven't had a chance to sit down and read everything word-for-word. From what I've read, you probably need a third party to come in and copyedit the article. It can be choppy at times, but there is a lot of repititious sentence structure. Anyway:

  • Don't need "However" in the lead sentence "However, in 1999"
Done — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many "ands" in the next sentence. It should read: "...killing eleven stundents, one former student, and..."
Disagree. "killing" applies to both "students" and "former student" making it a compound noun. As such, this is not a list and the second "and" is appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did they kill the former student? You could say, "leading to the deaths of twelve people, eleven students and one former student, and the injury of ..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
something like that done. Adequate? — BQZip01 — talk 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early years" section
  • drop "first" in the first sentence. It becomes redundant when you are using dates, especially when the next sentence starts with that.
Disagree. The first "first" refers to the absolute first recorded bonfire in relation to the school. The second marks the first time it was on campus. Are you suggesting using a similar, but different, word? — BQZip01 — talk 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnecessary. The entire sentence can be rewritten to a more simplistic: "To congratulate the football team on a recent win, the cadets of ..... decided to build a bonfire on November 18..." Saying "first decided" makes it sound like they decided on November 18, but had the bonfire on a different day. When, according to your source, the bonfire was held on the morning of November 18.
Point taken. Rephrased. — BQZip01 — talk 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six year later" should have a comma after it.
done — BQZip01 — talk 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you quoting "found" or emphasizing "found". If it's more for emphasis, then the comma goes after the quote mark.
clarification made — BQZip01 — talk 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After an angry farmer reported in 1935 that the Corps of Cadets had" -- Better written as: In 1935, a farmer reported that the Corps or Cadets had..., which caused the university to take control of the Bonfire and make it a school-sanctioned event". Then, I begin the next sentence with: "The following year, the school provided...." so as not to have the constant "In ..."
done — BQZip01 — talk 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Bonfire" the name of the event, or the actual constructed piece? It's sometimes used in sentences as an identifier for the event, and sometimes as the piece itself. It seems like you should have lowercase for the actual object being built. I don't know how they use it though, it just seems weird. The Corps handbook has a lowercase, where it is obviously talking about the event, because there is not definite article preceding "bonfire".
Addressed above. Should we add that to the lede? — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clarified somewhere, I didn't notice a clarification of what is the event and what is the object, and why the two share capital letters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed in the 3rd sentence of the lede — BQZip01 — talk 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it says the event is known simply as Bonfire, not that the structure is called "Bonfire" also. My point is that if the structure itself is called "Bonfire" and not "the bonfire" (one is being used as a pronoun while the other is as a simple noun), then that needs to be clarified. If they call both the object they build, and the event that takes place, "Bonfire" (with a capital "B") then both need clarification. Right now, the lead only explains that the event, known as Aggie's Bonfire to everyone else, is simply known as Bonfire to them. If that isn't what it is trying to say, then maybe it just needs rewording to get the actual point across.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the 3rd sentence, "Known within the Aggie community simply as Bonfire, the construction and annual fall event..." covers both. How is this not clear? — BQZip01 — talk 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the title of "Organization change". It seems to cover the first two paragraphs only, and everything is just more history about the bonfire.
This addresses both the organization of the school and the stacking process — BQZip01 — talk 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stacking process of the bonfire? Those are two different topics. You spend two paragraphs about the two divisions building the bonfire, and the rest on the actual buiding..but you name it "Organization change". Your title shouldn't be about the smallest portion of your information. It's part history and part design information. You could put the "stacking process" with the design change information and retitle it accordingly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The two are inextricably linked. As the manpower available increased, so did the size and the design. Can you suggest a title that would more adequately cover both. How about "Expansion and Change"? or something like it. — BQZip01 — talk 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are so linked then there should be more mention. It's like you mention these two groups, but then just go into basic bonfire designs. There's no more mention of what these two groups did together, or separately. There was an "organizers" mentioned once in that whole section. Then "Design changes" is really connected to everything about the design that was mentioned in the previous section. The last date you mention in the one section is "1970s" and the first in the next is 1978, so it wasn't like the organization section was covering the entire history. This information really needs to be together in some way. I would just call the whole thing "Building the fire", and you can talk about how the two organizations go together, how they started constructing the bonfire, and then how they decided to redesign the structure in the late 70s,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the two sections so that the construction process goes with design change. While the construction process began to change when the organizational structure did, part of the description in the article is specific to the new wedding-cake design, and so belongs in the Design Change section. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about a the bonfire being "more elaborate" seems to fit more in the next section, title "design changes".
I'm leaving this paragraphi n the Organizational change and expansion section. The structure became more elaborate under its previous design. The new design came later. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the "new design" is not a completely distinct topic. Whether it's a new design or an old design, it's still part of the building of the bonfire, and thus connected to the section above. You generally don't have information so connected separated by a full section header. I would retitle the whole section, then when you start talking about actual building process, I would turn that information into a subheading (maybe Building the bonefire), and then move the "design changes" into that section as a subheading as well. They are too connected to be separated by a full section heading. Sections are made when you are going into a new topic. This is still the same topic, just a different aspect of that topic. Unless you only have 1 subsection (which usually should not be done), but you don't because the buidling of the bonfire can be its own subsection, as well as the design changes can become a subsection. The bit about the two organizations is a good lead into those subsections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm understanding your concern. The change to the wedding-cake design is a pivotal point in Bonfire history because it inspired a huge change in (and expansion of) the work schedule (which is detailed in that section) and was a direct cause of the eventual collapse. Giving the change its own section emphasizes its importance. The way I see the article: section 1 (early years/1900s-1950s) describes the origins of the tradition, section 2 (org change/1960s), describes the initial catalysts for change (new leadership structure, new pool of workers, university restrictions), section 3 (Design change/1970s) marks the beginning of the modern Bonfire, section 4 (controversy/1980s), details the first organized protests of the event, section 5 (later years/1990s) gives information about the event's popularity, and the last sections deal with the collapse and demise of the tradition. I don't mind renaming "Organizational change and expansion" to something else (I just haven't thought of what that should be). Does anyone else have an opinion? Karanacs 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that being a section in its own right should not be. It's part of the construction. It's all design, whether it's the original way, or the new way that caused a collapse. It's part of the same topic, thus it should not be separated like it is a different subject. It should be a subsection. The new subject would be the collapse because of the new design, which is already a section. You are separating the design changes because they led to the collapse, when they are still part of the same initial topic of constructuion. You cannot say "this is the 70s" since you have two sections that have events taking place in the 70s. So, the sections are obviously not broken into clear decade events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this sounds an awful lot like an opinion ("I think it would be better this way") and not a technical problem/writing error ("XXX violates the MoS" or "Quotes generally follow a heading of this magnitude"). Those in the Aggie community desire to present it in this manner (the university and those affiliated with it), and we (the editors) believe it best emphasizes the process. Personally, I view this as the best way to present this information. The two are inextricably linked. The changes in the university led to changes in the design/build. Without this context, the changes just seem to be random. I think this just might be one of those times we agree to disagree, but I do not believe this should hold up the nomination. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — talk 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're condeming my suggestion because I'm not part of the Aggie community? How unbiased of you. I didn't realize one had to be part of that community to provide stylistic improvements. I'll take my opinions and go then, and I've already stated that you need to find someone not connected to this article at all to come in an copyedit it. It's very choppy. There's a transition problem between statements, it almost reads like everything was in bullet form and you just removed the bullets. I'd try the League of Copyeditors. That being said, good luck on this FAC. The article is not bad, it just needs polishing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I've stated my concerns re: the use of definite articles, it seems legit per this piece referenced by the article: [91] Beyond that, the casual references to various stages in the building process did seem confusing to me initially, but the visual chart makes these much more interpretable, and I haven't seen other obvious grammatical irregularities. While the section structure does shift in time frame and topic occasionally, I think this is mainly to provide some context to the main subject, rather than present a strictly chronological narrative. I think the current section structure may be as good as it can be given the material. That being said, I agree with Ybbor re: the dimunitive references to UT using "t.u." in non-quoted plain prose, which I did not notice previously. You guys who have gotten articles to FA before know Wikipedia is for everyone, and not a place for extending campus rivalries and conflicts. We are all Wikipedians first, and I can't see how anyone would have expected to get this article through FA with biased references to their main rivals in it. As I would have had to object to this article making FA had they remained, I just removed them per WP:NPOV & WP:NOT. The quoted references I left. As the article is, my support still stands. Regards to all, Ameriquedialectics 08:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you removed the part explaining that A&M students refer to the University of Texas at Austin as "t.u." but didn't remove it from the quotes, I think it can cause confusion. When someone not familiar with Aggie tradition reads, "the burning desire to beat the hell out of t.u." isn't he (or she) going to wonder who "t.u." is? My vote is to either put back what you removed or take out the other two mentions of "t.u." →Wordbuilder 13:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(for those reading this through top to bottom, Bignole Amerique took out two of the three references but left the quote alone)
Bignole, no one is condemning your opinions because you aren't part of some group. The statement I made, "Those in the Aggie community desire to present it in this manner..." is in reference to how Texas A&M chooses to represent itself publicly, not how people from a certain Wikiproject chose to portray it. This article is intended to educate the English-speaking world on something that is, by definition, part of a subset of Americana. The terminology used within the community is important to understand so that the emotions between the schools are conveyed as part of the article. If you are unfamiliar with Texas A&M, you may not know that the Aggie terminology used here is extremely tame and all of the terms are appropriately spelled out and defined. I reverted your changes for two reasons:
  1. The first instance introduces the term and gives a fame of reference for the quote IAW WP:Lede: "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." (emphasis added)
  2. The second instance you removed expands upon the statements in the lede IAW WP:Lede: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article..."
This event and the associated terminology is part of the rivalry and is used appropriately with respect to terms that are used, but also not used gratuitously. I believe your job as a reviewer is to make suggestions for corrections, not to actively make them yourself when the submitters and others disagree with your assertions. We could have easily used "t.u." in every reference to that school, but actively chose not to because that would be gratuitous. In the order they are used, the instances used:
  1. provides a definition for the term t.u. (see above)
  2. is in a direct quote that states the purpose behind the subject of the article.
  3. and is appropriately used to describe another part of the subject of the article. (see above)
In order to make the last usage more palletable, I have provided an additional reference to show that the term is used appropriately (the link is from the OPPOSING SCHOOL's website). That it is a derogatory reference is immaterial. In the instances used, it is appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(restore indent) For the record, I removed the terms, not BigNole. To quote WP:NPOV#A simple formulation:
  • Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.
And WP:NOT#DICTIONARY:
  • ...Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We are not teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
As the article is about the bonfire, the history of building it and tragedies associated with that, I don't think the use of slang terms to refer to A&M's main rival in ordinary prose is appropriate. I am willing to allow for explanations of such terms when and where they pop up in quoted material, which may be considered allowable in cases like this:
Aggie Bonfire was a long-standing tradition at Texas A&M University as part of a college rivalry with the University of Texas at Austin, known as t.u. by Texas A&M students. For ninety years, Texas A&M students built and burned a large bonfire on campus each fall. Known within the Aggie community simply as Bonfire, the construction and annual fall event symbolized the students' "burning desire to beat the hell outta t.u."
but not in cases like this:
Once the stack was finished, an orange outhouse, symbolizing a t.u. fraternity house, was painted with derogatory statements about rival University of Texas at Austin and then placed on top of the stack.
Which suggests "t.u." is not a derogatory term in itself. All the references provided in support of this term make it clear that its use is considered vulgar or derogatory by all parties.
While I don't want to oppose over this issue, I'll have to at least rescind my support if this matter isn't satisfactorily rectified over the weekend. Best regards to all, Ameriquedialectics 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be contradicting some of your own guidance
  • "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used."
  • "I am willing to allow for explanations of such terms when and where they pop up in quoted material, which may be considered allowable in cases like this"
To quote specifically from the cited article:
It’s the longtime rivalry that prompted the annual Aggie bonfire (which was discontinued after it collapsed in 1999, killing 11 students and one former student). The 55-foot-tall bonfire, started in 1909, symbolized “the burning desire of Aggies to beat the University of Texas in the annual football game.”
“At the very top of the bonfire we perched an outhouse painted orange with ‘t.u. frat house’ written across to represent UT,” explains Ross Epstein, president of the Capital City A&M Club in Austin.
I have rewritten the article to have a quote instead of paraphrasing this section of this article, but that shouldn't be the standard for inclusion in the article. Verifiability is the standard, not positive/negative/neutral word choice. As a direct quote, I assume your concerns have been addressed?
In addition, we are effectively burning something in effigy. Now addressed as a quote, it would be similar to someone quoting a terrorist burning an image of President Bush and saying, "the terrorists fashioned a stick figure to symbolize the evil tyrant" This is a gross exaggeration, but I hope it helps make my point and I hope you can keep the support. — BQZip01 — talk 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to work with me on this. While you have satisfied my concerns so far as policy goes, there is a subtle but distinct difference between quoting potentially offensive material that someone else said or wrote, and seeming to express or produce such material "yourself" as an author of plain prose. I would rather not have any references to the "t.u." signifier at all, but as the material does seem to require it, the plain text references should be in explanation of its reproduction in quotes, not an apparent extension of "the goal" or ideological purpose of the bonfire in an NPOV encyclopedia. I didn't write the WP:NPOV and WP:NOT policies, but they are there, I merely tried to bring consensus here in accordance with them, to the extent the material itself can be brought into accordance, that is. Ameriquedialectics 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree! Thanks for working with us on this. — BQZip01 — talk 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does--"In the late 1970s, a College Station police officer was fired after trying to ignite Bonfire several days ahead of schedule. Students spotted the officer and chased him across campus before he could succeed in his mission.[3]"-- have to do with the design change? Did his actions force them to rethink their designs? It should explain that better.
moved it to another place — BQZip01 — talk 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another student lost two of his fingers at cut when logs crushed his hand." -- "at cut". I guess that means "at cut site". It isn't necessary, you've identified where they are already.
"Cut" is an event like "Bonfire" is. They are both proper nouns. — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "Cut" is an event, like I assume then it's best to just remove it altogether. You've already mentioned the event already, when you were discussing where the accidents were happening, and reading it so soon just comes off awkward, especially since it's lowercase. It just reads better without it, and the meaning isn't lost.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1980s also saw" -- "also" is unnecessary.
Disagree the entire previous paragraph is about the 80s. This paragraph is in addition to those problems. — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one week before its scheduled burn date before anyone was injured" -- how about simply: "...schedule burn date to prevent injury".
Done — BQZip01 — talk 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was also approached for a review of this article in preparation for a Featured Article status. I do not have a specific background on the topic nor do I have any connection with the article as a previous editor. Based on a cursory read of the article, the following main points should be considered:

Length
the amount of detail at 44 kilobytes is sufficient for an encyclopedic article and adding or expanding the article will lead to a call to create separate "sub-articles."
Length won't be an issue. Actual article size is less than 30kb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk, I assume this is a complement and not a problem? Please clarify. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic "look"
the use of photographs is effective although the introductory photograph is larger than normal. A change to the standard "thumb" size may have to be made if ten or more photographs are used.
I assume this is a complement and not a problem? Please clarify. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tone
A number of instances of editorializing are noted without adequate citations to corroborate the statement. A general rule for a GA candidate is to have a minimum of one citation per paragraph and more if there are contentious areas to consider. Some wikilinks do not add to the reading- no need to wikilink "tractors," "bulldozers," "forklifts" and "feet." Providing a lot of wikilinks is not usually a problem but if they are not meaningful, they should be eliminated.
Please be specific on instances of editorializing. We've removed what we've identified, and if you see other instances we'll be happy to take a look at those specifically. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Style
A divergence in writing styles is not as noticeable given that there are many authors/editors at work here, but an experienced editor can make a difference in at least establishing a consistent style, for example using an active "voice" throughout. The use of paragraphing is not consistent and the excessive number of "spellos" and "typos" jumped out at me. These are some minor errors that can be corrected:
  • Date inconsistencies: Settle on one format throughout, is it 08-22-07 or 22 August 2007?
Where specifically are these dates not formatted correctly? All appear to be correct in my version. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number inconsistencies: The traditional way of writing numbers is to have zero to ten expressed as words and 11+ shown as numerals.
"traditional"...there's a loaded word when it comes to Aggies...
In all seriousness, your version of "tradition" does not seem to be inline with WP:MoS: "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred and 3.75, 544, 21 million)." (emphasis added). — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization: Be consistent in use of capitals, e.g. Bonfire as opposed to bonfire (and use articles, "the Bonfire")
Please see the discussion above on articles. Bonfire is the name of the event and the name of the structure. We wouldn't say "I'm going to the Lollapalooza", and neither do Aggies say "the Bonfire." Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphing: At least one section has a single paragraph. For an effective "read," paragraphs should maintain a four-five sentence structure (not a hard-and-fast rule, however). An inconsistency in coverage is also noted in that some of the sections established are overly long while others are much too short.
Please be specific. "Some" is really vague. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syntax: A minor point, but this sentence, "At least two of the students killed in the 1999 Bonfire collapse were beneath the legal drinking age yet their autopsy results showed high blood-alcohol levels, however, inconsistencies in some test results led to questions about their accuracy." probably should be written as "At least two of the students killed in the 1999 Bonfire collapse were beneath the legal drinking age and their autopsy results showed high blood-alcohol levels, however, inconsistencies in some test results led to questions about their accuracy." As well, the sentence is overlong and could read better as two sentences.
Altered accordingly. Separate clauses now separated by a semicolon. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes/References Style guide usage
The number of references are extensive given that there is plethora of reference material available but mainly in newspaper and periodical sources rather than specialized works. The "Further reading section" should follow the "References" section. I am not a fan of the templates used in the article and if I was rewriting it, I would ditch the present templates and "scratch" cite/reference the entire article. The repeat note from a single source is also apparent and should be incorporated in the usual Wiki note wherein the repeated citations are grouped together, perhaps as a Harvard citation. Most of the section is composed of an end notes section with no clear indication of the reference sources. The style guides that Wikipedia advocates (although anything goes here as long as the main editing is consistent and follows a sensible pattern) allows for some variance. There are minor typos noticed in the references that can be cleaned up but that is only a minor issue. FWIW Bzuk 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I moved the Further Reading section below References. I also fixed the two typos I found in the references. If you see more, please let us know. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you aren't a fan of templates, but in Wikipedia it is a valid method by which to source material. This seems to be more of a preference rather than a violation of the MoS. There aren't many "specialized works" on Bonfire and those are not a requirement of an FA; verifiability is. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is very detailed and well-referenced. I think the only issue is the overall length. Not sure what could be cut, but on reading I had the feeling that the details about the car accident in the "Later years" could be removed. Also, the ordering of the sections seemed a little odd, perhaps the Controversy section should go after the chronology sections or merged into the "Aftermath and Controversy" section. --Claygate 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed below with Wordbuilder... — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well-written, informative, and fully referenced. I do agree with Claygate that the part about the pickup wreck seems out of place. Aside from that, no problems. DISCLAIMER: I am part of WikiProject Texas A&M; however, my contributions to this article were minor (only a few punctuation and grammar fixes). →Wordbuilder 17:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem a little out of place, but it is important to show that recorded injuries started to happen more and more frequently. By including it here, it begins to show potential problems and alludes to problems later, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comprehensive, easy to read, proper referencing. I see no substantial reason for not promoting this article. That said, I am concerned by a few items:

  • The article relies very heavily on one article (the first). Bring in more to replace this if you can. Also, it can be difficult to see where the reference goes to in that article with so many statements referencing it. The article has anchor tags for the sections, and you could cite with those. (like Cadets as Honest Souls)
As an academic article, I would concur, but this is wikipedia, where the standard for inclusion is verifiability. The cited source is one that is loaded with facts and the entire article is not based on one article, so I think this is fine as is. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, Thanksgiving could be linked, and 1999 should not.
Wikilinked Thanksgiving (good catch). If you will read the link to 1999, you will note that it is one of the major events of the year. This is annotated as a comment in the editable code (or whatever you call the edit page for each article) for the page. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as t.u.": Known to who? Why does this link to TU? Also, why is it lowercase? If the page on University of Texas at Austin uses uppercase, then why not here? Is it a slight to Austin by A&M students? If so, that's not encyclopedic.
the following phrase explains who: "by Texas A&M students." Again, if you will read the coding in the page, you will see the rationale for the disambiguation link. Lowercase explained on the disambiguation page. It is a slight of the school, but as part of the rivalry, this page touches on that in two separate quotes and an explanation of the term is needed IAW WP:MoS. This discussion is further addressed above within BigNole's comments. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right... why on earth would anyone do it like that? That really doesn't seem appropriate at all. Just because it's a quote and has a hidden comment defending its use doesn't mean anyone can say whatever they want. It wouldn't be encyclopedic to quote "Canadians are also known as Canucks to some people" and then refer to them as "Canucks" through the rest of the article, even in quotes. I would highly recommend removing "beat the hell out of t.u." as it simply does not add to informativeness of the article, as well as remove "known as t.u. to students" and change the outhouse quote back such that it isn't a quote and that it uses their proper name. The disambiguation page also doesn't mention this. Additionally, neither of the referenced pages says that either the A&M community as a whole or any subsection thereof refers to University of Texas at Austin as "t.u.", just that the three individuals who are quoted do. It seams like the editors want the page to be derogatory and/or inflammatory, and is that really the case? If so, I'll just remove my support for the candidacy. It seems like a silly slight to the other school, and I really don't care about rivalries, but I hope no user would take personal offense if I requested that an administrator check the article for neutrality.--Patrick 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are certainly not intending to be inflammatory or derogatory. The article uses the term "University of Texas" 5 times. It uses "tu" in reference to the school only in a direct quote, or, in 1 case, as an explanation of why it is used that why in the direct quotes. The quote "burning desire to beat the hell outta tu." is the slogan of Bonfire, and as such deserves a mention in the article. If you google the phrase, you'll find 141 separate resulta, all referring to Bonfire (there are an additional 54 instances if you use "out of" instead of "outta"; 0 if you google "beat the hell outta/out of UT). In the interests of clarity, however, I've found a source (the Dallas Morning News), that explains what the term refers to. "tu frat house" is the official name of the outhouse that sat on top of Bonfire; the quote explaining this comes from The Daily Texan, the student newspaper of the University of Texas. If they were offended by the term, I'd assume they wouldn't print it. Karanacs 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page (now) shows the proper terminology, as a previous version was edited out. I additionally added one MORE link. Is THIS satisfactory? Or do you just want to make sure it is censored so that everyone always sounds good?— BQZip01 — talk 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't "Aftermath and controversy" and "Bonfire Memorial" be subsections of "Collapse"?
They could be, but I would consider a lawsuit a separate section as well as consideration as whether or not to continue Bonfire as linked to, but not part of, the collapse. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as to what "a swerving car" has to do with the bonfire, and why it caused the first fatality. Did someone swerve while looking at the bonfire, or because of the trees, or because roadsigns were stolen?
<chuckle> point taken. This sentence (also already addressed above) shows the beginnings of problems with safety at Bonfire and its associated events. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can just remove the "by a swerving car" if you don't want to explain it, or add "swerving car at the event." Right now it seems the car could have been anywhere.--Patrick 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stadium was so quiet that a baby's cry was the only audible noise heard throughout the crowd of more than 86,000" sounds is awful close to original research, despite the reference to the DVD, and maybe this can be said without the baby.
How is it anywhere close to original research?
"The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." (emphasis added)
This is shown/heard on the video of the event and is NOT original research. I'll admit I was on the field for this performance and it was AMAZING how quiet it was. Perhaps a suggestion as to how it should be rephrased? — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If in an interview on this DVD an attendee says "it was so quite that a baby's cry was the only audible noise heard throughout the crowd" then it's ok. But if this information is only accessible by watching the DVD and inferring that a baby is indeed heard crying, then I think it is original. Wouldn't this completely depend on where a given person (or the camera's microphone) was in the stadium, or could all 86,000 hear the baby cry? And that it's "the only audible noise" is doubtful. I bet someone watching the same DVD can hear attendees breathing or picking their noses or whatever. I understand the editors want to emphasis the quietness, but do it in a phrase that is verifiable and factual, such as "the crowd of about 86,000 observed the moment quietly." This is much noted in the next reference, so I don't know what the DVD reference does.--Patrick 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen to the DVD, then you will hear only a baby cry. FYI
"I really don't care about rivalries..." If you don't care. What is the problem? Do you mean you don't care for rivalries?
"...but I hope no user would take personal offense if I requested that an administrator check the article for neutrality." nope. Go for it...if you really want to. — BQZip01 — talk 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article regarding the assassination of JFK could be linked in "Organizational change and expansion."
Wikilinked assassination to the JFK assassination page.(also a good catch!) — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on promotion. I've updated the support count above.--Patrick 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is very well written with plenty of sources and references. It has what I would consider to be proper and appropriate sectioning with enough information to completely cover the history of Bonfire without giving too much information. In short, I find no flaws with it that have not already been addressed. Thank you BQZip01 for asking me to review this. Theturtlehermit 01:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I had some comments for the article at first (see the article talk page#comments), and they were completely taken care of. The article, with its combination of fine prose and moving multimedia, makes for an excellent presentation of what Wikipedia should be, and what all articles should work towards becoming. I am honored to be invited to review this article (seeing as how I haven't really been active in the formal FA process before)! - NDCompuGeek 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the article is very close and should get there soon. At this time, I have noticed what seem to be a few minor problems with the article. For instance:

  • I think the chronology table uses too small a font. I think 100% font size would be a better choice.
I've made the text bigger, but I think if we make it bigger than this it doesn't look quite right in the article. Karanacs 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the table does not seem to apply to the current bonfires. For instance, I learned today that the 2005 bonfire burned on the Saturday prior to the game, not 1-2 days before as indicated by the table.
I changed the table heading; the bulk of the article refers to the pre-1999 Bonfire. Karanacs 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Student bonfire is not the official Aggie Bonfire, though many of the same traditions are emulated and used.
  • Bonfire Memorial section ends in a one-sentence paragraph. Can this be combined into another paragraph?
The guide to layout says that single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, not necessarily eliminated. In this section, all but this sentence refer to the official Bonfire memorial, and I don't see a good way to incorporate the final sentence into the other paragraphs. As this is the only single-sentence paragraph in the article, I'd like to leave it as is. Karanacs 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more on the environmental considerations. For instance the 2005 bonfire happened amidst court proceedings relating to a county-wide burn ban. This is not mentioned in the article.
See next item.
  • As a general comment, I think the recent years section could use some expansion, but i will not oppose on this item alone.
The "Recent years" section is intentionally short and is a mere footnote to the history of the Aggie Bonfire. Student Bonfire, officially, has little to do with the official tradition of Aggie Bonfire. It would be like talking about rugby and mentioning the American version of football came from it and then not mentioning the Super Bowl. Certainly the two are related, but not INTERrelated.
  • Please run the semi-automated peer review on this article. When I ran the script, it pointed out that the lead is too short, that some dates may be inappropriately linked, and that there might be some weasel words.
I ran the script at JohnTex's request and came up with the following (those in bold are my (— BQZip01 — talk) responses):
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Lede size is NOT required to be as depicted in the chart at the bottom of WP:LEAD. I tried splitting the second paragraph, but it looked awkward. I'll leave it if this satisfies your problems with it. — BQZip01 — talk 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Years...can be linked if they provide context." In this case, the sole link that fits this description is 1999 and this event was one of the newsmakers of that year and this link provides that context.
"There may be..." is not an actionable item IAW FAC criteria. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed a single missing wikilink — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
both instances of this term are specified in the article. As stated by the javascript program "This javascript cannot determine if a citation is provided; if all weasel terms are covered by citations, please strike this." Please take that into account when making such future claims...
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
This is hardly an actionable item: "Watch for..." In addition, some MAY be perfectly acceptable. Please be specific.
It has...
— BQZip01 — talk 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta run now, more soon... Johntex\talk 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, looks doable, but too many MOS breaches. WP:MOSNUM breaches in the lead, pls fix and check throughout. Incorrect punctuation on image captions, see WP:MOS, full sentences are punctuated, sentence fragments are not. Overlinked, see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK, common terms known to most English speakers need not be linked. Surely Aggies know what a t-shirt is, what tractors and bulldozers are. Bonfire Memorial section has WP:DASH breaches, no spaced emdashes on Wiki. Refs look good. Bonus: 77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box; please don't add checkmarks to my commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Surely Aggies know what a t-shirt is, what tractors and bulldozers are." No one said we didn't know what they are. Wikilinks aren't for Aggies to use definitions, but for everyone. If this was the only issue I had with your review, there wouldn't be an issue and I would assume good faith...however...
  • (repeat of above) "77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box" There are no size requirements for a nomination's is is not a requirement of the nomination process. The "tally box", as you so call it, is merely a summary, not the results of some vote. This also is not prohibited in the FAC process. As such, both of the items are not even close to a reasonable justification for not supporting the article as they have nothing to do with the article at all.
  • "please don't add checkmarks to my commentary."   Not done Understood (this is an "X", not a checkmark, as requested), but this is not a requirement of an FAC nomination either and posters can do as they please within the confines of a nomination and the given criteria. I have done so for the expressed purpose of showing that this is MY post, not yours. You cannot dictate what people can/cannot write. In deference to your request, I will however refrain from addressing further posts in this manner. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, BQZ. As you know very well, and as I stated above, I do not like to have my reviews chopped up like this, so your reply comes across as pointy. Pls let me know once you've respected my request and reinstated what I wrote to one paragraph so that I can easily review work needed and progress made. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (In fact, it occurs to me that there's a talk page guideline somewhere about breaking up someone else's commentary and separating it from their signature; pls respect that so that other editors' comments remain intact and readable. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Don't edit other people's comments, and avoid excessive markup. If you wouldn't mind reinstating my original paragraph, I'll be glad to review and strike; I do not wish to have my comments edited by others. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your original comments have been restored, but you have been one who is clamoring for consistency within reviews with no graphics. In this review, you should note that others have made point-by-point analysis of the article in question and YOUR response is the one deviating from the norm. No one intentionally separated your comments from their signature. As you can see, points above yours were addressed properly with no ambiguity as to who wrote it. A point-by-point response is difficult in paragraph form, so I moved it into quotes. As for being pointy, yes, I am being somewhat pointy, but only for dramatic effect and to make a point, not to disrupt wikipedia. Too bad this ISN'T a talk page... — BQZip01 — talk 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always, samples only for you to review and check throughout
  • WP:MOSNUM, " In 1999, the Bonfire collapsed during construction, killing twelve people, eleven students and one former student, and injuring 27 others." "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; ... Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either “There were 5 cats and 32 dogs” or “There were five cats and thirty-two dogs”, not “There were five cats and 32 dogs”). "
  • Overlinked, further examples for you to consider per WP:MOSLINK, WP:CONTEXT, words known to most English speakers, lawsuit, first aid, insurance.
  • Bonfire Memorial, as an example, still has WP:DASH breaches, spaced emdashes are not used on Wiki. Unspaced emdashes are preferred, spaced endashes are an alternative, but you should be consistent within the article, so pls check throughout. (There are many variations of hyphens and dashes in your footnotes.) Thank you for restoring my commentary; I find it much easier to strike my text when I can find my text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Sandy. I fixed the mismatched numbers in the list in the lead (that is the only one I noticed; if you saw more, please let me know). I've also unlinked many words, including some not on your list. However, I left the wikilinks to the 2 types of insurance because I thought it was important for readers to be able to discern the difference between them if they chose. I've also replaced the spaced emdashes with spaced endashes in the Bonfire Memorial section, and fixed 2 dash issues that I saw in the footnotes. If you see any other issues with specific footnotes, please let us know which ones and we'll fix those too. Thanks! Karanacs 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I trust you to have gotten them all :-) (By the way, when looking for wayward dashes, you can do a text search.) I wasn't sure how to advise you to fix the numbers in the lead, as I'm not certain if they should be digits or spelled out, but since most of them were above 10, I would have leaned towards digits. Not sure on that, but at least they're consistent now; just saying in case Tony comes through with a preference for digits. I left sample edits of a few straggling issues in footnotes. Thanks, Karanacs, striking oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Linking could use a bit of work. Why are you linking "t.u." (twice)? It goes to a disambiguation page. If you've already linked terms, there's no need to link them again (e.g. "bonfire", "college football", "Corps of Cadets"/"Corps", "feet", "meters", etc.)
Addressed below. Also addressed in previous reviews along with more information as to why they are wikilinked. — BQZip01 — talk 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Detractors further blamed the school for the accident, saying that, "in the name of tradition"..." Is this quotation from somewhere? If so, it needs a citation. If not, why is it in quotation marks? "Further" doesn't really work there.
Addressed below. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the extraneous the from in front of Student Bonfire in several instances, and I've removed the unneccessary quotes. They were there for emphasis, not as a quote. Several terms are linked twice because they are in different sections of the article. It is acceptable to do that as long as they are not linked more than once per section. Thanks for your comments. Karanacs 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but is there a special reason for linking t.u.? It just goes to a disambiguation page. 69.202.63.165 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The disambiguation page provides a limited description (this is noted on the comments). — BQZip01 — talk 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a repetition of "2002" near the end that bothered me. Occasional sentences seem comma-heavy (such as "Early years", second paragraph, second sentence). Otherwise, I was left wondering exactly what a "teepee" and "wedding cake" design for a "stack" meant. Does the "teepee" design mean every tree touches the ground? How big are the trees involved for each design? How does the "Replant" quantity compare with the quantity of logs in the fire now? These are (IMO) details that should be there for an article on this subject to be comprehensive (WP:WIAFA 1b). Gimmetrow 02:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There was a repetition of "2002" near the end that bothered me."
Can't find what you are asking for. No "2002" is anywhere near another "2002". Don't know what to tell you. — BQZip01 — talk 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I addressed it already. But you should check that the edit fits what you want to say. Gimmetrow 03:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Occasional sentences seem comma-heavy (such as "Early years", second paragraph, second sentence)."
rephrased 2 of 5 commas now gone. — BQZip01 — talk 03:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Otherwise, I was left wondering exactly what a "teepee" and "wedding cake" design for a "stack" meant."
The first picture is a "wedding cake" design (added to description). Phrase with "teepee" in it was rephrased to include this information. — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Does the "teepee" design mean every tree touches the ground?"
Yes, in general. The center log was later spliced from two logs, but for the most part, yes. Rephrasing now infers this information. — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How big are the trees involved for each design?"
They are of varying sizes/shapes. There is no set manner in which they are graded/sized/etc., so I'm not sure what exactly you want here.
  • "How does the "Replant" quantity compare with the quantity of logs in the fire now?"
The bonfire now is not official and technically isn't part of the article, but more of a footnote to history. It isn't the same and doesn't have any official sponsorship, so it isn't the same structure. The info about SB is just additional information. Replant is a separately run organization on campus and DOES have University sponsorship. While the two were officially linked/related, SB doesn't have this affiliation. As such, this information is not applicable, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 04:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I started reading the article with a firm bias to oppose. I couldn't believe it would prove to be well sourced and lacking in POV. I was tremendously surprised by what I found and am even more surprised to find myself supporting it here. Well-written, appropriately illustrated, sourced, balanced... I can't quite believe it, but this is FA material. Congratulations to all involved. --Dweller 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! — BQZip01 — talk 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Héctor Lavoe

edit

This article was improved to Good Article on July as a result of a collaboration between Borincano75 and me. Following this the article underwent a peer review that went unatended exept for the addition of an automated review, as a result of this we assume that either the article was ignored or it has little space for fixing, so we take this to the consideration of the community. Borincano75, I or any other member of WikiProject Puerto Rico will gladly attend any (and all those we can resolve) points presented here ASAP, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I believe that the article has what it takes and that if any concerns come up, the nominator will attend to them. Tony the Marine 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I don't think his parents/children/multiple wives should be mentioned in the lead paragraph, though. Since they do not hold any notability of their own. Focus more on his accomplishments there, instead. Fantastic read. Good luck! -LoserTalent 10:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Bobby Robson

edit

This article has undergone extensive expansion with the help of various web sources and Robson's autobiography. It has had an image added to the Infobox courtesy of a very generous Flickr editor changing his licensing agreement upon my request, and has been copyedited by User:Dweller to remove any Ipswich bias I may have inadvertantly added. I put it up for peer review which received the attention of User:Oldelpaso who made a number of excellent suggestions, all of which have been addressed (I hope!). Therefore, I now think that the article meets the criteria of a featured article and look forward to hearing the opinions and suggestions of the community. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as copyeditor, I think I'm probably ineligible to support or oppose, but I want to point out that this biography has been extensively reworked and should be pretty free of hagiography. TRM has done (another) magnificent job, culminating in his "holy grail" search for a properly licensed photo. As someone who's worked closely with TRM in the past, I can assure any reviewers that specific issues raised here will be responded to, and I urge anyone reading this to review the article and respond here. --Dweller 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look around for a source for his ITV work and found this, which suggests he was only a commentator in 2002. I've also found a mention of him commentating at Euro 2004 on the BBC website, which I'll add. Dave101→talk  17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kevin McE
  • Support, though not entirely wholeheartedly as it stands.

Its very thorough and well referenced, and has good layout and balance, although it is rather too journalistic in style for my taste in Wikipedia. Is there independent verification that Porto would have been obliged to allow him to speak to an English club? That is the only claim that I can see being queriable, but if there is only Robson's recollection, then it is not being neutrally reported. There is no citation of the comments about Toon fans made prior to Robson's dismissal from St James' Park: were these Shepherd's comments, or something that Robson said?

Expanded the quote section to explain what it was and cite it. The Rambling Man 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can make additional citation for the contract thing. That would be 100% personal between Robson and the club. Would you rather I remove it or put it in quotes or something else? The Rambling Man 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyedit suggestions that you might like to consider, or you might prefer to ignore:

Brackets are a sign of informal, unencyclopaedic style: I would suggest He also made 20 appearances for England, scoring four goals.
We talk of a career spanning years: I don't think we say that it spans clubs: maybe ... his professional playing career spanned nearly 20 years during which he played for just three clubs, Fulham, West Bromwich Albion and Vancouver Royals. (Any data anywhere for his appearances in Vancouver?)
he is International Football Consultant for RoI: any reason for the quotation marks?
"one of the most successful managers in the world": one of the 10 most successful? 30 most successful? 50? 200? No scale to measure, so not a sustainable claim if challenged. How about He achieved considerable success as a manager and then list achievements?
"one of very few": vague language like this grates with me: if the reader knows anything at all about the honours system, they will know it is a rare honour: He was knighted in 2002 for services to football
"Diagnosed a 5th time": were the 4 previous cancers all cured? Did no-one believe the first 4 doctors? This phrase seems strange and invites questions. Although it is dealt with in the body of the article, I think there could be a clearer phrasing here: He has, since 1991, had recurrent medical problems with cancer, and in May 2007 revealed that he had cancerous nodules in his lungs: he vowed ...
Newcastle surely made no appreciable, not appreciative, attempt to sign him. If Robson made the mistake in his book and it is a quotation, it needs a (sic).
If his club career included time in Vancouver, then it is not an exclusively domestic playing career (I dislike the phrase anyway: makes it sound like they are playing wearing an apron and marigold gloves)
Some comma suggestions: He went on to play 257 games and score 61 goals for West Bromwich Albion but, in August 1962, he returned to Fulham after a disagreement with Albion chairman Jim Gaunt over his salary. The on-going dispute over both minimum and maximum wages in the game, instigated by Robson's team-mate Jimmy Hill and the Professional Footballers' Association, combined with the birth of Robson's second son, prompted Robson to demand a higher salary. Gaunt refused to negotiate Robson's contract, so Robson placed a transfer request and was sold to Fulham for £20,000 in a deal which doubled his salary.
Unrelated clause alert: the sales of Mullery and Marsh had not just signed for Fulham. Not really fair to write off the remaining Fulham players so comprehensively: worse teams have won FA Cups: why should it be assumed at 29 that he could not have made a further transfer to a potential title-challenging team. Soon after Robson joined Fulham, the club sold Alan Mullery and Rodney Marsh, meaning Robson's chances of securing any significant honour there were substantially reduced.
The Vancouver/San Francisco dichotomy needs some explanation.
  • Okay, turns out that at the end of the first NASL season several franchises were in the red and this resulted in the owners of the Golden Gate Gales taking a controlling % of the Vancouver Royals. Puskas had been signed to coach San Francisco prior to this so there were two coaches for one 'team'. Interesting stuff. But no reliable sources as yet... The Rambling Man 08:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only info I can find is this but it's hardly a reliable source! Oh well... The Rambling Man 11:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that in Jan 68 Fulham offered him a non-playing contract, but the context is his playing career, so this is unclear.
I'm guessing that the preamble to his international career is a summary of the relevant portion of his autobiog. I would argue that, even if BR attributes his England call up to Vic Buckingham, Derek Kevan and Ronnie Allen, that remains an opinion, and as such unencyclopaedic. Going on tour with what amounts to a B team is not a particularly early international experience. Listing some, but not all. of the squad that he was part of sounds like name-dropping. Thus I would drastically reduce the first para of the international section: During his first spell at Fulham, Robson participated in two ambassadorial Football Association tours: to the West Indies in 1955 and to South Africa in 1956. However, it was during his time at West Bromwich Albion that he graduated to the full England squad, with is first call-up in 1956. The idea of Winterbottom having encouraged him to take a Lilleshall course, and Howe being a pal from WBA days, belong at the beginning of his managerial career and his managerial partnership with Howe respectively.
against a Chilean "local parks team": sounds almost bitter: in a pre-tournament friendly against a Chilean club side is neutral, and makes clear that he didn't play in the tournament itself. BR was neither captain nor challenging for the centre-back position, so the Bobby Moore quote seems odd, and the citation at this point of Robson's all-time England XI is not explained.
January 1968 were not struggling with 16 points: In 1959, the then England manager Walter Winterbottom suggested to Robson that he take a coaching course at Lilleshall. Robson made his debut as a manager in January 1968 at his former club Fulham who were struggling with 16 points from 24 games.
I know that the article cited uses the word "billboard", but the article linked, and my understanding of the word, does not include those newspaper headline sheets. Does anyone know the right name for them?
  •   Done Not sure. Robson himself uses that phrase. I've cited the book and rephrased accordingly.
Unrelated clauses again: his reign at Ipswich didn't finish runner up in the league. His reign at Ipswich lasted 13 years, during which time the club twice finished as League runners-up, and made regular appearances in European competitions, ...
"he only brought in 14 players" means he didn't do anything else with those 14 players: he brought in only 14 players
"the call of his country": journalistic, informal language: not encyclopaedic.
The first mention of Don Howe here would seem to me the appropriate time to mention that he was a former teammate from his time at WBA.
1986 World cup: The next two matches are always subsequent to the previous one, so delete "Subsequently": comma needed between Maradona's two goals.
England completed the the six-match qualification for the 1990 World Cup without conceding a goal, and earned one of the six seeded positions in the finals.: avoiding brackets and truism (they can't have lost if they didn't concede a goal).
In the Consultant section, his job title (role, not rôle, I would suggest) for Ireland is again in inverted commas. Although it is an unusual, possible unique, job title, it is a job title and not a saying. Maybe there is a need to describe the role a little (has the FAI ever released what it expects of him?)
"Robson has signed up for various sponsorships and endorsements, including most recently Carlsberg's "Best Pub Side" television commercial." "Signed up" is not encyclopaedic language: it might not be his most recent venture for long; indeed, can we be sure he hasn't done something else, of a lower profile, since that?

There are rather more comments there than I had intended, but that is my fine-toothed comb pedant mode, and something I only bother applying if I think an article is good enough to be worth promoting as an example. Kevin McE 16:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All comments gratefully accepted! Cheers Kevin. The Rambling Man 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck: I didn't expect you to agree with all of them! I have edited one that you seemed to consent to here, but did not change in the article. Can I draw your attention to the verification/citation issues I mentioned in my first para. Glad to have been of service. Kevin McE 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well I take this all very seriously!! Anyway, yes I will have a look at the other issues you've raised as well. Thanks again. The Rambling Man 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Comment My internet connection died earlier so apologies if you've fixed any of the following in the meantime:
  1. but he returned to the First Division (as Fulham didn't, or at least not in this context)
      Done Caught me. Yes, that's been rephrased accordingly. The Rambling Man 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although Robson had signed professionally, his father insisted he continued to work as an electrician. (continue not continued)
      Done Rouge d struck. The Rambling Man 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Robson made his debut as a manager of his former club Fulham in January 1968" - this doesn't sound quite right/clear but I'm not sure how to rephrase it. update - Ignore this, it looks like you've already fixed it.
  4. ...England team to qualify for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.
      Done Hmm, some oversight! Now fixed. The Rambling Man 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Could 'malignant melanoma' be wikilinked??
      Done Well, melanoma can, malignant doesn't provide anything useful, so I'll link melanoma. The Rambling Man 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mourinho—Robson looks like a double-barrelled surname. Shouldn't it be Mourinho — Robson? I'm not actually sure on the grammar for this so happy to concede to anyone who knows better.
      Done Removed em-dash confusion, semi-colon no avoids the double-barrelled surname query. The Rambling Man 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Technically, Ronaldo couldn't have been a €19 million signing as the Euro wasn't introduced until three years later. You could keep it in Euros with a footnote stating what I've just mentioned, or use pounds sterling or pesetas.
      Done All other references point to a $19.5m transfer so I've modified the reference and changed to dollars. The Rambling Man 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The point that he was given the freedom of / made freeman of Newcastle is made in two different sections, with a different reference used in either case. Is this intentional?
      Done I think it's okay that the point is made twice, once to assert how important he is to the folk of Newcastle, once as a personal honour, but you're right about the citation, I've used the same one now. The Rambling Man 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I've made some more detailed points about his WBA career (he was captain for two seasons, switched positions, and the Gaunt inconsistency thing again) as well as a couple of additional honours he was awarded - please see the article talk page. --Jameboy 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll head over there immediately. Thanks for your constructive and extensive comments. The Rambling Man 07:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment, being a pedant I have a little comment to make. In the title you have the Post-nominal KB linked to Knight Bachelor. Knight Bachelor's have no post-nominals. As such the Sir should be piped to Knight Bachelor and the link to Knighted in the honours section should link to Knight Bachelor as well. Woodym555 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to support, well done, that was the only problem that i could find with it. One question though that i don't think should impact on the nom (as it is personal opinion). Why are the citations spaced like that. It expands the text and makes it hard for editors to read. Every FA nom i have seen has the breaks removed, if not the spaces. Woodym555 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to: having a reference like this
<ref>{{cite book
| last = Robson
| title = Farewell but Not Goodbye
| pages = p8
}}</ref>
takes up much more space on the page and in the template itself than say this:
<ref>{{cite book |last=Robson |title=Farewell but Not Goodbye |pages=p8}}</ref> I think that an editor who wants to edit the page will find it easier if the citations are not so spaced out, they split up the paragraphs. (In extreme cases the spacing in the citation templates can cause a breaching of the Wikipedia:Template limits, this is by no means an extreme case. See page history of List of English Football League managers by date of appointment for an example.) I also agree with Buc about the consistency. Citation 57 for example has two formats. I think it best to go with the 2007-08-30 one personally, and this does seem to be the most used. Woodym555 16:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I agree that the spaces shown in my browser between the cite book and the last tags is silly, but I've tried maintaining huge articles where the template is crushed and it's virtually impossible to find what I'm looking for. To be honest, I'm not sure that it's a serious problem, look at infoboxes for example, a lot of the time they have exactly the same structure I apply (which priorities readability) and in some cases the null tags are left in place. At least I've removed those! So, respectively, may I decline from changing the way I do it? I did this for Adam Gilchrist, Ipswich Town F.C. etc and it wasn't a problem then. And I'm not sure if it's even a manual of style issue, so it probably doesn't affect FAC.
However, the consistency of references is a problem, and is due to a number of different editors referencing things at different times. I'll run through and make them consistent. Hope that'll do it! Thanks again for your detailed review! The Rambling Man 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said at the beginning that it is only personal preference and there won't be anything in the MOS because these types of citations are optional anyway. It is all down to the main contributors and if that is how you work, then it is fine by me!!! It is down to individual reviewers and how they edit. I still supported the article, and it was just a comment. I still think this is FA quality. Well done to all. Woodym555 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bole's comment
  • Comment I'm not going to Oppose since I only found minor issues, but I did find quite a lot so I'm not going to Support just yet either.

So presumably you'd want me to link Fulham again too? I'll do it. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. I don't understand why you have a problem with something Robson actually said? The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Not as far as Robson's life is concerned. It's more of a famous moment for Osborne. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree with that approach. This is about Robson, not match reports. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of England was angry. It's not relevant - what is relevant is that he is still angry. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those are covered in other articles. This is about Robson, not Platt, Lineker etc. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • "a young José Mourinho" Who is José Mourinho? I know, but someone eles reading the article might not.

Buc 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Info added - future Porto and Chelsea manager... The Rambling Man 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His first home game is mentioned. That, in my opinion, is sufficient. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've called it other activites . The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement of FAC and no need to repeat information already within the article. The Rambling Man 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment okay, I'd welcome further comments from other editors below this line, thanks! The Rambling Man 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Quoted in Robb, 190.
  2. ^ Robb, 193.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2007&oldid=982161298"